**1. Introduction**

Societies are gradually becoming a world of digitally rich environments, which includes classroom practice, home equipment and private pocket devices. Digital technologies are deeply transforming what it means to be literate, and digital competence is considered a vital aspect of education that organizations should systematically improve [1]. Educational technologies have brought about many changes in the teaching and learning environment in our schools. While application of appropriate technological processes and the use of ICT facilitates learning, there is an ongoing debate about the usefulness of technology. This chapter attempts to illuminate some of the tensions in this debate.

The global situation within higher education changed drastically in 2020. A public survey in Europe on the impact of the Covid-19 crisis found these results [2]:


The respondents also said that online learning resources and content need to be more relevant, interactive and easy to use. Preparing teacher students to use ICT is an enduring focus in teacher education, an issue that has been accelerated by the school closures during the Covid-19 crisis and the transfer to remote teaching. The new European Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) [2] outlines the European Commission's vision for high-quality, inclusive and accessible digital education in Europe. It is a call for action towards stronger cooperation at the European level to learn from the Covid-19 pandemic, during which technology is being used on an unprecedented scale in education and training, and make education and training systems fit for the digital age. The new action plan has two strategic priorities: (a) fostering the development of a high-performing digital education ecosystem and (b) enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation.

In this situation, it is of great importance to understand academics' perceptions and professional usage of digital technologies in higher education. The digital revolution may be technologically inevitable; however, research shows that access to digital tools are less important for students' learning than how teachers use them across subjects [3, 4]. Krumsvik [5] even argued that one are still in the infancy of understanding how digital technology might contribute to the field of education, and Elstad [6] asserted that educational technology so far has raised several false expectations. Moving to the next phase of implementing education technology (EdTec), the question becomes: How can we improve on what we have learned?

Research has shown that the integration of ICT into academic pedagogic practice is a complex process [7, 8]. Teaching and learning are in themselves complex processes, and ICT integration should not only focus on academics' knowledge of technology, pedagogy and curriculum, but also consider academics' attitudes. Against the multitude of important issues to be considered within EdTec, the research identifies academics' *attitudes* as the most important element [9, 10]. Hence, it is not merely the nature of the technology itself, or the access to technology, that promotes or prevents good use of technology, but academics' beliefs and attitudes are essential and at the heart of the process.

The purpose of this study is to explore how teacher educators make the pedagogical shift in their use of ICT. Teacher education is of special interest because it plays a double role concerning technology. It is a learning organization, and at the same time, the object of study and research is learning itself. Teacher educators are, to a large extent, role models reflecting the practice of EdTec, using technology by design, collaboration with peers, scaffolding authentic experiences and continuous feedback [11, 12]. A teacher educator who uses digital tools for the enhancement of learning also prepares pre-service teachers for how digital tools can be used in their future work [13, 14]. Creating good-quality teacher education in digital arenas embraces the needs of children, schools, technology, and the curriculum.

This chapter describes the situation from countries with quite different educational cultures and presents some recommendations that may contribute to an interactive development of integrating digital technologies within a learning organization.

#### **2. Conceptual framework**

The studies in this chapter are based on the 'theory of action' by Argyris and Schön [15, 16], which is widely used in organizational theory to describe the relationship of people in learning organizations [17]. The descriptive framework serves as a methodological instrument for the systematic analysis of learning organizations at the meso level (between macro and micro level). This approach begins

**5**

digital tools in teaching.

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe*

espoused theory and the theory in use may be challenging.

Briefly, the three terms can be described like this:

by defining a concept of humans as action makers, and the theory explains the mechanisms by which we connect our thoughts to our actions. Human beings can take action for a stimulus if they have the attitude and the competencies they need. The theoretical framework offers an analytical distinction between espoused theory (attitudes towards digital technology), and theory in use (digital competence). Espoused theory is the theory of action, which is used to explain or justify a particular pattern of activity. In other words, espoused theory can be understood as the attitude of an individual or an organization towards practices. The theory in used is defined as the theory of action implicated in carrying out this pattern of activity, in other words, the practical action of competence. As described by Argyris and Schön [16], the applied organizational theory can be tacit rather than explicit. The tacit theories in use do not necessarily match the organization's espoused theory. The formal documents of an organization, such as such as policy statements or job descriptions, often contain espoused theories of action that are not compatible with the actual pattern of activity of the organization [16]. The mechanisms can occur both consciously and subconsciously; determining the discrepancy between the

The study assesses the following three different constructs: the teacher educators' level of professional digital competence (PDC), attitudes towards digital technology in education and the application of digital technology in educational contexts. In the appendix of this chapter, details of the questionnaire are presented.

**Professional digital competence (PDC).** The concept of PDC is a central element in discourses about teachers' proficiency in using ICT [18–20]. PDC refers to aspects of teachers' work related to the teaching profession that extend beyond subject knowledge. PDC is not limited to classroom teaching, for example school-home communication, online feedback and assessment, classroom management in technologyrich classrooms and how a teacher approaches her/his own continuous professional development in the use of ICT. Subject-related digital competence deals with the particulars of every subject and how each can be taught with and through technology. This may include the use of modeling and simulations. The term is a moving target in the sense that it evolves rapidly in line with the emergence of new technologies.

**Espoused theory.** Items were prepared based on the OECD report 'Connected Minds: Technology and Today's Learners' [21] and its description of the field's existing attitudes towards technology to understand teacher educators' professional attitudes (their espoused theories). In this chapter, the field is characterized by a continuum from being technology averse to being technology positive. Statements were created to determine respondents' own motivations for using digital tools, their attitudes towards the position of digital tools in the public domain and their attitudes towards the use of digital tools in the classroom. Were prepared to identify the respondents' own motivations for using digital tools, their attitudes towards digital tools' position in the public arena and their attitudes towards the use of

**Professional application of tools.** This shows the magnitude to which the participants used digital tools and work procedures in their teaching for the past year (i.e., the *digital performance* within the organization). The construct consisted of 16 single items on digital tools/work methods applied in teaching during the past year.

A central and comprehensive topic in Argyris and Schön's learning theory is the connection between learning, change and resistance to change. It defines two models, namely single-loop learning processes (SLL, often called Model I) and

**2.1 Single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loop learning (DLL)**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

#### *Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

by defining a concept of humans as action makers, and the theory explains the mechanisms by which we connect our thoughts to our actions. Human beings can take action for a stimulus if they have the attitude and the competencies they need. The theoretical framework offers an analytical distinction between espoused theory (attitudes towards digital technology), and theory in use (digital competence). Espoused theory is the theory of action, which is used to explain or justify a particular pattern of activity. In other words, espoused theory can be understood as the attitude of an individual or an organization towards practices. The theory in used is defined as the theory of action implicated in carrying out this pattern of activity, in other words, the practical action of competence. As described by Argyris and Schön [16], the applied organizational theory can be tacit rather than explicit. The tacit theories in use do not necessarily match the organization's espoused theory. The formal documents of an organization, such as such as policy statements or job descriptions, often contain espoused theories of action that are not compatible with the actual pattern of activity of the organization [16]. The mechanisms can occur both consciously and subconsciously; determining the discrepancy between the espoused theory and the theory in use may be challenging.

The study assesses the following three different constructs: the teacher educators' level of professional digital competence (PDC), attitudes towards digital technology in education and the application of digital technology in educational contexts. In the appendix of this chapter, details of the questionnaire are presented. Briefly, the three terms can be described like this:

**Professional digital competence (PDC).** The concept of PDC is a central element in discourses about teachers' proficiency in using ICT [18–20]. PDC refers to aspects of teachers' work related to the teaching profession that extend beyond subject knowledge. PDC is not limited to classroom teaching, for example school-home communication, online feedback and assessment, classroom management in technologyrich classrooms and how a teacher approaches her/his own continuous professional development in the use of ICT. Subject-related digital competence deals with the particulars of every subject and how each can be taught with and through technology. This may include the use of modeling and simulations. The term is a moving target in the sense that it evolves rapidly in line with the emergence of new technologies.

**Espoused theory.** Items were prepared based on the OECD report 'Connected Minds: Technology and Today's Learners' [21] and its description of the field's existing attitudes towards technology to understand teacher educators' professional attitudes (their espoused theories). In this chapter, the field is characterized by a continuum from being technology averse to being technology positive. Statements were created to determine respondents' own motivations for using digital tools, their attitudes towards the position of digital tools in the public domain and their attitudes towards the use of digital tools in the classroom. Were prepared to identify the respondents' own motivations for using digital tools, their attitudes towards digital tools' position in the public arena and their attitudes towards the use of digital tools in teaching.

**Professional application of tools.** This shows the magnitude to which the participants used digital tools and work procedures in their teaching for the past year (i.e., the *digital performance* within the organization). The construct consisted of 16 single items on digital tools/work methods applied in teaching during the past year.

#### **2.1 Single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loop learning (DLL)**

A central and comprehensive topic in Argyris and Schön's learning theory is the connection between learning, change and resistance to change. It defines two models, namely single-loop learning processes (SLL, often called Model I) and

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

The respondents also said that online learning resources and content need to be more relevant, interactive and easy to use. Preparing teacher students to use ICT is an enduring focus in teacher education, an issue that has been accelerated by the school closures during the Covid-19 crisis and the transfer to remote teaching. The new European Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) [2] outlines the European Commission's vision for high-quality, inclusive and accessible digital education in Europe. It is a call for action towards stronger cooperation at the European level to learn from the Covid-19 pandemic, during which technology is being used on an unprecedented scale in education and training, and make education and training systems fit for the digital age. The new action plan has two strategic priorities: (a) fostering the development of a high-performing digital education ecosystem and (b) enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation. In this situation, it is of great importance to understand academics' perceptions

and professional usage of digital technologies in higher education. The digital revolution may be technologically inevitable; however, research shows that access to digital tools are less important for students' learning than how teachers use them across subjects [3, 4]. Krumsvik [5] even argued that one are still in the infancy of understanding how digital technology might contribute to the field of education, and Elstad [6] asserted that educational technology so far has raised several false expectations. Moving to the next phase of implementing education technology (EdTec), the question becomes: How can we improve on what we have learned? Research has shown that the integration of ICT into academic pedagogic practice is a complex process [7, 8]. Teaching and learning are in themselves complex processes, and ICT integration should not only focus on academics' knowledge of technology, pedagogy and curriculum, but also consider academics' attitudes. Against the multitude of important issues to be considered within EdTec, the research identifies academics' *attitudes* as the most important element [9, 10]. Hence, it is not merely the nature of the technology itself, or the access to technology, that promotes or prevents good use of technology, but academics' beliefs and

The purpose of this study is to explore how teacher educators make the pedagogical shift in their use of ICT. Teacher education is of special interest because it plays a double role concerning technology. It is a learning organization, and at the same time, the object of study and research is learning itself. Teacher educators are, to a large extent, role models reflecting the practice of EdTec, using technology by design, collaboration with peers, scaffolding authentic experiences and continuous feedback [11, 12]. A teacher educator who uses digital tools for the enhancement of learning also prepares pre-service teachers for how digital tools can be used in their future work [13, 14]. Creating good-quality teacher education in digital arenas

embraces the needs of children, schools, technology, and the curriculum.

This chapter describes the situation from countries with quite different educational cultures and presents some recommendations that may contribute to an interactive development of integrating digital technologies within a learning

The studies in this chapter are based on the 'theory of action' by Argyris and Schön [15, 16], which is widely used in organizational theory to describe the relationship of people in learning organizations [17]. The descriptive framework serves as a methodological instrument for the systematic analysis of learning organizations at the meso level (between macro and micro level). This approach begins

attitudes are essential and at the heart of the process.

