This document summarizes the experiences of two teacher candidates using the digital tool Blendspace in their lessons. Their research thesis was to explore how Blendspace could make it easier to incorporate ICT in the classroom. They found that Blendspace removed barriers by allowing teachers to gather various digital resources in one place, making ICT use simpler. It also increased possibilities for adapted education, collaboration, and student contribution through features like commenting and peer assessment. However, they also encountered some practical challenges like limited school resources and technology acting as a time thief.

1. 15 May 2015
Teaching with
Blendspace
A tool for incorporating ICT as a
natural part of lessons
Kandidat 36 & 55
UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ
“Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working
together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important.”
Bill Gates
Department of Education
Bachelor LRU-2001 Class of 2012
Candidates: 36 & 55

2. 1
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Research thesis.................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2
A short introduction to Blendspace ........................................................................................................ 3
Relevant pedagogical theory................................................................................................................... 4
Behaviorism......................................................................................................................................... 4
Sociocultural Theory............................................................................................................................ 5
ICT in schools........................................................................................................................................... 6
Digital citizenship ................................................................................................................................ 6
Digital natives, Digital settlers and Digital immigrants ....................................................................... 7
How sharing digital resources is changing the teacher landscape...................................................... 8
ICT’s effect on subject learning outcome.......................................................................................... 10
Action-learning and Action-research. ................................................................................................... 12
Methods used for gathering empirical data...................................................................................... 13
Class dialog........................................................................................................................................ 14
Observation....................................................................................................................................... 14
Log ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Collaborative reflection groups......................................................................................................... 15
Ethics and moral.................................................................................................................................... 16
Ethical experiences from teaching with Blendspace......................................................................... 16
Informed consent.............................................................................................................................. 18
Practical challenges ............................................................................................................................... 19
School economy and capacity........................................................................................................... 19
ICT as a time thief.............................................................................................................................. 20
Focus on the pupil ................................................................................................................................. 21
A platform for adapted education .................................................................................................... 21
Pupil-centered teaching .................................................................................................................... 23
Pupil contribution.............................................................................................................................. 24
Using pupil feedback for developing practice................................................................................... 26
Affecting Teacher pupil relations? .................................................................................................... 27
Final words ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................... 29

3. 2
Abstract
This paper contains our reflections and experiences from using the digital tool Blendspace
actively in our lessons, as part of an action learning project. The purpose was to explore the
possible advantages from using Blendspace and gain new experiences on possible
applications of the tool. Our research thesis was: How will Blendspace as a digital tool make
it easier to use ICT in the classroom? Our main findings were that Blendspace did in fact
make the use of ICT easier, increasing the possibilities for adapted education, collaboration
and pupil contribution. It removed time thieves and increased pupil motivation through the
use of immediate response, peer assessment and increased content relevance.
Research thesis
How will Blendspace as a digital tool make it easier to use ICT in the classroom?
Introduction
Most teachers who have tried using information and communications technology (ICT)
actively in class know there are many unforeseen events that might occur and hinder,
sometimes completely destroy, their lesson plan. Yet, the same teachers can also have
wonderful experiences using ICT in the classroom. We believe that the deciding factor for this
variable is planning and digital competence. Even though we consider ourselves as fairly
competent users of digital tools, we also encountered some of the same problems during our
first practice. This made us wonder how a teacher could limit such unforeseen events by
finding an effective way of managing digital tools. This is when we found the digital resource
Blendspace, which allowed us to do so in an effective manner. This led to Blendspace being
the focus of our action learning project. This paper will present some of the underlying
theories and ICT research relevant to our action, as well as our own experiences and
reflections from teaching with Blendspace throughout the project.

4. 3
A short introduction to Blendspace
Blendspace is a digital tool. It is a website that allows the user to create multimodal
presentations online. When a user creates a new Blendspace he/she is presented with a blank
canvas which is divided into tiles. Each tile can contain a single resource (even a resource
with resources). This could be almost any kind of media. Blendspace supports iframes and
general embed, which is supported by most 2.0 web applications. It also supports rich text.
The layout can be changed to have different patterns of tiles, making some bigger and other
smaller. The color of the tiles can be changed based on content, and it has the ability to turn
tiles into scrollable bars. Each tile can be commented on and liked/disliked. This gives users
an easy way of communicating their thoughts and opinions to both teachers and fellow pupils.
Blendspace is connected to multiple other digital resources, which can all be accessed through
the editing screen, making it simple and fast to use. Blendspace offer users the ability to
gather digital resources from many different sources, and compile them onto a single canvas.
This makes using digital tools in the classroom simpler for both teachers and pupils by
bringing the resources to them, instead of spending time having to go to every single resource.
This way, time can be used for learning instead of waiting. This ability to bring new digital
tools into a familiar one increases the probability of a successful lesson with digital tools, for
both teachers and pupils.
“Blendspace is like a map of digital resources,
helping pupils navigate a massive digital world. ”
- One of the authors

5. 4
Relevant pedagogical theory
Behaviorism
Behavioristic theorists claim that an individual learns based on stimulus and response. They
believe reward and penalty forms the motivation for all human action. According to Imsen
(2012) this was transferred to the educational system by Burrhus Frederic Skinner, who
coined the term ‘operant conditioning’, which does not operate with reward and penalty as
terms, but positive and negative reinforcement instead. These reinforcements can be both
physical and mental in appearance: an individual might not be directly punished or rewarded
by an action, but his/her actions could lead to an outcome that is either conceived as a positive
or negative experience by the subject. (s.179-183). Being given a chocolate or a round of
applause are both examples of positive reinforcement that will most likely result in a positive
experience. On the other hand, negative reinforcement could be having to pay a parking
ticket, or a pupil receiving a look of disappointment from the teacher because he/she had
nothing to show for a presentation. The individuals would then try to correct their behavior in
order to avoid such negative experiences, leading to them take a different course of action the
next time they find themselves in a similar situation. “Positive reinforcement functions as
rewards when they are added to the situation, and negative reinforcement functions as a
reward because they remove something from the situation.” (Imsen, 2012, s. 184)
If we transfer this to the classroom it means that positive experiences from lessons would be
considered as positive reinforcement, whereas negative experiences would be negative
reinforcement. Behaviorism as a theory has developed further in recent years and increasingly
more common is that the expectations of an individual works as a motivator for an action.
“Principle of self-interest: The individual do what pays off in its own interest. Especially
seeking joy and avoiding pain are motivation principles that often recur.” (Imsen, Elevens
verden, 2012, s. 31)

