Umeå universitets logga

Research topic/aim: This study situates teacher education within contemporary Swedish society, permeated by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT, including complex algorithmic (dis)information streams and deepfakes (Örtegren & Olofsson, 2024). The study explores how institutional leaders, primarily deans and directors with strategic responsibilities at 20 Swedish teacher education institutions, perceive and respond to generative AI within their institutions, and how they understand their role in creating conditions enabling teacher educators and student teachers to use generative AI in reflective, critical, and ethical ways.  

Theoretical framework: This study adopts a postdigital lens. This lens suggests a shift from earlier views of digital technology (e.g., generative AI) as something exclusive and object-like toward a contemporary understanding of it as deeply integrated into society’s cultural and educational practices. It positions the institutional leaders within a broader understanding of the socio-technical systems in which teacher education is constituted (Knox, 2019, p. 368). 

Methodology/research design: In this national qualitative study, institutional leaders from all Swedish teacher education institutions offering programmes for school years 4–6 (N = 20) were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The participants were identified through their representation in the national body for teacher education, the Teacher Education Convent (in Swedish, Lärarutbildningskonventet). The interviews were conducted between May and August 2025, guided by one theme on “AI in teacher education now and in the future – from a leadership perspective”. A thematic analysis was carried out following Braun and Clarke’s (2019). 

Expected results/findings: The analysis revealed five main themes reflecting how institutional leaders perceive and respond to generative AI in teacher education as well as how they understand their role in creating conditions to use generative AI in reflective, critical, and ethical ways. The main themes were: (1) Organisational culture, policy and capacity for change, (2) Assessment and examination practices, (3) Professional digital competence and generative AI literacy, (4) Responsibility, democracy, and value systems, and (5) Ethics, data, and the limitations and risks of generative AI. The results underscore the central role of leadership in shaping institutional conditions that support critical, ethical, and pedagogically sound applications of generative AI in teacher education.  

Relevance to Nordic educational research: This Swedish study provides the Nordic research community with new and empirically grounded insights into how institutional leadership in postdigital teacher education engages with digitalisation and generative AI. It also offers opportunities for comparative reflection on organisational structures, leadership practices, and ethical considerations in teacher education institutions across the Nordic countries. 

References:

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.   

Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 357–370.  

Örtegren, A., & Olofsson, A.D. (2024). Pathways to professional digital competence to teach for digital citizenship: Social science teacher education in flux. Teachers and Teaching, 30(4), 526–544.

Regeringen arbetar just nu med en nationell AI-strategi, som dock inte ska omfatta skolan. Men utan nationell styrning lämnas frågan till enskilda lärare eller rektorer, skriver debattörer.

This edited collection presents a Nordic perspective on intensified discussions concerning digitalization and digital competence in the current trends of educational work. Using a multidisciplinary and holistic approach, the book compares Nordic countries’ attitudes toward the digitalization of education and demonstrates the Nordic region’s position as digital front-runners in a European and a global context. The book provides up-to-date cases and future-oriented perspectives on digitalization and digital competence in educational work. Chapters use empirical data gained from policy documents, interviews, and questionnaires to present nuanced discussions, theoretical perspectives, and implications for the future of digitalization in education. Ultimately, this book’s reach far exceeds that of its Nordic contexts and will be of use to postgraduate students, researchers, and scholars across the globe involved with digital education, teacher education, and educational policy and politics more broadly.

The aim of this study was to explore, analyse, and critically discuss conditions for Swedish ICT coordinators working on school digitalisation in a local municipal school context. More specifcally, the study draws on findings from interviews with 13 Swedish information and communication technology (ICT) coordinators working in eight municipalities that have adopted two contrasting approaches to school digitalisation. One is a general approach with a strong element of individual within-school accountability in the work, and the other a specifc approach in which such work is addressed more as an organisational process with involvement of municipal governing officials. Findings show that the two approaches set different conditions in terms of how and with whom the ICT coordinators work and the foci of their efforts although both are framed by the same national educational policy. A conclusion is that the ICT coordinators' role, function, and responsibility should be considered in parity to the level of support, in-school resources, and mandate given to them, not least when organisational instability and reorganisations hamper the work in progress.

Hardly any organization remains unaffected by the digitalization of society. Educational institutions are the pillars of modern society, and teaching has been described as the 'mother of all professions', as building the foundations for all professions. Therefore, teachers are part of shaping tomorrow's citizens and leaders, and the teacher's central role can hardly be exaggerated. At the same time, the development of society challenges traditional educational assumptions and puts traditional practices under pressure. Due to technological and pedagogical advancements, artificial intelligence, as well as virtual reality, has gained momentum in research and education. Digitalization contributes to writings in international, national, and local policy documents. The digitalization of society constitutes a significant force for redefining the role and function of curricula in education system. The chapter also presents an overview on the key concepts discussed in this book.

