Ingeborg Hognestad Krange

• Johansson, Veslemøy Maria Fossum; Gabarron, Elia; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Nagel, Ilka (2026). Digital Exclusion Among Children and Young People: A Scoping Review. Nordic Journal of Systematic Reviews in Education. 4. doi: 10.23865/njsre.v4.7755. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The objective of this scoping review is to map, systematically, how existing research describes children’s and young people’s experiences of digital exclusion, with attention to the extent, nature, and scope of the literature. The review was conducted in accordance with the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews, and with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The researched databases include Education Source, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Scopus, as well as empirical and grey literature focused on children and young people aged 10 to 18, exploring their experiences of digital exclusion in educational and/or everyday contexts. A total of 16 studies were included. Most used qualitative methods to explore digital exclusion in education and everyday life. Three main perspectives emerged: 1) multilevel digital divides (access, skills, outcomes); 2) child-centered experiences; and 3) structural inequalities linked to socioeconomic, geographic, and gender factors. Common barriers included limited device and internet access, low digital skills, affordability issues, and restrictive household or school policies. Disadvantaged groups, such as rural youth, girls in restrictive environments, and children with functional variations, were most affected, and often required additional support and accessible tools. The included studies indicate that children’s digital exclusion is multilayered, shaped by access, skills, outcomes, and social context. Exclusion is described as involving not only resources, but also opportunities, support, and recognition. Several studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic describe how new vulnerabilities may emerge as contexts shift. Most included studies focus on predefined “at-risk” groups. However, exclusion can also affect children outside these categories, highlighting the need for broader, more integrated approaches.

• Bjørkvold, Tuva; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Helstad, Kristin (2025). Samspill mellom uformell og formell utdanningsledelse i innovasjonsprosesser: tilfellet entreprenørielle masteroppgaver. In Solbrekke, Tone Dyrdal & Helstad, Kristin (Ed.), Utdanningsledelse i høyere utdanning - legitime kompromisser. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215071329. p. 155–177. Full text in Research Archive
• Engeness, Irina; Segaran, Meerita Kunna & Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad (2024). Learning to write in English: Development of conceptual understanding in the writing process with feedback from artificial intelligence and collaborating peers. In Skulstad, Aud Solbjørg (Eds.), Current issues in English teaching. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 9788245047189. p. 161–183. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad; Segaran, Meerita Kunna; Gamlem, Siv Therese Måseidvåg; Moltudal, Synnøve & Engeness, Irina (2023). A Triple Challenge: Students’ Identification, Interpretation, and Use of Individualized Automated Feedback in Learning to Write English as a Foreign Language. ID&A Interaction design & architecture(s). ISSN 1826-9745. p. 39–63. doi: 10.55612/S-5002-059-001. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Rasmussen, Ingvill (2020). Dybdelæring og kritisk tenkning i en digital tid – analyser av samtaler mellom elever og lærer. In Engen, Bård Ketil (Eds.), Digitalisering, kompetanse og læring. Gyldendal Akademisk. ISSN 9788205538313. p. 27–47. Full text in Research Archive
• Ferguson, Leila Eve & Krange, Ingeborg (2020). Hvordan fremme kritisk tenkning i grunnskolen? Forskningsbaserte forslag. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift. ISSN 0029-2052. 104(2), p. 194–205. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2020-02-09. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Despite focus on critical thinking as a necessary skill, few have suggested specific ways for teachers to support its development in Norwegian school pupils. We address this challenge: We first suggest a theoretical framework for understanding critical thinking’s central components, then we present recent research that forms the basis for suggestions for how critical thinking can be promoted in primary and secondary school. Our focus is on argumentation, strategic source evaluation and views of knowledge. Based on this review we identify implications for teachers’ practice.

• Krange, Ingeborg; Silseth, Kenneth & Pierroux, Palmyre (2019). Peers, teachers and guides: A study of three conditions for scaffolding conceptual learning in science centers. Cultural Studies of Science Education. ISSN 1871-1502. doi: 10.1007/s11422-018-9905-x. Full text in Research Archive
• Jornet, Alfredo; Roth, Wolff-Michael & Krange, Ingeborg (2016). A Transactional Approach to Transfer Episodes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. ISSN 1050-8406. 25(2), p. 285–330. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1147449. Full text in Research Archive
• Arnseth, Hans Christian & Krange, Ingeborg (2016). What happens when you push the button? Analyzing the functional dynamics of concept development in computer supported science inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. ISSN 1556-1607. p. 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s11412-016-9244-4. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In this article we analyze how the joint cognitive system of teacher and student actions mediated by cultural tools develops sense making of science concepts, and the use of concepts as tools for explaining phenomena and processes related to energy and energy transformation. We take a sociocultural approach to the analysis of how material and digital learning resources become tools for thinking and reasoning. We combined ethnographic descriptions with analysis of video records of classroom interactions in a high school and examined how a teacher and a group of students engaged in a computer-supported collaborative inquiry. Our results show that students through inquiry are enabled to make sense of concepts and their experiences with resources and also to use science concepts as explanatory tools. However, this is mediated by the teachers’ practices for supporting students, such as providing relevant clues for them to continue their inquiry, eliciting their initial understanding of concepts thereby making them available for further development, pressing for explanations, and reformulating their explanations. The teacher is continuously alternating between withdrawing and making students inquire by themselves and supporting their inquiry. In and through such social interactions, materials and digital tools become tools for thinking. We argue that one of the practical implications of our study is that it is crucial that teachers explicitly draw students into their system of activity throughout the entire learning trajectory and that the teachers and students together make sense of science concepts for explaining energy transformation. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9244-4

• Steier, Rolf; Pierroux, Palmyre & Krange, Ingeborg (2015). Embodied Interpretation: Gesture, Social Interaction and Meaning Making in a National Art Museum. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. ISSN 2210-6561. 7, p. 28–42. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.05.002. Full text in Research Archive
• Arnseth, Hans Christian; Jornet, Alfredo & Krange, Ingeborg (2015). Learning in a material world: Reflection in science education as embodied practice. In Lindwall, Oskar; Häkkinen, Päivi; Koschman, Timothy & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (Ed.), Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015. International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). ISSN 9780990355069. p. 595–596. Full text in Research Archive
• Swensen, Kaja Vembe; Silseth, Kenneth & Krange, Ingeborg (2014). Tweeting as a tool for learning science: The credibility of student-produced knowledge content in educational contexts. In Sánchez, Inmaculada Arnedillo & Isaías, Pedro (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th international conferences on Mobile Learning 2014. IADIS Press. ISSN 9789898704023. p. 247–251. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg; Moen, Anne & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2012). Computer-based 3D simulation: a study of communication practices in a trauma team performing patient examination and diagnostic work. Instructional Science. ISSN 0020-4277. 40(5), p. 829–847. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9214-9. Full text in Research Archive
• Arnseth, Hans Christian & Krange, Ingeborg (2012). Reconsidering meaning making and its analytical implications for cultural studies of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education. ISSN 1871-1502. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9468-1. Full text in Research Archive
• Ludvigsen, Sten Runar; Rasmussen, Ingvill; Krange, Ingeborg; Moen, Anne & Middleton, David (2011). Intersecting trajectories of Participation: temporality and learning. In Ludvigsen, Sten Runar; Lund, Andreas; Rasmussen, Ingvill & Säljö, Roger (Ed.), Learning across sites : new tools, infrastructures and practices. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9780415581769. p. 105–121. Full text in Research Archive
• Jahreie, Cecilie Flo & Krange, Ingeborg (2011). Learning in science education across school and science museums – Design and development work in a multi-professional group. Digital kompetanse. ISSN 0809-6724. 6(3), p. 174–188–174–188. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In this article, we discuss challenges in design work in a multidisciplinary group. We analyse video data gathered from a start-up workshop in a project, the aim of which is to design and develop learning models in science that will be used in and across schools and museum settings. A combination of digital technologies plays a vital role to bridge these institutional situations by offering a rich amount of representations. As an analytical framework, we use concepts from Culture Historical Activity Theory both to study the orientations of the various group members to learning in science education and to scrutinize contradictions between these orientations. We conclude by identifying three main orientations to learning in science education, namely, memorable experiences, embodiment, and conceptual understandings, and we discuss the implications that these have for the design of the overall learning trajectory. The findings in this article have important consequences for intervention design of the future workshops. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy at idunn.no http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk

• Krange, Ingeborg & Arnseth, Hans Christian (2011). Students’ Meaning Making in Science – Solving Energy Resource Problems in Virtual Worlds Combined with Spreadsheets to Develop Graphs. Cultural Studies of Science Education. ISSN 1871-1502. doi: 10.1007/s11422-011-9361-3. Full text in Research Archive
• Pierroux, Palmyre; Krange, Ingeborg & Sem, Idunn (2011). Bridging Contexts and Interpretations: Mobile Blogging on Art Museum Field Trips. Mediekultur. ISSN 0900-9671. 50, p. 25–44. doi: 10.7146/mediekultur.v27i50.2997. Full text in Research Archive
• Jahreie, Cecilie Flo; Arnseth, Hans Christian; Krange, Ingeborg; Smørdal, Ole & Kluge, Anders (2011). Designing for play-based learning of concepts in science – Technological tools for bridging school and science museum contexts. Children, Youth and Environments. 21(2). Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2009). The historical and situated nature design experiments - Implications for data analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL). ISSN 0266-4909. 25(3), p. 268–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00307.x. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. ISSN 1556-1607. 3, p. 25–51. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2007). Sociocultural perspective on learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education. ISSN 1871-1502. 2, p. 218–223. doi: 10.1007/s11422-006-9040-y. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2007). Students' conceptual practices in science education - Productive disciplinary interactions in a participation trajectory. Cultural Studies of Science Education. ISSN 1871-1502. 2, p. 171–203. doi: 10.1007/s11422-006-9040-y. Full text in Research Archive
• Rasmussen, Ingvill; Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2005). Understanding the task: How is agency distributed between tools, students and teachers in technology rich learning environments? International Journal of Educational Research. ISSN 0883-0355. 39, p. 839–849. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Fjuk, Annita (2004). Design and use of a 3D learning environment: The situated conditions of awareness information. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management. ISSN 1465-6612. 4(2). Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg; Furberg, Anniken Larsen; Fjuk, Annita & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2002). Describing construction of knowledge through identification of collaboration patterns in 3D learning environments. In Stahl, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISSN 9780805850994. p. 82–91. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Kluge, Anders; Krange, Ingeborg; Ludvigsen, Sten Runar; Lantz-Andersson, Annika & Säljö, Roger (2014). Lärarens roll och design av lärandemiljöer i Lärare i den uppkoblade skolan. Gleerups Utbildning AB. ISBN 9789140687159. 259 p. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Knudsen, Tina Charlotte; Grønlien, Heidi Kristine; Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Helgesen, Ann Karin & Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad (2026). Norske sykepleierstudenters evaluering av NorDigHE-utdanningen «Hospital-at-Home» versjon 2.0. Full text in Research Archive
• Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Grønlien, Heidi Kristine; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad; Helgesen, Ann Karin & Knudsen, Tina Charlotte (2026). Nordic Digital Health & Education (NorDigHE) – et digitalt utdanningsprogram for helsepersonell som jobber med «Hospital-at-Home». Full text in Research Archive
• Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Grønlien, Heidi Kristine; Helgesen, Ann Karin; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Knudsen, Tina Charlotte (2026). Tour de Norden #1 - Erfaringer og aktiviteter fra Norge. Full text in Research Archive
• Johansson, Veslemøy Maria Fossum; Gabarron, Elia; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Nagel, Ilka (2026). Digital exclusion among children and young people. Full text in Research Archive
• Knudsen, Tina Charlotte; Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Helgesen, Ann Karin; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Grønlien, Heidi Kristine (2026). Norske sykepleierstudenters evaluering av NorDigHE-utdanningen "Hospital-at-Home" versjon 2.0. Full text in Research Archive
• Grønlien, Heidi Kristine; Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Helgesen, Ann Karin; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Knudsen, Tina Charlotte (2026). Evaluering av NorDigHE versjon 2.0 HiØ. Full text in Research Archive
• Johansson, Veslemøy Maria Fossum; Gabarron, Elia; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Nagel, Ilka (2025). Protocol: Digital exclusion among children and young people: a scoping review. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.19047225. Full text in Research Archive
• Bjørkvold, Tuva; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Helstad, Kristin (2025). Informal and Formal Leadership in Innovation Processes: The Case of Entrepreneurial Master’s Theses in Teacher Education. doi: https:/eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/30/contribution/60941. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objective, research question and general background description The objective of this study is to display how innovation in higher education can be understood in light of formal and informal leadership processes and how these are played out within established institutional practices. We investigate this by asking the research question: What characterizes the innovation processes and how do leaders interact and navigate on different arenas during these processes? We use a case from teacher education in Norway regarding a new format of the master thesis to illustrate the phenomenon. This case contrasts with other typical challenges concerning innovation in higher education where education and research usually follow established patterns (Frølich & Thune, 2020). Leadership of innovation involves supporting new practices that challenge established routines (Carvalho et al., 2021). Despite reforms and policy signals, changes in higher education occur slowly due to established institutional practices and weak traditions for educational leadership at different levels (Hermansen, 2020). In policy documents innovation is described as a core task for the sector, alongside research, education, and dissemination (St. Meld. 5, 2022–2023). Teacher education, marked by strong traditions and extensive quality assurance routines, offers limited room for innovation (Afdal & Lorentzen, 2023; Mausethagen et al., 2023). In Norway, teacher education is regulated through legal rules and a policy framework that restrict autonomy and space for innovation (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). Nonetheless, examples of innovations that lead to changes do exist. In this paper, we examine the leadership of an innovation process in teacher education that resulted in the development of the "entrepreneurial master’s thesis." This kind of thesis differs from traditional written master thesis while it combines a product, written justification, and oral reflection (Bjørkvold, 2023, 2024). Led by a teacher educator this initiative also challenged traditional formats by emphasizing research-based teaching and practice. Theoretical framework Educational leadership and innovative work in higher education can be understood as institutional practices (Møller & Rönnberg, 2021) where educational leaders are responsible for setting goals, ensuring quality, supporting staff and adapting to policy changes. Formal leaders, such as deans, and department heads, hold explicit leadership responsibilities, while informal leaders among academic and administrative staff might take initiatives and responsibility in specific contexts. This case illustrates an initiative where formal and informal leaders collaborate on a specific task. Within a cultural-historical activity framework, institutional practices in higher education encompass pedagogical, epistemic, organizational, and governance practices (Hermansen, 2020). While pedagogical practices focus on teaching quality and methods, epistemic practices concern knowledge creation and use. Organizational practices involve systems supporting education, and governance practices address the institution's compliance with policies and strategic objectives. Leadership involves navigating between these practices and educational leaders must skillfully manage tensions and contradictions to support institutional development. Method The dataset includes documents, interviews with students, evaluation surveys, observation notes from seminars and completed master's theses. The findings are presented as a narrative grounded in analyses of national policy documents, internal work on curricula and guidelines, thesis examples, and input from students, supervisors, and examiners (Silverman, 2011). The analysis followed two steps where relevant activities, such as proposals for the new thesis format, decision-making meetings, and discussions on evaluation guidelines, were identified and chronologically organized. Next, these activities were examined in relation to formal and informal leadership contributions, drawing on the analytical concepts related to the analytical framework on institutional practices. The narrative illustrates how formal and informal leadership facilitated the innovation process, highlighting collaborative dynamics and contributions from various actors within institutional structures. The study provides insights into leadership’s role in balancing established institutional practices and innovation to achieve sustainable change in higher education. Expected Outcomes Results demonstrate that the innovation was made possible through the interplay between formal and informal leadership. Formal leadership was manifested through governance and organizational practices, anchored in the formal leadership roles at different levels in the organization. Concurrently, an informal leader, a teacher educator (the innovator) played a key role in developing the ideas, driving the initiative forward, and securing institutional anchoring. Collaboration across organizational arenas and levels, where formal leaders collaborated with the administration staff, was crucial for integrating the innovation into the institution’s structures (Møller, 2021). Time and timing were also critical: The innovation was introduced gradually and grounded in local academic communities, reducing resistance and ensuring support (Helstad & Mausethagen, 2022). The findings illustrate how the innovation challenged traditional pedagogical and epistemic practices but was legitimized by combining professional orientation with academic standards (Carvalho et al., 2021). The innovation expanded rapidly. Within three years, the number of students choosing the new master’s thesis format increased from 4 to 76, and the innovation model was also adopted by other institutions. The study brings forward and underscores how the interaction between formal and informal leadership, combined with trust, and strategic work might facilitate successful innovation processes in higher education, where established institutional practices are challenged, and new practices are integrated into the institution's structure and culture. References Afdal, H. W. & Lorentzen, M. (2023). Bachelor- og masteroppgaversom uttrykk for forskningsbasering i lærerutdanningene. [Bachelor’s and master’s theses as expressions of research-based practices in teacher education]. I S. Bøyum, J. Caspersen, S. Mausethagen, T. S. Prøitz & F. W. Thue (Red.), En forskningsbasert skole? Forskningens plass i lærerutdanning og skole (s. 149-175). Universitetsforlaget. Bjørkvold, T. (2023). Hvordan masteroppgaver kan skape bedre lærere. [How can master’s theses create better teachers.] Bedre skole, (3), 32-37. https://www.utdanningsnytt.no/bedre-skole-laererutdanning-master/hvordan-masteroppgaver-kan-skape-bedre-laerere/377207 Bjørkvold, T. (2024). En profesjonsrettet og forskningsbasert masteroppgave. [A profession oriented and research based master thesis.] Uniped, 47(4), 268-282. https://doi.org/10.18261/uniped.47.4.4 Carvalho, A., Teixeira, S. J., Olim, L., Campanella, S. d. & Costa, T. (2021). Pedagogical innovation in higher education and active learning methodologies – a case study. Education & training 63(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2020-0141 Frølich, N. & Thune, T. (2020). Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? [What’s up in higher education?] I N. Frølich (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter (1. utg., s. 11-24). Universitetsforlaget. Hermansen, H. (2020). In pursuit of coherence: Aligning program development in teacher education with institutional practices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 936-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1639815 Helstad, K. & Mausethagen, S. (2022). Skoleutvikling: I forskning, politikk og praksis. [School development: Research, politics and praxsis.] I K. Helstad & S. Mausethagen (Red.), Skoleutvikling: I forskning, politikk og praksis (1. utg., s. 15-34). Cappelen Damm akademisk. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2016). Forskrift om grunnskolelærerutdanning for trinn 1-7. [Regulation of primary school teacher education.] https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2016-06-07-860 Mausethagen, S., Bøyum, S., Caspersen, J., Prøitz, T. & Thue, F. W. (2023). Forskningsen rolle i skole og lærerutdanning. [The role of research in school and teacher education.] I S. Bøyum, J. Caspersen, S. Mausethagen, T. S. Prøitz & F. W. Thue (Red.), En forskningsbasert skole? Forskningens plass i lærerutdanning og skole (s. 10-21). Universitetsforlaget. Møller, J. & Rönnberg, L. (2021). Critical perspectives in and approaches to educational leadership in two Nordic countries. I S. J. Courtney, H. M. Gunter, R. Niesche & T. Trujillo (Red.), Understanding educational leadership : critical perspectives and approaches. Bloomsbury Academic. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research (4. utg.). SAGE. St. Meld. 5 (2022-2023). Langtidsplan for forskning og høyere utdanning 2023–2032. [Long term plan for research and higher education 2023-2032.] Kunnskapsdepartementet. Regjeringen. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-5-20222023/id2931400/?

• Afdal, Hilde Wågsås; Nielsen, Birgitte Lund & Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad (2025). Knowledge integration in teacher education through the use of simulation - Cases from Denmark and Norway. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Paper in Roundtable: "Comparative Research on Initial Teacher Education in the Nordic Countries" A persistent challenge in teacher education (TE) is bridging the theory-practice gap. This gap, often encountered by student and novice teachers, stems from the abstract nature of their preparatory education compared to the situated nature of in-service experiences (Canrinus et al., 2017). Effective teaching requires integrating diverse knowledge resources, from educational theories and research to subject-specific knowledge, didactics, practical skills, and an understanding of school contexts. Teachers must assess how to mobilize and integrate these resources for tasks such as planning, lecturing, or facilitating discussions. Addressing this discrepancy can begin during school placements, but there is a call for more innovative approaches, like simulations, in Nordic TE (Forsström & Munthe, 2023). The discussion in the roundtable will include perspectives on student teachers' outcomes from a roleplay of a parent teacher meeting (Denmark) and digital simulations (Norway). The framework of practice-based TE (e.g. Grossman & Fraefel, 2024) emphasizes that simulations can allow student teachers to practice elements with high support and reduced complexity. According to Hermansen and Mausethagen (2023), designing for knowledge use and collaborative integration in simulations requires: (1) Knowledge Resource Pool: Providing comprehensive conceptual and material resources (e.g., books, research articles, digital devices) for students to activate in familiar activities. (2) Scenario Integration: Creating scenarios to integrate various knowledge production modes in technology-enhanced, scenario-based simulations. (3) Resource Analysis: Supporting student teachers in analyzing the affordances and constraints of specific knowledge resources, aiding them in assessing potential. (4) Creative Connection: Recognizing that linking knowledge resources and processes is a creative, analytical task evolving through practice. In both cases a design-based research approach is used. The Danish case examines a simulation in the format of a parent-teacher meeting roleplay in campus teaching. The Norwegian case aim to develop iteratively refined learning activities and resources to advance learning theories and practices. Collaborating with teacher educators, student teachers, and teachers, the study identifies challenges in knowledge integration and develops scenarios integrated into technology-enhanced simulations. These scenarios employ various forms such as desktop VR using 360 cameras (CAVA360VR) and modified AI chatbots, enabling teachers to pause, reflect, and discuss knowledge resource integration. Student teachers' outcomes are analyzed through observations and a qualitative survey with open reflections (Braun et al., 2021). The findings from the two cases will be presented under the following themes: (1) Renewing Teaching Approaches: Addressing the need for updated teaching and learning approaches in TE. (2) Innovative Simulations: Developing innovative, scenario-based simulations using the latest technology. (3) Teacher Leadership: Educating prospective teachers to take on leadership roles. (4) Communication and Concepts: The importance of effective communication and conceptual choices. (5) Theoretical Motivation: Increasing motivation for further theoretical studies. (6) Embodied Learning: Understanding the role of embodied learning. (7) Collaborative Learning: Highlighting collaborative learning through discussions and feedback.