6. 5
Sociocultural Theory
Lev Vygotsky (1896 -1934) is unarguably one of the most influential theorists when it comes
to sociocultural theory. We believe his theory is highly relevant for group work, collaboration
and adapted education. According to sociocultural theory, learning is something that happens
as an interaction between individuals in a cultural setting. Language and social interaction
forms the basis of all learning. Vygotsky argued that “development must be understood as a
result of different development principles, and various principles could make itself applicable
with a variety of strength in different periods of life.” (Imsen, Elevens verden, 2012, s. 254)
This indicates that Vygotsky saw possible applications for many pedagogical theories, and
that a variety of methods could be used at different times to better further learning throughout
a pupil’s education. Vygotsky as seen in Imsen (2012) claimed that there is a limit to what a
pupil could be able to master on his/her own. We can illustrate what the pupil could master on
his/her own as a small circle. Outside of this circle is the zone of proximal development, a
larger circle that represents what the pupil could master with guidance from a teacher or more
knowledgeable peers through mediation. Mediation can be viewed as a combination of
response and stimulus. The greater the knowledge of the teacher or peers, the greater the zone
of proximal development (s.258-260). An important aspect of Vygotsky’s theories is adapted
education. In order to keep developing, the pupil needs to get slightly harder tasks than his/her
level, so that they can expand the borders of their zone of proximal development.
«In the theory of zone of proximal development lies as mentioned a solid awareness of
adapted education, specifically that the education shall not be on the same level as the
pupil already masters, but on a slightly higher level, so that the pupil must strive
slightly.” (Imsen, Elevens verden, 2012, s. 261)
Vygotsky claimed that language is the most important tool for learning. The social interaction
between individuals has its roots in the need for communicating complex thoughts. In order
for a pupil to learn and develop with his teacher or peers, and expand the zone of proximal
development, communication is paramount. It important to note that Vygotsky argued that
pupils could only learn from their teacher or a grown up through mediation: “If two pupils sit
and fumble their way to an answer through collaboration that is social constructivism, but not
mediation” (Imsen, 2012, s. 259)
There was an underlying idea that «Development stretches from a state where the child can do
things together with others, and to a state where it can do things on its own.” (Imsen, Elevens
verden, 2012, s. 255) Which in turn would create an independent individual that can mediate
others to help expand their zones of proximal development, as well as their own.

7. 6
ICT in schools
Digital citizenship
Digital citizenship covers a wide area of skillsets related to the consumption and creation of
digital content, as well as moral and ethical challenges, and can not be defined in a single
sentence. What forms the basis for Digital citizenship is the use of Information and
communication technologies (ICT), which over the years has grown from encompassing radio
and television, to computers and the internet.
“ICT (information and communications technology - or technologies) is an umbrella
term that includes any communication device or application, encompassing: radio,
television, cellular phones, computer and network hardware and software, satellite
systems and so on, as well as the various services and applications associated with
them, such as videoconferencing and distance learning. ICTs are often spoken of in a
particular context, such as ICTs in education, health care, or libraries.” (Rouse,
2005)
While the internet in theory is a place where one is free to do as one pleases, society, be it
digital or physical, requires some rules in order to function. We feel that teaching digital
citizenship to pupils is equivalent to teaching young children how to behave in social settings
and gain the required skills to survive in the world. This includes teaching digital literacy;
how to filter good and bad information, understand privacy, copyrights and use digital tools.
Australia’s Educational service defines Digital citizenship this way:
“The acceptance and upholding of the norms of appropriate, responsible behaviour
with regard to the use of digital technologies. This involves using digital technologies
effectively and not misusing them to disadvantage others. Digital citizenship includes
appropriate online etiquette, literacy in how digital technologies work and how to use
them, an understanding of ethics and related law, knowing how to stay safe online,
and advice on related health and safety issues such as predators and the permanence
of data.” (Education Services Australia, 2015)
Norway on the other hand does not use Digital citizenship as a term, but Digital Skills instead.
We believe that this will change in the future. Norway has already redefined the basic skill
previously called; “be able to use digital tools” into the new definition: “Digital skills”. As

8. 7
we see it this indicates that there is a common understanding, for the fact that a digital
curriculum needs to cover more than just the use of digital tools. At the moment Norway
defines digital skills like this:
“Digital skills means to be able to use digital tools, media and resources
appropriately and justifiable to solve practical assignments, collect and process
information, create digital products and communicate. Digital skills also means to
develop digital judgement through acquired knowledge and good strategies for
internet use.” (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012)(Translated from Norwegian)
While there is no global agreement on what digital citizenship is, we have shown that the term
finds common ground in national curriculums and the ICT skillsets many countries aim to
teach to pupils. Norway’s government has through the Center for ICT in education created an
online resource with classroom modules that teach the ICT competence aims from their
national curriculum. (Senter for IKT i Utdanningen, 2014).
Digital natives, Digital settlers and Digital immigrants
According to Gasser and Palfrey (2008) pupils born after 1980, when technology like Usenet
and bulletin board systems came online, are so-called digital natives. They use computers and
cellphones in their daily life, and many stay online for most of the day. The pupils are more
connected now than ever before, living in an information age where everything is just a click
away. They are connected through social networks and digital means of communication, and
often meet friends online before meeting in person. “Major aspects of their lives – social
interactions, friendships, civic activities – are meditated by digital technologies. And they’ve
never known any other way of life.” (Gasser & Palfrey, 2008, s. 2).
This brings with it many new aspects to teaching, and the schools have to adapt to the digital
native’s needs. Digital immigrants, born before the internet was in full effect, will have a very
different relationship to the digital world. Some might struggle to adapt to an increased
amount of digitalization and never truly understand the digital world the same way as a digital
native, while some will have no problem naturally adapting to this digital environment.
One important thing to note about digital natives is that even though they are born into
technology, it does not mean they are all naturals when it comes to incorporating digital tools
in their personal learning. “While some are online around the clock, some visit the internet a

9. 8
few times a week, and some rarely visit the internet and stay away from social media.”
(Lillejord, Manger, & Nordahl, 2013, s. 42) The ones that often go online are not necessarily
ICT experts either. They are above all consumers. Part of our jobs as teachers in this digital
age is teaching how digital tools can further learning and be used to create new content, not
just consume. We should function as administrators of knowledge, and teach them how they
can reuse what others have already created, how to continue to develop someone else’s work
and how they can use it to solve their problems and how their work can help others.
How sharing digital resources is changing the teacher landscape.
The birth of the internet gave way to a whole new world of resources for teachers to use in
their classrooms, removing the limits of geographic location and individual creativity.
“Though we have shared knowledge through the wonderful medium of books, only a
fraction of human knowledge actually is published. Until the arrival of the computer,
sharing knowledge, an important basis of education, was more wishful than real.”
(Dhanarajan, 2002, s. 65)
We believe it is safe to claim that teachers share their lesson material more often now than
before the birth of the internet. This does not mean that the willingness to share has increased,
rather that it has become convenient to share due to how easy it has become. We need only
look to a few digital resource sites to understand why this claim is evidently true. YouTube
alone has an abundance of lesson material that could be used for flipped classroom lessons. It
also has explanations, tutorials and video lectures, just to mention some of the material it has
to offer. As an example, we search for the mathematical term “addition” on YouTube. At this
moment (20.4.2015) it yields 1.590.000 results. Let us say that one percent of these videos are
suitable for teaching addition. That equals 15900 videos. For a single teacher to make that
many different videos about addition during his career he would have to make 265 videos
each year for 60 years. The potential reach of a lesson is only limited by access to the internet,
and the cost of sharing is free or next to none. The current reach of the most viewed video
about addition on YouTube “Basic Addition by Kahn Academy” is at this moment
(20.4.2015) at 2,489,576 views. For a single teacher to reach this many pupils without video
(for the sake of the argument we pretend all the viewers are pupils) he would have to teach
113 different pupils addition every day for 60 years. That is on average 5 classes per day.

