Conference Agenda

From the beginning of the 1990s, there have been arguments for using ICT for learning in Sweden. The primary arguments have been that ICT drives globalization and that it is an issue for the whole country. ICT as a part of a global economy should be made use of with efficiency, and ICT should enhance quality. Students should learn to use ICT, and ICT was to become an integrated tool in all school subjects (Swedish Government Official Reports, 1994).

Today, in the changing world where democracy is under continuing change and development, digitalization is one of the stronger driving forces for change and it creates both opportunities and challenges on individual and societal levels. Research findings indicate that despite substantial efforts by educational authorities to increase ICT access for pupils and teacher’s digital equity has not been reached (Haltevik et.al, 2015; Hatlevik et al., 2018). The term “digital divide” is often used to describe inequalities in access to and use of ICT. In Sweden, children have access to digital tools in their leisure time regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds. However, a distinguishing aspect is how the digital features are used (Swedish Media Council, 2019). In other words, there is a diversity of content in children’s digital experiences in relation to social economic and cultural backgrounds (Swedish Media Council, 2019).

During recent decades, several attempts have been made to elaborate on the digital competencies needed for teachers and pupils in school education (From, 2017; Hatlevik et al., 2018, Olofsson et.al., 2020). Previous research studies indicate the complexity ofdigital competence when applied in educational contexts. However, a didactical question is what it might take to develop digitalcompetence in educational settings and what such competence might look like in today’s digitalized societies? Most researchfocuses on the specific competence needed by teachers and therefore tends to neglect the influence of broader contextual conditions in the wider school settings (Pettersson, 2018).

With regard to the ongoing discussion of digital competencies in the twenty-first century (From, 2017; Olofsson et.al., 2020), the aim of this paper is to examine digitalization policies, focusing digitalization and education, from the perspective of the Central and Northern European tradition of Didaktik (Hopmann, 2007; Klafki & MacPherson, 2000). We argue that in the era of ICT and competence frameworks, Didaktik and the German notion of Bildung provides ways of thinking about educational questions, which could contribute strongly to pedagogical perspectives in Sweden as well as in other countries.

The educational landscape has been dramatically altered by the digital turn, with digital technologies permeating classroom practices to the extent that the distinction between "digital” and “non-digital” teaching appears to have been rendered virtually obsolete (Fawns, 2019). While expanding methodological possibilities, this rapid acceleration also raises novel questions and demands for teachers and students alike. For instance, identifying students’ needs in an uncertain and digital future challenges teachers’ understanding of their role and responsibility, especially concerning the continuously evolving field of digital literacy education (DLE).

Furthermore, as teachers attempt to integrate DLE into their established belief system, they may be confronted with points of misalignment, experienced as dilemmatic spaces (Fransson & Grannäs, 2013). Ultimately, teachers seek to navigate these dilemmatic spaces by integrating DLE in a way that satisfies different expectations: from society, students and even themselves. In the process, they must make choices regarding curriculum and classroom practice that may confirm, contradict or recalibrate their understanding of responsibility towards DLE.

Didactical choices surrounding DLE cannot only be understood at an individual or classroom level. The demands set forth by educational policies, such as the European Commission’s “Digital Education Action Plan” (EC, 2023) impact teacher and student experiences, also in Switzerland. Obviously influenced by educational policies on the European level (e.g. Eurydice, 2019), the new Swiss framework curriculum for upper-secondary schools requires teachers to adapt to this new culture of digital learning and instruction (EDK, 2020). Teachers of all subjects will be expected to integrate a set of transversal learning objectives, from teaching with digital tools to teaching in and about a digital world.

This contribution draws on belief research in education (Fives & Buehl, 2016), as teachers’ beliefs on DLE in a subject-specific context are assumed to be of paramount importance for their instructional reasoning and practices. The precise relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practices cannot be viewed as simply linear, however; there are certain “inconsistencies” between beliefs and action (Raymond, 1997). This complex relationship between beliefs and instructional practices has been explained by the influence of school context, the complexity of work in the classroom, and sometimes contradictions between beliefs on the subject matter characteristics and the pedagogical settings (Depaepe et al., 2013; Yaakobi & Sharan, 1985). We also refer to Lenk’s (2017) philosophical ethics framework of responsibility as a multi-dimensional construct, which is both relational and attributional. This allows for a deeper understanding of possibly conflicting perceptions of teachers’ responsibilities concerning DLE. The question arises as to how subject-teachers’ belief systems, perceived responsibilities and their instructional rationale are related to their practices in the classroom. Inspired by the multi-component approach to responsibility, this refers both to the object (DLE) and to the addressees of responsibility (Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011). Hence, the key questions are: 1) What do EFL-teachers believe to be their responsibilities towards subject-integrated DLE? 2) Towards whom do they feel responsible? 3) How are their views reflected in their instruction? 4) To what extent does the instructional offer meet students’ learning needs?

To answer these questions, this contribution starts with an overview of the investigated teachers’ belief systems concerning DLE and their related responsibilities. Additionally, exemplary case studies of teachers demonstrating diverse or even contradicting didactical practices will be presented. These cases are developed further through the presentation of student perspectives collected from post-lesson feedback surveys. As an outlook, our contribution will shortly discuss the results against the background of a supposedly post-digital educational landscape.

Critical literacy is about taking a critical and analytical approach towards texts, rather than passively consuming their content as if it was neutral. It refers to an understanding of text not exclusively as means of communication but as ways to construct reality (Janks, 2010; Luke, 2014). Thus, texts cannot be regarded as neutral representations of reality, but must be read as conscious expressions with underlying attitudes, motives, and ideologies. In recent years, critical literacy has gained a central position in educational research in the Nordic countries (Frønes et al., 2022; Veum et al., 2022). The research includes studies of students' competence in critical literacy (e.g. Blikstad-Balas & Foldvik, 2017; Undrum, 2022) and prerequisites for the development of critical literacy in the classroom (e.g. Magnusson, 2022; Nemeth, 2021; Veum & Skovholt, 2020). The interest in critical literacy is often connected to the rapid development in digital communication and major changes in text culture. Internet and social media have created new arenas for textual interaction and new text types with blurred boundaries between informative and commercial content and between facts and private opinions. Such a text culture requires text users who can orient themselves in large amounts of text and treat texts critically and analytically (Blikstad-Balas, 2023; Frønes et al., 2022; Veum & Skovholt, 2020). The topic of critical literacy is highly relevant for all European countries – as increased digitalization both in and out of schools is exposing students to an unprecedented amount of text – from a variety of authors with a variety of purposes, motives and rhetorical strategies.

As a theoretical field, critical literacy has deep roots in critical theory and critical pedagogy, and a strong focus on the democratic potential of education (Janks, 2010; Vasquez et al., 2019). It indicates that learning to read and write are understood as essential for individual's active participation in society, and preconditional for social equality and liberation. Critical literacy thus has a strong political dimension. However, several studies show that the understanding of critical literacy in the educational context is unclear and often reduced to students exercising source criticism or measuring students' ability to determine whether sources are reliable or not (Johansson & Limberg, 2017; Molin et al., 2018; Wennås & Lund, 2017). In this abstract I present a study of how a group of future L1- teachers understand critical approaches towards text, how they understand the necessities of such approaches and how they facilitate for critical approaches towards text in the classroom during their internships in school. Based on findings in the material, I discuss how to prepare future L1- teachers for future requirements for text competences in school.