**4**

organization.

**2. Conceptual framework**

**Figure 1.**

*Single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loop learning (DLL) processes. Adapted from [15]. Organizations that only stress SLL operate within a so-called SLL trap.*

double-loop learning processes (DLL or Model II), to highlight organizational learning potential. The models are illustrated in **Figure 1**.

SLL processes involve following the routines and some sort of pre-set plan. This is less risky for the individual and the organization as well as affords greater control. It may also be characterized as a technical way of thinking. SLL seems to be present when aims, values, frameworks and strategies are taken for granted, with only minor updates. The emphasis is on techniques being made more efficient. Any reflection has the same goal. This chapter links SLL with PDC.

DLL processes, by contrast, are more creative and reflexive, as they involve the consideration of notions about what is good. Reflection here is more fundamental. First, the basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted and challenged. Second, hypotheses are publicly tested. Third, the processes are challenging, not self-seeking and have organizational goals. The governing aim includes valid information and internal commitment. DLL involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems that underlie the actual goals and strategies [15, 16]. Here, DLL is linked with professional attitudes.

The study applies Argyris and Schön's [16] definition of a learning organization to be the 'ability to see things in new ways, gain new understandings, and produce new patterns of behaviours—all on a continuing basis and in a way that engages the organisation as a whole'. Learning within teacher education is a dynamic process, not a prescriptive checklist of best practices [22]. Argyris describes what he calles 'SLL traps' as patterns of values, behaviors and outcomes that 'make it difficult to produce the learning that is required to generate fundamental change' [22]. To be a learning organization means having a culture cantered on DLL processes and staying resilient against the SLL traps that may emerge in the organization [22, 23]. When SLL traps are formed in a DLL organization, there is a growing dissonance. Organizations that focus on innovation learning are more likely to develop a learning culture in SLL and DLL. The motivation in DLL has to be developed in line with the required pedagogy of the organization.

#### **2.2 The study objectives**

This chapter seeks to increase the understanding of how the technological revolution and its impact on education can be understood from a practitioner's point of view. It elaborates further the complexity behind the observed mismatch between policies and the use of digital technology in teacher education. Our study addressed the following three research questions:

**7**

**Table 1.**

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe*

sional attitudes and professional use of tools in teaching?

1.How do teacher educators and teacher students perceive their PDC, profes-

2.Is it possible to predict the extent of digital technologies used in teaching

3.What is the relationship of SLL and DLL with digital performance in the orga-

We hypothesized that there is no significant positive relationship between SLL and DLL and organizational learning performance among the respondents. The examination of causal relations is based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action.

The materials in this chapter are based on information from both quantitative and qualitative studies. Previous quantitative studies [24, 25] examined different strategies to implement digital technology in teacher education based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action. In these studies, the researcher applied samples from academic staff in three countries: Norway (N = 67, response rate 83.8%), New Zealand (N = 47, response rate = 73.4%) and Jordan (N = 107, response rate = 31%). The study from Norway was carried out at the University of Tromsø at the Department of Education, the study from New Zealand from the University of Waikato Department of Education and the Jordanian study was carried out at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University in Ma'an, a poor-environment area of Southern Governorate with lectures from the Faculty of Educational Sciences. All participants answered the questionnaire (Appendix 1) based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action. The items were collapsed into three multi-item constructs, as described in Section 2. All three constructs showed acceptable reliability values, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients between 0.71 and 0.88. The construct describing 'use of tools' had to be modified in Jordan, according to the common types of software available for academics in the university's

What is the level of ICT use, PDC and attitudes in teaching and learning among lecturers in the university under study? **Table 1** shows the mean and standard deviation of the multi-item concepts in teaching during the past year. The highest score on PDC was in Norway, while New Zealand scored highest in 'use' (2.99 = occasional use when teaching) and on 'professional attitudes'. The samples from New Zealand and Norway are representative data and may be tested for statistical differences. Both the difference in PCD and in 'use' proves to be statistically

Jordan 3.25 (.90) 3.55 (1.20) — New Zealand 3.37 (.62) 3.71 (.69) 2.99 (.53) Norway 3.00 (.73) 3.91 (.76) 2.59(.54)

*Self-perceived results from Jordan, New Zealand and Norway. The variable describing 'use of tools' had to be* 

**PDC Mean (SD)**

**Use Mean (SD)**

significant with p-value = .045 and p-value<0.001, respectively.

**Attitudes Mean (SD)**

*modified in Jordan, and the results cannot be compared directly with the other countries.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

nization's learning processes?

**3. Materials and results**

computer centre.

through the degree of PDC and attitudes?

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*


We hypothesized that there is no significant positive relationship between SLL and DLL and organizational learning performance among the respondents. The examination of causal relations is based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action.

## **3. Materials and results**

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

double-loop learning processes (DLL or Model II), to highlight organizational

SLL processes involve following the routines and some sort of pre-set plan. This is less risky for the individual and the organization as well as affords greater control. It may also be characterized as a technical way of thinking. SLL seems to be present when aims, values, frameworks and strategies are taken for granted, with only minor updates. The emphasis is on techniques being made more efficient. Any

*Single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loop learning (DLL) processes. Adapted from [15]. Organizations that* 

DLL processes, by contrast, are more creative and reflexive, as they involve the consideration of notions about what is good. Reflection here is more fundamental. First, the basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted and challenged. Second, hypotheses are publicly tested. Third, the processes are challenging, not self-seeking and have organizational goals. The governing aim includes valid information and internal commitment. DLL involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems that underlie the actual goals and strategies [15, 16].

The study applies Argyris and Schön's [16] definition of a learning organization to be the 'ability to see things in new ways, gain new understandings, and produce new patterns of behaviours—all on a continuing basis and in a way that engages the organisation as a whole'. Learning within teacher education is a dynamic process, not a prescriptive checklist of best practices [22]. Argyris describes what he calles 'SLL traps' as patterns of values, behaviors and outcomes that 'make it difficult to produce the learning that is required to generate fundamental change' [22]. To be a learning organization means having a culture cantered on DLL processes and staying resilient against the SLL traps that may emerge in the organization [22, 23]. When SLL traps are formed in a DLL organization, there is a growing dissonance. Organizations that focus on innovation learning are more likely to develop a learning culture in SLL and DLL. The motivation in DLL has to be developed in line with

This chapter seeks to increase the understanding of how the technological revolution and its impact on education can be understood from a practitioner's point of view. It elaborates further the complexity behind the observed mismatch between policies and the use of digital technology in teacher education. Our study addressed

learning potential. The models are illustrated in **Figure 1**.

*only stress SLL operate within a so-called SLL trap.*

reflection has the same goal. This chapter links SLL with PDC.

Here, DLL is linked with professional attitudes.

the required pedagogy of the organization.

the following three research questions:

**2.2 The study objectives**

**6**

**Figure 1.**

The materials in this chapter are based on information from both quantitative and qualitative studies. Previous quantitative studies [24, 25] examined different strategies to implement digital technology in teacher education based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action. In these studies, the researcher applied samples from academic staff in three countries: Norway (N = 67, response rate 83.8%), New Zealand (N = 47, response rate = 73.4%) and Jordan (N = 107, response rate = 31%). The study from Norway was carried out at the University of Tromsø at the Department of Education, the study from New Zealand from the University of Waikato Department of Education and the Jordanian study was carried out at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University in Ma'an, a poor-environment area of Southern Governorate with lectures from the Faculty of Educational Sciences. All participants answered the questionnaire (Appendix 1) based on Argyris and Schön's theory of action. The items were collapsed into three multi-item constructs, as described in Section 2. All three constructs showed acceptable reliability values, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients between 0.71 and 0.88. The construct describing 'use of tools' had to be modified in Jordan, according to the common types of software available for academics in the university's computer centre.

