The use of technology in education has been a topic of interest for policymakers for many years, as is alleged to have significantly benefits for the learning experience for students. With the rapid implementation of digital technology in education in recent years, there has been a focus on the role of teacher qualifications in preparing students for a digital society and utilise the potential of a datafyed and digitised education system. The teacher is commonly portrayed to play a critical role in integrating technology into classroom and ensuring that students can effectively use it to learn and acquire new skills.

The focus has been on providing teachers with the necessary training and professional development to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practice. A common means of achieving such qualifications is the development of teachers’ professional digital competence often presented as qualification framework. While the incorporation of technology in education and the professional development of teachers is often presented as a depoliticized and objective improvement project, this paper critically analyses the conception of a digitally competent teacher as constructed in this policy. It argues that the conceptualization of a digitally competent teacher is not a neutral, apolitical construct, but rather one that is shaped by the political, economic, and social context in which it is developed. The study examines the ways in which the problematisation of teachers need for digitally competent is used to justify certain policy decisions and how the definition of digital competency is used to shape the role of teachers. By taking a critical perspective, this study aims to uncover the veiled power dynamics and potential consequences of these policies on teachers and the education system.

This paper conducts a critical analysis of the Norwegian Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers (the ‘PDC framework’) using Bacchi's (2009) ‘What's the problem represented to be?’ approach. The WPR approach involves analysing policy documents to uncover the underlying assumptions and policy imagination that shape the problem representation and subsequent solutions proposed in the document. In this case, the analysis aims to uncover the assumptions and representations of digital competency for teachers as constructed in the PDC framework, and the potential consequences of these representations on the role of teachers and the education system in Norway. The paper's focus is on the PDC framework as it is a governing the development and implementation of technology in education and the professional development of teachers in Norway.

This paper argues that the PDC framework is used as a policy instrument to stabilize and legitimize the use of digital technologies in the classroom. The PDC framework is informed by a sociotechnical imaginary that digital technology is the driving force for pedagogical development and that teachers are deficient when facing a digitized education. The paper discusses the potential consequences of the PDC framework on the role of teachers and the education system in Norway. Specifically, it argues that the PDC framework may lead to an unintended process of de-professionalization, in which teachers' autonomy is weakened. This is because the framework reinforces the idea that digital technology having inherent powers that teacher needs to use in the classroom, and that they need to be trained and regulated to do so. As a result, teachers may be less able to exercise autonomy and make decisions about how to use technology to support student learning, ultimately weakening their professional status.

The purpose of a WPR analysis is to critically scrutinise governmental problematisations by examining taken-for-granted ‘truths’ and analysing policy assumptions (Bacchi, 2012), in this case the Norwegian qualification framework for teachers PDC. The analysis is based on the notion that policies do not respond to problems; rather, problems are ‘created’ through the very policies that purport to ‘solve’ them (Bacchi, 2000, p. 48). This leaves researchers the task to ‘determine’ the problem representation from the proposed solution (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2018). Policy’s problematise and shape subjects and influence. The aim of the WPR analysis is to understand which conditions and assumptions are necessary for the PDC. The WPR method involves studying how problems are questioned, analysed, classified and regulated at specific times and under specific circumstances (Bacchi, 2012). We use problem representations as a springboard to analyse what visions of teacher work and schooling that underpin current digitalisation policy in Norway. In that regard we focus on the PDC framework as it is illustrative of wider trend of constructing qualification framework for education as a policy tool (Young & Allais, 2016) and a focus on teacher competency with regard to successful digitalisation of education (McGarr & McDonagh, 2019; Spante et al., 2018). The analysis of the PDC framework is based on Bacchi and Goodwins (2018 p 42) six analytical questions: We use these six questions to analyse the underlying problem representation of the PDC framework. The first question is a clarifying exercise to identify the problem representation within a given policy. The second question is to uncover the conceptual logics or discourses behind the problem representation. The third question reveals the conditions or contexts that enable the problem representation to form and influence. The fourth question highlights the issues and perspectives that are silenced in the dominant discourse, while the fifth question identifies the effects of the problem representation. The sixth question focuses on the public policy debate or discourse and how the present representation can be challenged. According to Bacchi and Goodwin, the questions does not follow in a sequential analytical order, or that all the questions should be a part of the analysis. In this paper, we will focus on the first three questions to analyse the underlying values framing the problem that the PDC framework is meant to solve, followed by discussing what effects are produced by the problem representation.

Digital technology is portrayed as engaging, promoting democracy, and qualifying students for the knowledge economy. This should be understood as a sociotechnical imaginary that produces distinct subjects, spaces, and objects. In our analysis, we focused on how teachers’ professionalism is reimagined in the face of this sociotechnical imaginary that emphasises competitive and learning advantages in the face of an uncertain future. The framework seeks to solve the issues emerging in the digitalisation of the education system by prescrib-ing the knowledge, skills and competence that teachers are apparently lacking. At first glance, the purpose of the PDC framework is to serve as a guideline for fostering teachers’ professional development and digital competence. It ends up problematising teachers’ competence based on the assumed benefits of digital technology. Based on our reading of the problem representation of the PDC framework, professional development becomes a matter of technical compliance. This way of framing teachers as lacking competency ends up de-professionalising the teacher profession (Evetts, 2013; Gore et al., 2022; McGarr et al., 2022). Teachers are made responsible to deliver on the promises of a digital educational system. Given the level of policy borrowing and international convergence in this arena, it is reasonable to assume that similar findings can be found in other qualifications frameworks and policies concerning teacher qualification. Our analysis shows the use of qualification frameworks a tool that frames teachers as deficient and need of upskilling, there in producing an image of teachers lagging the demands of the future. There by delegitimising professional autonomy in favour accountability, measurement and educational effectiveness threw up-skilling.

Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57. Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2(01), 1. Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2018). Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Current Sociology, 61(5–6), 778–796. Gore, J., Rickards, B., & Fray, L. (2022). From performative to professional accountability: Re-imagining ‘the field of judgment’ through teacher professional development. Journal of Education Policy, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2080274 McGarr, O., & McDonagh, A. (2019). Digital Competence in Teacher Education. Output 1 of the Erasmus + funded Developing Student Teachers’ Digital Competence (DICTE) project. (No. 1). https://ulir.ul.ie/handle/10344/7700 McGarr, O., Passy, R., Murray, J., & Liu, H. (2022). Continuity, change and challenge: Unearthing the (fr)agility of teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2100249 Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018). Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143 Young, M., & Allais, S. M. (2016). Implementing national qualifications frameworks across five continents. Routledge.