• Vrbova, Karla; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Afdal, Hilde Wågsås (2025). Collaborative Writing With Digital Technologies In Junior And Senior High School English Second Language Classrooms – A Scoping Review | EERA. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Writing in itself is a complex competency (Berge et al., 2016). Writing in English as a Second Language naturally adds further complexity. When this writing in addition is expected to take place collaboratively, it requires a highly complex set of skills within writing, the language in question, and collaboration. Additionally, when a vast portion of writing in schools is mediated by digital technologies, this situation poses further demands on students’ skills required to master collaborative writing in a second language. Collaborative writing in a second language (L2) is a young field, defined by Zhang & Plonsky (2020, p. 1) as “a task in which two or more learners interact with each other throughout the writing process to co-produce one single document”. For the purpose of this review L2 is used to refer to both second language and foreign language. The focus of research within the field has been on establishing the potential of the method, and variables that could impact this potential (Zhang & Plonsky, 2020). Technology used in collaborative writing in L2 has so far been a slightly overlooked topic in reviews. For example, two complementary reviews have been conducted in the field by Zhang et. al (2021) and Zhang and Plonsky (2020), focusing on computer-mediated collaborative writing and face-to-face collaborative writing in L2. Zhang et al. (2021) provide a list of technologies used in collaborative writing including number of studies and a percentage, while Zhang and Plonsky (2020) do not mention the technology used at all. Zhang et al. (2021) found that wiki and Google docs are the most frequently used technologies in collaborative writing but do not offer any analyses of what sort of use this is. Both Zhang et. al (2021) and Zhang and Plonsky (2020) report that English is the most researched language. Zhang et. al (2021) also point out that there is a broad variation in quantitative measurements conducted in the field and call for more consistent metrics. Both studies conclude that learners with lower proficiencies and non-adult participants are particularly under-researched, calling also for more research of the processes of collaborative writing. Schools have in the last two decades increasingly become equipped with digital technology, writing is frequently practiced using these tools, and this makes it imperative that we examine how technology is used in collaborative writing and in second language as part of this. This scoping review aims at giving an overview of the current knowledge on collaborative writing in L2 set in junior and senior high school conducted in between the years 2010 and 2024. To address the issue, the following three research questions are asked: RQ 1: What are the general characteristics of research literature on collaborative writing in digital environment when it comes to emerging topics, key characteristics, theoretical approaches, methods used and empirical findings? RQ2: How is technology use addressed in these studies? RQ 3: What research gaps and limitations can be identified? Method This study follows the guidelines for scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Our review will systematize and analyze peer-reviewed English empirical and theoretical articles published between 2010 and 2025 on collaborative writing using digital tools in L2 classrooms. The review by Zhang et al. (2021) reports increasing interest in collaborative writing from 2010 with 6 publications in 2010 and 13 publications in 2011, also technological progress made sharing documents easier in this period, therefore this review addresses research after 2010. A search string including three elements covering equivalents and frequent synonyms (1) junior and senior high school students, (2) collaborative writing, and (3) English as a second language was used searching for relevant articles. Complete search string will be made available during the presentation at ECER 2025. Seven databases were searched: Academic Search Premier, Education Source, ERIC, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were chosen for three reasons: (1) to access educational research, (2) to access material from a variety of fields as the research question touches different fields of research, and (3) with a special focus on linguistic research based on the results of trial searches that showed a wide body of research on collaborative writing in L2 is conducted by researchers within the field of applied linguistics. Titles, abstracts and key words of the first 200 articles were assessed with respect to inclusion and exclusion criteria by all three authors, thereafter the first screening was completed by the first author. The inclusion criteria for the review are (A) English as a second/foreign language, (B) English as a school subject, (C) junior and senior high school (D) collaborative writing process, (E) use of digital technology, (F) articles from peer-reviewed journals, and (G) English language. Studies where target categories are mixed with other categories and cannot be isolated, work that focuses on writing without collaboration, and book chapters and grey literature are excluded. The second and third author screened all