What is the level of ICT use, PDC and attitudes in teaching and learning among lecturers in the university under study? **Table 1** shows the mean and standard deviation of the multi-item concepts in teaching during the past year. The highest score on PDC was in Norway, while New Zealand scored highest in 'use' (2.99 = occasional use when teaching) and on 'professional attitudes'. The samples from New Zealand and Norway are representative data and may be tested for statistical differences. Both the difference in PCD and in 'use' proves to be statistically significant with p-value = .045 and p-value<0.001, respectively.


#### **Table 1.**

*Self-perceived results from Jordan, New Zealand and Norway. The variable describing 'use of tools' had to be modified in Jordan, and the results cannot be compared directly with the other countries.*

The regression analysis conducted for each country (**Table 2**) reveals interesting differences and showed that the degree of using digital technology tools can be predicted statistically. In Norway, the best predictor was 'professional attitude' (Beta = .282, p-value = .003), while the best predictor in New Zealand was 'PDC' (Beta = .363, p-value = .002). It appears from this analysis that the influence and contribution of digital practice is carried out quite differently in the two countries. In Norway, the professional use or application of digital tools is dominated by professional and autonomous attitudes, while in New Zealand it is dominated by PDC. At the same time, PDC is somewhat lower in New Zealand than in Norway, but the professional application of digital tools is significantly higher.

The results in **Tables 1** and **2** provide answers to our first two research questions. To address the third research, the study had to go one step deeper in a qualitative analysis of interviews with the academic staff in New Zealand and Norway [26, 27], to explore closer how curriculum and motivation are affected by educational policy and strategies.

One difference between Norway and New Zealand is what educational traditions their curricula for schools are based on, as shown in **Table 3**. In 2006, Norway was the first country in Europe with a curriculum based on digital skills [28]. Norwegian schools operated with a set of five basic skills seen as fundamental to all learning at all levels through school: oral skills, reading, writing, numeracy and digital skills [29]. Such skills are often referred to as the 3Rs – reading, writing and arithmetic, and traditionally, they have been considered the foundations of learning. Nowadays, the 3Rs alone are not enough to provide students with the skills needed to function in the 21st century [30]. The New Zealand curriculum had to a greater extent, integrated the notion of the 4Cs as central to 21st century skills: critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity [31]. This is just a small excerpt of the two curricula, and they both include the 3Rs and the 4Cs, but they are not equally in focus when comparing the two sets of formal documents.

Both the Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators expressed a concern regarding the political pressure they are experiencing. The New Zealand teacher educators fear a potential political movement towards a more skill-based curriculum and


*\*\*Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*

*§ The sample from Jordan has a low response rate and is not reliable for statistical testing.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Linear regression coefficients to predict use of ICT technology in three countries.*


**9**

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe*

assess the skill-based perspective as outdated. On the other hand, all of the Norwegian teacher educators expressed critical positions regarding their own skill-based definition of learning, and expressed that a change of definition of what is regarded as fundamental for learning would be a change for the better. When asked to take a stance regarding the skill-based and competency-based perspective on learning, both the Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators' attitudes towards this difference were surprisingly coherent despite the different affiliations and national curricula. The Norwegian curriculum consisted of three formal documents and covered both the 3Rs and the 4Cs in different sections. It could therefore be legitimately claimed that merely comparing the two excerpts could paint an unjust picture of the differences between the two educational cultures. To correct for this possibility, the Norwegian participants were also asked about their use of the parts expressing the 4Cs. One of the participants expressed having a somewhat vague knowledge of these frameworks, and the remaining teacher educators claimed to 'know of it'. Of all the participants, not one expressed a close and reflective attitude towards the framework, and only one replied that she/he had used the document explicitly in her/his own teaching. The remainder either did not use it at all or explained that the use is implicit or that it merely exists as a backdrop to their teaching. So, when espousing their views, both the Norwegian and the New Zealand teacher educators were generally critical towards a narrower definition of skills, but when the Norwegian educators were asked about their theory in use, there were discrepancies between their espoused theory and their theory in use [26]. This insight made us question what motivated their practices, and ask whether different motivational