Increasingly pervasive digital technologies in societies are placing complex demands on the development of young people’s digital citizenship and digital competence. Social science education and teacher education (TE) play important, but poorly understood, roles in this development. Through reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, this paper explores 15 Swedish teacher educators’ (TEDs) views of teaching for digital citizenship, particularly social science TE’s role. We also consider organisational and personal conditions that may influence TEDs’ views of professional digital competence (PDC) for such teaching. Their views are examined through a postdigital lens, with a focus on democratic implications in evolving socio-technical environments. The results indicate that TEDs acknowledge the importance of social science TE in teaching for digital citizenship, but find maintaining responsiveness to societal changes challenging. Challenges are also posed by the multidisciplinary character of social science education, including how personal trajectories shape TEDs’ views of their dual-didactic task of teaching to teach for digital citizenship. This paper contributes knowledge of how TEDs, as ‘street-level bureaucrats’ in social science TE, navigate between written and performed education policy in teaching for digital citizenship, with specific attention to the dynamic character of PDC in social science education.

This chapter explores the building of rural resilience with the influence of national school digitalization policy visible in local policy translations. Focusing on 36 Swedish rural municipalities, the chapter reflects on the ability of rural municipalities to respond and adapt to national school policy and change in a digital age. The findings show that local work on translating national school digitalization policy is a rather challenging endeavor for rural municipalities. The findings in four areas of policy activity of digital technology in school policy – (a) technology resources, (b) use of digital tools in the schools, (c) curriculum concerns, and (d) issues of organization and governance – make it possible to argue in favor of adaptability in rural municipalities in terms of resilience building. We conclude that rural municipal contexts need recognition for their national school digitalization policy work. Moreover, increased national clarity of the intended meaning and desirable outcome of local policy translations could better support the rural municipalities, including further development of strong rural resilience.

Research topic/aim: This abstract explores rural municipality contexts in Sweden and signs of rural resilience in local translation work on national policy on school digitalisation. The goal with this abstract is to contribute with knowledge about rural municipalities and their contextual capacity of responding and adapting to national school policy and change in a digital age. In the abstract, two research questions are addressed: (1) How do rural municipalities work with translating national school digitalisation policies into local and contextual actions? and (2) How can this work be understood from a rural resilience perspective?

Theoretical framework: The abstract uses a combined theoretical framework to explore signs of rural resilience building in the municipalities. This framework builds on (a) Selwyn’s (2018) areas of policy activity of digital technology in school policy - (1) technology resources, (2) use of digital tools in the schools, (3) curriculum concerns, and, (4) issues of organisation and governance as well as 8b) Roberts’ et al. (2017a; 2017b) central forms in resilience thinking – (1) multi-scalar resilience, (2) normative resilience and (3) integrated policy conceptions of resilience.

Methodology/research design: During August until December in 2021, data were in two steps collected from 36 out of 40 Swedish municipalities categorized by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions as C8 (rural, not large on tourism). First, short phone interviews with municipality key persons asking them to describe their work with three recent Swedish national school policies on digitalisation and digital competence. Second, via the key persons collecting any additional written local policy in terms of strategic and/or action-oriented plans for the work with school digitalisation and/or digital competence.

Expected results/findings: The findings in the proposed abstract makes it possible to argue in favour of the adaptability in Swedish rural municipalities in terms of resilience building. That rural municipality contexts need recognition in their national school digitalisation policy work, and that increased national clarity of both the intended meaning and desirable outcome of local policy translations could provide a more solid support for the rural municipalities - including further development of a strong rural resilience.

Relevance to Nordic educational research: This abstract is relevant due to the rural perspectives have been lacking in Nordic educational research concerned with aspects of local translation work on national school digitalisation policy. Moreover, and in opposite to the abstract proposed here, such research seldom highlights the contextual complexity of this policy work when addressing the various levels of policy, challenges of local mobilisation, and individual approaches to policy.

References:

Roberts, E., Anderson, B.A., Skerratt, S., & Farrington, J. (2017). A review of the rural-digital policy agenda from a community resilience perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 372-385.

Roberts, E., Beel, D., Philip, L., & Townsend, L. (2017). Rural resilience in a digital society: Editorial. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 355-359.

Selwyn, N. (2018). Technology as a focus of education policy. In R. Papa and S. W. Armfield (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 457-477). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.