10. 9
When teachers make a digital resource, they do not have to make extra copies or set aside
time to show other teachers how to apply the material to their lessons. They are not required
to burn the media to a physical DVD for distribution and sharing with other schools does not
require the tedious process of burning multiple DVD’s. They can share their work with a push
of a button, choose to forget about it, or choose to get feedback from other teachers on how to
improve it. The fact that it is so cost effective and easy lowers the threshold for teachers to
share their lessons. Combined with the advantage that sharing works both ways teachers are
able to use each other’s lessons, which means the individual teacher does not have to reinvent
the wheel every single day in order to create variation and personalize learning in his/her
classroom.
It is common knowledge that teachers have to teach a wide variety of subjects, even subjects
in which they have little or no education. By being able to use material created by someone
who has extensive knowledge on the subject instead of providing an emergency alternative,
the teacher is able to provide the pupils with the best possible base for learning about a
subject. A study on elements that impacts learning outcome: “What makes great teaching?”
by (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins, & Major, 2014), indicates that “….the search for a relationship
between characteristics such as academic qualifications or general ability and student
performance has been rather disappointing: correlations are typically very small or non-
existent…” (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins, & Major, 2014, s. 18) We believe this goes to show that a
teacher can build “a road” for his pupils with “bricks” made by others, and be able to build a
better road than if he had built it using the “sticks” that he possesses. Even if the teacher has
no idea how to make bricks he can still build a road and help the pupils walk it. The point we
are trying to make is that sharing resources enables teachers to build strong lessons for their
pupils even without extensive knowledge and experience on the given subject.
We believe teachers know this. They know using others can help their pupils learn more.
They know that if they are going to teach genetics the pupils can learn more from a video
made by a PhD in genetics than from a teacher who attended a lecture or two on the subject.
“On one hand, the planet is filled with highly skilled and talented people in all fields
of human endeavor. On the other, critics of global educational systems constantly
bemoan the fact that, by and large, the academic talent needed in our schools,
colleges, and universities to enhance the quality of the learning environment beyond
perceived levels of mediocrity is in short supply.” (Dhanarajan, 2002, s. 62)

11. 10
When teachers find great digital resources they might bring them into their school, and
different teams. This could help establish a sharing culture at the school, which in turn helps
improve the base for organizational development. As a bonus, teachers get firsthand
knowledge on many of the aspects of Digital Citizenship, and having experience from
creating and consuming digital content in education provides them with a unique competence
which they can transfer to their pupils. Doing so can also help bridge the generational gap
between pupils as digital natives, and teachers (age 40+) as digital immigrants, making ICT
lessons highly effective for both adapted education and building teacher/pupil relations.
ICT’s effect on subject learning outcome
As part of the national curriculum, the use ICT is in Norway today a part of the five basic
skills1
and must be incorporated into every subject. However, there is a global debate whether
it furthers learning outcome or not. Undoubtedly the most important part of teaching is
exactly this: the pupil’s learnings outcome. This is what we strive for as teachers, why we
adapt education, why we differentiate methods and content, all to increase the chances of the
pupil learning something in our lessons. “Learning outcomes describe what a learner is
expected to know, understand and be able to do after successful completion of a process of
learning.” (Education and Culture DG, 2009, s. 11) Computers and ICT is rapidly becoming a
part of every classroom, as in our closest school district: “Tromsø municipality has a high
focus on ICT in school. Every 8th
grader receive a personal computer.” (Tromsøskolen,
u.d.)(Translated from Norwegian) this means that teachers have a wonderful opportunity to
use computers and ICT in their classrooms, but how much it should be used is still a question.
Why it is a question is easily understandable, as researchers do not seem to agree “The impact
of ICT use on learning outcomes is unclear, and open to much debate.” (InfoDev, 2015). Yet,
we compare this to how video was supposed to revolutionize schools and radio before that,
and we believe that as with any tool, the determining factor is how it is used. This is why we
think that much of the research being done at the moment has no validity due to the variations
in each teacher and their use of ICT. There are too many factors which could contribute to
unreliable data. To be able to determine the true learning outcome of ICT one would have to
improve reliability by having the same teacher teach the same lesson to a huge amount of
1
the five basic skills, namely orals skills, reading, writing. digital skills and numeracy.
http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/_english/Framework-for-Basic-Skills/

12. 11
pupils. Yet, this is unrealistic and we would settle for the same lesson being though by
numerous teachers, however the personal traits of the teacher will still create unreliability.
There is another way to determine the learning outcome of the use of ICT, by turning the
research around, one could do a massive standardized test on a huge amount of pupils. This is
not a perfect way to research the topic, and should discover a correlation as best, but as we
know correlation does not always equal causation:
“ Overall, we find that students’ PISA test scores in reading, mathematics and science
increase with the intensity of computer use for Gaming activities while they decrease with
the intensity of computer use for activities that are more related with school curricula….
However, the number of activities (and hence the diversification of activities), irrespective
of the intensity of computer use, is positively correlated with students’ proficiency in all
three PISA domains in the vast majority of countries, indicating that computers breadth of
use, as opposed to intensity of use in a given activity, has some positive effect on students’
PISA test scores. ” (Federico & Massimo, 2013)
“… some positive effect….” Reading this a certain x-files reference comes to mind; “I want to
believe”2
. We want to believe too, yet as we see it the use of ICT is about more than
improving test scores. As we have mentioned, digital citizenship is a major part of the 21th
century, teaching with ICT is arguably more about teaching them these necessary skills than
increasing the learning outcome of a given subject.
“The structure and content of learning activities should equip all children, youth, and
adults with the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes they need to survive, to improve
their quality of life, to empower them to participate fully and responsibly in the life of
their communities and nations.” (Dhanarajan, 2002, s. 61)
Dhanarajan might not be talking about ICT exclusively, but it is easy to understand that this
applies to every subject. Therefore we cannot afford to leave digital tools which truly defines
the 21th century behind. We have seen sceptics and some ambiguous research, yet there are
those who claim to show positive effects as well. “A longitudinal study of a statewide
experiment with computers in the classroom found that those most in need of help—low-
income, low-achieving students, and students with disabilities—made the most gains.”
2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443701/

13. 12
(Haddad & Jurich, 2002, s. 39) To us, this is another great argument for why ICT has to be
incorporated into schools, regardless of effect on learning outcome. Low income families
might not be able to afford many of the digital devices that high income families can. These
children risk being analog in a digital world, if they are not able to practice with and use these
tools. The study indicates that those with low or no knowledge of ICT had the greatest
outcome of using ICT, while those who already knew some had little or no gains. We believe
it is reasonable to assume that the teacher’s limited knowledge of ICT is a contributing factor
to why these groups of pupils made so such high gains from using ICT in school, while the
other side of the spectrum made little to none. These pupils possibly knew more about ITC
than the teachers did, which is why they were unable to show significant gains. Determining
the effect of ICT on learning outcome is hard. From our own experiences we are unable to say
for certain whether our pupils had a greater subject learning outcome from using ICT actively,
yet we clearly saw that ICT allowed for the reinforcement and implementation of several
central aspects of both behaviorism and sociocultural theory. We will come back to this later
in the paper.
Action-learning and Action-research.
There are many directions within the action research term itself, as presented in (Bakke &
Germeten, 2013). Here, the term is defined as a family of research methods, with both
differences and similarities between the different variations. Common for all action research
projects is that the researcher does not settle with observing, but actively works to make a
change or improve something by uniting theory and practice. “The word ‘action’ directs the
attention towards active action and the ability to look for new solutions to problematic
situations.” (Furu, 2013, s. 47) (Translated from Norwegian). Action learning take this a step
further. Tiller arguments that the term ‘action learning’ applies to the systematic
development-work that teachers do at a school, and that the term ‘action research’ applies to
the work researchers do when they research in collaboration with teachers and school-leaders.
Tiller (1999) as referenced in (Bakke & Germeten, 2013), defines action learning as a
continuous learning- and reflection- process supported by colleagues with the intention of
getting something done. It is closely related to action research, and Tiller describes it as the
‘baby brother’ of the action research family. He states that one of the main points of action
learning is to change and improve something within the organization, while learning about

14. 13
how and why this change happens. From this, one can derive that terms like lifelong learning
and learning culture are central points in all action learning projects.
Tiller (2006) argues that there has been a paradigm shift in school development ever since
LK06 was implemented. He describes three paradigms of an action research project. In the
first paradigm the researcher observes from a distance, while trying to have minimal impact
on what is being observed. In the second paradigm the researcher has moved close and
observes from an inner perspective, while still having little to no impact on what is being
observed. During our practice period, we worked in what Tiller calls the third paradigm,
which he describes as the paradigm that contains the researching partnership; “The
researching partnership describes practicians and researchers working together to ask the
questions, and keep working together as partners to find the answers” (Tiller, 2006, s. 12)
(Translated from Norwegian).
Relational Skills is perhaps the most central term when it comes to working in the third
paradigm. This includes relations between all participants of the project, as well as their will
and ability to cooperate, share and work together towards a common goal. Action learning
puts and increased focus on being thorough and systematic. An action learning project
combines both researcher and teacher into one, and puts them in a researching partnership.
When the researching partnership works, it can create an enormous learning potential for all
parts in the project. By working in the third paradigm, practicing as a teacher while doing a
research project in collaboration with other teachers, researchers, school leaders and pupils,
one can uncover problems and find solutions more easily. This gives the project reliability, as
the researchers base their work on real experiences form practice in the field, giving a better
feel for the organization than if one were to observe from the first or second paradigm, it also
helps the researcher become part of a researching team with a common goal of improving an
aspect within the organization.
Methods used for gathering empirical data.
We exercised a wide variety of methods for gathering empirical data. The methods we used
the most were observation and personal notes from the classes we taught with Blendspace.
“More than any other technology, the Internet opens new
opportunities for collaborative work. From group discussions

15. 14
to full collaborative research projects, the Internet
has the potential to connect classrooms to research centers
and students to actual scientists, as does the Global
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)”
(Haddad & Jurich, 2002, s. 36)
Class dialog
Throughout our practice period we frequently asked the pupils what they thought of using
Blendspace in class, and whether they were learning from it or not. We kept an open dialog
with the pupils during our stay, which enabled us to better monitor their learning. By
receiving feedback on how we were doing along the way, we could actively adapt and
improve our lessons with Blendspace. We chose to use dialog as a method for gathering data
because dialog is a natural part of any teacher/pupil relationship.
“The purpose of dialog is to improve the connection and understanding between two
people. The form should build relation, and increase insight when it comes to theme,
opinion, attitude and the person’s value standpoint.” (Spurkeland, 2012, s. 60)
Dialog is useful for building teacher/pupil relations, as well as getting to know the pupil’s
personal thoughts and feelings on different matters, making it easier to adapt ones teaching to
better fit their individual needs. From this we can derive that dialog enables adapted
education, because the lesson can be adapted and improved based on feedback directly from
the pupils themselves.
Observation
Throughout the practice period we actively observed as a method for research and gathering
empirical data. One of us taught while observing from the third paradigm, while the other
observed from the second paradigm while taking notes. After the lesson we would meet up
with our practice teacher to discuss the session. Here, the observations really came into play
as an integral part of the learning process, helping us understand and interpret the different
situations that might have arisen during class. In our experience observation as a method of
research is an excellent way of gathering data when working on an action-learning project, but
there are many aspects one also needs to consider when doing so.
Simply put, observing is about using the senses to gain impressions and gather information.
Bakke & Germeten (2013) argue that if one uses observation as a method of gathering

16. 15
empirical data, one needs to consider multiple factors that might affect the reliability of the
data being gathered. When observing from the third paradigm the observant needs to combine
being in the center of a teaching situation, keeping an eye on what is going on in class, while
at the same time using his/her senses to actively gather and interpret information. (Bakke &
Germeten, 2013, ss. 109-111) Observing everything at all times would be impossible, so the
reliability of the information that’s gathered depends on how well the observant can sense
what is going on in the classroom at all times.
Log
During and after each lesson we wrote a log of our observations, including thoughts and
opinions on what had worked, and what did not. We did this individually in order for us not to
affect each other’s impressions. Our action learning project focused on the usage of
Blendspace in class, and we sensed that our own impression of how this worked in the
classroom was just as important as the pupil’s thoughts, because the successful execution of
Blendspace usage in the classroom requires thorough planning. While we are fully aware of
the fact that it is almost impossible to plan what each pupil is actually going to learn from a
lesson, we felt that the general impression we were left with after a class formed a useful basis
for further development and reflection over the pupils learning outcome. The essence from
these notes later formed a basis for collaborative reflection and dialog during the counseling
with our practice teacher.
Collaborative reflection groups
The collaborative reflection groups with our practice teacher were based on our thoughts from
the recent classes, and often resulted in new ideas, further development or remakes of our
lesson plans. We perceive this as completely in line with the theory that in an action learning
project; the action is continuously evolving as one gains new experiences related to the action,
as we did after each lesson, which helped drive the action learning forwards.
“The strength in action learning is that the people in the organization get more
attentive to, and better at, making use of what already exists of knowledge and
generate learning by reinterpreting yesterday’s experiences in light of today’s and
tomorrow’s experiences.” (Tiller, 2006, s. 51) (Translated from Norwegian).
These collaborative group sessions also formed the basis for further imaginary examples in
the form of “what if” scenarios, which in turn helped improve the sturdiness of our

17. 16
Blendspace lessons by providing further usage areas and lesson layouts. We feel that the
empirical data gained in these sessions were useful in more than one way. The experience
from years of teaching helped our practice teacher enlighten both the positive and negative
aspects of utilizing Blendspace as a tool in the classroom. These sessions were an important
part of the process of our project, and the various scenarios we explored further increased
both empirical data and our belief in reflection as an essential part of action learning.
One can make a connection between our process and Tillers learning staircase, which includes
four stages or steps of learning from experience. After observing a class we had a dialog with
our practice teacher and fellow pupils about our thoughts and experiences. This was the first
step on the staircase. The dialog helped us reflect to better understand, categorize and
organize our experiences, moving us up to the second step on the staircase. When our
experiences were organized we could connect them to other experiences, both our own and
others, to improve and adapt our teaching. At this point we were at the third step on the
staircase, and could also contribute more to the researching partnership by sharing our own
experiences. By continuously working with the project we eventually connected our
experiences to theory and included them in this article, ending up on the fourth step of the
staircase. (Tiller, 2006, ss. 38-40)
The researching partnership developed in a positive direction throughout the practice period.
At first there was an inconsistency in collaboration, as we had just recently met, and we
needed to develop a common understanding or “language” in order to discuss and reflect well.
When this was established we could easily contribute more to the partnership. We brought
new digital tools and terminology, and our practice teacher brought experience and practical
teaching knowledge. We feel that as the researching partnership developed we could take
more and more advantage of each other’s skillsets. This led to new discoveries and
exploration of new practical applications of digital tools. We were encouraged to try and
combine new and old methods of teaching, which we in hindsight benefitted greatly from.
Ethics and moral
Ethical experiences from teaching with Blendspace
Collaboration is a big part of what it means to be born in the 21th century. Digital tools offers
a lot of possibilities in this area, but also introduces new challenges for us as teachers. While

18. 17
Blendspace offers teachers a great tool for introducing different media to pupils to further
their learning outcome and adapt to different learning styles through differentiation, it also
allows for easy collaboration between pupils. We had very few negative experiences from
using Blendspace in the classroom, however there were incidents that gave us insight into
how pupils might misuse this tool. The comments section on each tile in a Blendspace lesson
offer pupils a means to share their thoughts and ideas about a certain resource. However, the
teacher has to make sure that the pupils stay on subject and use the comments in a suitable
manner. What we encountered was a pupil commenting on the relationship towards another
pupil. Our practice mentor was immediately very clear towards the pupil that this was
unacceptable behavior and we never encountered a similar incident in this class again. From a
behavioristic perspective this would be considered negative reinforcement, as the pupil would
avoid posting more unacceptable comments in order to avoid correction from the teacher.
Thus removing the negative experience through adjustment and improving of behavior. While
the incident in itself was rather harmless as it was over quickly, it could easily have escalated
were it not for adult supervision. This leads to prove how important it is to teach pupils digital
citizenship, because like general manners children are not born with them; they have to be
taught. Anyone who has ever read a YouTube comment section knows that the internet is full
of hateful and hurtful messages. Less known however is why pupils lose the natural inbuilt
filter stopping them from sending hateful or hurtful messages; in person, they would rarely
ever say the same hurtful things. Research on the subject connects it to the development of the
pre-frontal cortex, according to Michael Anissimov (2015) the frontal cortex controls many
areas connected to decision making and seeing consequences from actions. One should note
that this is the area of the brain that finishes developing last, “its development is not complete
until around age 25.” (Anissimov, 2015) While it seems genetics are partly responsible for
adolescent lacking inhibitions towards posting hurtful messages, this does not mean that
nothing can be done to help them. As an entry to the Google Science Fair, Trisha Prabhu
(2014) did a project on cyberbullying. She applied a program to over 1500 volunteering
adolescent’s computer that worked as a filter, reading their messages and warning them if
their message contained hurtful or hateful words, giving them the option to either send the
message or revise it. “Results proved that adolescents were 93.43% less willing to post
mean/hurtful messages using a "Rethink" system compared with "Baseline" system without
alert.” (Prabhu, 2014). We believe that this demonstrates how important supervision and
adult guidance is in educating good digital citizenship. While adult supervision on the internet
for all teens at all times is impossible, using digital tools in the classroom to model how to

19. 18
practice good digital citizenship is in the 21th century equivalent to teaching young children
manners. This applies to all digital tools, not just Blendspace, using them in a controlled
environment as the classroom yields a wide learning outcome and teaches them skills that are
no less important in the 21th century than reading, writing, math or oral skills.
Informed consent
During our first lesson with our practice pupils, we presented them with our plan for the
month: That we were going to be using Blendspace for most lessons, have the USA as theme
and that we would be doing an action research project during our stay. We did not feel the
need to require the pupil’s written permission, as our action research project focused on using
Blendspace as a digital tool and we did not intend to use any personal results or information in
our paper. Our action learning project focused on the method rather than the pupils, making
the aim of the project to improve our lessons with digital tools. This in turn meant higher
quality ICT lessons for the pupils, and more knowledge to be shared in the researching
partnership.
If our action learning project was reliant on personal data from the pupils, we would be
required to gather written consents of pupil participation from the parents. We did not,
because no sensitive or personal data affecting the pupils would be included in the paper, and
our project followed their normal progression.

20. 19
Practical challenges
School economy and capacity
Considering the economy at a school, teachers have to be smart when choosing resources for
the classroom. Costly programs and hardware might yield a higher learning outcome. This
however is not well documented and when economy is taken into account, the learning
outcome per dollars spent simply does not compare to free software. Cost is a big question in
any institution, and even if it provides great learning outcome for pupils, it is in some cases
trumped by another factor;
“....decisions on the use of technology for educationare, first of all, educational
decisions. Yet, the immediate costs of a technology project often have greater impact
on decision makers than its potential benefits.” (Haddad & Jurich, 2002, s. 46)
We believe that for school to successfully incorporate ICT into their classrooms, software has
to be free/cheap, easy to use, and the technical requirements for using the equipment must be
easy and accessible as a general standard. This correlated with the findings of Salehi & Salehi
(2012) which concludes that: “… insufficient technical supports at schools and little access to
Internet and ICT prevent teachers to use ICT in the classroom. Shortage of class time and
time needed to learn using ICT were reported as two other key barriers for teachers to
integrate ICT into the curriculum.” (Salehi & Salehi, 2012, s. 4) Therefore our use of
Blendspace can be easily adapted and introduced to other schools. Blendspace is completely
free to use, as they recently they became part of the TES Global foundation3
, which led to the
previous premium features like teacher collaboration to be accessible to all users.
What offers the most gain per money spent on ICT equipment is unarguably the computer.
The underlying argument for purchasing and using computers is that more and more of their
tuition takes place in a digital world, where the digital tools for learning are abundant. The
resources for learning are considerably more plentiful online than any school could physically
possess, as the internet contains enormous amounts of information. Dhanarajan claim that
“...the total of information available to an undergraduate in 1997 was less than 1% of what
will be available to a student in 2050.” (Dhanarajan, 2002, s. 61)
3
TES Global claims to be “The largest network of teachers in the world”, they are now a private
equity-backed company and use their capital to acquire promising digital resources for education and
make them free to use for educational purposes. http://www.tesglobal.com/history

21. 20
This number is mind-bobbling. It leads to reason that this information will not be in
textbooks, nor will it be in a physical library, it will be in the cloud; online. Internet and
computer serve like a window to the world, but with near endless amounts of information the
digital world could also be a source of distraction, digression and heresy, making the
administration of knowledge essential for teaching and learning in a digital world.
ICT as a time thief
A claim against the use of ICT in the classroom is that it in some cases can steal a lot of time
that could be put to better use. From speaking to teachers and using ICT actively in our
lessons we are very aware of the fact that ICT can lead to a lot of time being spent on other
things than learning. A common argument we hear is that; if the teacher him/herself was very
competent at the use of ICT, the problem would be solved, because the teacher could use ICT
in front of the class instead of them “stealing” time. This is from our point of view, even
though we exaggerated slightly, a seriously flawed argument. The limitations one often
encounter in the classroom when working with digital tools from a Smartboard or projector, is
that interactive sites and detailed resources are being discarded as they are not accessible to
the pupils and as the learning outcome from these resources is too limited when not performed
by each pupil. One can argue that a personal computer in itself can help remove this barrier
and open up new resources to the pupil, of course we agree, however the fact remains that
pupils use a lot of time just navigating and locating the content.
From having taught with and without Blendspace we can safely say that the experiences are
worlds apart. The difference is accessibility, and having all the digital resources you need for
a lesson in one place is a huge advantage. We experimented with short URL’s and google
docs as a platform for distributing digital resources to our pupils, yet this remained ineffective
and time consuming. Pupils often failed to open new tabs and have multiple resources open at
the same time, leading them spending unnecessary much time on finding their way back to the
resource bank. Even simple tasks like entering an URL can be a challenge to some pupils and
helping multiple pupils individually is very time consuming. We realized that we should
never underestimate the “simplicity” of a given task. The simpler and more fail proof we
could make using digital tools the better. Blendspace solved our problems. The ability to have
pupils sign up into your classroom and thereby always have access to all lessons made offered
us an easy way to distribute numerous resources from one single source. The interface is also
very intuitive, which helps pupils avoid becoming lost in advanced menus and irrelevant

22. 21
technical submenus. The lessons we created placed each resource into different tiles, which in
turn provided the pupils with a clear overview of the lesson, as well as all the resources. Many
resources can be embedded right into the tiles, which in turn removes the need for pupils to
open new tabs in order to use them. This meant that time was spent on learning, rather than
waiting and finding where they were supposed to be. It is reasonable to believe that this
simplicity decreased procrastination and external distractions as well, as we rarely saw
anything not subject related on their screens.
Focus on the pupil
A platform for adapted education
Pupils learn in different ways. They enjoy working with different tasks and pupil participation
is shown to have a positive effect on learning. Blendspace provided a tool for achieving this in
the classroom. Yet, a tool on its own is just a tool; in the hands of the right person, great
things can spring forth. Blendspace is first and foremost just that, a tool. What can be done
with it however, is only limited to the imagination of its user. What we experienced from
working keenly with Blendspace was that our lesson plans automatically became more
dynamic. This flexibility contributes to adapted education, which is all about adjusting
methods, content and level of complexity to suit the pupil’s needs. Adapted education is an
important part of Norwegian schools today.
“The school owner (the local or county authority), and the administration and staff at
the educational institution must undertake to provide satisfactory and adequate
teaching based on the individual’s abilities and aptitudes. Adapted education involves
choosing teaching material, methods and structures to ensure that each individual
develops the basic skills and satisfies the competence objectives. This means that the
teaching must be adapted on the individual and group levels.”
(Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2008)
In Vygotsky’s legacy, sociocultural theory, adapted education play a major part in order for
pupils to reach the next zone of proximal development. Yet, as the zone of proximal
development varies for each pupil, they are in need of different task and/or material in order
to reach the next level of development. What makes one pupil grow can have no impact on
another pupil, and if too complex, a negative effect on those pupils who find it too hard.

23. 22
As an example we can use the process of viewing a video in class. Video is a wonderful tool
for teaching, yet teaching from a Smartboard or showing a video from a projector forces
pupils to view the same content. Knowing this, we as teachers have to select a resource which
is not too hard and not too easy, but somewhere in the middle. This is turn can lead to the
video being too superficial for some pupils, and too intricate for others. Not being able to
adapt a resource is not limited to video alone, but also text and other resources which could be
varied in complexity. From experience we know that sometimes we expect a group of pupils
to be able to understand and grow from a lesson we have made, yet it turns out that the
content we had made was too complex or too easy. In a perfect world the teacher would
probably have several different videos to show to pupils in case this happened, yet a choice
would still have to be made: Do I choose a harder or easier video? In Norway teachers have to
adapt lessons to their pupil by law. Norway’s Education Act § 1-3, states that “The education
shall be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual pupil, apprentice and trainee“
(Opplæringsloven, 2015, ss. §1-3) which puts pressure on teacher to choose carefully. By
having laptops for every pupil the teacher does not have to choose, the pupils can do that
themselves. We can provide Blendspaces’ which cover the same competence aims, but teach
them through various adapted resources and media. Dhanarajan (2002) claims that “Teachers
have to become expert in helping learners to navigate through this sea of information rather
than attempt to be effective transformers of that information into knowledge for the learners.”
(Dhanarajan, 2002, s. 61) We agree with him to a certain degree; we think that this is the final
goal, to educate lifelong learners. However, we have to teach them to walk before they can
run. By adapting the lessons to each pupil we provide them with the understanding that there
are many different means to gain knowledge, slowly opening their eyes to self-exploration of
possible resources.
We could further adapt the lessons by providing different tasks to choose from. Offering the
pupils an opportunity to choose whether they write questions, a summary or flashcards as a
task would require very little extra time for the teacher, but could mean a world of difference
to the pupils. Being able include choice could further help cover several different
intelligences. Howard Gardner claims there are 9 different intelligences4
, and using methods
and content related to the intelligence of the pupils will increase their learning outcome.
However his theory did not at first include 9, but 5 different intelligences (Gardner, 2011, ss.
4
Verbal-linguistic intelligence, Logical-mathematical, Spatial-visual intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence,
Musical, Interpersonal intelligence, Intrapersonal, Naturalist intelligence, Existential intelligence
(www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/learning/howard_gardner_theory_multiple_intelligences.pdf)

24. 23
vii,viii) this proves, as with all theory, that it is a work in progress which will continue to
develop. As a side note we imagine his next intelligence to be connected to digital
consumption and cross-media processing.
We strongly feel that digital tools such as Blendspace can help to not only adapt the lessons
better towards each pupils needs, but also lower the stigma of those pupils who often require
significantly easier tasks, as all pupils potentially could be given adapted tasks.
It is extremely important that those pupils who struggle can have material adapted to them,
this way they will have the opportunity to feel mastery and not defeat. We can apply
behavioristic thinking here; if the pupil does not master a task or if the task is too hard for that
pupil he/she will have a negative experience, which in turn could lead the pupil to develop an
anxiety towards that particular task, or tasks in general. To remove this negative
reinforcement, the pupil could chose to not do the task or try to hide his/her work from the
teacher. Whereas if the task is adapted to that pupil, they will more likely succeed and they
will feel mastery and gain a positive experience from doing such tasks. This could in turn,
depending on the outcome, have a negative or positive effect on that pupil’s motivation.
Pupil-centered teaching
An introduction is almost a customary part of any lesson, yet we experienced a significant
decrease in how much time was spent on the introduction after bringing Blendspace into the
classroom. We believe this in turn, combined with the excitement of uncovering and seeing
what activities were in the tiles today, increased the pupils’ attention to the teacher at the start
of a lesson. Knowing that the introduction was short, the pupils could now devote their full
attention to the teacher since they would soon be able to work on their own. The teacher using
less time to speak meant more time for pupils to work. This led to us seeing a shift from time
spent speaking to the whole class, to more time spent speaking to individual pupils. The
pupils gained the opportunity to ask us questions they might be afraid to ask aloud in class,
and it also made it easier to pick up on misunderstandings or flaws in the lesson. We think
that by allowing for pupils to find and use their own content in lessons, as well as allowing for
differentiation in both pace and task, we contributed to a high degree of pupil-centered
learning and increased motivation. However, one should be aware of the implications of bad
or sluggish planning.
“ICT may not be expected to contribute to creating innovative, pupil-centered
learning environments unless the teachers involved pay attention to the potential of

25. 24
ICT too facilitate curriculum differentiation. Teachers should adopt the role of a
coach who actually hands over a substantial part of the responsibility for the learning
processes to the pupils.” (Smeets & Mooij, 2001, s. 14)
As Smeets and Mooij point out; the teacher has to facilitate for curriculum differentiation. As
we have mentioned earlier; what we offered through Blendspace was not curriculum
differentiation, but task and content differentiation. We believe this to be a better way of
creating pupil-centered learning, as every pupil will work on the same skills, but with content
of different levels of difficulty and a choice on which task to work with. This further
increased the focus on the pupils as they had the option to teach other without being told the
answers from the teacher, but offering a way for pupils to contribute to each other’s learning.
Pupil contribution
Adapting lessons to suit each pupil does not have to be done by the teacher, but could be
accomplished by the pupils’ themselves. We had experimented earlier with adapting the
lesson task in a way that empowers the pupils to choose their own media. Yet Blendspace
enabled us to do so in a more efficient way, and presented us with new opportunities. Even if
it is stated in the Norwegian education act that; “Pupils and trainees shall learn critical
thinking, act ethically and be environmentally responsible. They shall have responsibility and
the right to contribute.” (Opplæringsloven, 2015, ss. §1-1) We feel that pupil contribution is
a natural part of learning and that teachers should always adapt to be more of a facilitator for
pupil learning, rather than the main source of knowledge. At several occasions we had the
pupils make their own Blendspace exploring a given theme. One of the themes were “great
landmarks in the USA”. They would gather different media and information, we rarely saw
the same resources being chosen twice even if they had picked the same landmark. The
integrated option to invite fellow pupils to collaborate on a Blendspace offered the
opportunity to work together, not based on seating, but common interests. “Pupils that are
mainly motivated to learn on a basis of interest and enthusiasm for a subject will more easily
take the initiative to learn, and not be dependent on constant encouragement” (Lillejord,
Manger, & Nordahl, 2013, s. 134). We would have a couple of groups present to each other,
sometimes a group or two would present their finding to the whole class. Pupils are motivated
to learn by interest. “For children and young people to evolve well academically, student
engagement is necessary.” (Manger, Lillejord, Nordahl, & Helland, 2013, s. 76) We
experienced high pupil activity and engagement when they got to create their own

26. 25
presentations in Blendspace. Blendspace offers plenty of ways for the pupils to take control of
their learning. The pupils chose their own theme, what resources to use, and got to work in
their own pace. As the pupils were in control of their own learning and got to progress in their
own time, few fell behind. With the pupils’ interest and engagement, paired with the extra
time we gained from teaching with Blendspace, we could be spend more time to present and
credit the pupils’ work. Since they did not have to make document after document or even
make a presentation, but could present directly from Blendspace, we experienced many pupils
spontaneously wanting to present for the class. This empowered the pupils to be in charge of
their own education, and feel as if their work meant something. Their work was used to teach
others, not stored on their computers and forgotten. Here we can form direct lines to
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory; the pupils were able to build on each other’s knowledge. By
sharing knowledge they increased their zone of proximal development, drastically increasing
the potential learning outcome of lessons. Vygotsky claimed that only teachers and more
knowledgeable adults could be mediators, we however believe that pupils can mediate each
other as well. We think that Vygotsky’s argument was more in line with the social hierarchy
of his time, as todays teachers accept the fact that pupils may be more knowledgeable than
they are in certain areas. This being said, we reason that positive reinforcement from
behaviorism also played a major role here, as the pupils would be “rewarded” by the respect
and appreciation from their classmates through collaborative learning. Using digital tools
allowed us to incorporate immediate responses to the pupils, both from us, their classmates,
and automated response, which in turn showed a positive effect on pupil motivation.
Immediate feedback is important. We know this from our own experiences. Few like to wait
for responses on emails, work they have done, or even the first response to a Facebook status.
Seen from a behavioristic point of view the quicker the feedback (positive reinforcement)
follows the action, the more effectively it can help the pupil improve. As long as pupils know
how to give constructive, instead of destructive feedback, we see no complications by letting
the pupils practice assessing each other’s work. The method for teaching described here is not
something new or revolutionary, and we can remember doing this 15 years ago. What is
revolutionary is the quality of the presentations compared to how little time it requires to
make and how easy it is for pupils to master. Every single one of our pupils managed to
produce something of worth every time we tried this method. Having pupils create content for
each other enables us as teachers to preserve these unique perspectives of how pupils
understand and process content. Which in turn could lead to new ways of arranging lessons
and new ideas on how to present content by having access to the work the pupils did in a

27. 26
lesson after the lesson. The teacher would be able to sit down after a lesson and learn from the
work the pupils did in class, even if they did not have the time to go through it in class. The
pupils would this way help the teacher understand based on their work, how they think and
how the teacher can improve lessons to better fit their needs.
Using pupil feedback for developing practice
A significant part of any lesson is collecting impressions and subtle feedback from pupils to
further help the teacher develop his/her own practice. However this part requires the teacher
to be in full control of both lesson material and social relationships in the classroom, so that
observing does not get in the way of teaching. As we discussed earlier combining the role of
the scientist and the role of the teacher at the same time is very challenging and a wonderful
ideal to work towards, yet we see this as unrealistic for newly educated teachers. This in itself
does not mean that fresh teachers are incapable of improving their lessons based on feedback
from the pupils. We humbly suggest that those teachers who struggle in this area incorporate a
way for pupils to help review the lesson, whether it be “three stars and a wish” or a very short
self-assessment on what they understood or have learned this lesson. While we were lucky to
have several sets of critical eyes observing our lessons while we were in practice, this is not
the status of an everyday classroom. This is why we stress the importance of pupil feedback
as a means to improve lessons. During our practice periods we have grown accustomed to
asking our pupils at the end of a lesson how they felt about working in a certain way or if they
got a general understanding of the content. The feedback we receive often only represent a
few of our pupils, and to counter this and try to remove some room of error we incorporated
feedback in a natural and anonymous way as part of our lessons through Blendspace. Since
Blendspace allows a teacher to add what resources he/she wishes, a short survey at the end of
a lesson path could help gather information from every pupil on how they felt about elements
in a lesson yielding far greater reliability to the feedback than just asking aloud in class. This
does not only help the teacher improve, self-assessment for pupils is also a very powerful tool
in learning as part of formative assessment. According to Norway’s department of Knowledge
“Schools acknowledges the assessments importance for learning, but many schools find it a
challenge to make assessment an integral part of students' learning processes.”
(Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2007 - 2008). This in turn indicates that it is not the will to
implement assessment that is lacking, but the tools to do it as a natural part of a lesson. By
having the several different ways of collecting feedback and assess, both the teachers and the
pupils work can be accessed easily through Blendspace. Since pupils can comment and like

28. 27
on any resource, the tools for improvement feels like a natural part of the lesson. It is not
something that is forced upon the pupils, but rather an option to share their thoughts. We saw
the comment section being used actively in our lessons, both to share their thoughts and to
provide alternative resources for their fellow pupils. We as teachers could then after a lesson
ended, grab a coffee, and read through the pupil’s comments to see what caught their
attention, what engaged them, what confused them, and so on. The ability to collect this
information while still being able to concentrate on being present in the classroom and
dividing attention towards the pupils and their learning instead of being caught up in
observing and taking notes for our action learning project was incredibly valuable, not only to
us, but to our pupils as well.
Affecting Teacher pupil relations?
There is no denying the importance of good teacher/pupil relations. Spurkeland (2012) defines
relational skills as: “Skills, abilities, knowledge and attitudes that establishes, evolves,
maintains and repairs relations between human beings.” (Spurkeland, 2012, s. 17). Plenty of
theorists have touched upon this subject, and even though some of their opinions might
differentiate, they all agree that such relations have an impact on learning. "Generally
speaking, warmth and close relations between teachers and pupils lead the pupils to thrive
and evolve both emotionally, socially and academically.” Baker (2006) as referenced in
(Manger, Lillejord, Nordahl, & Helland, 2013, ss. 70-71)
Before initiating our project we anticipated a number of challenges related to the use of
computers in the classroom. Among them was the thought of the computers becoming like
walls between the teacher and his/her pupils, affecting the possibilities of building and
maintaining positive teacher/student relations, by offering ways of digression and heresy. We
did experience some of this at the beginning of our practice, when we were still
experimenting with how to use Blendspace in class. Based on these experiences we started to
include attainable goals for the lessons, as well as progression instructions in the Blendspace
presentation itself. With clear guidelines, and all the resources in one place, the efficiency of
the lessons increased because the pupils always knew what they were supposed do next. This
way we avoided time thieves and gained a lot more time to roam the classroom. We had more
time to focus on individual pupils and build better teacher/pupil relations. Research has shown
that teacher pupil relations have an impact on both motivation and learning: “This meta-
analytic review provided evidence for the importance of both positive and negative aspects of
the TSR for students’ learning at school. Overall, associations of TSRs with engagement and

29. 28
achievement were substantial.” (Oort, Spilt, Roorda, & Koomen, 2011) We think that we
were not able to spend enough time with the pupils to fully reap the potential benefits from
getting to know them better, but what is important is the positive trend we saw. It is important
to note that as in every social group, the more time the individuals spend with each other, the
stronger their relations grows. So there is an element of unreliability here. However, we could
roam the classroom and give credit and show interest for their work. We were able to learn
many new things about the pupils’ through individual focus, which we would not be able to
do by teaching from the blackboard.
Final words
In our experience, the proper use of Blendspace enables a teacher to adapt lessons for the
pupils. When paired with observation and dialog to continually reflect over and improve the
lessons, Blendspace can get rid of time thieves and initiate interest and engagement. The
pupils have more control over their own progression and get to work together in an
environment that is familiar to them. We have seen that pupils contribute to each other’s
learning and assessment which intertwines with both sociocultural and behavioristic theory in
several areas. The feedback the pupils give on lessons can greatly improve the teachers
practice. By having the option to easily share and collaborate, both teachers and pupils can
learn not based on geographical borders, but on common interests; increasing motivation and
learning outcome through variation and relevance. Digital citizenship and the skills needed to
be proficient in the 21th century can be trained and worked on in a controllable and safe
environment, which still is very dependent on the teacher. Participants in an action learning
project with different backgrounds and experience can greatly benefit from each other as soon
as they find common ground and develop a mutual understanding for the project. We have
seen that the effects on ICT of learning outcome is subject to debate. However, we have made
it clear that we feel ICT has an important place in schools, and that bad results from teaching
with ICT is to blame on the teacher, not the tools. Finally, we would like to close by
recollecting that even government institutions do not know exactly what the future will hold
and what skills will be needed. This is why we encourage every teacher to keep an open mind
to the use of ICT in schools, and do not be afraid to use it, but remember what a clever cat
once told us:
“If you don’t know where you are going, then it doesn’t
matter which road you take, does it?”
—Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland

30. 29
Bibliography
Anissimov, M. (2015, February 12). What Is the Prefrontal Cortex? Retrieved March 16, 2015, from
Wisegeek: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-prefrontal-cortex.htm
Bakke, J., & Germeten, S. (2013). Lærerstudenten som aksjonslærer i klasserommet. In T. Tiller, & M.
Brekke, Læreren som Forsker (2 ed., pp. 109-123). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, E. L. (2014, October). What makes great teaching? Retrieved
April 20, 2015, from Suttontrust: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/What-makes-great-teaching-FINAL-4.11.14.pdf
Dhanarajan, G. (2002). Objectives and Strategies for Effective Use of ICTs. Technology in Education,
58-74. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=515
Education and Culture DG. (2009). ECTS Users' Guide. Belgium: Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Education Services Australia. (2015, April 16). Digital Citizenship - Glossary Term. Retrieved April 16,
2015, from Australian Curriculum:
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Glossary?a=T&t=Digital%20citizenship
Federico, B., & Massimo, L. (2013, February 17). Measuring ICT Use and Learning Outcomes: evidence
from recent econometric studies. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from Wiley Online Library:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12016/full
Furu, E. M. (2013). Lærerstudenten som aksjonslærer i klasserommet. In T. Tiller, & M. Brekke,
Læreren som forsker: Innføring i forskningsarbeid i skolen (pp. 45-61). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Retrieved May 10, 2015, from
https://books.google.no/books?hl=no&lr=&id=2IEfFSYouKUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=multiple
+intelligences&ots=3-
6N3OZPt2&sig=_BmVtMlx6z6eLL34vKEo4uBH97E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=multiple%20i
ntelligences&f=false
Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.
New York: Basic Books.
Haddad, W. D., & Jurich, S. (2002). ICT for Education: Potential and Potency. Technology in Education,
29-40. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=515
Haddad, W. D., & Jurich, S. (2002). ICT for Education: Prerequisites and Constraints. Technology in
Education, 42-56. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=515
Haddad, W., & Draxler, A. (2002). The Dynamics of Technologies for Education. Technology in
Education, 3-17. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from United Nations Educational:
http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=515

31. 30
Imsen, G. (2005). Livet i Skolen 1. Universitetsforlaget: Oslo.
Imsen, G. (2012). Elevens verden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
InfoDev. (2015, March 19). Knowledge Maps: ICTs in Education. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
InfoDev: http://www.infodev.org/articles/knowledge-maps-icts-education
Janssen, C. (n.d.). Digital Native. Retrieved April 21, 2015, from Techopedia:
http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28094/digital-native
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2007 - 2008). St.meld 31: Kvalitet i skolen. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from
https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-31-2007-2008-
/id516853/?docId=STM200720080031000DDDEPIS&q=&navchap=1&ch=3#KAP3-1-4_fn4
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2010 - 2011). Meld. St. 22: Motivasjon – Mestring – Muligheter —
Ungdomstrinnet. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from
https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/meld-st-22-2010--
2011/id641251/?docId=STM201020110022000DDDEPIS&ch=1&q=
Lillejord, S., Manger, T., & Nordahl, T. (2013). Livet i Skolen 2. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad &
Bjørke AS.
Manger, T., Lillejord, S., Nordahl, T., & Helland, T. (2013). Livet i Skolen 1. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.
McGill, I., & Brockbank, A. (n.d.). Developing Innovation in Online Learning: an Action Research
Framework. Retrieved April 12, 2015, from brockbankmcgill:
http://www.brockbankmcgill.co.uk/services/learning.htm
Oort, F. J., Spilt, J. L., Roorda, D. L., & Koomen, H. M. (2011). The Influence of Affective Teacher–
Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement. Retrieved May 13,
2015, from Sage Journals: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/81/4/493.full
Opplæringsloven. (2015, April 24). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa
(opplæringslova). Retrieved May 10, 2015, from Lovdata:
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61/KAPITTEL_1#KAPITTEL_1
Postholm, M. B., & Moen, T. (2011). Forskings- og utviklingsarbeid i skolen. Oslo:
Unviseristetsforlaget.
Prabhu, T. (2014, July 25). Rethink: An Effective way to prevent cyberbullying. Retrieved March 16,
2015, from Google Sience Fair:
https://www.googlesciencefair.com/projects/en/2014/f4b320cc1cedf92035dab51903bdd95
a846ae7de6869ac40c909525efe7c79db
Rouse, M. (2005). ICT (information and communications technology - or technologies). Retrieved April
21, 2015, from TechTarget: http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/ICT-information-and-
communications-technology-or-technologies
Salehi, H., & Salehi, Z. (2012, February 1). Challenges for Using ICT in Education: Teachers’. Retrieved
March 19, 2015, from International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and
e-Learning: http://www.ijeeee.org/Papers/078-Z00061F10037.pdf
Senter for IKT i Utdanningen. (2014, February 1). IKTplan. Retrieved April 13 , 2015, from Senter for
IKT i Utdanningen: http://www.iktplan.no/index.php?pageID=17&page=Om+iktplan.no

32. 31
Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centered learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: observations in
educational practice. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8535.00210/pdf
Spiegel, E. A. (2014, January 27). What We Can Do for the Next Generation. Retrieved April 9, 2015,
from Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140127102255-77238165-what-we-can-
do-for-the-next-generation
Spurkeland, J. (2012). Relasjonskompetanse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tiller, T. (2006). Aksjonslæring - Forskende Partnerskap i Skolen. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Tromsøskolen. (n.d.). Bærbar PC i ungdomsskolen. Retrieved April 13, 2015, from Tromsøskolen:
http://tromsoskolen.no/index.php?pageID=209
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2008). Equity in Education for All - understanding central concepts.
Retrieved April 21, 2015, from Udir: http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Equity-in-
Education-for-all---understanding-central-concepts/
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2011, 12 21). Generell del av læreplanen. Retrieved 11 13, 2014, from
http://www.udir.no/Lareplaner/Kunnskapsloftet/Generell-del-av-lareplanen/
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2012, Januar 11). Rammeverk for grunnleggende ferdigheter. Retrieved
April 16, 2015, from Utdanningsdirektoratet:
http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/lareplangrupper/RAMMEVERK_grf_2012.pdf?epslan
guage=no