The Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy (NJDL) is in its fourteenth year as an open access scholarly journal and historically the journal has been attached to ITU at the University of Oslo, the Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education, and the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

Since the beginning, the NJDL has been published by Universitetsforlaget (the Scandinavian University Press) and the last years this has been in collaboration with the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. After a reorganisation of the journal in March 2019, the journal is now published by Universitetsforlaget in collaboration with University of Bergen.

The NJDL was established in 2006 with Morten Søby as Editor-in-Chief until late 2016, when Ola Berge became the new Editor-in Chief for the following three years. I would especially like to thank Morten for his extraordinary contribution to the NJDL over the last decade, and I wish him all the best in the years to come. I am honoured to succeed Morten and Ola as the Editor-in-Chief of the NJDL, and I am also very grateful that Morten has agreed to continue contributing to the journal as member of the Editorial team.

From august 2019, the journal has also a new editorial team and the members are:

  • Ann-Thérèse Arstorp, associate professor, University of South-Eastern Norway.

  • Gréta Björk Guðmundsdóttir, associate professor, University of Oslo

  • Kjetil Egelandsdal, postdoc., University of Bergen

  • Kjetil L. Høydal, associate professor, Volda University College

  • Cathrine E. Tømte, associate professor, University of Agder

  • Fredrik Mørk Røkenes, associate professor, NTNU

  • Ove Edvard Hatlevik, professor, OsloMet

  • Lise Øen Jones, associate professor, University of Bergen

  • Massimo Loi, researcher, OECD

  • Morten Søby, senior advisor, the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training

On behalf of the new editorial team, I would especially like to thank the former editorial assistant/editorial member Marijana Kelentric and associate editor/editorial member John Christian Christiansen, as well as the other members of the former editorial team for their contribution to the NJDL the last years. As a result of their efforts, the journal has had a positive development over the recent years, with for example 62,000 article views in 2017, which is the third best of the 72 scientific journals at Idunn1 in 2017.

On behalf of the NJDL’s new editorial assistant, Øystein Olav Skaar and myself, I can write that it is our privilege to welcome readers to the first two issues of 2019.

The first paper in this issue of the NJDL, ‘Involvement with Response Technology as Student-Centring of Language Teaching: Upper-Secondary Student and Teacher Experiences’ by Einum, is concerned with the use of Response technology (RT) in secondary education. This is a qualitative-dominant, mixed methods case study design which examines how students and teachers experience student-centring of language teaching through RT-mediated involvement. The study identified two forms of involvement—active and passive, as well as other insights into how Response technology (RT) can be applied in secondary education.

The second paper in this issue, ‘Digital Bildung: Norwegian Students’ Understanding of Teaching and Learning with ICT’ by Gran, Pettersson and Mølstad, is a qualitative study with focus groups among students in a Norwegian school. The paper seeks an understanding of the students’ perspectives on digital Bildung, and the results indicate that the students experienced unwanted interference by the teachers during the school day, and that they felt a lack of democratic involvement in social conflicts, digital usages and other daily forms of decision-making. The paper suggests a need to further discuss students’ role in creating a better school system based on democratic ideals.

The third paper, ‘Nursing students’ experiences with the use of a student response system when learning physiology’ by Bingen, Tveit, Krumsvik and Steindal, is a qualitative study examining how Nurse students’ experience the use of a student response system (SRS) in learning activities when studying physiology. The study applied a flipped classroom design, and the data were collected using focus group interviews. The findings from the study indicate that an SRS can be combined with different pedagogical strategies and that teachers should be aware of what kind of questions facilitate participation in polls versus those that are perceived as too challenging.

The fourth paper, ‘Re-imagining literacies and literacies pedagogy in the context of semio-technologies’ by Chaka, explores and re-imagine the notion of literacy by, first, reconceptualising it in its plural form as literacies, and second, embedding it within the context of semio-technologies. Furthermore, the paper proposes, following three models (the standalone, infusion and cross-cutting models), how literacies can be curriculated and taught at both primary and secondary school levels. The paper also characterises the changing nature of learners and the changing roles of teachers in line with the ever-evolving literacies.

The fifth paper, ‘Clicker Interventions at University Lectures and the Feedback Gap’ by Egelandsdal and Krumsvik, is a mixed methods study examining how feedback from the interventions were received and used by teachers and students. The data material comprised data from a quasi-experiment with 6,772 student responses, student logs, a student survey and semi-structured interviews with the teachers in a philosophy subject. The results from the study show that students experience feedback supporting their self-monitoring and understanding of the content, and the teachers also experienced an increased awareness of the students’ understanding of the topics. However, the findings indicate a gap between the reception and use of the feedback.

The five papers presented in these two issues show that digitalisation and the use of ICT within education gives both opportunities and challenges and calls for a variety of methodological approaches in order to examine different research questions. This is in line with the assumption that ‘At times we aim to explore and discover, and at other times we aim to test and confirm’ (Pearce 2015, p. 42) when examining the use of educational technology in the digital era. Some of the papers show the importance of qualitative approaches to achieve an in-depth understanding of new, digital research areas (e.g. digital Bildung). Other papers show the need for mixed methods in order to examine the coherence or incoherence between the quantitative –and the qualitative findings in a study. While the quantitative data can reveal the strength of associations, the qualitative findings can show the nature of those associations in such mixed method studies (Fetters, Curry & Creswell 2013). From this we can observe a certain tendency where digital artefacts can be applied as both digital tools in an educational intervention and research tools in the data collection of the study (e.g. some of the papers which used Response Technology). To utilise such potential within educational research calls for an ethical awareness in line with the General Data Protection Regulation, 2 part of the educational interventions of the studies.

I hope that these five papers provide rich food for thought and open new avenues for future developments in the integration of technology to support ‘how teachers teach and learners learn’ in the digital era.


Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods de-signs—principles and practices. HealthS ervices Research, 48, 2134– 2156. DOI:

Pearce, L. D. (2015). Thinking Outside the Q Boxes: Further Motivating a Mixed Research Perspective. In, S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson, The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (Oxford Library of Psychology). London: Oxford University Press.