Motivational theory is central because although Norwegian schools have had a widespread ongoing policy regarding the use of digital technology, national surveys reveal a gap between the established policy and actual practice in Norwegian education. An often-used formula for work performance is: performance = abilities × motivation [33–35] Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators' abilities (digital competence) and performance (professional application of digital tools) was measured. Our research indicates Norwegian teacher educators have better abilities to teach using digital technology, but are teaching less using digital technology compared to their New Zealand counterparts. Based on Maier's [35] formula, motivation seems to be a key aspect, and Herzberg's [36] two-factor theory was used to categorize the responses. Herzberg's findings suggest that the factors involved in producing motivation are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. The opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, and the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction [36]. Two different needs are involved—one stems from the built-in drive to avoid pain, and the other from the ability to achieve and experience psychological growth. The stimulus for growth is the job content, and the stimulus inducing pain avoidance behavior is the job environment [36]. He called the two sets of factors: motivation factors (growth)

When clarifying their motivation for using digital technology, the Norwegian teacher educators explained their digital practices with nine motivation factors and nine hygiene factors spread across ten informants. The hygiene factors were explained as mandatory curricula and work conditions when teaching online. The New Zealand teacher educators explained their use of digital technology with 14 motivation factors and only four hygiene factors. The explained motivation among the New Zealand teacher educators was generally intrinsic, and its presence created job satisfaction. While the Norwegian teacher educators explained their pedagogical practices with equal occurrences of extrinsic factors, that further was perceived

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

factors could explain why such discrepancies occurred.

and hygiene factors (dissatisfaction avoidance).

in a way creating dissatisfaction.

#### **Table 3.**

*The New Zealand key competences [32] and the Norwegian basic skills [29].*

#### *Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

assess the skill-based perspective as outdated. On the other hand, all of the Norwegian teacher educators expressed critical positions regarding their own skill-based definition of learning, and expressed that a change of definition of what is regarded as fundamental for learning would be a change for the better. When asked to take a stance regarding the skill-based and competency-based perspective on learning, both the Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators' attitudes towards this difference were surprisingly coherent despite the different affiliations and national curricula.

The Norwegian curriculum consisted of three formal documents and covered both the 3Rs and the 4Cs in different sections. It could therefore be legitimately claimed that merely comparing the two excerpts could paint an unjust picture of the differences between the two educational cultures. To correct for this possibility, the Norwegian participants were also asked about their use of the parts expressing the 4Cs. One of the participants expressed having a somewhat vague knowledge of these frameworks, and the remaining teacher educators claimed to 'know of it'. Of all the participants, not one expressed a close and reflective attitude towards the framework, and only one replied that she/he had used the document explicitly in her/his own teaching. The remainder either did not use it at all or explained that the use is implicit or that it merely exists as a backdrop to their teaching. So, when espousing their views, both the Norwegian and the New Zealand teacher educators were generally critical towards a narrower definition of skills, but when the Norwegian educators were asked about their theory in use, there were discrepancies between their espoused theory and their theory in use [26]. This insight made us question what motivated their practices, and ask whether different motivational factors could explain why such discrepancies occurred.

Motivational theory is central because although Norwegian schools have had a widespread ongoing policy regarding the use of digital technology, national surveys reveal a gap between the established policy and actual practice in Norwegian education. An often-used formula for work performance is: performance = abilities × motivation [33–35] Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators' abilities (digital competence) and performance (professional application of digital tools) was measured. Our research indicates Norwegian teacher educators have better abilities to teach using digital technology, but are teaching less using digital technology compared to their New Zealand counterparts. Based on Maier's [35] formula, motivation seems to be a key aspect, and Herzberg's [36] two-factor theory was used to categorize the responses. Herzberg's findings suggest that the factors involved in producing motivation are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. The opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, and the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction [36]. Two different needs are involved—one stems from the built-in drive to avoid pain, and the other from the ability to achieve and experience psychological growth. The stimulus for growth is the job content, and the stimulus inducing pain avoidance behavior is the job environment [36]. He called the two sets of factors: motivation factors (growth) and hygiene factors (dissatisfaction avoidance).

When clarifying their motivation for using digital technology, the Norwegian teacher educators explained their digital practices with nine motivation factors and nine hygiene factors spread across ten informants. The hygiene factors were explained as mandatory curricula and work conditions when teaching online. The New Zealand teacher educators explained their use of digital technology with 14 motivation factors and only four hygiene factors. The explained motivation among the New Zealand teacher educators was generally intrinsic, and its presence created job satisfaction. While the Norwegian teacher educators explained their pedagogical practices with equal occurrences of extrinsic factors, that further was perceived in a way creating dissatisfaction.

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

professional application of digital tools is significantly higher.

and strategies.

*\*\*Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*

The regression analysis conducted for each country (**Table 2**) reveals interesting differences and showed that the degree of using digital technology tools can be predicted statistically. In Norway, the best predictor was 'professional attitude' (Beta = .282, p-value = .003), while the best predictor in New Zealand was 'PDC' (Beta = .363, p-value = .002). It appears from this analysis that the influence and contribution of digital practice is carried out quite differently in the two countries. In Norway, the professional use or application of digital tools is dominated by professional and autonomous attitudes, while in New Zealand it is dominated by PDC. At the same time, PDC is somewhat lower in New Zealand than in Norway, but the

The results in **Tables 1** and **2** provide answers to our first two research questions. To address the third research, the study had to go one step deeper in a qualitative analysis of interviews with the academic staff in New Zealand and Norway [26, 27], to explore closer how curriculum and motivation are affected by educational policy

One difference between Norway and New Zealand is what educational traditions their curricula for schools are based on, as shown in **Table 3**. In 2006, Norway was the first country in Europe with a curriculum based on digital skills [28]. Norwegian schools operated with a set of five basic skills seen as fundamental to all learning at all levels through school: oral skills, reading, writing, numeracy and digital skills [29]. Such skills are often referred to as the 3Rs – reading, writing and arithmetic, and traditionally, they have been considered the foundations of learning. Nowadays, the 3Rs alone are not enough to provide students with the skills needed to function in the 21st century [30]. The New Zealand curriculum had to a greater extent, integrated the notion of the 4Cs as central to 21st century skills: critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity [31]. This is just a small excerpt of the two curricula, and they both include the 3Rs and the 4Cs, but they are

not equally in focus when comparing the two sets of formal documents.

*The sample from Jordan has a low response rate and is not reliable for statistical testing.*

**New Zealand key competencies Norwegian basic skills**

*Linear regression coefficients to predict use of ICT technology in three countries.*

Thinking Oral skills Using language, symbols, and texts Reading Managing self Writing Relating to others Digital skills Participating and contributing Numeracy

*The New Zealand key competences [32] and the Norwegian basic skills [29].*

Both the Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators expressed a concern regarding the political pressure they are experiencing. The New Zealand teacher educators fear a potential political movement towards a more skill-based curriculum and

**Jordan** Use = 0.55§ 0.27§ **New Zealand** Use = 0.15 0.36\*\* **Norway** Use = 0.28\*\* 0.12

**Attitudes PDC**

**8**

**Table 3.**

*§*

**Table 2.**
