Digital-inclusive Transformation and Teacher Preparedness for Foreign Language Education – A Bilateral German-Norwegian Perspective Solveig Chilla* 1 , Gerard Doetjes 2 , Karin Vogt 3 , Lina Abed Ibrahim 4 and Dina Tsagari 5 • Digitalisation and inclusion can be understood as transversal topics in pre- and in-service teachers’ professional development. Both topics have attracted considerable research activity. However, questions of digital- inclusive transformation have only rarely been discussed within the field of foreign language teaching. Researchers in the field state a press - ing need to increase digital-inclusive transformation uptake in foreign language teacher education programmes to develop a transformation ‘mindset’ in (educational) stakeholders and (future) teachers. Transfor - mation processes in education, however, interact with preparedness for digitalisation and inclusion among pre- and in-service teachers, since the attitude and the willingness of teachers to adapt to digital reality play a decisive role in improving the quality of (digitally enhanced) teach - ing and learning. Currently, little is known about the interrelationship between the preparedness to use digital technology for foreign language teaching and learning and the preparedness to include foreign language learners with diverse learning needs (DLN) in the digital-inclusive class - room. To this end, this bilateral cross-country study investigates factors that constitute an attitudinal component of foreign language teachers’ perceived preparedness for using digital technology with learners with diverse learning needs in Germany and Norway. The Teacher of English Preparedness to Diverse Learning Needs in the digital inclusive class - room questionnaire was administered to 221 participants. The results show a fresh perspective on preparedness for digitally enhanced inclu - sive teaching linked to educational system requirements for foreign lan - guage teaching. Importantly, confidence when using digital technology 1 *Corresponding Author. Europa-Universität Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany; solveig.chilla@uni-flensburg.de. 2 Norwegian National Centre for English and other Foreign Languages in Education, Halden, Norway. 3 University of Education Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4 Europa-Universität Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany. 5 Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1690 Published on-line as Recently Accepted Paper: April 2024 c e p s Journal digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 2 in the inclusive classroom is decisive. For teacher education, it is vital that the attitudinal component of teacher preparedness receives more attention throughout teacher training. It should be related to previous experience of teachers with DT in digital-inclusive environments and be part of a heuristic conceptualisation of teacher preparedness for digital- inclusive contexts. Keywords: digital-inclusive concept, digital transformation, foreign language teaching, inclusion, teacher preparedness c e p s Journal 3 Digitalnoinkluzivna transformacija in pripravljenost učiteljev za poučevanje tujih jezikov – dvostranska nemško-norveška perspektiva Solveig Chilla, Gerard Doetjes, Karin Vogt, Lina Abed Ibrahim in Dina Tsagari • Digitalizacijo in inkluzijo lahko razumemo kot prečni temi v strokovnem razvoju bodočih in zaposlenih učiteljev. Obe temi sta pritegnili veliko raziskovalne dejavnosti, vendar so bila vprašanja digitalno-inkluzivne transformacije le redko obravnavana na področju poučevanja tujih jezi - kov. Raziskovalci na tem področju ugotavljajo, da je nujno treba povečati uporabo digitalnoinkluzivne transformacije v programih izobraževanja učiteljev tujih jezikov, da bi pri (izobraževalnih) deležnikih in (bodočih) učiteljih razvili »miselnost« transformacije. Procesi transformacije v izo - braževanju pa se prepletajo s pripravljenostjo na digitalizacijo in inkluzijo med bodočimi in zaposlenimi učitelji, saj imata odnos in pripravljenost učiteljev, da se prilagodijo digitalni resničnosti, odločilno vlogo pri izbolj - šanju kakovosti (digitalno nadgrajenega) poučevanja in učenja. Trenu - tno je malo znanega o medsebojni povezanosti med pripravljenostjo na uporabo digitalne tehnologije za poučevanje in učenje tujih jezikov ter pripravljenostjo na vključevanje učencev tujega jezika z različnimi učni - mi potrebami v digitalnoinkluzivni razred. V ta namen ta dvostranska meddržavna študija raziskuje dejavnike, ki predstavljajo odnosno kompo - nento zaznane pripravljenosti učiteljev tujih jezikov za uporabo digitalne tehnologije pri učencih z različnimi učnimi potrebami v Nemčiji in na Norveškem. Vprašalnik o pripravljenosti učiteljev angleščine na različ - ne učne potrebe v digitalnem inkluzivnem razredu je bil posredovan 221 udeležencem. Izsledki kažejo nov pogled na pripravljenost na digitalno podprto inkluzivno poučevanje, povezano z zahtevami izobraževalnega sistema za poučevanje tujih jezikov. Pomembno je tudi to, da je pri upora - bi digitalne tehnologije v inkluzivnem razredu odločilna samozavest. Za izobraževanje učiteljev je ključno, da se odnosni komponenti pripravlje - nosti učiteljev posveča več pozornosti med celotnim usposabljanjem uči - teljev. Povezati jo je treba s predhodnimi izkušnjami učiteljev z digitalno transformacijo v digitalnoinkluzivnih okoljih in jo vključiti v hevristično konceptualizacijo pripravljenosti učiteljev za digitalnoinkluzivna okolja. Ključne besede: digitalnoinkluzivni koncept, digitalna transformacija, poučevanje tujih jezikov, inkluzija, pripravljenost učiteljev digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 4 Introduction Digital transformation processes have had a considerable impact on soci - ety and its forms of knowledge, science, and education (Stalder, 2016). Media and computer literacy have long become indispensable in modern societies. At the same time, the development of societies towards (more) inclusion has been noted in education systems in general and in language education specifically to provide equity, value diversity and ensure inclusion across educational contexts (Kefal - linou et al., 2020). Inclusive education systems, as stated by the OECD (2023), support a diverse student population and reflect on the different goals and uses of financial resources, among others. Norway and Germany are geographically, cul - turally, and politically close and comparatively prosperous, but the countries’ ed - ucational systems differ strongly with respect to inclusive and digitally enhanced teaching and learning. What the two contexts have in common, though, is the need to digitally transform teacher education for inclusive education. Teachers, language teachers included, have to be prepared to use digital technology (DT) for inclusive foreign language teaching. The purpose of this study, that was car - ried out as a part of the DINGLE project, is to explore language teacher students’ perceived preparedness to use DT for inclusive purposes in the different interna - tional contexts of Norway and Germany, thus combining digital technology and inclusive language education into a digital-inclusive approach to language educa - tion. It investigates the attitudinal component of a concept of teacher prepared - ness for digital-inclusive foreign language teaching and contributes to a model of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive contexts. Background to the study As a critical incident (Tian et al., 2021), Covid-19 has certainly been a catalyst for digital transformation, particularly regarding the forced profes - sionalisation processes of staff and students in educational contexts (cf. Symeo - nidis, 2018). The Covid-19 restrictions and its subsequent Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) arrangements (Hodges et al., 2020) represented a challenge for educational systems worldwide but also forced the professionalisation of staff and digital upskilling across the board, university teacher education included (Blume, 2020; Vogt & Tsagari, 2023). Affordances like new digital forms of col - laboration for students and staff alike (e.g., Tian et al., 2021) accelerated digital transformation processes (e.g., Chilla & Filk, 2021). Digital technology (DT) includes communication (e.g., chat), construc - tion (e.g., web authoring software), and entertainment (e.g., DVDs, streaming c e p s Journal 5 apps) technologies. In the inclusive classroom, they appear as ‘school technol - ogies’ (Ching et al., 2005, p. 232) that include ‘all items that might typically be used in an educational context’ . DT plays a vital role in education for inclusion on several levels, from assistive technology to implementing new digital genres in teaching. It is seen by Hajok (2018) as an agent of socialisation, particularly in inclusive contexts in education. In the German context, the term ‘diclusion’ (#diklusion) has been coined to express the close relationship between DT and inclusion (Abels & Stinken-Rösner, 2022; Schulz et al., 2022). However, the de - gree to which DT is deployed in education in Germany clearly falls behind ex - pectations (Eickelmann et al., 2019), with foreign language education being no exception. At the same time, foreign language teacher education needs to reflect societal digital transformation processes using DT for inclusive purposes. In this respect, we need to understand how digitally enhanced inclusive education is conceptualised and what theoretical frameworks are appropriate to ensure high-quality schooling. On the one hand, off-campus teaching envi - ronments and digitalised learning outside the physical boundaries of schools can raise accessibility for diverse learning groups and would hence be more in - clusive. On the other, Covid-19 ERT unearthed various excluding practices that deepened the digital divide (e.g., van de Werfhorst et al., 2022). Limited access to DT for some students, teachers’ limited experience with DT, and disadvanta - geous ad-hoc solutions for learners with special needs in Germany and limited learning outcomes, lower motivation, and a lower degree of social inclusion in Norway (Berente & Seidel, 2022; Damsa et al., 2021; NOKUT, 2022; van Dijk, 2020) constitute only a few examples of this divide. This study questions the internationally inconsistent terminology concern - ing terms like inclusion or Special Educational Needs (SEN) to characterise the student body (Chapman & Ainscow, 2022). In Norway and Germany, the term ‘inclusion’ is mostly used as a policy imperative aiming at promoting education and the provision of resources for learners identified as having SEN and/or at risk of being excluded from learning. The demands and implementation of inclusive teaching greatly diverge since legislation and the implementation of mainstream education for learners with SEN are disparate in different educational contexts across Europe, for example, the ‘tilpasset opplæring’ (differentiated instruction) principle for all pupils in Norway vs a special needs education system and paral - lel inclusive schooling in Germany. However, neither Norway nor Germany dif - fer in the percentage of students with SEN, nor do they display variations in the incidence and the types of learning needs (D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). Hence, instead of limiting specific learning needs to, for example, a medically diagnosed spectrum of disorders and syndromes, we use a term that encompasses the various digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 6 manifestations of heterogeneity and diversity, namely ‘diverse learning needs’ (DLN) (Chilla et al., 2021; Vogt, 2023). DLN is used as a broader term which in - cludes various backgrounds, developmental stages, skills and abilities, identities, and general physiological and psychological features of learners that might affect the current learning process or hinder the accessibility of content. As said above, the digital divide, for example, does not only affect students with (diagnosed) dis - abilities but also low-income students. Such a practical resource limitation, for example, hinders students from using learning platforms that request phone con - tracts with large data amounts (Vassilakopoulou & Husted, 2023). Taken together, digital technology and diverse learning needs offer af - fordances for digital-inclusive learning and teaching settings that are of par - ticular relevance for the ‘digital life worlds’ (Giesecke, 2002) of people and of inclusive-digital educational settings (see Vogt & Chilla, 2021). However, in practice, the intersection between digital teaching and inclusive education is rather under-researched. If the potential of digital-inclusive foreign language education is to be exploited to cater for learners’ DLN, stakeholders in foreign language teacher education in Germany and Norway and, indeed, throughout Europe must be ready to engage in the innovative transformation processes for digital-inclusive foreign language education (Filk, 2019). Digitalisation and DT have considerable potential for adaptive and indi - vidualised learning processes in (teacher) education (Haleem et al., 2022). They are of specific relevance for teaching and learning (see Petretto et al., 2021) and challenge higher education policies (Rüscher et al., 2022). Having said that, pre - paring foreign language teachers to navigate transformative digital processes in education and striving for inclusion necessitates a certain degree of prepared - ness from (pre-service) teachers in teacher education (Hay et al., 2001; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016). Digitalisation and inclusion are, therefore, transversal is - sues in foreign language teacher education and language teachers’ professional development (Nadrljanski et al., 2022). Focusing on foreign language education in a European context, we also need to understand how teaching is in line with the requirements of the Council of Europe recommendations on language education, as, for example, reflected in the Companion Volume to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2020). In foreign language classrooms, students’ different linguistic and cultural backgrounds are important aspects contributing to the diversity of learning needs. For example, teachers need to cater for students who do not have the language of schooling as their first language. With respect to teacher professionalisation and the interna - tionalisation of teacher education, preparedness for the digital-inclusive transfor - mation is a highly relevant aspect of teacher competence. Teacher competence is c e p s Journal 7 related to the subjective theories of (prospective) teachers, specifically their atti - tude and willingness to respond to the current needs and abilities of learners with diverse learning needs using digital technology in the foreign language classroom (e.g., Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022, for the German context). There seems to be a pressing need to increase DT uptake in foreign/ second language teacher education programmes in both Norway (Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016) and Germany (Marci-Boehncke & Blume, 2022) to develop a transformation ‘mindset’ in (educational) stakeholders and (future) teachers (McCarthy et al., 2023). For the German context, Drossel et al. (2019) found that only 25% of the teachers in the international ICLS- survey reported that DT had been part of their initial teacher training, with low self-reported confidence levels regarding the use of DT. As a result, German teachers feel underprepared for the systematic integration of DT to cater for their learners’ DLN, something which became particularly obvious during the pandemic (Blume, 2020). Nor - wegian foreign language teachers report a higher sense of preparedness (Vold, 2017). Hence, the concept of teacher preparedness seems to be central for teach - ers feeling capable of and willing to plan and implement teaching environments for digital-inclusive foreign language classrooms. Considering inclusive education, Hay et al. (2001) define teacher pre - paredness as a ‘state of readiness’ of a teacher for inclusive education (p. 214). The major focus is on questions such as ‘Has the teacher been prepared regard - ing skills and the cognitive and emotional level for the anticipated inclusive education?’ (Hay et al., 2001, p. 214). Previous studies report on (pre-service) language teachers’ beliefs or mindsets relating to inclusive foreign language teaching (Blume et al., 2021; Dose, 2019), while others focus on the use of DT and (pre-service) teachers’ preparedness to use DT (see Røkenes & Krums - vik, 2016). For example, Venkatesh et al. (2003) empirically validated and put forward the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which captures the following essential elements: (1) performance expectancy, (2) effort expectancy, (3) social influence, (4) intention and facilitating condi - tions (Venkatesh et al., 2003, pp. 446-453). UTAUT provides a useful tool to assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps understand the drivers of acceptance to proactively design interventions (in - cluding training, etc.). However, it is neither geared to (foreign language) teach - ers as an important stakeholder group nor concerned with aspects of teachers’ preparedness for the use of digital technology for students with DLN in the (foreign language) classroom. In a study on the preparedness of in-service teachers regarding digital technology, in particular, the use of tablets, Kim and Kim (2017) conceptualised digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 8 teacher preparedness as mainly related to confidence, more precisely, self-con - fidence in deploying DT in the classroom. In the research instrument used, self-confidence was operationalised as the perceived ability to use digital tools such as tablets, electronic boards, or interactive solutions and as the ability to troubleshoot while the relevant DT is in use in the classroom. Viberg et al. (2020) examined teachers’ preparedness to use digital technology in education. Their study offers a validated self-reported instrument that can be used to gauge teachers’ preparedness. Their instrument is based on the following factors: (1) abilities to use digital learning technology, (2) social influence and support, (3) intention of use, (4) usefulness and efficiency, (5) limitation awareness, (6) pedagogical potential, and (7) assistance awareness (Viberg et al., 2020, pp. 46- 47). Again, a knowledge (‘abilities’) component can be discerned in the model alongside elements that are associated with attitudes (e.g., usefulness and ef - ficiency, social influence, assistance awareness, etc.). However, while these and other components have been included in Viberg et al. ’s (2020) model, previ - ous experience is only implicitly represented; for example, limitation awareness could be based on previous trials of DT in instructional language contexts. The researchers caution that further validation is needed of the proposed instru - ment on larger samples of teachers in various cultural contexts, as the proposed model may work differently when applied to other cultures and that the instru - ment is aimed to be used both as a starting point and to evaluate the effect of interventions (Viberg et al., 2020, p. 38). The authors conceptualise teacher preparedness in connection with digital technology or digital learning technol - ogy as a motivator for change towards integrating digital learning technology into teaching. Thus, teacher preparedness becomes ‘a constituent component of digital competence touching upon attitudes or dispositions’ (Viberg et al., 2020, p. 38). Moreover, troubleshooting competence seems to be particularly relevant for teachers since they are usually left to their own devices while teach - ing, and seems to represent an attitudinal part of a model of teacher prepared - ness. While a confident attitude towards DT seems to be vital, it cannot be the only element that constitutes (foreign language) teacher preparedness. With reference to English as a Second Language, Røkenes and Krumsvik (2016) proposed a theoretical model of teacher preparedness in their study of pre-service ESL teachers in the Norwegian context. They distinguish between practical proficiency aspects and elements of the participants’ self-awareness. In their questionnaire study, they included (1) the mastery of digital tools for vari - ous purposes, (2) the digital learning strategies pre-service teachers deployed, (3) the ethical aspects involved in the development of digital competence from an educational point of view, and (4) their overall digital competence for c e p s Journal 9 instructional purposes. So, it seems that the aspects of self-perceived knowl - edge and competence play a vital role in the preparedness of language teachers to use digital technology to provide for their learners’ learning needs. As to aspects of inclusive education in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom, in their study with Cypriot, Greek, and Polish EFL teach - ers, Nijakowska et al. (2018) focused on teachers’ preparedness for inclusion of dyslexic learners in the mainstream classroom. They surveyed 546 respondents from the three countries, using a questionnaire study to gauge teachers’ pre - paredness to include dyslexic learners in their EFL classrooms and to investi - gate their training needs in this area. The findings highlight the significance of teachers’ experience relating to teaching dyslexic EFL learners. Their personal involvement in inclusion activities, direct contact, and teaching experience with dyslexic learners rather than overall teaching experience seemed to en - hance their preparedness (Nijakowska et al., 2018). Against the background presented above, this study adds to the develop - ment of a new concept of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive education and transformation in the foreign language classroom. The pre-conception of teacher preparedness presented here takes both digital technology and diverse learning needs into account and can be visualised as a componential model that consists of (1) a knowledge component, (2) an attitudinal component, and (3) an experiential component (Figure 1). The components are interrelated. For this model, we synthesised and expanded features from Viberg et al. (2020) and Røkenes and Krumsvik (2016) for knowledge about DT and from Viberg et al. (2020) and Kim and Kim (2017) for attitudes towards digital technology. As experience seemed to be a vital factor, we considered Nijakowska et al. (2018), with their perspective on dyslexia, to align with the diverse learning needs in the classroom. Subsequently, we collated the latter components into the TEP - DLN (T eacher of English Preparedness to Diverse Learning Needs in the digital inclusive classroom) questionnaire examined in the DINGLE study. The vari - ous parts of the questionnaire will be further detailed in the methods section. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 10 Figure 1 Model of teacher preparedness in the DINGLE study (own illustration) The knowledge component (1) relates to foreign language teachers’ (per - ceived) ability and skills to use digital technology (DT) with foreign language learners with diverse learning needs (DLN), an aspect which is relevant for foreign language teacher education. It also concerns their overall digital com - petence for teaching learners with DLN, in tandem with their (perceived) ease of using DT for teaching learners with DLN, their knowledge about the char - acteristics of the learner group they teach, and the DLN to be addressed in this group. The attitudinal component (2) of the DINGLE teacher preparedness model is characterised by the teachers’ self-confidence in using DT with For - eign Language Learners (FLL) with DLN, their attitudes, positive or sceptical, towards integrating and using DT in their foreign language teaching, and their self-perceptions relating to their professional self-concept as (future) foreign language teachers. Additionally, their performance expectation, specifically the expectations that they have about the potential performance of DT in their teaching to learners with DLN, forms part of this attitudinal component. The final component is experience (3) related to attitudes, such as the strategies teachers choose to use in DT-embedded foreign language learning scenarios and the self-reflected and/or evaluated implementation of DT in foreign language classrooms with learners with DLN. This also includes their troubleshooting experience (Kim & Kim, 2017) and their effort expectancy, specifically the perceived ease of using DT in inclusive FL. Note, however, that pre-service teachers did not have access to a comparable experience in terms of teaching and designing learning environments. Thus, the experiential c e p s Journal 11 component is based on expectations and perceptions rather than actual experi - ence in using DT in inclusive foreign language classrooms. In this study, ‘Digi - tal Technology – DT’ refers to digital media and their respective applications to reach the goals of foreign language teaching and learning. Taken together, although some studies addressed the aspect of teachers’ preparedness in different contexts, to date, little is known about the interrela - tionship between preparedness to use digital technology for foreign language teaching and learning and the preparedness to include foreign language learn - ers with DLN in the digital-inclusive classroom. The study has two objectives, namely, to investigate the concept of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive FLT and to contribute to a model of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive contexts. This study aims to explore language teacher students’ perceived prepared - ness to use DT for inclusive purposes in different international contexts to foster inclusive language learning environments in Norway and Germany. One relevant and unresearched aspect of digital transformation is the attitudinal component of teacher preparedness and the self-confidence of (future) teachers to use digital technology and to understand DT as a supportive tool in the (inclusive) class - room and since attitudes are likely to be seen as a key factor to digital competence and self-confidence (Štemberger & Čotar Konrad, 2021). Moreover, the attitude and the willingness of teachers to adapt to digital reality seem to be crucial to improving the quality of education at universities (Yureva et al., 2020). The study investigates the perceived preparedness of German and Norwe - gian English as a Foreign Language pre-service and in-service teachers to include digital technology in the inclusive foreign language classroom, focusing on the attitudinal scale of the TEPDLN questionnaire. That scale assesses perceptions and expectations of the use of digital technology practices in the inclusive class - room. The research questions of this study can be formulated as follows: RQ1 What is the factorial structure of the TEPDLN attitudinal scale? What are the factors that constitute the attitudinal component of the foreign language teachers’ preparedness for using digital technology with learn - ers with diverse learning needs in Germany and Norway? RQ2 How do (theoretically driven) demographic variables, such as level of foreign language teaching training, study year, level of education, overall teaching experience and teaching experience with students with DLN, relate to the pre- and in-service EFL teachers’ attitudes towards using digital technology in the inclusive classroom? digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 12 Method Participants Data was collected from 221 pre-service and in-service EFL teachers in Germany and Norway who responded to the TEPDLN online questionnaire survey. As shown in the participant overview in Appendix B, the overall sample featured 116 respondents from Germany and 105 from Norway, suggesting a balanced sample, with 76% identifying as female (n=167), 23% as male (n=52) and 1% identifying as other (n=2). The gender distribution in the sample can be considered typical for EFL teachers in both contexts. The sample predominant - ly consisted of prospective EFL teachers (94% of the overall sample): around 6% were EFL in-service teachers, 82% were pre‐service teachers, and 12% were completing their post-graduate probationary training in Germany ( Referendar- iat). As to the level of education, 31% of the respondents held a B.A. degree, 42 % an M.A., and 3% a PhD. Most of the participants (57%) had no teaching expe - rience, whereas 34% had some teaching experience, and only 9% had more than six years of teaching experience. As to experience with students with diverse learning needs (DLN), more than half of the respondents (52%) had teaching experience in regular classes with some students with DLN, whereas 11% of the participants reported no experience with DLN students or opted for the category ‘not applicable’ (26%). Of the entire sample, 8% have taught in special classes for students with DLN, and only 3% reported conducting one‐to-one sessions with DLN learners. Descriptive statistics revealed a rather homogeneous corpus both for Norway and Germany. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were performed to de - termine whether the distributions for each of the demographic variables were equal between the two countries. No significant differences emerged between the two countries for the variables ‘level of training’ , ‘age’ , ‘overall teaching ex - perience’, and ‘experience in teaching students with DLN’. The distributional patterns, however, differed by the variables ‘gender’ (χ2 (2) = 18.568; p < .000) with a higher rate of male participants in Norway relative to Germany, and by ‘FLT training’, specifically study year at university (χ2 (6) = 73.869; p < .001) with a significant proportion of 1 st -year students relative to higher study years (62% in the 1 st year) in Norway versus a rather equal distribution of partici - pants across study years in Germany. Concerning the completed level of the EFL teachers’ education, 81% have completed secondary school/B.A. studies in Norway versus 66% in Germany. Here, 25% hold an M.A. degree compared to 6% in Norway, leading to a significant difference between the countries c e p s Journal 13 (χ2 (4) = 24.638; p < .001). A further significant distributional difference be - tween countries concerned the school type and age of future students, which is intricately related to the school type. In this respect, the participants in the Nor - wegian sample work more often in secondary schools than those of the German group, 73% vs 43%, respectively (χ2 (5) = 29.848; p < .001) and are more likely to work with older students (13-15 years; χ2 (5) = 24.997; p < .001) compared to the German participants who were more likely to work with younger students aged 6 to 12 years (64% vs 41%). Instrument In the search for instruments that have investigated teachers’ digital- inclusive preparedness, we considered Viberg et al. ’s (2020) questionnaire with a focus on digital competences and the study conducted by Nijakowska et al. (2018) in the field of English as a foreign language (EFL) and more specifically teachers’ preparedness to include dyslexic learners in mainstream classrooms (see also Nijakowska et al., 2020) to reflect the knowledge, experience, and at - titude components of our model of preparedness and to incorporate digital- inclusive teaching experience, ‘leveraging technology as an enabler’ (McCarthy et al., 2023). Although not specifically focusing on digital competences, Nija - kowska et al. (2018) used a questionnaire to examine the effect of demographic variables on the preparedness of teachers to include students with dyslexia. The Teacher of English Preparedness to Diverse Learning Needs in the digital inclusive classroom questionnaire (TEPDLN, see Appendix A) em - ployed in our study is thus an extended and model-wise revised version of the DysTEFL‐Needs Analysis Questionnaire (Nijakowska, 2014; Nijakowska et al., 2018) and gauges the pre‐ and in‐service EFL teacher knowledge, attitudes and experience related to their preparedness to include digital technology in the classroom addressing the relevant target group, namely foreign language learn - ers with DLN. Parts A and B of TEPDLN were adapted from the Nijakowska et al. (2018) questionnaire and expanded to DLN, and Parts C and D synthesise Viberg et al. ’s (2020) questionnaire items related to DT. The TEPDLN expands the understanding of dyslexia and aspects of learning needs to the construct of DLN. The new TEPDLN questionnaire verifies foreign language teachers’ re - spondents’ degrees of preparedness regarding the use of DT for foreign lan - guage learners with diverse learning needs (DLN), digitalisation and inclusive instructional practices. The entire scale comprises four parts. Part A includes background questions about demographic variables related to the participants’ digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 14 age, gender, level of training, academic degree, the country where they teach or study to become teachers, overall teaching experience, type of experience in teaching students with diverse learning needs, and their prospective students’ age (more than one answer could be selected to the last three questions). Part B addresses EFL teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to include learners with DLN in the EFL classroom and was operationalised on accommodating the learning needs of FLL with DLN consisting of 18 items measured on a 5‐ point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree and 5 = completely agree). Part C, which is the focus of the current study, comprises 21 questions relating to the at - titudinal component of the teachers’ preparedness model, namely perceptions and expectations of the use of digital technology practices. Finally, Part D, with 12 items, focuses on resources and collaboration in the digital-inclusive EFL classroom that are intricately related to the knowledge and experience compo - nents of the teacher preparedness model. To ensure the instrument’s reliability and validity, five external evalu - ators, who were experts in the field of DLN, speech and language education, media didactics, foreign language didactics, and inclusive education, were asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the instrument. The online question - naire went through two cycles of piloting: a first cycle with all researchers who commented on redundancy, order of statements and item clarity. In a second cycle with fellow colleagues teaching the courses, the respondents attended to comment on the comprehensibility, length, and clarity of instructions, among others. After the evaluators’ comments, several changes were made that led to a reduced number of items and a more reader-friendly instrument. Following this, the questionnaire was piloted (Cohen et al., 2018) with 30 experienced and pre‐service EFL teachers who did not take part in the subsequent study (30% in Norway and 70% in Germany). Finally, the questionnaire was administered online using the Nettskjema platform. The sample was a convenience sample for which the project consortium activated various networks ranging from per - sonal and professional contacts to calls for participation on social media. Par - ticipation in the study was voluntary, and written consent was obtained from all participants. All personal data was anonymised. Respondents took between 15 and 20 minutes to answer the questions. Data Analysis SPSS 27 was used for statistical analyses. Only complete data sets were considered for statistical analyses. First, the data were cleaned and screened for missing data points and univariate outliers and coded accordingly. Although a c e p s Journal 15 total of 221 participants provided responses to the demographic questions un - der Section A, there were one to three participants (depending on the question) who did not provide responses to all of the questions of Section C, which is the focus of the current study. Cases with missing values were deleted listwise in the MANOV A analyses. The actual number of participants for each MANOV A test is indicated by the degrees of freedom provided for each statistic (number of participants = df +1). Initial teacher training in the German context is slightly different from Norway in that it comprises a university degree and a subsequent practical phase at school called Referendariat. These two phases of initial teach - er training were subsumed under one category for statistical analyses. Results Factor analyses on TEPDLN - Section C (perceptions and expectations of the use of digital technology practices) The first research question of the current study asked about the facto - rial structure of Section C (attitudinal component) of the teacher preparedness scale. To address this question, the factorability of the 21 scale items in Section C (‘experiences/perceptions and expectations of the use of digital technology’) was examined in detail, employing a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which was initially run for each country separately. The PCA of the responses to the questionnaire items across the German and Norwegian samples showed that the factorial structure of the subsections of the questionnaire was almost identical for both groups, and Cronbach’s α coefficients for the three factors were 0.883 for Norway and 0.726 for Germany indicating good internal consist - ency for each of the countries. Additionally, no significant differences emerged between the two countries in terms of the distributional proportions of the re - sponses to the questions featured in Section C of the TEPDLN. Hence, the Ger - man and the Norwegian samples were collapsed for the PCA. The minimum amount of data for factor analysis was satisfied, with a final sample size of at least 221 participants, with over six cases per variable (cf. Table 2). As a rotation measure, Direct Oblimin was chosen due to the inter-correlation between the items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was at .879, and the determinant value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant ( χ 2 (220) = 1613.9, p < .001), indicating clusterability. By performing a principal component analysis on all data across the two samples, a three-factor solution was derived that explains 48.2% of the vari - ance in Section C. We labelled the factors as follows: (a) ‘confidence in using digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 16 digital technology with DLN students’, (b) ‘understanding of digital technol - ogy’ , and (c) ‘expectations related to usage of digital technology’ . The three at - titudinal factors relate to (a) teachers’ beliefs about possessed knowledge of di - verse learning needs and self‐efficacy in using digital technology with diverse learners in the EFL classroom, to (b) teachers’ presuppositions with respect to digital technology and use in the inclusive classroom (c) teachers’ behaviour and expectations with respect to use digital technology in the EFL inclusive classroom. The factor analysis also revealed that question C14 (see Appendix A) had to be excluded from the factor analysis due to serious collinearity issues, while item C1 did not have significant loadings. The remaining 19 items were considered for the factor analysis in our bilateral sample. The initial eigenval - ues showed that the first factor explained (confidence in using DT with DLN) was 34.5%, the second factor (understanding of DT) was 7.2%, and the third 6.6% (DT-usage-related expectations) of the variance. As can be seen in Table 1, some factors had cross-loadings. Except for C18, the primary loadings of the questions were considered. Table 1 Factor loadings for TEPDLN - Section C items (experiences/perceptions and expectations of the use of digital technology practices) Section C items with significant loadings (>.3) 3-Factor solution (F1) confidence (F2) understanding (F3) usage-related expectations (F1) C3. I believe I can use digital technology with FLL with DLN without much effort. .871 C20. I feel comfortable about using digital technology when teaching FLL with DLN. .761 C15. I find digital technology easy to use to meet the needs of FLL with DLN. .676 C11. It would be easy for me to become adept at using new digital technology/ tools with FLL with DLN. .591 C7. I find it easy to learn how to use digital technology with FLL with DLN. .546 C4. I understand the potential of digital technology and how this can be used differently when working with FLL with DLN. .409 .302 C18. I believe I can use these digital tools when I teach FLL with DLN. .447 .481 C2. I understand digital technologies as instruction tools. .327 c e p s Journal 17 Section C items with significant loadings (>.3) 3-Factor solution (F1) confidence (F2) understanding (F3) usage-related expectations (F2) C17. I understand digital technologies as inclusive language learning environments. .749 C10. I understand digital technologies as language learning environments. .689 C12. I am aware of the possibilities and limitations of digital technology with FLL with DLN and how it may affect my pedagogical approach. .514 C21. Digital technology facilitates learning of FLL with DLN. .493 .378 C16. Digital technology helps FLL with DLN achieve their learning goals. .484 .314 C6. I understand digital technologies as cultural techniques. .406 .333 (F3) C9. Digital technology means that I can do my work faster when I teach FLL with DLN. .804 C5. I have found that digital technology is useful when I teach with FLL with DLN. .622 C13. Digital technology increases my productivity when I teach FLL with DLN. .572 C8. I am actively looking for a digital technology that I can use to cater for FLL with DLN, e.g., in differentiated FL teaching. .475 C19. Digital technology facilitates my way to assess the learning of FLL with DLN. .449 Effects of demographic variables on EFL teachers’ attitude towards using DT with students with DLN The second research question investigated the influence of several theo - retically driven demographic variables (Section A of the TEPDLN, cf. Table 1) on the EFL teachers’ attitudes towards using DT with students with DLN. To this end, composite scores were computed for each of the three factors (F1: confidence in using digital technology with DLN students; F2: understanding of digital technology; F3: expectations related to usage of digital technology) based on the mean of the items which had their primary loadings on each PCA- derived factor. Subsequently, a series of one‐way multivariate analyses (MANO - VAs) were conducted, followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc LSD tests for MANOV A tests with significant results as indicated by the Wilks’ λ value. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 18 The investigated demographic variables were country, FLT training, level of training, teaching experience (no more than 10 years), experience with DLN, level of education (secondary-PhD), type of future school to work in (primary-college/university) and age of future students (<5 - >19)). First, we conducted the analyses, splitting the data set by country to examine within- country effects. Since no significant results emerged for each of the countries separately (see Appendix B), we proceeded by collapsing the German and Nor - wegian data sets in alignment with the PCA analyses, as this would increase statistical power. Here, we report only on demographic variables yielding sig - nificant results for Section C when participants from both countries are col - lapsed together (see Appendix C). First, a one‐way MANOV A was employed to examine whether the Nor - wegian and German samples differ from each other (country-level effects) in their attitudes towards using digital technology with diverse learners in the EFL classroom, specifically in their confidence, understanding, and DT-related use expectations. Although a significant Box’s M value emerged, non-significant Levene’s test results indicated that the homogeneity of variance-covariance ma - trix assumption was not violated. A statistically significant MANOVA effect was obtained as a function of country (Wilks’ λ =.845, F (3, 217) = 13.28, p < .001, partial η 2 = .155). The multivariate effect size implies that 15.5% of the variance across the three factors was accounted for by country level. Univariate ANO - VAs for each factor were conducted as follow‐up tests to the MANOVA, indi - cating that the first and third factors were significantly different for the German and the Norwegian participants: F (1, 219) = 15.45, p < .001, η 2 = .066, F (1, 219) = 24.88, < .001, η 2 = .102, respectively. Thus, the Norwegian participants signifi - cantly differ from the German ones in their (a) ‘confidence in using digital tech - nology with DLN students’ and (c) ‘expectations related to usage of digital tech - nology’ . In this respect, despite not reaching statistical significance, descriptive statistics showed that Norwegian participants with more teaching experience appear to be more confident and show a better understanding and higher ex - pectations of the use of digital technology compared to their compatriots with less teaching experience, a trend which is not observed for the German sample (cf. Appendix C). Moreover, regardless of the level of training reached, Norwe - gian pre- and in-service teachers are more likely to agree more strongly with positive confidence and expectations of the use of DT. In contrast, the German (student) teacher sample is less willing to agree. MANOVA conducted on the remaining demographic variable revealed no significant effects, except for marginally significant effects for the level of teacher training (FLT vs. Training to be FLT), explaining a rather negligible c e p s Journal 19 proportion of the overall variance in Section C. The participants’ level of train - ing explained only 3.3% of the variance (Wilks’ λ = .967, F (3, 217) = 2.48, p = .062, partial η 2 = .033). Univariate follow-up ANOVAs showed that the second and third factors were significantly different for participants who are in teacher training compared to those working as professionals in schools, namely the factors (2) ‘understanding of digital technology’ ( F (1, 219) = 4.79, p < .05, η 2 = .021), and (3) ‘expectations related to usage of digital-technology’ , ( F (1, 219) = 6.69, p < .05, η 2 = .03). Post Hoc tests were not possible due to having only two levels. When means are compared (cf. Appendix C), one can see that FLTs are more likely to agree than those who are training to be FLTs, so more experience in teacher training appears to be positively associated with understanding and expectation of DT use in the inclusive classroom. Concerning the informants’ study year, a marginally statistically signifi - cant MANOVA effect was obtained: Wilks’ λ = .881, F (18, 632) = 1.53, p = .075, partial η 2 = .041. The multivariate effect size implies that only 4.1% of the variance in the dependent variables was accounted for by year of teacher training. Univari - ate ANOV As for each factor were conducted as a follow‐up, indicating that it was the first factor (‘confidence in using digital technology with DLN’) that was rel - evant for such effects: F (6, 221) = 1.99, p = .068, η 2 = .053. The observed trend was that students in their first year of studies were likely to feel slightly more confident about using digital tools with DLN students compared to fifth- and sixth-year students in both Norway and Germany (see Appendix C). Discussion The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceived prepar - edness for digital-inclusive language teaching in two European contexts based on a theoretically motivated pre-conception of teacher preparedness. To this end, we focused on the interrelationship between the preparedness to use digi - tal technology (DT) for foreign language teaching and learning and the prepar - edness to include foreign language learners with diverse learning needs (DLN) in the digital-inclusive classroom. With an emphasis on the attitudinal component of teacher prepared - ness and the self-confidence of (future) teachers to use digital technology and to understand DT as a supportive tool in the (inclusive) classroom, this study investigated the perceived preparedness of German and Norwegian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pre-service and in-service teachers to include digital technology in the inclusive foreign language classroom focusing on the atti- tudinal scale of the TEPDLN questionnaire. With the attitudinal scale of the digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 20 TEPDLN, we assessed perceptions and expectations of the use of digital tech - nology practices in the inclusive classroom of 221 (student) teacher participants in Norway and Germany. The first research question addressed the factorial structure of the TEPDLN attitudinal scale. The study identified three factors that underlie the attitude component of the TEPDLN, namely (a) ‘confidence in using digital technology with DLN students’ , (b) ‘understanding of digital technology’ , and (c) ‘expectations related to the usage of digital technology’ . The PCA of the re - sponses to the questionnaire items across the German and Norwegian sam - ples showed that the factorial structure of the subsections of the questionnaire was almost identical for both groups. By performing a principal components analysis on all data across the two samples, a three-factor solution was de - rived that explains 48.2% of the variance in Section C. We labelled the factors as follows: (a) ‘confidence in using digital technology with DLN students’ , (b) ‘understanding of digital technology’ , and (c) ‘expectations related to usage of digital technology’ . Thus, the attitudinal component of the EFL (student) teach - ers’ preparedness to use digital technology with learners with diverse learning needs in Germany and Norway relates to (a) teachers’ beliefs about knowledge they possess of diverse learning needs and self‐efficacy in using digital technol - ogy with diverse learners in the EFL classroom, to (b) teachers’ presuppositions with respect to digital technology and use in the inclusive classroom (c) teach - ers’ behaviour and expectations with respect to use digital technology in the EFL inclusive classroom. Note that the first factor (‘confidence in using DT with DLN’) explained 34.5% of the variance. The second research question investigated the influence of several the - oretically driven demographic variables (Section A of the TEPDLN, cf. Ap - pendix 1) on the EFL teachers’ attitudes towards using DT with students with DLN. Note that the analyses splitting the data set by the country to examine within-country effects were conducted first, with no significant results emerg - ing for each of the countries separately. To increase statistical power, we then conducted data analyses by collapsing the German and Norwegian data sets in alignment with the PCA analyses. In a second step, we investigated whether the Norwegian and German samples differ from each other (country-level effects) in their attitudes towards using digital technology with diverse learners in the EFL classroom, specifically in their confidence, understanding, and DT-related use expectations. Our analyses showed that Norwegian participants significantly differed from the German ones in their (a) ‘confidence in using digital technology with DLN students’ and (c) ‘expectations related to usage of digital technology’. c e p s Journal 21 Referring to descriptive statistics, one could interpret that Norwegian, but not German, participants with more teaching experience appear to be more con - fident and show a better understanding and higher expectations of the use of digital technology compared to their compatriots with less teaching experience. Norwegian pre- and in-service teachers are more likely to agree more strong - ly with positive confidence and expectations of the use of DT than (student) teacher participants in the German group. This is of high importance since Viberg et al. (2020) point to the fact that knowledge and attitudes are associat - ed. Note that DT troubleshooting is highly relevant for (experienced) teachers (Kim & Kim, 2017). Germany is a country with a poor digital infrastructure in schools (Schuknecht & Schleicher, 2020), and teachers are usually left to their own knowledge and skills when using DT in the foreign language classroom. Inclusion and DLN are thus often seen as an additional obstacle (Hartung et al., 2021). Based on descriptive statistics, it becomes evident that more experience in teacher training appears to be positively associated with understanding and expectation of DT use in the inclusive classroom. Importantly, students in their first year of studies were more likely to feel slightly more confident about using digital tools with DLN students compared to fifth- and sixth-year students in both Norway and Germany (see Appendix C). The waning interest in DT for digital-inclusive EFL teaching seems to be tied to the level of training and study year as important mediating factors, even though the marginal effects explain a small proportion of the variance. The more experience language teachers have accumulated in their respective teaching contexts, the less favourable their at - titudes towards the use of DT for inclusive EFL purposes. This finding does not differ in the respective educational contexts in our bilateral study. Experiential knowledge seems to be an important mediator in interact - ing with attitudes. Since attitudes are likely to be seen as a key factor to digital competence and self-confidence (Štemberger & Čotar Konrad, 2021), it is an alarming tendency when more practical experience with DLN classrooms leads to a more pessimistic view about using digital tools with DLN students. Our findings demonstrate the importance of confidence in using DT with DLN as an attitudinal component in a heuristic conceptualisation of teacher prepar - edness. Respondents confirmed a positive attitude by stating that DT helped learners with DLN achieve their learning goals. They also reported that they could use DT and felt comfortable with its use. The mainly positive attitudes teachers voiced at the beginning of their studies, expressed by high confidence levels, changed during their studies, which comes with teaching experience, for example, in teaching practice or through substitute teaching. The more practi - cal experience teachers have garnered in general, with DT and with students digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 22 with DLN, the less prepared the respondents were to engage in digital-inclusive language teaching. This finding applied to teachers in both countries and might refer to the key role of teachers’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of DT use already stated in Teo (2009) for computer use. It must be interpreted with caution because we can only speculate about the reasons for it due to the lack of qualitative supportive data. Students could be frustrated by the lack of infra - structure and the lack of support to use DT for DLN learners, and thus, their confidence (Kim & Kim, 2017) and/or their performance expectancy (Ven - katesh et al., 2003) of DT for inclusive purposes might decrease. This is crucial to the question of how language teacher education, including language teacher professional development, must adapt to digital transformation in various in - ternational contexts. Since attitude and the willingness of teachers to adapt to digital reality seem to be crucial to improving the quality of education at uni - versities (Y ureva et al. 2020), (future) foreign language teachers need supportive structures to build onto their preparedness for using DT in the DLN classroom. Considering the theoretically motivated model of teacher preparedness proposed here, the importance of confidence for perceived preparedness as measured with the attitudinal scale of the TEPDLN is highly relevant. There - fore, confidence in using DT as an attitudinal factor is a vital prerequisite for digital-inclusive EFL teaching. This finding resonates with Viberg et al. (2020) in that teacher preparedness touches on attitudes (see also Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022). The confidence level of teachers regarding the use of DT tends to align more strongly with teaching experience in the Norwegian subsample compared to the German one. Many other results, however, are similar across educational contexts. It is only the bilateral perspective induced by a cross-country approach that highlights these interesting features. The attitudinal component of teacher preparedness seems to have a prominent function. For teacher education, it is vital that the attitudinal component of teacher preparedness receives more at - tention throughout teacher training. It should be related to teachers’ previous experience with DT in digital-inclusive environments. Intraprofessional com - parison of experience, practices and policies across educational contexts might be a decisive factor for a change of perspectives. This can be brought about by international exchange and collaboration on a European level, which are the keys to change management for digital-inclusive teaching. Even in appar - ently similar countries, differences and their collaborative reflection on them can represent a catalyst for awareness-raising and the integrated development of digital-inclusive teacher preparedness. Therefore, European teacher educa - tion programmes need to include