Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Helleve, Ingrid (2013)
Publisher: Education Inquiry
Journal: Education Inquiry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: student teachers, computers, communication pattern, IRE, productive interactions

Classified by OpenAIRE into

By the turn of the century Norwegian educational practice was supposed to be changed through reforms and investment in technological equipment. Supported by research, the aim was to change practice in the direction of learning activities that could support learning understood as productive interactions. Few teachers and teacher educators participated in the discussion of how to use the technology. The focus for this article is student teachers’ attitudes concerning computer-supported classroom practice some years after the reforms. What are their presuppositions, experiences and future expectations? The results show that the traditional classroom practice is carried on and computers are adjusted to already existing teaching and learning activities. Possible effects are discussed.Keywords: student teachers, computers, communication pattern, IRE, productive interactions(Published: 1 June 2013)Citation: Education Inquiry Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2013, pp. 395–412
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Arnseth, H.C. (2000) Resonnering i interaksjon. [Reasoning in interaction; in Norwegian]. In
    • Ny teknologi, nye praksisformer [New Technology, new Practicum; in Norwegian], S. Ludvigsen & S. Østerud (eds.), 171-211. Oslo: Unipub forlag.
    • Arnseth, H.C., Hatlevik, O., Kløvstad, V., Kristiansen, T. and Ottestad, G. (2007). ITU
    • Monitor2007. Skolens digitale tilstand 2007 [ITU Monitor The Digital Condition in School 2007; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Forsknings- og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning.
    • Burbules, N.C. & Callister, T. (2000). Watch IT: The risks and promises of information technology for education. Boulder, C.: Westview Press.
    • Castells, M. (2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business and society . New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Cazden, C. (1998). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
    • Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machine: The classroom use of technology from 1920. New
    • Edwards, A.D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. The development and understanding of the classroom. London: Methuan.
    • Erstad, O. (2010). Digital kompetanse i skolen- en innføring [Digital Competence in school - an introduction] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    • Fisher, E. (1997). Educationally important types of children's talk. In Computers and Talk in Primary Classrooms, R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (eds.), 49-65. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    • Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    • Gee, P.G. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and afinity spaces; from the age of mythologies to today's schools. In Beyond Communities of Practice, D. Barton & K. Tusting (eds.), 214-232. London: Cambridge University Press.
    • Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. New York. State University of New York Press.
    • Hatlevik, O.E., Ottestad, G., Skaug, J.H., Kløvstad, V. and Berge, O. ITU (2009). The digital conditions in schools. http://www.itu.no/Datakompetansen+for+svak+i+norsk+grunnskole.9UFRDGZV. ips (Accessed 06.06.2012)
    • Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (1984). Innovation up close. How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press
    • Helleve, I. (2009). Productive interactions in ICT-supported communities of learners. The degree doctor philosophiae. Bergen: University of Bergen.
    • ITU. (2000-2003) The PLUTO-project [PLUTO-prosjektet; in Norwegian]. http://www.itu.no/ Prosjekter/1079504497.79/view (Accessed 23.10.2004)
    • Kløvstad, V., Erstad, O., Krisitansen, T. and Søby, M. (2005). ITU Monitor 2005. På vei mot en digital kompetanse i grunnopplaeringen. [ITU Monitor 2005. Towards digital competence in primary education; in Norwegian]. Rapport 2/2005. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    • Kompf, M. (2005). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the Seduction of Knowledge, Teaching, and Learning: What Lies Ahead for Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(2), 313-233.
    • Kruger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications Inc.
    • Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In Technology Assessment in Education and Training, Baker, E. and O'Neil, H.F. Jr. (eds.), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    • Larsen, S. (1998). IT og nye laereprocesser. [ICT and new learning processes; in Danish]. Hellerup: Steen Larsen.
    • Light, P. & Littleton, K. (1998). Learning with computers. Analysing productive interactions. Florence, KY, USA. Routledge.
    • Ludvigsen, S.R. (2000). Laering av, og med teknologi. [Learning with and through technology; in Norwegian]. In Ny teknologi- nye praksisformer [New technology - new practicum; in Norwegian] S. Ludvigsen & S. Østerud (eds.), 107-125. Oslo. Unipub.
    • Mathison, S. (1988). Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
    • McFarlane, A. (2001). Perspectives on the Relationship between ICT and Assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17, 227-234.
    • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. The social organization of classroom instruction. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.
    • MER (2003). The Program for digital competence 2004-2008 [Program for digital kompetanse 2004-2008]. [Undervisings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. http://odin.dep.no/kd/ norsk/satsingsomraade/ikt/045011-990066/dok-bn.html (Accessed 23.10. 2008)
    • MER (2006). National curriculum plan [Kunnskapsløftet] [Undervisings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/tema/grunnopplaring/kunnskapsloeftet. html?id=1411
    • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk among teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    • Mercer, N. & Fisher, E. (1997). Scafolding through talk. In Computers and Talk in Primary Classrooms, R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (eds.), Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.
    • Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco. Jossey Bass.
    • Mifsud, L. & Mørch, A.I. (2010). Reconsidering Of-task: A Comparative Study of PDA-mediated Activities in Four Classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 190-201.
    • NIFU STEP (2008). Digital kompetanse i laererutdanningen [Digital competence in teacher Education; in Norwegian]. Oslo: NIFU/STEP.
    • Norwegian Research Council (2003). IKT I laering, undervisning og utdanning. [ICT in learning, teaching and education in Norwegian] Rapport fra en arbeidsgruppe. Oslo: Norges Forskningsråd.
    • Puchta, C. & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London. Sage Publications.
    • Rochelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N. & Means, B.N. (2000). Changing How and What Children Learn in School with Computer-Based Technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101.
    • Roblyer, M.D. McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. & Witty, J.V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in Higher Education: A Comparison of College Faculty and Students' Uses on Perceptions of Social Networking Sites. The Internet and Higher Education 13(3), 134-140.
    • Scardemalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge Building Communities. Journal of Learning Sciences 3(3), 265-283.
    • Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. London. Oxford University.
    • Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT. London: Routledge.
    • Taylor, C. (1991). The malaise of modernity. Canada. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd.
    • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    • Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology. Lausanne: Springer.
    • Wegerif, R. & Schrimshaw, P. (1997). Computers and talk in primary classrooms.
    • Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from