During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, upper-secondary teachers were forced to adjust their ways of teaching to unprecedented and ever-changing restrictions and school limitations, affecting over 100 million students worldwide before 2020 ended (UNESCO, 2020). Due to the Icelandic government's regulations and legislation, all upper-secondary students have been affected in some way ever since all upper secondary schools in Iceland were closed on March 13^th, 2020 (Directorate of Health, 2021). These changes made traditional teaching impossible and forced teachers to adapt and partly shift their teaching to the online space with appropriate modifications to their everyday work, as was with other teachers in neighbouring countries (see e.g. Olofsson et al., 2021). This involves teaching methods they adapted and adjusted during the first months of school closure and restrictions, the structure and channels of communicating with co-workers, school leaders, parents and, of course, students.

This research examines Icelandic upper-secondary teachers‘ reactions to sudden school closures, pedagogical approach and activities (Bergdahl & Nouri, 2020) and technology use during the first months of school restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research aims to map how teachers reacted, adjusted and describe their experience in terms of teaching methods, both online and on-site, the conjunction between the two, and potentially permanent changes the experience will have on upper-secondary teaching in Iceland. This unpredictable state has had a short lifespan, but the long-term effects are still to emerge, with this research contributing to that.

Teachers‘ reactions are examined in the light of their experience of using technology in general, but more specifically in using it as part of their ways of teaching, and how their expertise benefitted them during the first months of the pandemic. Teachers‘ ideas of long-term impact on their teaching, future goals in teaching and possible implementation of new and even more online-driven methods in their onsite teaching are also examined in this context.

Since school closures forced teachers to distance and blended learning circumstances, the teaching methods the teachers grabbed onto are analyzed in the context of distance education, the flipped classroom model (Bergmann & Sams, 2012) and a blended learning approach (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). These methods require the similar or same use of technology as teachers have been forced to do during the pandemic.

The flipped classroom model is centred on the idea of moving lectures, in the form of recordings, out of the classroom and made available online (Bergmann & Sams, 2012, 2015; Mazur, 1997). Assignments and other homework consequently move out of students' homes and into the classroom where students, who have already prepared for class by watching or listening to the teachers' recordings, work on assignments or have discussions.

The flipped classroom idea involves both online and on-site activities, circumstances most upper-secondary teachers found themselves in during school restrictions. Teachers met students occasionally in person while the class was ongoing online. During school restrictions, teachers had to balance the two settings. Those endeavours create a form of a blended learning method that anticipates a mixture of online and on-site that some teachers mention in the interviews (see ‘Methods/methodology‘) that they would like to develop further.

The shuffle of on-site and online teaching forced teachers to create their own dynamic interplay with the three pillars of knowledge as described in the TPACK-framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2008); technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. The role of these three knowledge in the teachers‘ way of teaching is examined to see how and if the dynamic of the three has changed.

The effects of the pandemic on upper-secondary teachers in Iceland were captured by interviews conducted in early 2021. Twelve teachers shared their experiences, teaching methods during the pandemic, and possible long-term changes. The teachers come from three different schools; two in the capital area and one outside, two comprehensive and one traditional grammar school. The teachers‘ age, gender and digital competence vary, and their different educational backgrounds and views on teaching methods are conspicuous in the interviews. Regardless of their technological competence, all teachers were forced to implement live streams and recordings in their daily teaching. To identify common themes amongst the teachers’ views on using technology in teaching in a post-pandemic setting, the twelve interviews are analyzed in the context of perceived successes and failures and how the teachers used recordings and live online classrooms to cope with and adjust to on-site school restrictions. The interviews are analyzed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013) in regards to their digital competence and readiness for a shift transition to online teaching. They are also analyzed with future changes in mind and the likelihood that the teachers will intentionally change some elements of their ways of teaching, as well as the nondeliberate effects the experience will have on their teaching and the use of ICT as part of their teaching methods. The thematic analysis also includes examining the interplay between the three primary forms of knowledge as presented in the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2008); technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. During school closures, the interaction of the three forms inevitably changed. The role of the technology part elevated, creating a different dynamic in teaching and communication between teachers and students and possibly permanently shifting the three knowledge forms of upper-secondary education in general.

These preliminary results of the interviews show that the circumstances were a new world of teaching. Many teachers introduced live online classes to their teaching while others created recordings to deliver class material or instructional videos to students. However teachers reacted, it is obvious many took a giant leap in using technology that will possibly shape their ways of teaching in the future. The interviews show that while some teachers were eager that uncertainty and restrictions would end to return to ordinary classroom teaching, others treated it as an opportunity to develop new practices to provide future benefits. Regardless, though, most teachers needed more support to implement new teaching methods (Gestsdóttir et al., 2020). But the pandemic era has shown and even taught teachers how they can use recordings to enrich or amend their ways of teaching. Preliminary findings indicate that some teachers have heard of teaching methods that heavily rely on recordings. After the pandemic experience, some are even considering developing it further and implementing it in their teaching. Teachers‘ experiences with both new technology and novel approaches to teaching and learning strategies in and out of the classroom are essential in shaping teaching in the future. The pandemic has not only driven changes in teaching but also forced teachers to take a giant leap in using technology in teaching. That knowledge can not be reversed.

Bergdahl, N., & Nouri, J. (2020). Covid-19 and Crisis-Prompted Distance Education in Sweden. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(3), 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09470-6 Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2015). Flipped Learning : Gateway to Student Engagement. International Society for Technology in Education. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/landsbokasafn/detail.action?docID=5880784 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE. Directorate of Health. (2021). Viðbrögð á Íslandi. https://www.covid.is/undirflokkar/vidbrogd-a-islandi Gestsdóttir, S. M., Ragnarsdóttir, G., Amalía Björnsdóttir, & Eiríksdóttir, E. (2020). Fjarkennsla í faraldri: Nám og kennsla í framhaldsskólum á tímum samkomubanns vegna COVID-19. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun: Sérrit 2020 – Menntakerfi og heimili á tímum COVID-19, 1-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2020.25 Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice Hall. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. http://www.matt-koehler.com/publications/Mishra_Koehler_AERA_2008.pdf Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, J. O., & Fransson, G. r. (2021). Swedish upper secondary school teachers’ experiences with coping with emergency remote teaching (ERT) – emerging pedagogical issues in pandemic times. Education in the North, 28(3), 85-99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26203/v1s1-ty08 Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227. UNESCO. (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse