The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Cross-border collaboration in history among Nordic
students: A case study about creating innovative ICT
didactic models
Maria Spante, Asgjerd Vea Karlsen, Anne-Mette Nortvig, Rene B. Christiansen
	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
Gränsöverskridande Nordisk Undervisning/Utdanelse (GNU, meaning Cross-Border Nordic
Education), the larger Nordic project, under which this case study was carried out, aims at
developing innovative, cross-border teaching models in different subject domains in elementary
school, including mathematics, language, science, social studies and history. This paper provides anin-depth description and analysis of how four social science and history elementary school teachers
and their 70 students (5th–7th grades) worked together between November 2011 and December 2012.
Previous research regarding the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in history
education in elementary schools is limited, thus calling for contemporary investigations in thisparticular subject domain.
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, enhancing the combination ofteachers’ pedagogical, content and technical competence, was used as the analytical framework,
together with nation-specific curricula and the European Union’s recommendations regarding
students’ skills for lifelong learning. A range of empirical materials was analyzed, such as classroom
observations, students’ video productions, texts and photos distributed and shared on a mutual blog,
real-time interaction and teachers’ communication. The teachers tried out two ICT didactic models.
In the asynchronous model, the major focus was on the form and content of the video productions
being shared, whereas work with the synchronous model concentrated on the content and quality of
the communication. Notwithstanding obstacles, cross-border collaboration provided added value.
The nation-specific differences triggered curiosity and motivation to produce digital presentations ofhistory content to be understood by the students in the three nations, facilitating goal fulfillment incommunication skills and digital competence. However, achieving subject-specific goals in history
remained challenging. Keywords: E-learning; Collaborative learning; Cross-border; TPACK.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
The need for educational innovations in several Nordic countries in Europe has become increasingly
pressing, since a number of studies have shown unsatisfying performance rates among Scandinavian
students (Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] 2012). Various voices have called
for institutional changes, control over the curricula and increased documentation of students’performances. At the same time, there is a need for local innovations and experiments in theclassroom, where the teachers create learning designs that are close to the requirements of their own
students and local contexts. Such dual challenges at different levels, institutional as well as local,
created the backbone for the Scandinavian collaborative project named Gränsöverskridande Nordisk
Undervisning/Utdanelse (GNU, which means Cross-Border Nordic Education). It is a European
Union (EU)-funded undertaking that involves cross-border collaborations for educational purposes,
supported by information and communication technology (ICT), among Danish, Norwegian andSwedish schools dealing with similar problems of unsatisfying performance rates among students,
according to international comparative studies (PISA 2012).
The project began in 2011 and extends to 2014. It aims to develop innovative, cross-border teachingmodels in a range of subjects by means of user-driven, practice-based, co-design processes between
practitioners and researchers (Johansson-Svensson, Rustand, Steffensen, & Sofkova Hashemi, 2013;
Pareto, Gynther, Lindhart, Vejbӕk, & Wølner, 2013; Spante, Karlsen, Nortvig, & Christiansen, 2013;
Svedäng & Spante, 2014) in order to create supportive learning models suitable for local school
contexts, as well as cross-border collaboration situations in the Nordic countries. The researchquestion that drove the initiative was: In what way and form could cross-border collaboration
models, supported by information and communication technology, enhance motivation and learningfor students as well as teachers in the Nordic countries?
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

One key feature in the GNU initiative is that all project participants (students, teachers andresearchers) are required to communicate in their own Nordic mother tongue, since the threelanguages are related, and the various Nordic curricula emphasize training in the Nordic languages.
Therefore, communicating in the mother tongue has become an important prerequisite for driving the
project that aims to enhance learning. This situation has quite a unique setting, suggesting that theseneighboring languages, different but still related, can be used to collaborate due to communicative
prerequisites that are absent in other settings, when foreign languages become crucial forcommunication.
In the first year of the project, the participants comprised 18 classes from 13 schools in the ÖresundKattegatt-Skagerak region of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The teachers and students wereorganized into Nordic class-match groups (consisting of students and teachers from one class in eachcountry). In these class-match groups, new cross-border teaching models were co-created, tested andevaluated using iterative processes, as pointed out in design-based research (Kali, 2008). Several
subject domains, namely, mathematics, language, science, social studies and history, were selected,
since students in the three countries have shown their need for improvement in these areas, andmutual efforts in the search for new learning models were set in motion by the GNU project initiative.
In this paper, we report findings from the work with the subject of history, covering studies not only
about past events and ideas but also how these historical events might influence actions and ideas in
the present time.
The structure and content of the paper are presented in the following manner. First, we discuss issues
related to the subject domain of history in general and the use of ICT for motivation in such learning
situations, then present the aim of the work reported in this paper. This is followed by the theoretical
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

framework that has guided the analysis of the activities performed by teachers and students during
the project period. Next, we provide the project methodology and how the empirical material wascollected and interpreted.
In the result and discussion section, we present the empirical material that has been structured andanalyzed in relation to the theoretical framework, that is, the TPACK model by Mishra and Koehler(2006), together with our findings and the problems in the cross-border setup. Finally, we offer theconclusion and suggest some benefits of cross-border collaboration (notwithstanding its difficulties)
that could be generalized to a broader spectrum beyond dealing with Nordic cross-border settings in
the subject of history.
Literature Review
Previous research on the use of digital tools in history classes
This paper focuses on project activities linked to the subject of history in Nordic cross-border
settings, including a range of new learning situations and challenges. Recent research shows that
history is often among the least favorite subjects of many students (Turan, 2010). They find history
simple, irrelevant and boring (Turan, 2010), but studies have found that the use of ICT increases
student motivation in active participation, recall rate and achievement (Haydn, 2001; Turan, 2010).
Different studies show that the use of technologies in history education in elementary school has apositive effect on students’ historical and critical thinking and their understanding of various
historical subjects (Brown, 2001; Haydn, 2001; Taylor, 2003). However, problematic issues havealso been identified, such as finding out how to improve the subject of history when using ICT(Hayden, 2001), as well as difficulties in planning for and using suitable ICT tools to support rather
than distract students’ learning goal achievements in the subject (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Lipscomb,
2002).
	  	
  The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Questions remain regarding when and how to use which types of digital technologies to support andenhance students’ learning in the subject of history in elementary schools. It becomes essential tofocus on teacher competence, since previous research has shown that didactic situations become evenmore complex when digital tools are used in elementary history classes (Hofer & Swan, 2008), andwhen teachers and students work together in a cross-border setting, the complexity increases further.
Cross-border collaboration in educational practice has been regarded as one of the major shifts thatwill permeate educational institutions in the near future (Lee, 2012), highlighting the need forresearch in actual cross-border teaching situations. Such research becomes crucial because potential
promises of a new pedagogical setup do not necessarily reflect the actual possibilities andparticularly so when ICT is used; previous research has demonstrated that access and use are often
problematic in learning situations in schools (Cuban, 2009; Jedeskog, 2007).
PurposeThis paper describes and analyses how four social science and history elementary school teachers
and their 70 students (5th–7th grades) worked together from November 2011 to December 2012. The
research question was how to didactically work with and improve history education via cross-bordercollaboration using various digital technologies. The purpose was to find solutions to the specificchallenges the Nordic history class-match groups encountered during the different activities in which
they were engaged while trying to reach specific goals for historical learning.
Within the framework of the research question, we present the learning designs that were created andevaluated in the GNU project and linked to activities in history classes. We discuss the findings
concerning technology and language that shift attention from content to technology as such.
Moreover, in the project, we found a need to specifically focus on not only the teachers’
technological, pedagogical and content knowledge, but also on their ability to create clear learning
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

designs in order to inform the students more precisely than in the traditional classroom how theircollaboration and individual work are supposed to take place. The work contributes to the knowledge
about what possibilities and constraints teachers need to consider in cross-border learning situations,where group work and student participation are major concerns for the pedagogical setup, before
spending time and effort to arrange for such learning models. The paper provides empiricallygrounded information about important issues to address, linked to the new pedagogical landscape ofincreased collaboration among students and teachers across national borders for mutual learning andenhanced understanding.
Theoretical framework
The teachers’ role is crucial for learning (Hattie, 2008) to be successful, they would have to confrontand combine both content and pedagogy simultaneously (Shulman, 1986). For didactic innovations
and evaluations of their pedagogical benefits, it becomes imperative to address different perspectives.
When the didactic situation has added complexities such as collaboration with external partners andcommunication via technical systems, models for such a complex analysis are needed. One suchanalytical model initiative has been proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), who expanded on the
Shulman (1986) framework and presented the TPACK model that incorporates technology,
pedagogy and content knowledge into a coherent whole. The TPACK framework has been
extensively used in a range of subject domains. Since all aspects of the model are present in theactual situations in the GNU project among the history teachers, the model has become a sensemaking analytical framework in which to analyze the complex, cross-border collaboration inpedagogical settings in order to present suggestions for cross-border educational setups. Enhancing
the combination of pedagogical content and technical knowledge of teachers in learning situations,
the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (see Figure 1) was used as an
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

analytical framework to position the teacher teams’ activities with the students, detecting where ICT
didactic strengths and difficulties could be found. This model has been successfully used in previous
studies in the subject of history in elementary schools (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Schul, 2010; Swan &Locascio, 2008). The TPACK model separates three specific skills of teachers, linked to pedagogical(PK), content (CK) and technical knowledge (TK) in learning situations within given contexts. These
three specific skills can be combined in various ways, such as pedagogical and content knowledge(PCK), pedagogical and technical knowledge (PTK) and so forth.

Figure 1. The TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2006)
When all three skills are present in a given learning situation, they reflect the TPACK combination.
The TPACK is a complex competence to achieve but possible to develop. In combination with theanalytical model, we also used nation-specific curricula from the three countries and the EU
recommendations regarding students’ skills for lifelong learning, enhancing digital competence,collaboration, and collaborative and analytical skills (Recommendation 2006/962/EC) (EU, 2006).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Methodology
Aiming for sustainability in novel teaching models (Wang & Hannafin, 2005), the combination ofdesign-based research (Kali, 2008) and action research, as a methodology for stimulation and supportof innovation in learning and teaching models, has proven to be robust (Majgaard, Misfeldt, &Nielsen, 2011). During this collaborative process, a range of actions and documentations emerged.
The empirical material consists of students’ productions of videos, texts and photos distributed andshared on a mutual blog, teachers’ communications via e-mail and Google Docs documents, as wellas wikis, video uptakes from students’ real-time interaction on a digital system supporting video,
voice and texts (Adobe Connect [AC]). There were also documentations of classroom observations
by the researchers, as well as interviews with teachers and students from the three Nordic nations.
The material was analyzed by all researchers and focused on the activities of the teachers and thestudents and their expressed experiences.
Results and Discussion
A series of activities were conducted during the 2011– 2012 period. For each specific activity thatthe teachers planned and performed with their students, the researchers were also involved,
following the process from planning through performance and evaluations. The close collaboration
with and participation of these diverse actors (teachers, students and researchers) provided deep
insights into the various complex processes of collaboration in the cross-border setup for learning.
The activities presented in this paper are linked to the two general models put forward by theteachers – the asynchronous and the synchronous types. These models built on the teachers’ insights
into their restrictions and possibilities in each school such as schedules and availability of technology,
as well as in the curriculum in each Nordic country. We present the learning models in relation to the

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

timeline of each activity performed by the teachers and students. First, the asynchronous models are
discussed and analyzed in relation to the TPACK framework, followed by the synchronous model.
The asynchronous model
In the first activity, the Nordic teachers collaboratively planned to let the students produce a film thatwas organized in national student groups with the main purpose of saying hello to the students in theother two countries. Each video was then uploaded on a shared blog, and the students from the othercountries posted comments about the produced videos. This task was done so that the students could
start in a safe environment (as expressed by the teachers), get the chance to know one another andread texts presented in the three Nordic languages.
The second activity involved making a video presentation of their school, their town and the specificpart of the country where they lived. During the third activity, they were supposed to answer
questions from the students of the other countries about local historical persons, buildings, etc. The
answers had to be in the form of a video. This last activity was carried out such that the students
posed questions to one another and then responded in filmic language in order to awaken interest not
only in the presentation of their own country and culture, but also in the neighboring countries.
Danish students addressed their queries to Swedish students, who did the same to Norwegianstudents, who in turn posed questions to their Danish counterparts. Each group provided their
responses via video production (see Figure 2). The students were encouraged to reflect on thehistorical aspect and cultural identity of their familiar surroundings and were confronted with
(missing) knowledge about their Nordic neighbors (Nortvig & Christiansen, 2013).

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 2. Model for exchanging questions and video answers in the Nordic collaborative work
The students worked in groups in their respective schools, planning and producing the videos to beshared later on the common blog. Some of the students’ questions that would be answered as videos
were:Tell us about one important historical person from your town.
Tell us about an important historical building.
Tell us about an important historical person, the most important king in Norway.
What did Denmark do in the Second World War?
During the classroom observations, it was noted that the students concentrated on preparing thevideos. The videos – alongside the questions – were uploaded on the common blog so that theteachers and students were able to comment on them. Classroom activities were also shared on themutual blog where they presented activities linked to the GNU project. Below is a written sample
blog post of the Swedish participants about the questions from Denmark, how they first translated
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

these questions from Danish to Swedish and reflected on how to answer them and organize the workof presenting the answers in video format:“Hello everybody, Mölndal calling
Today we started to work with the questions from Roskilde. We translated the questions to Swedish
and worked in groups in order to answer the questions and figuring out how to move on to the nextstage. How can we make videos of our answers?:)”Typically, the students made an oral presentation and showed some still pictures of a historicalperson. Some ambitious work was also created, such as one student group that used the local
museum’s historical interior as a scene for the dramatized setup that answered the question of how
the city got its current name. For a presentation about a historical building, the students usually founda local building and shot the video on-site. (for the blog where their content is uploaded in Swedish,
Danish and Norwegian, visit http://gnu-historia.blogspot.se/p/glasbergsskolan.html). The students
searched for information about historical persons and buildings, primarily from open-source online
sites such as Wikipedia.
One key component of the asynchronous learning model was to have the students comment on one
another’s work. Typically, the students made general remarks about the videos, as well as how theyexperienced the language and presentation, for example:“You speak quite quietly and not so clear, but the video was otherwise good.”“You talked very clearly, and we understood everything you said. Good pictures and videos
too :)”“Hello, just talk more clearly; all the rest is good.”

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“We received very good answers on the third video, and it was very nice. You also talked
very clearly!”
In the first phase of the GNU project, the collaborative activities that were planned and executed by
the teachers and students were all organized according to various asynchronous setups. These
activities are positioned in this case study in relation to the analytical framework of the TPACK
model presented by Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler and Mishra (2009).
Technological skills are important when a task requires creating a video. A lot of the students alreadyknew and liked to use Microsoft Movie Maker or iMovie to produce the video, and they used theschools’ digital cameras to take photos. Even though many students were familiar with different
types of digital tools and information and communication systems, others still needed their teachers
to guide and support them during their production activities, such as how to save pictures, makevideos with Movie Maker/iMovie, use Audacity and Wikipedia, etc. Nonetheless, the students’
overall competence in using these types of technical tools for video production was high at each
Scandinavian school involving the particular class-match groups.
The group of teachers had initially planned to let the students discuss and comment on the videos via
Skype. However, it proved too difficult because of technical problems, primarily because the schoolin Norway was not allowed to download and use Skype due to restrictive rules in that particularmunicipality. The students were a bit frustrated because they wanted to talk and collaborate with one
another in real time and see their peers; they asked several times if we could solve these problems.
Our observations revealed their high level of motivation to collaborate across national borders. An
asynchronous way of working did not fulfill this need to a full extent. Nonetheless, the asynchronous
model involved the use of a range of technologies, particularly those linked to the tools and systems
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

needed for video production. Generally, the four Nordic teachers demonstrated skillfulness in using
these various tools and systems while guiding their students in their work. Accordingly, we describe
the participant teachers as very competent in TK, following the TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler,
2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009).
In this part of the asynchronous period, the plan was that the students should discuss the videos’historical content. This discussion took place among their respective classmates in each nation.
However, we observed in the students’ feedback to one another that they were more focused on how
they generally experienced the videos and understood (or not) one another’s spoken language than on
the relevant content of the videos (see citations above).
Our empirical work showed that the students had difficulties in understanding what was said in thevideos. They became aware of the importance of speaking slowly and clearly, which could help themin the synchronous meetings that would follow. The asynchronous period made them ask for a closer
encounter with the students from the other two countries, which eventually led to a synchronous
period where the students could interact in real time. The strong focus on student-driven question
formulation and video presentation as group work was evaluated as activities, following therecommendations on the development of collaborative and communicative skills that are found inboth national curricula (Denmark: Fælles Mål 2009 Samfundsfag (Faghæfte 5), Sweden: Kursplan isamhällskunskap för gundskolan, Norway: Læreplan i Samfunnsfag) and EU recommendations(Recommendation 2006/962/EC) (EU, 2006). The focus on group work in the assignments was also
evaluated as a sign of the teachers’ high competence in PK, facilitating and supporting project-basedlearning (Grant, 2002).

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

However, the rather superficial presentation of the historical content in the videos, as well as the lackof focus on the content in the discussion of the videos (i.e., students commented on language andtheir general opinions of the pictures rather than the local historical content that each video
supposedly presented), were interpreted as signifying a rather low score for the teachers in thisparticular activity linked to CK. However, it is noteworthy that this critical evaluation is only basedon the actual content of the videos produced in this situation and says nothing about the general CK.
The teachers also said in follow-up interviews that the time devoted to the specific GNU assignment
became more of a technical focus when they were helping the students, rather than guiding them
towards a more insightful historical content focus, thus highlighting the necessity for content focus in
the next phase of the GNU project.
The synchronous model
The teachers wanted more focus on the content in the cross-border collaboration after working withlocal history in the asynchronous setup. They also wanted to address the students’ wishes to work inreal-time situations with one another.
Due to different municipality regulations in the three nations, as well as varying school IT policies(Lundh-Snis et al., 2012), finding an acceptable, real-time communication system proved to be achallenging task. In order to work synchronously at all, AC turned out to be the only option, since
the overall GNU project could guarantee secure and free access to this particular program. The AC
system allows users to communicate via chat, voice and video. It is possible to present PowerPoint
and PDF documents, pictures and movies, as well as cooperate with common notes and thewhiteboard. Additionally, users can share a common view of screens and programs. It is also
possible to divide students into different breakout rooms and to record meetings.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The four teachers collaborated on the basis of their respective national curricula to find a common
denominator with which to work together. Children’s conditions in the 20th century were part of eachcountry’s curriculum in the subject and became the content focus. The teachers focused theirplanning on these questions: How did the children live their lives in the previous century? Whatsimilarities and differences could be identified in the three Nordic countries during this period?
What events had been significant in improving children’s lives in the Nordic countries during the20th century?
The three classes worked on these issues with the idea that cross-border cooperation would help thestudents connect major historical events with children’s everyday conditions during the 20th century,with special focus on the conditions for children in school. Students worked in class-match teams,
comprising a number of students from each school. Each group consisted of students from Norway,
Denmark and Sweden. The idea was that students would present and compare their findings to learn
from one another and draw conclusions based on one another’s presentations. Each group consistedof about 12 students (approximately 4 from each country, with some variations), and there were 6
groups in total, with 2 groups for each assigned time period – early, middle and late 1900s. The
ambition was to work actively with the understanding that the subject of history is not just about anumber of events without connections but also linked to experience and everyday life.
The three Nordic teachers designed the tasks for the students in a three-step sequential model:
Task 1) Students should find out how the situation was in their own country, with emphasis on
schooling. Inspired by the flipped classroom model, teachers posted presentations about parts of thecontent on the common blog, where students could take part in each country’s presentation.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Task 2) Students would connect in AC to share what they found in their respective class-matchgroups in the different breakout rooms.
Task 3) Students should identify similarities and differences based on the information they received.
Students’ activities
Before the students met in AC, they prepared their work in their respective nation classrooms with
their group members doing task 1. Then they teamed up in their respective breakout rooms in AC toshare and discuss their findings for tasks 2 and 3.
First AC meeting
During the first time in the AC setup, it was apparent that the students had received different
instructions on what the task would involve and how they should have prepared for the first meeting.
The Danish students had prepared to talk about their own school day at the present time. The
Norwegian students had prepared PowerPoint presentations with statements regarding the conditionsof children in each period of the 20th century. The Swedish students had prepared for a conversationon their investigation about their designated time period, with handwritten notes as reminders ofwhat to say to the other students. Although the students found it difficult to deal with these variations,they made their best efforts to work with their tasks, while struggling with echo problems in thesystem and managing their online turn taking, so they could talk one at a time instead of all at once.
“We have not made a presentation, but we would like to tell you about it, if it’s okay with you.”
The preceding quote illustrates that they had received different instructions on how to prepare for thetask of presenting and sharing their information. So does another example below:

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“We will tell you about the skammekroken,” say the students in Norway.
“What it that?” the Swedish students ask.
The Norwegian students start telling about the disciplinary method where disobedientstudents were put in a corner of the classroom. In explaining the method, the Norwegianword ‘slemme’ is used, which is unfamiliar to the Swedish students, who immediately ask,
“What does ‘slemme’ mean?”“It means mean,” the Norwegian students reply.
While the two student groups in Sweden and Norway are having this conversation, theDanish students are posting in the chat, “We have mathematics, Danish, English, domestic
science, sports.”
The preceding quote implies that the Danish students had prepared to share information about theirown day at school, as well as how they dealt with a sound problem in the AC system by using chatinstead of voice communication. They also had trouble following the line of conversation between
the Norwegian and Swedish students who were talking about a special disciplinary method that wasused in 1950, as well as providing language clarification when the Swedish students heard a
Norwegian word they did not understand. The students demonstrated both patience and motivation toconnect as best as they could and share the information they had prepared, despite troubles with thecommunication channels in AC.
“Now let’s write what we have learnt about the schools in the beginning of the 20th century.”
The preceding quote indicates how they needed to deal with the sound problem and find new ways toshare information, turning to the chat function in the AC system and still focusing on the task at hand.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The students also commented afterwards about their misunderstanding of the task:“Denmark did not understand the task. They thought they should write about when we started
and what subjects they had.”“Denmark talked about their schedule in school today, and Norway talked about the school,
how it was before.”“Denmark did not say much, but Norway made a Keynote presentation, but Denmark could
not get in, or rather, they did but said nothing.”“I thought we should discuss what we had to say and not make PowerPoints.”“I think we should be allowed to speak English because it is so hard to understand eachother.”
Second AC meeting
The second time, all groups had prepared PowerPoint presentations about the conditions for theschool children in each country during the designated time period, to be shared in AC. In spite of the
improved and combined activities, various problems continued for the students. All groups
experienced difficulties in how to present and share written text in AC. Due to this lack ofknowledge, it became almost impossible for them to read one another’s presentations. They were
loudly complaining about how their fellow students were moving their text on screen in AC. The
echo problem from the first time was still a major issue, and the difficulties in having a wellfunctioning, turn-taking model for communicating were also hard to surmount this time. The
students tried to overcome the echo problem and the turn-taking issues by using the chat function in
AC instead. For example, they commanded one another, as indicated in the chat: “One country
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

speaks at a time.” They also tried to guide the focus to the task at hand, involving each group in eachcountry to participate and contribute with comments such as: “Can you from Denmark tell something
about what happened in the 50s?” However, their enthusiasm to be in contact with one anotherseemed to have diminished, compared to their first AC meeting, when the enthusiasm wasinterpreted as high despite the obstacles.
Below are some examples about how they struggled in the AC system to upload and share their
prepared documents, making them lose focus on the content about children’s conditions at school
during the 20th century. At 11 minutes and 14 seconds in the video, the following series of actions
happen:Norway uploads their document, it disappears, it then comes back but is taken away again.
The correct presentation is uploaded.
The Swedish and the Danish students are reading the document. The Swedish students are
struggling with the text. Their teacher assists them.
Norway repeats the question, “What should we talk about?”
One Danish boy tries on the headset but quickly returns it to his classmate.
The uploaded document is scrolled up and down the screen, so it becomes very hard to read.
All student groups seem to concentrate on the activities at their respective ends; no extensive
collaboration is going on.
The Norwegian document is taken away; the Swedish document is uploaded and starts to be
scrolled up and down the screen.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The above sequence from an AC meeting was quite typical. Students were struggling with turntaking, language issues and how to share prepared documents, but they tried to overcome theseobstacles. However, since they became more and more oriented towards the activities in theirrespective classrooms rather than collaborating in the AC system, we interpreted these observations
as decreasing enthusiasm for cross-border collaboration in the real-time setting due to the problems
with technology and rules for collaboration across borders.
Third AC meeting
The third time, they tried again to present the same prepared presentation as that of the second
meeting. They still encountered difficulties when trying to share the presentations, and this time there
were clear signs that the students’ patience was being challenged. They paid more attention to theirclassmates than to those they worked with in the Nordic class-match group setting, yet still trying,but seemingly more driven by duty than by motivation. Below is a typical situation in this third AC
meeting, which manifests their difficulties and signs of diminishing motivation (their focus is drifting
away from the actual task by doing other things; they are increasingly disconnected but still in sightof one another in the AC system, with video, sound and chat channels running):
The Danish students are asking why it is not possible to paste text into the document.
In the background, a Norwegian student is writing on the blackboard with big letters.
The Norwegian students reply that they do not know how to copy and paste text into the
document. Meanwhile, there is a constant echo sound in the system.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“Isn't Justin Bieber just great!” the Norwegian student says. ‘Justin Bieber’ is written withbig letters on the blackboard. The Danish students are gesturing with their thumbs down, andthe Norwegian girl cannot believe her eyes.
The Norwegian students write in the chat, “We love him!!”
The Swedish students log on and wave to the other participants.
“Are you longing for Christmas?” the Norwegian students ask.
The Swedish students upload their presentation. The Norwegian presentation is uploaded
again.
“It's William's birthday today!” a Swedish student says and points to a classmate.
“Congratulations” is written in the chat.
The Swedish students start to sing to their classmate.
The lessons learnt from this synchronous phase and the model of synchronous cross-bordercooperation demonstrated that the assignment ended up being too difficult for the students. There
were too many (technological, communicative and language-based) obstacles to overcome, so
instead of working with their common assignment, they started chatting and trying to get to know
one another in a different way than the one the teachers had planned.
The selected real-time communication and collaboration tool was not really suitable to support thecomplex task that was supposed to be accomplished by the students. Relating such analysis to the
TPACK model, we claim that the techno-pedagogical knowledge (TPK) using AC was evaluated as

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

fairly inaccurate and revealed areas for improvement of all involved parties in future project
activities.
The idea to have students work in groups, be given themes to work with, select relevant information,
as well as try to diagnose differences and similarities in the historical events and impacts for children
in the 20th century, closely aligns with parts of the national curriculum in each country calling for thedevelopment of communication, collaboration and analytical skills. However, what looked like astructured yet creative plan turned out in reality to be far too complex in execution. An additionalburden in working with the pedagogical plan was the teachers’ initial misunderstanding of what thetask was really about. This situation came as a total surprise for all involved parties (teachers as well
as researchers), since the three teachers had established good relations, experienced previous coplanning sessions before and were all keen on communicating using e-mail, Google Docs and wikis
to plan and agree on the activities and schedules. In this regard, we suggest that PCK that followed
TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009) was evaluated as fairly high, butplanning turned out to be too difficult for the students in the cross-border setting. In the interview
with the teachers after the performed activities in the synchronous model, they all admitted being too
ambitious and learning the importance of designing tasks that challenge their students more
moderately, while retaining the idea of communication, collaboration and analysis, but perhaps notnecessarily in real-time setups for all activities in AC.
Judging from the experiences in both the asynchronous and synchronous models in this cross-bordercollaboration setting, we realize that the so-called TPACK proved to be quite a challenge for theteachers. The challenge entailed successfully combining pedagogical planning with technicalaffordance and subject content.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Regarding the synchronous mode, the added complexity planned for and used in this particular setup
suggests that the level of ambition needs to be carefully managed. In this case, the learning content
was defined but still not supported with a pedagogical model that ensured that cross-bordercollaboration could provide structure and guidance in the learning process. It has become clear that it
is essential to invest time in carefully preparing what content to present and how to present it, as wellas identifying a collaborative model that supports rather than distracts from the focus of the subject.
The aim to enhance motivation and learning with cross-border collaborative efforts was difficult toachieve despite hard work from all involved actors (teachers and students); thus, they departed fromthe history content and became preoccupied with or distracted by technology in the didactic situation,
as reported in previous research (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Swan & Locascio, 2008).
These questions remain: “How can our understanding of TPACK support collaborative work in thesubject of history? How can we think about the connections and interactions among the knowledgeof content, pedagogy and technology with respect to teaching history in elementary school? How cantechnological tools help scaffold the students’ development in historical consciousness with crossborder collaboration?” It is important to emphasize that the use of ICT in education needs anunderstanding and reflection about what is sound teaching in relation to both pedagogy and content.
Pedagogical knowledge also refers to the ability to determine how ICT can support content andimprove the learning outcome, based on the TPACK model that calls for an integrated competence
among teachers, combining the skilful use of ICT, pedagogy and subject content.
Digital technology plays a role as a multimodal facilitator of the students’ communication andcollaboration. When the neighboring languages – even if they are both phonetically andgrammatically close – are difficult to understand, the students find it a bit easier if ‘the neighbors'
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

express themselves both orally and in writing. On the other hand, digital technology poses obstacles
too; the students often experience sound issues, such as echoes, noise or silenced microphones. The
students are extremely patient with these technical challenges, but when the sound is poor and theneighboring languages are hard to understand, they start addressing their classmates instead of thestudents in the other countries, and the added value of cross-border collaboration then diminishes asa formal learning approach. However, in the midst of technological and linguistic challenges, we alsofind that cross-border learning is flourishing, although in a more informal manner.
Conclusion
Different challenges should be addressed in the asynchronous and synchronous models. Starting withthe asynchronous model, we conclude that since video production has become a focus, the students
need their teachers’ guidance to integrate content into their productions. When productions are madeand shared, the historical content needs to really be discussed and analyzed in order to support
learning; otherwise, they pose the risk of students paying more attention to form than content.
Students seem eager to engage in real-time communication; thus, the asynchronous model needs to
be clearly promoted and encouraged as a complementary cross-border collaboration model. Due tothe students’ difficulties in understanding one another’s spoken languages, it is good forcommunication and future collaboration to use text in combination with voice in video productions.
Turning to the synchronous model, based on the observed activities and the outcome, tasks in such a
setup need thorough preparation and explicit limitations in order to provide added value to thelearning situation. The number of students working together should preferably be quite limited when
dealing with complex tasks, and all involved users need to know how to use the chosen technologicaltool to support communication and collaboration.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Notwithstanding the obstacles, the major conclusion is that added value has been identified withcross-border collaboration, because the differences have triggered curiosity and motivation to
produce presentations for and work with ‘the neighbors'. Thus, we perceive clear indications of goals
being attained in both communication skills and digital competence, as written in the three nations’respective curricula and formulated in EU recommendations. However, further work remains inorder to achieve the subject-specific goals more precisely in cross-border collaboration. We note theNordic teacher team’s competency in technical, pedagogical and content knowledge, despitedifficulties in combining these skills with the specific content in the subject of history, according to
the TPACK model in the cross-border setting. The collaboration among the three classes could nothave been possible without technology, although technology issues and occasional language
problems sometimes dominate the scene over pedagogy and the subject of history. Increased efforts
are required to determine how technology can be used to support teaching history in elementary
schools when it is carried out in both asynchronous and synchronous learning environments. Our
study has contributed with some detailed, empirically driven recommendations, but these examples
are still limited and strongly connected to the collaborative efforts among the Nordic teacher andstudent participants in the cross-border, co-design project.
Additionally, cross-border collaboration imposes an extra workload. Therefore, it becomes of utmost
importance to provide support to both students and teachers so that technical and organizational
issues do not overshadow the added value offered by cross-border collaboration. However, it
becomes crucial to work actively with the emerging obstacles, that is, to engage vigorously inovercoming the barriers as a learning experience. We can also observe how these hurdles reveal
differences that make learning about ‘the other’ possible in richer and real situations, providing

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

authentic learning, compared to reading about these disparities in textbooks or other types of material
used for learning purposes in the subject of history.
Acknowledgements
The Gränsöverskridande Nordisk Undervisning/Utdanelse [Cross-Border Nordic Education] project
has received support from the European Regional Development Fund through the Interregional[Interreg] IVA Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Brown, G. S. (2001). The coming of the French Revolution in multi-media. History Teacher, 34(2),
193–208.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press.
European Union (2006). The Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of theEuropean Union. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.cmepius.si/files/cmepius/userfiles/grundtvig/gradivo/key_competencies_2006_en.pdf.
Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations.
Meridian. A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1). Retrieved August 10, 2014,
from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London New York: Routledge.
Haydn, T. (2001). Subject discipline dimensions of ICT and learning: History, a case study. The
International Journal of Historical Learning Teaching and Research, 2(1). Retrieved August 10,
2014, from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal3/haydn.pdf.
Hofer, M. J., Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A casestudy of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(2), 179-200.
Jedeskog, G. (2007). ICT in Swedish schools 19842004: How computers work in the teacher’s world.
Seminar.net International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 3(1). Retrieved
August 10, 2014, from http://seminar.net/index.php/volume-3-issue-1-2007previousissuesmeny-115/73-ict-in-swedish-schools-1984-2004-how-computers-work-in-theteachers-world.
Johansson-Svensson, A., Rustand, K. A., Steffensen, T., & Sofkova Hashemi, S. (2013). Students’use of situated semiotic structure in synchronic inter-Scandinavian communication. In
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July 2013 (pp. 158–163). Retrieved August
10, 2014, from http://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/students-use-og-semioticstructures-in-synchronous-computer-mediated-communication.pdf.
Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as a means for promoting design-based research. In
A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods ineducation (pp. 423-438). London: Routledge.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Lee, W. O. (2012). Learning for the future: The emergence of lifelong learning and theinternationalization of education as the fourth way? Educational Research for Policy andPractice, 11(1), 53–64.
Lipscomb, G. B. (2002). Eighth grader’s impressions of the Civil War: Using technology in thehistory classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 57-67.
Lundh-Snis, U., Nilsson, A., Nilsson, L., Pareto, L., Petersen, A-L., Sofkova Hashemi, S., Spante,M., & Wicke, K. (2012). Nordic Innovation Networks in Education: Dealing with Educational
Challenges with Cross Border Collaboration and User Driven Design, Uddevalla Symposium.
Portugal. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/nordic-innovation-networks-in-education.pdf.
Majgaard, G., Misfeldt, M., & Nielsen J. (2011). How design-based research and action researchcontribute to the development of a new design for learning. Designs for Learning, 4(2), 8-27.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nortvig, A., & Christiansen, R. B. (2013). Grænseoverskridende Nordisk Undervisning [Cross
Border Nordic Education] In S. M. Meyer, J. Ruben, J. H. Arnfred & R. Hallén (Eds.),
Europæiske scenarier - skandinaviske perspektiver (1. udgave ed.)[ European Scenarious –Scandinavian Perspectives] [Kbh.]: Alkvantor.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Pareto, L., Gynther, K., Lindhart, B., Vejbӕk, L., & Wølner, T-A. (2013). A model for instructional
design in virtual Nordic classrooms. In Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July
2013 (pp. 230–241). PISA 2012 Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/a-model-for-instructional-design-in-virtualnordic-classrooms.pdf.
Schul, J. E. (2010). The mergence of CHAT with TPACK: A new framework for researching the
integration of desktop documentary making in history teaching and learning. THEN:
Technology, Humanities, Education & Narrative, 7, 9-25. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://thenjournal.org/feature/281.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Spante, M., Karlsen, A. V., Nortvig, A-M., & Christiansen, R. B. (2013). Cross-border collaborationin history among Danish, Norwegian and Swedish students: A case study about creating
innovative ICT-didactic models. In Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July 2013
(pp. 137–149).
Svedäng, M., & Spante, M. (2014). Doing cross-border science experiments using ICT for coplanning, documentation and evaluation as a method for increased motivation to participate in,and learn about, science experiments. In Proceedings of SITE 2014, 25th International
Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, 17–21 March 2014 (pp. 2345-2352). Society for
Information Technology and Education.
Swan, K., & Locascio, D. ( 2008). Evaluating alignment of technology and primary source use
within a history classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2),175-186.
Taylor, T. (2003). Historical simulations and the future of the historical narrative. Journal of the
Association for History and Computing, 6(2). Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jahc/3310410.0006.203/--historical-simulations-and-the-future-ofthe-historical?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.tpack.org/.
Turan, I. (2010). Student attitudes towards technology enhanced history education. Journal of Social
Studies Education Research, 1(1), 152–167.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning
environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23.