collaborative initiatives as ways of bringing together teacher-students from different educational contexts, as in our project. c e p s Journal 23 Further study will report on another subset of the data, i.e., focus group inter - views with teachers from both contexts. It becomes clear that the conceptualisation of teacher preparedness as a model of digital teacher preparedness (Viberg et al., 2020) does not suffice to map the complexities of digital-inclusive teacher preparedness. Earlier heuris - tics like Hay et al. (2001) point to the importance of attitudes and beliefs in dig - ital-inclusive teacher preparedness but exclude the digital component, which represents the knowledge-based part of teacher preparedness, among others. The findings in our study corroborate Kim and Kim (2017) in that confidence in teachers is a vital aspect of the attitudinal component of teacher prepared - ness. However, for teacher preparedness in societies transforming digitally and inclusively, our findings point to attitudes having to be emphasised in our model of digital-inclusive teacher preparedness. Digital and inclusive transfor - mation are inseparable in the context of FLT and hence cannot be treated as separate entities but as one. Although we only investigated the attitudinal com - ponent, the DINGLE model proposed here still allows for the assumption that there must be interdependencies between the three components that should be further explored. It is possible that future studies show no equality between the components, as attitudes are key to digital-inclusive preparedness and a precondition sine qua non (Blume et al., 2021). For transformation concepts, cross-sectional studies engaging students from several European countries are necessary. Finally, the teacher preparedness conceptualisation and modelling need to be adapted accordingly. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to explore language teacher students’ per - ceived preparedness to use DT for inclusive purposes in different international contexts and to foster inclusive language learning environments in Norway and Germany. The study had two objectives: to investigate the attitudinal compo - nent of a concept of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive FLT and to con - tribute to a model of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive contexts. The attitudinal component of teacher preparedness is predominant and represents a precondition for digital-inclusive teacher preparedness. For teacher education, it is vital that the attitudinal component of teacher preparedness receives more attention throughout teacher training. Attitudes towards DT use for DLN learn - ers, however, change in a negative way across the European contexts involved in our study as respondents have a less favourable attitude and lower confidence and self-efficacy levels towards digital-inclusive EFL teaching the more teaching digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 24 experience they have gained. In our view, this development could be countered with European language teacher education containing collaborative elements in which (pre-service) teachers compare and reflect on their digital-inclusive knowledge, attitudes, and experience against the background of their respective educational contexts. Further study should be related to previous experiences of teachers with DT in digital-inclusive environments and be part of a heuristic conceptualisation of teacher preparedness for digital-inclusive contexts. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to all participants and to the DINGLE collabo - rators Christian Filk, Astrid Gillespie, Lukas Lepelt, Sarah Odenwald and Tan - yasha Y earwood. This research was carried out within the Digital and Inclusive Challenges for Norwegian and German Learning and Education (DINGLE) project, financed by the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD Project-ID: 57524954). References Abels, S., Stinken-Rösner, L. (2022). „Diklusion“ im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht – Aktuelle Positionen und Routenplanung [“Diclusion“ in teaching and learning of science – current positions and future routes]. In E.M. Watts, & C. Hoffmann (Eds.), Digitale NA WIgation von Inklusion (pp. 5–20). Springer. Berente, N. & Seidel, S. (2022). Digital technologies: Carrier or trigger for institutional change in digital transformation? In T. Gegenhuber, C.R. Hinings, & D. Logue (Eds.), Digital transforma- tion and institutional theorizing: Consequences, opportunities and challenges (pp. 197–209). Emerald Publishing. Blume, C. (2020). German teachers’ digital habitus and their pandemic pedagogy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 879–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00174-9 Blume, C., Gerlach, D., Roters, B., & Schmidt, T. (2021). Mindsets and reflection in teacher education for inclusive language classrooms. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 32(1), 25–46. Chapman, C. & Ainscow, M. (2022). Educational equity: Pathways to success. Routledge. Chilla, S., Doetjes, G. Vogt, K., Filk, C., Gillespie, A., Odenwald, S., Tsagari, D., & Y earwood, T. (2021, April). International perspectives on teacher training for inclusive foreign language learning: The DINGLE project. [Presentation]. Lunchtime Meetings Flensburg, Germany. Chilla, S., & Filk, C. (2021). Inklusiv-digitale Sprachenbildung – Ein interdisziplinärer An s a tz f ür die Bildung von Lehrkräften [ Inclusive-digital language education – an interdisciplinary approach to teacher education ]. Medienimpulse, 59(4). Ching, C.C., Basham, J.D., & Planfetti, E.S. (2005). Technology in education, technology in life. In c e p s Journal 25 C. Vrasidas & G.V . Glass (Eds.), Current perspectives on applied information technologies: Preparing teachers to teach with technology (pp. 225-240). Information Age Publishing. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, L. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teach- ing, assessment. Companion Volume. Cambridge University Press. D’ Alessio, S. & Watkins, A. (2009). International comparisons of inclusive policy and practice: Are we talking about the same thing? Research in Comparative and International Education Journal , 4(3), 233–249. Damsa, C., Langford, M., Uehara, D., & Scherer, R. (2021). Teachers’ Agency and Online Teaching in Times of Crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, Article 106793. Dose, J. (2019). Inklusiver Englischunterricht. Eine Studie zum Status Quo in der Sekundarstufe I [Inclu - sive English as a foreign language teaching. A status quo study on secondary schools]. Springer. Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2019). Digitalisierung und Bildungsgerechtigkeit. Die schulische Perspektive [ Digitalization and educational justice. A school perspective ]. Die Deut- sche Schule, 111(4), 391-404. Eickelmann, B., Bos, W ., Gerick, J., Goldhammer, F., Schaumburg, H., Schwippert, K., Senkbeil, M., & Vahrenhold, J. (Eds .). (2019). ICILS 2018 #Deutschland. Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im zweiten internationalen Vergleich und Kompetenzen im Bereich Computational Thinking [ICILS 2018 #Germany. Student´s computer- and information technology competencies. A second international comparison and computational thinking compe - tencies]. Waxmann. Filk, C. (2019). ‘Onlife’ participation for everyone! - A plea for inclusive digital education. In O. A. Burow (Ed.), School digital - how does it work? How the digital revolution is changing us and the school (pp. 62–82). Beltz. Giesecke, M. (2002). Von den Mythen der Buchkultur zu den Visionen der Informationsgesellschaft. Suhrkamp. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Quadri M.A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital tech - nologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 Hajok, D. (2018). Heranwachsen mit digitalen Medien – ein neuer Sozialisationstypus? Perspekti- Heranwachsen mit digitalen Medien – ein neuer Sozialisationstypus? Perspekti - ven auf Kindheit und Jugend heute [ Growing up with digital media – a new type of socialization? Perspectives on current childhood and youth ]. tv diskurs – Verantwortung in audiovisuellen Medien, 22(2), 20-25. Hartung, J., Zschoch, E., & Wahl, M. (2021). Inklusion und Digitalisierung in der Schule. Gelingens - bedingungen aus der Perspektive von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern sowie Schülerinnen und Schülern [Inclusion and digitalization in schools. Teacher’s and student’s perspectives on conditions] . Medien- Pädagogik, 41, (Inklusive digitale Bildung), 55–76. Hay, J. F., Smit, J., & Paulsen, M. (2001). Teacher preparedness for inclusive education. S o u t h A f r ic a n Journal of Education, 21 (4), 213–218. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 26 Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, 27 March). The difference between emer- gency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/ the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching- and-online-learning Kefallinou, A., Symeonidou, S. & Meijer, C.J.W . (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive educa - tion and its implementation: A review of the literature. Prospects, 49, 135–152. Kim, H.J. & Kim, H. (2017). Investigating teachers’ pedagogical experiences with tablet integration in Korean rural schools. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(1–2), 107–116. Marci-Boehncke, G. & Blume, C. (2022). „Digital Backbone“ – inklusive digitale Medienbildung im Fachcurriculum Lehramt [“Digital Backbone” – inclusive digital media education in teacher education curricula ]. In B. Standl (Ed.), Medien in der Wissenschaft: Bd. 80, Digitale Lehre nachhaltig gestalten (pp. 156–160). Waxmann. McCarthy, A.M., Maor, D., McConney, A. & Cavanaugh, C. (2023). Digital transformation in educa - tion: Critical components for leaders of system change. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1). Nadrljanski, Đ., Nadrljanski, M., & Pavlinović, M. (2022). Digitalization of education. In: Ivanović, M., Klašnja-Milićević, A., Jain, L.C. (Eds.), Handbook on intelligent techniques in the educational process. Learning and analytics in intelligent systems (vol. 29). Springer.  Nijakowska, J. (2014). Dyslexia in the European EFL teacher training context. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 129–154). Springer. Nijakowska, J., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2018). English as a foreign language teacher training needs and perceived preparedness to include dyslexic learners: The case of Greece, Cyprus, and Poland. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 24 (4), 357–379. Nijakowska, J., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2020). Cross-country comparison of EFL teacher preparedness to include dyslexic learners: Validation of a questionnaire. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 779–805. NOKUT. (2022). Studiebarometeret 2021 – Hovedtendenser [Student evaluation 2021 – main findings]. NOKUT. OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. Petretto. D.R., Carta. S.M., Cataudella. S., Masala, I., Mascia, M.L., Penna, M. P ., Piras, P ., Pistis, I., & Masala, C. (2021). The use of distance learning and e-learning in students with learning disabilities: A review on the effects and some hint of analysis on the use during COVID-19 outbreak. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 17, 92–102. Røkenes, F.M. & Krumsvik, R.J. (2016). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital compe - tence in Norwegian teacher education. Computers and Education, 97, 1–20. Rovai, A. & Pfingsthorn, J. (2022). Good foreign language teachers pay attention to heterogeneity: Conceptualizations of differentiation and effective teaching practice in inclusive EFL classrooms by German Pre-Service Teachers. Languages, 7(3), 162. Rüscher, A., Buchminskaia, E., Chilla, S., & Filk, C. (2022). Digitale Barrierefreiheit und die Hoch - schule. STUDY asU - ein proaktiver Ansatz für barriere-sensible digitale Hochschullehre [Digital c e p s Journal 27 accessibility and universities. STUDY asU – a proactive approach to accessible higher education teaching and learning]. In S. Voß-Nakkour, L. Rutsemeier, M. Möhring, A. Deitmer, S. Grimminger (eds.) Digitale Barrierefreiheit in der Bildung weiter denken (pp. 90–100). Goethe-Universität Frank - furt am Main. Schuknecht, L., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Digitale Herausforderungen für Schulen und Bildung [Digi - tal challenges for education and schools]. ifo Institut Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München, ifo Schnelldienst, 73(5), 68-70. Schulz, L., Krstoski, I., Lüneberger, M., & Wichmann, D. (Eds.) (2022). Di k l us i ve Ler n we l t en. Z ei t ge- mäßes Lernen für alle Schüler:innen [Diclusive learning environments. Contemporary learning for all students ]. Visual Books. Stalder, F. (2016). Kultur der Digitalität [Digital culture]. Suhrkamp. Symeonidis, V . (2018). Revisiting the European teacher education area: the transformation of teacher education policies and practices in Europe. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal , 8(3), 13–34. Štemberger, T. & Čotar Konrad, S. (2021). Attitudes towards using digital technologies in education as an important factor in developing digital competence: The case of Slovenian student teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning , 16(14), 83–98. Teo, T. (2009). The Impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers’ attitude toward computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model.  Journal of Educational Computing Research , 40(1), 89–109.  Tian, W ., Louw, S., & Khan, M. K. (2021). Covid-19 as a critical incident: Reflection on language as - sessment literacy and the need for radical changes. System, 103, Article 102682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102682 van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity. van de Werfhorst, H. G., Kessenich, E., & Geven, S. (2022). The digital divide in online education: Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education, 3, Article 100100. Vassilakopoulou, P . & Hustad, E. (2023). Bridging digital divides: A literature review and research agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Frontiers 25, 955–969. Venkatesh, V ., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Vold, E.T. (2017). Qualifying foreign language teachers: Is teacher training enough? International Journal of Educational Research, 82 , 40–53. Viberg, O., Mavroudi, A., Khalil, M., & Bälters, O. (2020). Validating an instrument to measure teachers ’preparedness to use digital technology in their teaching. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-04 Vogt, K. & Chilla, S. (2021). Freies Format 4: Inklusiver Fremdsprachenunterricht in Zeiten digitaler Transformation – Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen [Free Format 4: Inclsuive foreign language teaching and digital transformation – opportunities and challenges]. In M. Eisenmann & J. Steinbock (Eds.), Sprache, Kulturen, Identitäten: Umbrüche durch Digitalisierung? (pp. 355-358). Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 28 Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2023, June 8). Emergency remote language assessment (ERLA): The impact of Covid-19 on language assessment in higher education. [Poster presentation]. 44 th Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), New Y ork, USA. Vogt, K. (2023, 16 June). Universal design for learning in classroom-based language assessment. [Key- note address]. Final SCALED Conference, Warsaw, Poland. Yureva, O.V ., Burganova, L.A., Kukushkina, O.Y ., Myagkov, G.P . & Syradoev, D.V . (2020). Digital transformation and its risks in Higher Education: Students’ and teachers’ attitude. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11b), 5965–5971. c e p s Journal 29 Appendix A TEPDLN Online Questionnaire - link: https://nettskjema.no/a/182447 Teacher preparedness to use technology to cater for foreign language learners with diverse learning needs – DLN Dear Participant, This survey is part of an international project, DINGLE (Digital and In - clusive Challenges for Norwegian and German Learning and Education). DIN - GLE is intended for pre- and in-service teachers who are working with foreign language learners (FLL) with ‘diverse learning needs’ (DLN). When we use Diverse Learning Needs (DLN) we refer to the learning needs which reflect various elements of the diversity encountered by learners, e.g., socio-economic background, developmental stage, physical/cognitive abil - ities, cultural, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic group etc. This research project aims to: 1. gain an understanding of whether (future) educators feel ready to ac - commodate the needs of foreign language learners with DLN; 2. find out to what extent (future) educators from various institutions and sectors feel ready to accommodate them and 3. to work out how and to what extent digital technology could support foreign language learners with DLN. *Please note: • Participation in the project is voluntary. • Y our responses will be fully confidential, and your participation will re - main completely anonymous. • The survey will take between 15–20 minutes to complete. • You will be asked questions about your teaching experiences with fore - ign language learners with DLN. • The data collected will be analysed by the researchers mentioned below and only for research purposes related to FLL with DLN. Please feel free to share this questionnaire with other foreign language pre- and in-service teachers. W e appreciate your input and time in responding to the survey questions. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 30 The DINGLE project team. I have read the above guidelines and agree to take part in this study a. Yes, I have read the above information and agree to participate in the study b. No, I do not wish to participate in the study Part A. General information. Please tick the statements that describe you best. In some questions more than one answer is possible A1. I am: (A1.1) training to be a foreign language (FL) teacher. (A1.2) a foreign language (FL) teacher (A1.3) in teacher training ‘Referendariat’ (for German participants) (A1.4) If you are training to be a foreign language (FL), please choose from the list below: (A1.4.1) I am in my first year (first/second semester) of studies. (A1.4.2) I am in my second year (third/fourth semester) of studies. (A1.4.3) I am in my third year (fifth/sixth semester) of studies. (A1.4.4) I am in my fourth year (seventh/eighth semester) of studies. (A1.4.5) I am in my fifth year (ninth/tenth semester) of studies. (A1.4.6) I am in my sixth year (eleventh/twelfth semester) of studies. A2. I teach / I am training to be a teacher in: (A2.1) Norway (A2.2) Germany A3. I am: (A3.1) – male. (A3.2) – female. (A3.3) – diverse / choose not to say A4. My age is: (A4.1) – 17–20 years. (A4.2) – 21–25 years. (A4.3) – 26–35 years. (A4.4) – 36–45 years. (A4.5) – 46–55 years. c e p s Journal 31 (A4.6) – 56 years and above. A5. I have: (A5.1) – no teaching experience. (A5.2) – 1–5 years of teaching experience. (A5.3) – 6–10 years of teaching experience. (A5.4) – more than 10 years of teaching experience. A6. I (will) primarily teach at a … … (A6.1) – kindergarten. (A6.2) – primary school. (A6.3) – lower‐secondary school. (A6.4) – upper‐secondary school. (A6.5) – special school (special needs) (A6.6) – college, university. (A6.7) – language school. (A6.8) – not applicable. A7. Most of my (future) learners are primarily aged … … : (A7.1) – under 5 years. (A7.2) – 6–12 years. (A7.3) – 13–15 years. (A7.4) – 16–19 years. (A7.5) – older than 19. (A7.6) – not applicable. A8. My highest level of education completed so far is: (A8.1) – Secondary School. (A8.2) – Bachelor’s Degree. (A8.3) – Master’s Degree/first state exam. (A8.4) – PhD. (A8.5) – Other A9. I have taught (e.g., during teaching practice placements) … (A9.1) – classes where there are no learners with DLN. (A9.2) – classes where there are some learners with DLN. (A9.3) – special classes for learners with DLN. (A9.4) – one‐to‐one sessions for learners with DLN. (A9.5) – not applicable. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 32 Part B. Accommodating the learning needs of Foreign Language Learners (FLL) with Diverse Learning Needs (DLN). Please consider the statements below referring to teaching FLL with DLN and indicate to what extent the following statements are true to you. I believe that ... 1. completely disagree 2. disagree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. agree 5. completely agree B1. teachers should modify the way teaching materials are presented to ac - commodate individual FLL with DLN. B2. it is important for teachers to collaborate with parents and families of FLL with DLN. B3. teachers should provide differentiated instruction to cater for the indi - vidual needs of FLL with DLN. B4. FLL with DLN benefit from attending regular classes in mainstream education. B5. FLL learners with DLN need adjustments in the mainstream language classroom. B6. teachers should foster autonomy in FLL with DLN. B7. developing self‐determination in FLL with DLN is important. B8. teachers should personalize assessment techniques to evaluate the pro - gress of FLL with DLN. B9. teachers should differentiate tasks/assignments to cater for individual learning needs of FLL with DLN. B10. teachers should be familiar with the difficulties FLL with DLN experi - ence in foreign language learning. B11. teachers should help FLL with DLN to develop effective learning strategies. B12. teachers should differentiate their approach to FLL with DLN. B13. collaborative teamwork with a range of educational professionals is im - portant for teachers of FLL with DLN. B14. teachers should be familiar with the accommodations that FLL with DLN are entitled to when planning language exams and other types of assessment. B15. teacher behaviour in a language classroom influences FLL with DLN self-esteem. c e p s Journal 33 B16. teachers should have high expectations for their FLL with DLN. B17. teachers should manage the classroom environment to cater for the in - dividual learning needs of FLL with DLN. B18. teachers should give feedback to FLL with DLN in such a way that it boosts their self‐esteem. Parts C and D focus on ‘Digital Technology - DT’, which, in the context of FL teaching and learning, refers to digital media and their respective applications to reach the goals of FL teaching and learning. In the following parts, we would like to know more about your experiences and expectations of the use of DT. Part C. Digital Technology (DT) Please consider the statements below referring to teaching and digital technology and indicate to what extent the following statements are true to you. 1. completely disagree 2. disagree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. agree 5. completely agree C1. I believe that the digital technology that I have been introduced to, sup - ports my pedagogical ideas. C2. I understand digital technologies as instruction tools. C3. I believe I can use digital technology with FLL with DLN without much effort. C4. I understand the potential of digital technology and how this can be used differently when working with FLL with DLN. C5. I have found that digital technology is useful when I teach with FLL with DLN. C6. I understand digital technologies as cultural techniques. C7. I find it easy to learn how to use digital technology with FLL with DLN. C8. I am actively looking for digital technology that I can use to cater for FLL with DLN, e.g., in differentiated FL teaching. C9. Digital technology means that I can do my work faster when I teach FLL with DLN. C10. I understand digital technologies as language learning environments. C11. It would be easy for me to become adept at using new digital technol - ogy/tools with FLL with DLN. digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 34 C12. I am aware of the possibilities and limitations of digital technology with FLL with DLN and how it may affect my pedagogical approach. C13. Digital technology increases my productivity when I teach FLL with DLN. C14. I understand digital technologies as inclusive learning environments. C15. I find digital technology easy to use to meet the needs of FLL with DLN. C16. Digital technology helps FLL with DLN achieve their learning goals. C17. I understand digital technologies as inclusive language learning environments. C18. I believe I can use these digital tools when I teach FLL with DLN. C19. Digital technology facilitates my way to assess the learning of FLL with DLN. C20. I feel comfortable about using digital technology when teaching FLL with DLN. C21. Digital technology facilitates the learning of FLL with DLN. Part D. Resources and Collaboration Please consider the statements below referring to resources and collabo - rations in digital technology and indicate to what extent the following state - ments are true for you. 1. completely disagree 2. disagree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. agree 5. completely agree D1. I have access to the necessary resources to be able to use digital technol - ogy when I teach FLL with DLN. D2. Colleagues or fellow students affecting my work think I should use digi - tal technology with FLL with DLN. D3. I know where I can get help if I encounter a problem with digital tech - nology when I teach FLL with DLN. D4. I intend to use digital technology with FLL with DLN in the coming year. D5. The school(s) I am familiar with has supported the use of digital tech - nology with FLL with DLN. D6. I believe that there are limitations to what the available digital technol - ogy can be used when I teach FLL with DLN. D7. I plan to use digital technology with FLL with DLN in the coming year. c e p s Journal 35 D8. If I run into problems with digital technology when I teach FLL with DLN, I get help within a reasonable time. D9. I believe that the available supply of digital technology supports my teaching FLL with DLN. D10. I can find useful digital tools that can be easily integrated into my teach - ing when I work with FLL with DLN. D11. I believe that digital technology can limit representations of knowledge content for teaching FLL with DLN. D12. I can influence which digital tools I use in my teaching when I work with FLL with DLN. Do you have any further comments you would like to add? If yes, please write them here. ____________________________________ Thank you very much for your participation!! digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 36 Appendix B Participant overview Variable Germany Norway Both countries N= 116 Total% N=105 Total% N= 221 Total% Level of training             FLT 6 5 7 7 13 6 Training to be FLT 83 72 98 93 181 82 Referendariat 27 23 0 0 27 12 Gender             Male 14 12 38 36 52 24 Female 102 88 65 62 167 76 Other 0 0 2 2 2 1 Age (years)             17–20 11 9 23 22 34 15 21–25 60 52 53 50 113 51 26–35 30 26 14 13 44 20 36–45 9 8 10 10 19 9 46–55 5 4 4 4 9 4 56 and above 1 1 1 1 2 1 Level of education (degree)             Secondary school 50 43 43 41 93 42 Bachelor’s degree 27 23 42 40 69 31 Masters degree/ 1. State Exam 29 25 6 6 35 16 PHD 5 4 1 1 6 3 Other 5 4 13 12 18 8 Overall teaching experience             No teaching experience 60 52 66 63 126 57 1-5 years 45 39 31 30 76 34 6-10 years 3 3 1 1 4 2 More than 10 years 8 7 7 7 15 7 Experience teaching students with Diverse Learning Needs (DLN) Classes without students with DLN 15 13 10 10 25 11 Classes with some students with DLN 62 53 52 50 114 52 Special classes for students with DLN 15 13 3 3 18 8 One-to-one sessions with children DLN 3 3 4 4 7 3 Not applicable 21 18 36 34 57 26 c e p s Journal 37 Variable Germany Norway Both countries N= 116 Total% N=105 Total% N= 221 Total% Level of school teachers work at             Primary school 37 32 28 27 65 29 Lower secondary school 25 22 46 44 71 32 Upper secondary school 24 21 27 26 51 23 Special school (special needs) 25 22 1 1 26 12 College, University 3 3 2 2 5 2 Not applicable 2 2 1 1 3 1 Age of students (in years)             Under 5 years 0 0 1 1 1 0 6–12 years 48 41 25 24 73 33 13–15 years 43 37 67 64 110 50 16–19 years 11 9 11 10 22 10 older than 19 3 3 1 1 4 2 Not applicable 11 9 0 0 11 5 FLT_Training             1 st year 14 12 65 62 79 36 2 nd year 15 13 4 4 19 9 3 rd year 17 15 10 10 27 12 4 th year 13 11 11 10 24 11 5 th year 12 10 10 10 22 10 6 th year 14 12 0 0 14 6 NA 31 27 5 5 36 16 digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 38 Effect of demographic variables on TEPDLN Section C factors – data set split by country. Variable Level F1 Confidence F2 Understanding F3 Expectations F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Level of Training Nor Training to be FLT 3.72 0.53 3.64 0.56 3.51 0.55 1.41 FLT 4.06 0.22 4.04 0.24 3.94 0.56 Ger Training to be FLT 3.47 0.50 3.61 0.46 3.15 0.53 0.84 FLT 3.57 0.61 3.83 0.51 3.52 0.70 Teaching experience Nor No experience 3.68 0.45 3.59 0.49 3.44 0.54 1.52 1-5 years 3.81 0.63 3.74 0.65 3.67 0.55 6-10 years 5.00 - 5.00 - 4.20 - > 10 years 3.98 0.38 3.88 0.28 3.80 0.61 Ger No experience 3.48 0.54 3.58 0.47 3.15 0.47 1.22 1-5 years 3.46 0.40 3.69 0.44 3.15 0.58 6-10 years 2.96 0.51 3.11 0.34 2.80 0.72 > 10 years 3.63 0.75 3.79 0.51 3.55 0.63 Experience with DLN Nor Classes without DLN 3.74 0.44 3.65 0.44 3.58 0.50 1.32 Classes with some DLN 3.68 0.51 3.63 0.51 3.57 0.52 Special classes for DLN 3.92 0.94 3.88 0.96 3.73 0.75 One-to-one DLN 4.08 0.30 4.37 0.28 3.90 0.47 Not applicable 3.79 0.54 3.63 0.59 3.43 0.62 Ger Classes without DLN 3.65 0.54 3.85 0.48 3.14 0.56 0.84 Classes with some DLN 3.43 0.52 3.58 0.44 3.13 0.54 Special classes for DLN 3.37 0.41 3.55 0.52 3.22 0.57 One-to-one DLN 3.74 0.71 3.88 0.76 3.46 0.92 Not applicable 3.51 0.48 3.61 0.42 3.23 0.45 c e p s Journal 39 Variable Level F1 Confidence F2 Understanding F3 Expectations F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD FLT Training Nor 1 st year 3.77 0.49 3.65 0.51 3.52 0.51 1.13 2 nd year 4.16 0.56 4.12 0.59 3.95 0.37 3 rd year 3.77 0.41 3.66 0.74 3.58 0.62 4 th year 3.72 0.71 3.74 0.71 3.54 0.76 5 th year 3.25 0.42 3.31 0.33 3.30 0.51 NA 4.13 0.21 4.00 0.16 3.88 0.67 Ger 1 st year 3.61 0.48 3.58 0.51 3.08 0.48 0.88 2 nd year 3.44 0.64 3.56 0.38 3.18 0.53 3 rd year 3.43 0.35 3.61 0.46 3.23 0.44 4 th year 3.47 0.58 3.71 0.56 2.92 0.50 5 th year 3.68 0.50 3.63 0.63 3.40 0.46 6 th year 3.46 0.53 3.65 0.45 3.24 0.63 NA 3.29 0.41 3.58 0.45 3.05 0.57 digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 40 Appendix C Effect of demographic variables on TEPDLN Section C factors – collapsed data set. Variable Level F1 Confidence F2 Understanding F3 Expectations F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Country Norway 3.75 0.52 3.66 0.55 3.54 0.56 13.28** Germany 3.47 0.51 3.62 0.46 3.17 0.54 Level of Training Training to be FLT 3.59 0.53 3.62 0.51 3.32 0.57 2.48 FTL 3.86 0.47 3.95 0.37 3.76 0.63 Level of Education Secondary school 3.56 0.51 3.56 0.46 3.27 0.51 1.25 BA 3.66 0.54 3.70 0.53 3.47 0.62 MA/ 1. State Exam 3.47 0.45 3.66 0.41 3.20 0.56 PHD 3.90 0.72 3.83 0.56 3.56 0.75 Other 3.76 0.64 3.77 0.72 3.48 0.64 Teaching experience No experience 3.58 0.50 3.58 0.48 3.30 0.52 1.04 15 years 3.60 0.53 3.71 0.53 3.36 0.62 6-10 years 3.47 1.10 3.58 0.98 3.15 0.91 More than 10 years 3.80 0.61 3.83 0.41 3.66 0.61 Experience with DLN Classes without DLN 3.68 0.49 3.77 0.46 3.32 0.57 1.46 Classes with some DLN 3.54 0.53 3.60 0.47 3.33 0.57 Special classes for DLN 3.46 0.54 3.61 0.59 3.31 0.61 One-to-one DLN 3.93 0.50 4.16 0.55 3.71 0.67 Not applicable 3.69 0.53 3.62 0.53 3.36 0.57 Future school Primary 3.48 0.49 3.55 0.49 3.22 0.59 1.30 Lower secondary 3.67 0.45 3.65 0.46 3.37 0.50 Upper secondary 3.76 0.67 3.79 0.55 3.46 0.66 Special school (SN) 3.40 0.39 3.53 0.54 3.30 0.53 College University 3.84 0.73 3.93 0.48 3.64 0.49 Not applicable 3.48 0.27 3.72 0.69 3.53 0.57 c e p s Journal 41 Variable Level F1 Confidence F2 Understanding F3 Expectations F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age of students Under 5 years 4.00 - 4.00 - 4.00 - 1.50 6-12 years 3.44 0.47 3.53 0.50 3.22 0.58 13-15 years 3.71 0.53 3.67 0.49 3.41 0.56 16-19 years 3.60 0.64 3.81 0.56 3.40 0.67 older than 19 3.97 0.78 3.75 0.48 3.40 0.58 Not applicable 3.42 0.32 3.69 0.53 3.34 0.49 FLT Training 1 st year 3.74 0.49 3.64 0.51 3.44 0.53 1.51 2 nd year 3.59 0.68 3.68 0.47 3.34 0.58 3 rd year 3.55 0.40 3.63 0.54 3.36 0.53 4 th year 3.58 0.64 3.72 0.62 3.20 0.69 5 th year 3.48 0.51 3.49 0.53 3.35 0.48 6 th year 3.29 0.41 3.58 0.45 3.05 0.57 NA 3.55 0.55 3.70 0.43 3.33 0.66 digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign ... 42 Biographical note Solveig Chilla, PhD, is a full professor for language and communica - tion education at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany. Her main areas of research are digital-inclusive language education, language diversity, multilin - gual and multimodal language development and didactics and developmental language disorders. Gerard Doetjes, PhD, is the director of the Norwegian National Centre for English and other Foreign Languages in Education, Halden. His re - search interests include mutual intelligibility between Scandinavian languages, vocabulary learning and teaching, inclusive language education and foreign language teacher education. Karin Vogt, PhD, is a full professor for teaching English as a foreign language at the University of Education Heidelberg, Germany. She is a trained teacher of English and French. Her research interests include classroom-based language assessment, (digital-)inclusive foreign language teaching, vocationally oriented language learning, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and digital media/artificial intelligence in the foreign language classroom. Lina Abed Ibrahim, PhD, is a speech and language education re - search associate at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany. Her research inter - ests include multilingual and multimodal language development, language and communication disorders, heritage language acquisition, language typology, second/foreign language didactics and inclusive education. Dina Tsagari, PhD, is a full professor of English language pedagogy/ TESOL at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. Her research interests include language testing and assessment, materials design and evaluation, differenti - ated instruction, multilingualism, distance education, learning difficulties and inclusive education.