In initial teacher education, the student teachers encounter different learning arenas, whereas the two formal ones are university campus and workplace (i.e. placement schools). Studies on the relation between learning in campus and placement schools, often describe students as receptive and passive in the campus-based learning context, as opposed to be more active and involved in the placement schools (Finne, Mordal & Stene, 2014). 

Although university campuses and workplaces are different contexts, students do not necessarily see this difference as a "gap" (Lohmander, 2015). Instead, they might see campus and placement schools as involving different modes of knowledge (Christensen, Eritsland & Havnes, 2014). Learning on campus is characterized by theoretical knowledge and requires analytical and critical reflection. On the other hand, workplace learning, for example carried out in placement schools, is characterized by practical knowledge which can be developed and implemented by the learner at the workplace (Gee, 2000). Raaen & Thorsen (2020) question the idea of a gap between theory and practice and advocate a form of coherence which requires cultural exchange between the learning arenas. This tension of understanding the different roles of learning, is to our knowledge, not discussed with regard to teacher students’ professional digital competence. 

There is little research on the role of practice placement in developing student teachers´ professional digital competence. An exception is Galanouli & McNair (2001) who conclude their research that schools must be supported and resourced properly and that placement teachers must be trained in the use of technology, for student teachers to improve their professional digital competence during practice placement. The same authors  state that higher education institutions emphasize the development of the student teachers’ ability to reflect on the pedagogical use of technology in their teaching practice. 

For more than two decades, Norwegian teacher education institutions have integrated professional digital competence training into subject areas (Engen, Giæver& Mifsud, 2015; Johannesen & Øgrim 2020). In evaluations from training in university campuses and placements schools both, teacher educators  and student teachers report that they do not have sufficient professional digital competence (Engen et al., 2009; Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018). 

In this paper, we investigate the roles of learning arenas for the development of student teachers’ professional digital competence. As part of the picture, the concept of professional digital competence is used for analyzing the role of the learning arenas.

Empirical data derived mainly from interviews with student teachers, placement teachers, and university campus teachers. Five student teachers, two placement teachers, and three university campus teachers were interviewed during the fall of 2020. The interviews covered topics such as professional digital competence, the use of technology in placement practice, and the role of learning arenas. The interviews were conducted via Teams or Zoom, recorded and stored electronically and then transcribed. The interview topics emerged from classroom observations, which took place during the teacher students’ practice placement in the fall semester of 2020. Due to infection control measures, the last week of the practice placement included digital teaching, and the classroom observations were abandoned. Before this, 13 lessons were observed, divided into four schools, and four groups of student teachers. The concepts of conceptual and structural coherence in teacher education (Hammerness, 2010; Raaen & Thorsen, 2020) form the theoretical framework for analyzing the data. Conceptual coherence is understood as the consistency of visions, ideas and goals, on and across different learning arenas. This means that campus teachers, placement teachers and student teachers continuously share their ideas. Structural coherence is understood as rooms, meeting places and occasions that help to facilitate the development of the content of teacher education. This might include the organization and sequencing of teacher education programmes on campus, as well as a focus on professional teaching practice. The concept of coherence is also related to the theory of third space (Bhabha, 1990) describing the hybrids that might emerge from meetings of people from different cultures and contexts. Lohmander (2015) discusses coherence in teacher education, and emphasizes a brigding metaphor in student teachers’ placement practice. Johansson (2020) discusses the idea of a well-qualified teacher as a moving target. Firstly, the general need for competence is moving, secondly, there are changes in the pedagogical fashion and thirdly, there are changes in the cultural context of which education is a part. When discussing teachers’ professional digital competence, the continuously changing technology in society, the ever evolving student teachers’ general digital competence, and the available digital infrastructure and resources in schools must be taken into consideration (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2020). This is illustrated by examples of digital textbooks and internet resourses made affordably available for most schools, but not for teacher education institutions.

Initial analyses of the findings show that student teachers experienced a gap between what they learn on campus and in placement schools. Further, the interviewees showed reflections and discussions on the roles that the different learning arenas in the student teachers’ journey towards becoming well qualified teachers. Both student teachers, placement teachers and university campus teachers point to different infrastructure on campus and placement schools, and also that different aspects of professional digital literacy are emphasized in the different learning arenas. Reflections from placement practice during the Covid10 pandemic and different levels of infection control measures, show traces of a virtual third space of professional digital competence. The students teachers bring their general competence developed at the teacher education institution, combined with practical teaching experience related to the technology use in the placement schools, and the their practical everyday knowledge of technology use. We suggest that the teacher education institutions should not aim at keeping up with the technology used at any given time in schools. Instead, they could support student teachers in developing their general understanding of and critical reflections about technologies, the way the technology works, how technologies affect and are affected by society, and pedagogical opportunities and limitations. The placement schools, however, might be the arena where the student teachers apply, concretize and widen these understandings and reflections. This is where they learn about concrete technological application and test their own knowledge in practice. This requires that both learning arenas, university campuses and placement schools, consciously work with conceptual and structural coherence.

Bhabha, H. (1990). The third space. In J. Rutherford (Ed.) Identity, community, culture, difference Lawrence & Wishart (pp.2017.221) Christensen, H., Eritsland, A.G. & Havnes, A. (2014). Bridging the gap? Student attitudes about two learning arenas in teacher education. A study of secondary teacher students’ experiences in university and practice. In Arntzen, E. (Ed.). Educating for the future: Proceedings of the ATEE 38th Annual Conference. (pp. 46–61). Halden 2013. Engen, B.K., Giæver, T.H. & Mifsud, M.L. (2015). Guidelines and regulations for teaching digital competence in schools and Teacher education: A weak link? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. Vol. 2015. Finne, H., Mordal, S. & Stene, T.M. (2014). Oppfatninger av studiekvalitet i lærerutdanningene 2013. [Perceptions of study quality in teacher education 2013] SINTEF Teknologi og samfunn. Regional utvikling 2014-04-09 Gee, J.P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125. Gudmundsdottir, G.B. & Hatlevik, O.E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. 41(2), 214-231. Gudmundsdottir, G.B. & Hatlevik, O.E. (2020). “I just Google it” - Developing professional digital competence and preparing student teachers to exercise responsible ICT use. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3-4), 33-55. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3752 Hammerness, K.M. (2013). Examining features of teacher education in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 400–419 Johannesen, M., & Øgrim, L. (2020). The role of multidisciplinarity in developing teachers’ professional digital competence. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3-4), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3735 Johansson, M. W. (2020): Tracing the moving ‘target’ in Didaktik of vocational classroom instruction, Journal of Curriculum Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2020.1795270 Lohmander, M.K. (2015). Bridging «the gap»: Linking workplace-based and university-based learning in pre-school teacher education in Sweden. Early years Volume 35, 2015 - Issue 2 McNair, V. & Galanouli, D. (2001). Students’ perceptions of ICT‐related support in teaching placements. in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. December 2001 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229539306_Students%27_perceptions_of_ICT-related_support_in_teaching_placements Raaen, F. D. & Thorsen, K. E (2020) Student teachers’ conditions for professional learning on and across the learning arenas of teacher education: A theoreticallygrounded account. In Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE) Vol. 4 No. 3-4 (2020): Perspectives on teachers’ transdisciplinary professional competence, 105-116