articles that the first author was unsure of and each screened also 100 randomly chosen articles to test the reliability of the first screening. The process was conducted in the software Rayyan. Full text reading of included articles was shared between all three authors, this included discussions of notes documented in an Excel Sheet. Articles that the authors were unsure about were read by at least two of the authors. Expected Outcomes This is work in progress but is planned to be completed in good time before the ECER 2025 conference. Currently, we are conducting in-depth reading, collaboratively analyzing emerging topics, key characteristics, theoretical approaches, methods used and empirical findings. We expect to provide an overview of how collaborative writing and digital technologies are conceptualized and studied, identify research gaps in the existing literature on collaborative writing with digital technologies in English as a second language in junior and senior high school classrooms. Preliminary findings in similarity with Zhang et al. (2021) and Zhang & Plonsky (2020) document a very limited body of research in junior high school, lack of research on use of Microsoft Word in collaborative writing, while wikis and Google docs are frequently addressed, writing processes such as pre-task planning, modelling and composition processes are also scarcely addressed in the research. References Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Berge, K. L., Evensen, L. S., & Thygesen, R. (2016). The Wheel of Writing: A model of the writing domain for the teaching and assessing of writing as a key competency. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1129980 Zhang, M., Gibbons, J., & Li, M. (2021). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A systematic review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100854 Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753

• Knudsen, Tina Charlotte; Grøndahl, Vigdis Abrahamsen; Helgesen, Ann Karin; Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Grønlien, Heidi Kristine (2025). BEYOND HOSPITAL WALLS: DIGITAL HEALTH SERVICES IN NORWEGIAN PUBLIC HOSPITALS – IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NURSING ROLE. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg Hognestad & Hontvedt, Magnus (2023). On the Move to Learn – A video-study of academic achievement and physical activities in a 4th grade math class. Full text in Research Archive
• Hontvedt, Magnus & Krange, Ingeborg (2018). High Intensity Learning? — A video-study of academic achievement and physical activities in a 4th grade math class. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg; Rasmussen, Ingvill; Ferguson, Leila Eve & Bakkene, Hildur (2018). Critical Literacy Skills: Exploring the Effect of Different Teaching Styles in High Schools History Education. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg; Silseth, Kenneth & Pierroux, Palmyre (2016). Facilitating Students’ Conceptual Learning on Science Center Fieldtrips. Full text in Research Archive
• Pierroux, Palmyre; Krange, Ingeborg; Silseth, Kenneth; Jornet, Alfredo & Arnseth, Hans Christian (2014). Field Trips to Science Museums: A Study of Students’ Sense-Making when Interacting with Exhibits. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). "Contextual learning. An Educational Miracle." An interview. International Innovation Disseminating science, research and technology. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg; Pettrem, Yvonne & Nordland, Arve (2013). Miracle. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). How Knowledge Is Made Relevant. [Journal]. Check Point e-Learning. Special- Edition ONLINE EDUACA 2013.. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Dolonen, Jan Arild (2013). Editorial: Representations in learning. [Journal]. Pan European Networks: Science & Technology, No 09, p 80-81.. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). A Learning MIRACLE. [Journal]. Pan European Networks: Science & Technology, No 09, p 80-81.. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). Et digitalt Miracle. [Journal]. MuseumsNytt. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). F21 samarbeider med Universitetet. [Journal]. •Akers Avis Groruddalen. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). Bridging schools, science centers, and companies with ICT. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). Making design experiments informed by learning research. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). Trekker museet inn i klasserommet. [Internet]. The Norwegian Research Council, Verdikt programme's project . Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). Et digitalt Miracle. [Journal]. Teknisk ukeblad. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2013). A Learning Miracle. Imporving Conceptual Learning by Designing and Using digital and Analogue Devices in formal settings. Full text in Research Archive
• Bakken, Sven Magne; Haavie, Jon; Isdal, Edith; Toussaint, Jeremy; Nesnass, Richard & Krange, Ingeborg [Show all 10 contributors for this article] (2012). Varmepumpespill - installasjon i utstillingen EnergiTivoli. Full text in Research Archive
• Kluge, Anders & Krange, Ingeborg (2012). How to link different interactive models of the same phenomena. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2011). “Procedural and conceptual learning – Students’ use of 3D models in science”. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2011). "MIRACLE prosjektet - Mixed Reality Interactions across Context of Learning.". Full text in Research Archive
• Kluge, Anders & Krange, Ingeborg (2011). "How to link different interactive modelsof the same phenomena across technology, sites, and contexts for productive learning?". Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2011). IKT og læring: Hva trodde vi og hva vet vi nå? (ICT and Learning: What did we beleive and what do we know now?). Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2010). Design of learning and experimental spaces in and across school and museum settings. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Arnseth, Hans Christian (2009). Students' meaning making in science - solving energy problems in a technology rich environment. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2008). Bruk av dataskapte 3D modeller i læringsøyemed. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2008). Bruk av 3D modeller i samhandlings- og samarbeidssituasjoner. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2008). Pensumforpliktende lærerintervensjoner i dataskapte 3D modeller og naturfaglig forståelse hos elevene. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2008). Pensumforpliktende lærerintervensjoner i dataskapte 3D modeller og naturfaglig forståelse hos elevene. Full text in Research Archive
• Ludvigsen, Sten Runar; Kluge, Anders; Krange, Ingeborg & Ulfsnes, Kari-Anne (2008). På nett med framtida i ti år. [Journal]. UniForum. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2008). A socio-cultural analysis of students’ knowledge constructions in science. Full text in Research Archive
• Rasmussen, Ingvill; Ludvigsen, Sten Runar; Moen, Anne & Krange, Ingeborg (2007). Part of the symposium: Learning across sites; new tools, infrastructures and practices. Title of paper: Multiplicity and intersecting trajectories of participation; temporality and learning. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2007). What is it? Students' pursuing problems in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2007). What is it? Students' pursuing problems in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2006). Students conceptual practices – productive disciplinary interactions in a participation trajectory. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten Runar (2005). Learning Scientific Concepts: "But I don't understand...". Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten (2004). �Everyday and Scientific Concepts - Knowledge construction by students and teachers in a networked 3D learning environment supported by a web page: implications for design.�. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2004). Students' Conceptual Practice - Productive Disciplinary Interactions in a Mini Learning Trajectory. Full text in Research Archive
• Rasmussen, Ingvill; Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten (2003). Understanding the task: How is agency and knowledge construction distributed between artefacts, students and teachers? Full text in Research Archive
• Rasmussen, Ingvill; Krange, Ingeborg & Ludvigsen, Sten (2002). Understanding the task. How is agency distributed between tools, students and teachers in technology-rich learning environments? Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In this paper we explore how students¿ agency relates to openness and structure within technology-rich, student-centred learning environments. This is done by analysing how students¿ understandings of tasks evolve through their activities in relation to the representations in the learning environments. In our interpretation of the sociocultural approach, we emphasise human activity as mediated by artefacts, where the output of the activity has to be understood by including human action and artefacts in the unit of analysis. We conclude by arguing that the relation between openness and structure is not a fixed point in spite of the level of structure and the agents¿ achievement in their interaction. The process of understanding a task is often complex and not transparent.

• Krange, Ingeborg; Larsen, Anniken; Fjuk, Annita & Ludvigsen, Sten (2002). Describing construction of knowledge through identification of collaboration patterns in 3D learning environments. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Recent research has to a limited extent explored the nature of collaborative knowledge construction in 3D environments. In this paper we describe this issue by identifying two collaboration patterns that are manifested in the students¿ dialogues and actions in a particular 3D learning environment. The theoretical framework is found within socio-cultural perspectives that view learning as socially and culturally constructed and of which artefacts are considered as inseparable from human activity. In agreement with the intellectual heritage, the collaboration patterns are identified through analyses of various extracts of dialogues and actions taken place between the students and how these extracts are operationalised by available artefacts. Interaction analysis constitutes the analytic tool.

• Frölich, Trude; Krange, Ingeborg; Arnseth, Hans Christian & Arge, Erlend (2009). World Beside i klasserommet. World Beside. Full text in Research Archive
• Krange, Ingeborg (2008). Computer-based 3D models in science education - Studying artefacts and students' knowledge constructions. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA