Cooperation for developing digital competence in preschool – Challenges for teacher education – students – practicum preschools

Abstract The article focuses on preschool teacher education in Sweden. The purpose of the study is to explore and analyse opportunities for and impediments to cooperation around digital competence among three groups: preschool teacher students, local teacher educators, and teacher educators at a university. The study presented in the article is performed through focus group discussions. It has proceeded analytically from the design theory concept agency. The results show the three groups diverse statements. The informants agree primarily about the status of preschools in terms of the supply and use of digital resources. The greatest difference emerges about the cultural resources—if, how, and why the digital resources are used. Despite the negative experiences of the students, the discussions reveal a concrete desire for cooperation in all three focus groups, emphasizing the importance of using preschool teachers as a resource for development of digital competence.


Introduction
Although digital technology and digital resources are used more and more in teacher education, research shows that development in this area is slow (Kirschner, 2015;Tømte, 2015). Erstad et al. (2021) argued for the need to develop new pedagogy to meet the complex needs for adequate learning environments in the 21st century. Schools, preschools, and teacher education programs therefore face important challenges. Scott (2015) and Lang (2010) highlighted for instance, the need for methods that support teacher students' ability to reflect on their work and opportunities for professional development in a technology-rich society. They have also identified a lack of research in the area of interaction between schools and higher education (Lang, 2010;Scott, 2015). The present study is expected to increase understanding of how the teacher educators at a university, local teacher educators in the field, and preschool teacher students can cooperate to develop digital competence in preschool. Swedish preschools are now facing the challenge of implementing the more specific digitalization goals of the revised curriculum for preschool (Lpfö18). What happens at the critical moment when digitalization becomes a requirement rather than a more general possibility in day-to-day activities? Newell et al. (2020) claimed that pedagogical development is ideally carried out in cooperation with colleagues. In the article, I analyse how two different groups of teacher educators and one group of preschool teacher students, in separate focus group discussions, talk about ways in which cooperation can be implemented, aimed at developing digital competence in preschool. The aim of the article is to explore and analyse opportunities for and impediments to cooperation around

Digital competence
Digital competence is about using and understanding digital tools and media, solving problems and realizing ideas, understanding the influence of digitalization in society, and taking a critical and responsible approach (Kjällander & Riddersporre, 2020). The term adequate digital competence makes it clear that such competence changes over time as both the tools themselves and the use of them develop. The term is also used to indicate that it is not possible to specify an absolute level for digital competence as it needs to be gradually developed based on the demands of society and the conditions of children and pupils (SOU, 2015:28). To enable meaningful learning situations with digital tools in preschool, teachers have to understand and assess a digital competence. A wide range of other issues may promote or impede the work with digital tools in preschool. Economy, technical conditions, and the attitudes and skills of members of staff can constitute both positive and negative factors. Support from the principal can be an important enabling factor, while the attitudes of legal guardians and results from previous research instead only seem to obstruct the promotion of children's digital competence in preschool (Forsling, 2021).

Digital resources in preschool
Digitalization in preschool garners both resistance and enthusiasm. Nilsen (2018) presented both positive and negative challenges related to the use of digital tools in preschool, while Kjällander (2014) highlighted successful examples of digital activities in preschool. Some cognitive research in turn focuses on the dangers of small children's screen time (Nutley, 2019) and there is also a kind of moral discussion based on a cultural perspective. Lindahl and Folkesson (2012), for example, described how digital media have sometimes caused feelings of moral aversion in Swedish preschool. A common idea has been that preschool is responsible for protecting children from popular culture through offering alternatives from a tradition of "high culture" (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012). This standpoint might be one of the reasons why resistance to using digital resources can still be detected in preschool practice. Technology is seen as something to be resisted, something that can be avoided, and something that must be made less threatening (Hernwall, 2016).

A new curriculum for Swedish preschool
In the revised curriculum for preschool, Lpfö18, effective from 1 July 2019, digitalization in preschool has been given a prominent position. The purpose of more specific formulations is to increase the equivalence between different preschools. In several passages in the text, should is used instead of can.
Education should also give children the opportunity to develop adequate digital skills by enabling them to develop an understanding of the digitalization they encounter in everyday life. Children should be given the opportunity to develop a critical, responsible attitude towards digital technology, so that eventually they can see opportunities and understand risks, and also be able to evaluate information (page 7, English version, Lpfö18) Success factors for offering children digital competence are related to the teacher's own digital competence as well as his or her ability to supervise work in preschool, integrate digital tools and resources in teaching, and provide children with concrete and manageable challenges. This in turn requires preschool teachers and other members of staff to be familiar with the use of digital tools and able to select digital learning resources based on assessments of their pedagogical value and the various backgrounds and needs of different children (Kjällander, 2014).

Professional cooperation
The Swedish Higher Education Act (SFS 1992(SFS :1434 states that all higher education and especially vocational programmes, like the preschool teacher education, must be based on science and proven experience. Like all Swedish teacher education programmes, it is organized in two different domains of teaching, namely instruction at a university on the one hand, and on the other a placement (verksamhetsförlagd utbildning, VFU), which means practical training in the field (cf. Ribaeus et al., 2022). The aim for the placement component of teacher education is to form a totality together with the component taught at the university. In connection with placements, the theory and practice of school or preschool activities are supposed to converge. What students study in courses at the university should be possible to put into practice during their placement, and valuable experiences from school or preschool activities can be related to the content of more theoretical courses that the students take. During a placement period at a practicum preschool, students get practice as they plan, carry out, document, evaluate, and develop teaching and activities. Students are also supposed to have opportunities to reflect upon their education, independently and together with others. Local teacher educators and teacher educators at the university have to cooperate to support students as they develop in their professional role as teachers (cf. Ribaeus et al., 2022). In three-way conferences and other forms of cooperation between teacher educators in the field and at the university and preschool teacher students, two different cultures of organisation converge: the university and preschool. Teacher students can be seen as mediators between the two domains, not only as gobetweens but also as actors who complete tasks, meet demands, and realize goals.

A gap between theory and practice
Previous research has identified a gap between the two domains of teaching, the universities and the practicum schools. Ødegaard (2011) stated that teacher students need to combine theory and practice for their professional development. Ribeaus and Enochsson, (2021) highlighted that more cooperation between universities and practicum schools can be a way to reduce the gap mentioned above. In cooperation, structured reflection is a way to create opportunities for approaching and understanding each other's work. The most important type of structured reflection is critical reflection. This can be related to if, and how, educators' response to students' needs, for example, concerning how different tools can be used as part of didactical practices. Critical reflection is further about how educators draw on the students' established insight (Almås et al., 2021). Enochsson and Ribeaus (2021) provided examples in their study of how horizontal networking, which also includes a component of critical reflection, enables the students to relate theory to practice. They showed how recurring reflection seminars with teacher students, teacher educators, and researchers narrowed the gap between the two domains of teaching. Carmi and Tamir (2021) emphasized the importance of the teacher educators' active role, their power and agency to tailor professional learning opportunities for their students. In their study, they found how the students performed specific roles to respond with the relationships with their educators. Various types of collaboration were observed, in a form of co-teaching. Furthermore, the results showed that collaboration that led to discussion of practice and a mutual pedagogical vision were important factors for mutual learning. Wenger (2010) described how practice is produced over time by actors through active and dynamic negotiations of meaning. This process involves many kinds of obstacles and challenges, often external factors that the participants have little chance of controlling. Wenger suggested that communities of practice constitute the foundation for competence and development in an organisation. Institutions are there to serve practice, not the other way around (2010).

Theory
Design for learning, didactic design, can be used to understand learning in relation to a context and to the conditions created for learning in different environments and situations (Leijon & Lindstrand, 2012). The conditions can be described as possible relationships between different actors and between actors and objects. In the present study, these possibilities emerged in the informants' statements about relations between teachers, local teacher educators, and students, but also in the opportunities or impediments that were present in the institutional framework.

Design-oriented theories
Didactic design can be defined as a social practice based on agency, dynamics, and objects (Lund & Hauge, 2011). Actors in teaching contexts possess agency both in the social processes and in the concrete handling of resources for teaching and learning. It is a question of how design is continuously constructed and reconstructed by the participants in a certain activity (Lund & Hauge, 2011). Kress (2009), Selander andKress (2021), and Leijon and Lindstrand, (2012) have all highlighted how the design theory perspectives focus on the use, or non-use, of various resources in social practices, both in informal settings and in formal learning environments. Instruments, tools, and resources are key concepts in design-oriented theories. Kozulin (2003) described how a shift from individuals to groups has resulted in an emphasis on agency in relation to learning. This perspective also highlights the development of a person's zone of proximal development through scaffolding with cultural resources. Cultural resources as a concept denote resources used to discuss people's development, communication, and learning. Cultural resources are usually divided into intellectual and physical categories, but this distinction is not always functional (Wertsch, 1998). The present article distinguishes between digital and cultural resources as follows: the concept digital resources is used as an umbrella term for resources made possible through digital technology-from hardware to software. The concept also encompasses digital platforms, streaming services, and social media. The artefact itself plays a significant role, but it does not in itself possess agency. The concept cultural resources in this article denotes something that, together with the artefacts, supports conditions, opportunities, or affordances for the completion of certain tasks. The interest, motivation, experience, and competence of teachers belong to the category of cultural resources.

Agency
The study presented in the present article has proceeded analytically from the design theory concept agency. Jewitt (2009) described how design for learning allows for an approach based on technical design, on the one hand, and, on the other, learning design-something that can result in dynamic solutions for both education and technology. Lund and Hauge (2011) emphasized collective activity and the intentions of the participants or actors. In social practice, the actors configure and re-configure various resources in activities that reveal knowledge domains and knowledge advancements.
Didactic design involves a multitude of actors in different roles. In preschool, both educators and children can be designers of learning. The teachers possess a formal agency, which allows them to select the content, form, and implementation of an activity. The selection of a certain design is significant for whether or not an activity will be regarded as meaningful (Selander & Kress, 2021). Research on children and agency explores how children who participate in activities and actions that for some reason do not seem meaningful may react in different ways (Corsaro, 2012;Skånfors, 2013). Some children partake in the activity in accordance with the expectations of the teachers. Other children react through adapting coupled with some form of resistance, a desire to be part of the collective but at the same time to claim an agency that makes it possible to redesign the original design. A third group of children may react with resistance. They use their agency, challenge the educator's intentions, and may therefore be excluded from fellowship and participation. These ways of reacting to a design have also been confirmed in a former study of how teaching with digital artefacts in preschool encounters children's informal textual experiences (Forsling, 2021). It is not unusual, however, for resistance to emerge in the appropriation of technology, Wertsch (1998) pointed out. It can even be an important part of the learning process. In the present study, this type of resistance can be detected in attitudes towards the use of digital tools among the preschool teachers.
According to Mäkitalo (2016), agency is the very essence of learning from a sociocultural perspective. Lagerlöf et al. (2019) claimed that agency is dependent on the context and the medium and therefore not something that we can take for granted. In the context of school and preschool, the distribution of power is also an important aspect of how agency is developed and used. There is a traditional division of roles and agency in learning contexts. There are clear directives in curricula, syllabuses, and local steering documents concerning who is responsible for resources, for education, and for teaching. The differences between the agency of children and the agency of grown-ups are perhaps particularly evident in the preschool context, but differences in agency between teacher students, local teacher educators, and teacher educators at the university also emerge in the present study. The various policy documents provide the groups with different types and levels of agency.
All types of design processes include three elements: the resources that are available in the design, the design itself, and the redesigned representation (New London Group & New London Group, 1996). These elements proceed in an active, dynamic process. In a didactic design, the actors participate and are actively engaged in the process. In relation to the use of technology for learning, it may be even more important for all actors to feel involved in the process in order to make sure that their needs are met (Scanlon, 2010). Nilsen et al. (2020) emphasized that it is significant that actors may reach a shared understanding which identifies gaps in the didactic design.

Method
The study comprises two parts. In the first part, during the spring of 2020, four focus group discussions were carried out: two of them with preschool teacher students, one with teacher educators at a university in central Sweden, and one with local teacher educators in the field. The original idea was for teacher students as well to gather only once, but one more occasion was offered due to various circumstances. Five preschool teacher students, five local teacher educators, and five teacher educators from the university participated. Students and teachers were invited by email. The email addresses to local teacher educators were found at the VFU-network. The students were 1 st -years students, attending the same course, and the university teachers participated in different courses at the preschool teacher programme.
In the second part, during the autumn of 2020, members of the three focus groups were invited to a jointly seminar in Zoom where results from the first part were presented and discussed. The aim was to communicate obstacles and possibilities for cooperation.

Ethics
The informants received oral and written information about the study. They were also informed that they could retract their consent at any time without stating a reason, and all informants then confirmed their participation by granting informed consent.
All information obtained in the study will be handled in a way which prevents unauthorized access. The personal information collected will be treated in accordance with informed consent, and if applicable with the regulation of public interest. Personal information will be stored for one year maximum after the publication of the study. The informants were further informed that they have a right, according to GDPR, 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), to access all information and, if necessary, have any inaccuracies corrected free of charge. This also includes the right to request erasure or restriction, or object to the handling of personal information.
According to the General Data Protection Regulation, pseudonymisation means handling personal information in a way that prevents the personal information from being connected to a specific person without supplementary information (such as for instance, a code key), under the condition that this supplementary information is stored separately and that adequate technical and organisational measures are taken.

Focus group discussions
Focus group discussion was selected since this method involves collecting data from group interaction around a specific topic (Wibeck, 2010). The focus was the collected knowledge and experience of the group in relation to digitalization in preschool. In focus group discussions, the process is the point, that is, what happens in conversation and what emerges from interaction between participants, not the opinions of individual participants in relation to the topic in question (Krueger & Casey, 2015;Wibeck, 2010). Focus group discussion as a data collection method reveals the informants' views and shared experiences of the subject treated in a study, but not their actions. In the first part of the study the participants were organized in three focus groups: 1. The student, 2. The local teacher educators, 3. The teachers from the university. I acted as moderator in the conversations, using an interview guide with themes related to the aim and research question The discussions were carried out in Zoom and each session took approximately one hour. The discussions from part 1 and part 2 were documented through sound recordings and transcribed in full.

Process of analysis
The analysis was done through qualitative content analysis, a categorization of meaning in five steps (Denscombe, 2009). The process began when the material was read the first time for an overview. In the second step, the examination of the material began and recurring themes were sought. In step three, the data was coded in order to be grouped thematically. This step also introduced the initial interpretation of the material. The first interpretation led to a new thematisation based on content in relation to the aim and research questions. Themes related to lack of resources, competence and poor communication arouse. This work continued into step four, when alternative explanations were considered. This last interpretive process resulted in the themes, headings, and subheadings that structure the results section. Based on these themes, the key concept of the analysis, agency, from design-oriented theories were used as a starting point for the final analysis of the material (Jewitt, 2009;Selander & Kress, 2021).

Results and analysis
The focus of the article is to explore and analyse the conditions for cooperation between preschool teacher students, teacher educators at the university, and local teacher educators, related to developing digital competence. The study has proceeded analytically from the design theory concept: agency. Didactic design involves a multitude of actors in different roles. In this part the statements of the participants are presented in a descriptive way, with the analyse ending each theme. Two themes related to the aim and research question are presented, Challenges for developing digital competence, and Challenges for cooperation.

Challenges for developing digital competence
The three groups' different statements indicate how cultural resources challenge the development of digital competence. The students are explicit about the insecurity, lack of interest, and lack of competence among preschool teachers as factors obstructing work with digital tools. The issue of agency is interesting in this context. What alternatives (rights and duties) are available to the preschool teachers based on the curriculum? The two groups of teacher educators emphasize personal interest as an important factor for using digital resources in preschool. The questions that emerge here are related to leadership and meaning-making.

Analysis-challenges for developing digital competence
The teacher students express a feeling that the preschool teachers might see them as a threat, and also imply that they are considered of lower rank in teaching contexts. Despite the fact that the students sometimes possess more competence than the preschool teachers do, they are not granted agency to design learning situations or even contribute to the design. The teacher students' statement about not being employed as a resource in preschool activities can be seen as a disregard of agency. Such experiences may cause feelings of meaninglessness and a lack of participation and agency.
In the follow-up focus group discussion, the students' remark about not being seen as a resource is once again addressed. One of the teacher educators at the university says: It is really exciting, I think, to find out about this. My feeling is that students might be seen more or less as a resource during different placement periods. And I'm also thinking it matters to what extent students claim a space for themselves at their placement school.
She pointed out that there are also many students who instead feel exploited. Another perspective is that the local teacher educators ´learn a great deal from students and together with students´.
One local teacher educator related the idea of the student as a resource to the preschool teachers' and the students' own interest in digital tools and their use. He claims that everything is based on experience that has been gained outside the university. The teacher educators at the university discussed this issue in the follow-up conversation: This is a part of what we are developing at the university now, to include more about digitality throughout the entire programme. This has not been clear before. So I am very hopeful that all students will feel that they can learn a lot about this at the university from now on.

Challenges for cooperation
The analysis indicates the impediments to developing digital competence more clearly than the opportunities. The teacher educators at the university reflect upon the different conditions for skills training in the three groups. When they discuss digital competence in the syllabuses, they express a certain feeling of coercion-the concept of digitalization "has turned into such a hype. It has to be included."

Analysis-challenges for cooperatIon
A feeling of powerlessness emerges clearly in the statements of the teacher educators at the university about the lack of adequate learning environments, facilities, tools, and technical support. Despite good intentions, the teacher educators do not have or get opportunities to create grounds for cooperation. They also discuss roles and responsibility. Progression is important, but who allocates agency in the organisation? The teacher educators in the field experience support from their managers and have assignments and agency to work on the basis of the new content of the curriculum, but the organisation as such, and especially the lack of time, impedes this work.

A gap between education and practice
In the follow-up focus group discussion, the participants noticed that it was clear from the accounts from the initial focus group discussions that the three groups have very different perspectives on the issue. One of the teacher students highlights the differences between education and practice: It is a very special situation to be in the middle of teacher training where we talk a lot about how important it is that children have the right to acquire adequate digital competence. We get all these signals that the children are entitled to this and when you are out there you are supposed to keep that in mind and investigate. It is difficult not to wear "critical glasses" when out [on placement].
There is a discussion regarding whether the university is ´behind´ or ´ahead´. One of the teacher educators at the university points out that there is a lack of balance in this debate.
We sometimes say that we are a bit behind at the university. Then it might be a question of digital tools and how they are used. And when the students come out and want to see something with their own eyes that they have read about and tested, you do not exactly cater to that. But you also know a great deal about new things, we try to include recent research and the intentions regarding digitalization in the curriculum.
She goes on to foreground the intentions of the teacher training programme, that the students are actually expected to examine what preschools do in a critical manner. A colleague confirms this view: We are behind when it comes to technology, but we are ahead in terms of theory and research. That's where you as students end up, in the gap between these two things. You go out there with questions and thoughts and ideas coming from us and you look around and it does not really correspond.

The importance of the local teacher educator
All participants in the follow-up focus group discussion agree that the local teacher educator is an important resource for developing digital competence in preschool. One of the teacher educators at the university summarizes it as follows: Working preschool teachers are of course up-to-date when it comes to what is used. That is why it is so important that they are involved in this. We are a bit behind regarding the current situation, no matter how much we want to keep up and how much we try. Things take quite a bit of time for us at the university. The preschool teachers are also important in the field.

Challenges for cooperation
One of the participant says that the local teacher educators can contribute to upskilling for those who teach at the university, and opportunities for course development: I think the exchange of ideas is really important. We can discuss concepts and tools. Just sharing ideas. How would this work? Did you ever think of this? And this aspect of challenging each other. Based on the combination of different experiences.

The importance of the local teacher educator
The students emphasized the importance of more cooperation among the local teacher educators. One of their suggestions was to invite the local teacher educators more often to the workshops arranged by the preschool teacher education programme.
So we can talk to them who have been working in the field for a while. In the workshops, we do a lot of thinking and get really excited about doing all these projects with the children. Then we would know that when we get there we can continue that discussion. That would have been cool.
The preschool teacher Nore has been making occasional visits to the preschool teacher education programme to teach practical digital exercises. It is a question of obtaining a better understanding of each other: It becomes more concrete for the students. It is not just something you read about in books. That is also great theoretical knowledge. But this aspect of practice. This is what we have documented, it is proven and effective. And possible to disseminate.
Annika, one of the teacher educators at the university, highlighted the importance of involving educators from the field in the programme: ´(Educators) who can show us what happens here and now. How things are talked about in preschool. We bring in research and combine that with what happens in preschool. That means another perspective on things.4

.9 Three-way conferences
Some cooperation between the university and the field is already in place. During the course of a teacher education programme, students take part in a number of formal occasions for discussion, reflection, and assessment. A so-called three-way conference is one such formalized occasion. Three-way conferences are arranged and carried out by teacher educators at the university in connection with a placement visit at a practicum school or preschool. At the university that participates in the present study, these are one-hour conferences. Three-way conferences are structured conversations between a student, a teacher educator from the university, and a local teacher educator and focus on the student's professional development. Each conference is based on an activity that the student has planned and carried out, and structured by the intended learning outcomes of the course. The purpose is for students to reflect upon and assess their practice and professional development with support from teacher educators who contribute to visualizing their progression in relation to the learning outcomes.

Research and focus groups for cooperation
The university teachers Annika and Miriam also foregrounded the importance of research, a cooperation between students and researchers and teacher educators: ´Just having a researcher involved in the programme often allows the students to get really close to research and theory.´ Their collegue Katarina concluded the discussion by once more mentioning the potential for cooperation in some form of focus group discussion and networking.
The informants highlighted that focus groups can be effective methods for reaching mutual understanding: It would be great fun to join a focus group with real preschool teachers as well. To find out about their view of everything.
Right now we are speculating about what we think is the problem of digital work in preschool. But then we could engage in discussion to find out what they actually need, or what we need to know more about to be able to use it in preschool.

Analysis-challenges for cooperatIon
In the analysis the design theory concepts resources for learning and agency converge. What surfaces most clearly is the statement made by all groups that preschool teachers are important as a resource for learning when developing digital competence in the teacher education programme. The students' wishes are related to developing their own understanding of how digitalization can be applied in preschool. The local teacher educators claim that the work in preschool can be made more tangible for the students through more developed forms of cooperation, while the teacher educators at the university emphasize different perspectives to develop teaching, and more connections to research in a way that the other two groups do not. A method for sharing perspectives that all groups mention is focus group discussion. All suggestions and wishes of the three groups are dependent on agency, partly within the different domains, and partly between them.

The importance of different perspectives
The group foregrounds the need for cooperation and shares ideas about meetings. One of the teacher educators at the university suggests one meeting per semester: I believe in challenging each other. We as teacher educators need challenges, I am certain that you as preschool teachers need challenges and I am certain that the students, that you miss being challenged, it is clear from your answers here. This is what we need to be able to do. Then we also have to challenge each other.
In the follow-up focus group discussion, one of the teacher educators at the university again raises the importance of different perspectives, and slightly different emphases. A number of obstacles and opportunities are identified in relation to cooperation between the three groups of participants. The local teacher educator reacts to the student statement in the initial focus group discussions that students cannot make full use of their competence because ´they are lower rank or if it even said that they are a threat. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Because the students who come out [on placement] are future colleagues, you know. And future colleagues can never be a threat.´ A couple of the teacher educators at the university reply that there are in fact indications that this can be the case, ´it turns into a bit of a threat regarding competence´.

When organization becomes an obstacle
The teacher educators at the university want to include preschool teachers in the course, ´but it is not as easy as it sounds´. The so-called "Värmland model 1 " is mentioned as an obstacle for cooperation.
As it is, we at the university cannot engage preschool teachers from the field. There is anxiety about this in the municipalities, since there is a tendency that when preschool teachers come to the university they stay, as lecturers. So we are not allowed to invite them the way we would want to.
The course coordinators have to apply to be able to use preschool teachers in their courses, and based on the applications there is a ´distribution of teachers that can be used a certain number of hours.´ Moreover, it turns out that local teacher educators also ask to be more involved in the courses. This usually turns into a question of money, since substitute teachers have to be hired at the preschools. Another problem that has received attention is that skilled preschool teachers disappear from the field to work at the university.
The local teacher educator exclaims that this is the first time she has ever heard about the "Värmland model". One of the teacher educators at the university confirms the problem: We have to have a number of senior lecturers, with PhD degrees, involved in our courses as well. At the same time, we need to engage lecturers too that stay with us. So this is a bit tricky -a kind of balancing act.

Developing the already consisting
There is already cooperation in the form of tripartite professional development talks. The group talks about how those talks can be developed.
We can develop this amazing meeting place much more. And discuss digitalization in relation to our intended learning outcomes which allows us to help the students to turn theory into practice or practice into theory in our teacher training programmes. So this is something that I think all of us should consider and ask ourselves how we can participate. Or how we would like to participate in that forum.
One of the students reflects upon the possibilities of more cooperation during the placement period but thinks it can be difficult to do more and at the same time be ´in the middle of one's own learning process and be assessed´. It would be better to do something outside the placement, without pressure, to develop ´digital competence at all levels´.
Focus groups would be really good, I think, for everyone involved. It would be great fun to do workshops with local teachers. For us as students to cooperate at the university with local teachers in workshops on digital development.
One of the teacher educators at the university concludes with looking ahead: ´It is going to be really interesting to follow this over the next few years, since I think students and teacher educators at the university and in the field will talk much more and observe and think much more and work much more with progression. It will be very interesting to see what happens.5

. Discussion
The results show an uneven supply of digital tools in preschool, and it is possible to assume that this is the case in many Swedish preschools today-a picture of an ongoing digitalization process. If resources are not available in preschool, this is obviously an impediment, but both students and local teacher educators mention that there are preschools that have a good supply of digital tools but that for some reason do not use them. Some of the findings are more diverse, regarding the difference between how the cultural and the digital resources are used, for example.

Cultural and digital resources out of sync
The results indicates that the cultural resources and the digital resources are not in sync in terms of opportunities (cf., Hernwall, 2016;Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012). In relation to how the cultural resources enable or impede the development of digital competence, the different perspectives of the three focus groups emerge. The obstacles are more obvious than the opportunities. The students claim that the attitudes of the preschool teachers present the greatest obstacle to working with digital resources, and in conjunction with this, the students have experienced uncertainty, a lack of interest, and a lack of relevant competence among preschool teachers. Questions related to teachers' resistance to emerge in the appropriation of technology, arises (cf., Wertsch, 1998). In the present study, this type of resistance can be detected in attitudes towards the use of digital tools among the preschool teachers educators.

Disregard of agency
The teacher students mentioned disappointment about not being employed as resource in the activities in preschool (cf., Almås et al., 2021). They pondered if the preschool teachers might see them as a threat, and think that they are of lower rank in teaching contexts. These experiences may cause frustration and a lack of participation and agency. Conversely, the teacher educators at the university explained that some students with high digital competence had felt exploited at their practicum preschools. The local teacher educators describe various experiences ranging from students who had "not learned much at the university" to curious and competent students, but in the discussion they never mention the possibility of using students as a resource in digital activities. If the three domains cooperated more extensively, these issues could probably be explored further to promote greater understanding.
The teacher students' statements of not being used as a resource in preschool activities can be seen as a disregard of agency. Such experiences may cause feelings of meaninglessness and a lack of participation and agency.

Cooperation for professional development
The evident focus on obstacles indicates a need for transparency and cooperation for developing competence in the three different domains. Despite the divergent views and despite the negative experiences of the students, the discussions reveal a concrete desire for cooperation in all three focus groups (cf., Scanlon, 2010). The focus groups emphasize the importance of using preschool teachers as a resource for the development of digital competence in the teacher education programme. This could be related to Carmi and Tamir (2021), emphasizing the teacher educators' important role, how the teachers use their power and agency to design professional learning opportunities for the students, creating an opportunity for a mutual pedagogical vision.

Opportunities for critical reflection
It turns out that some collaborative projects are already in place but all three focus groups still want more cooperation. The students want to develop a greater understanding for how digitalization can be applied in preschool. The local teacher educators want more developed forms of cooperation for the work with digital resources in the field to be more tangible for the students. The teacher educators at the university want to find out about different perspectives to develop teaching (cf., Almås et al., 2021). To reduce the gap between universities and practicum schools some form of horizontal networking could enable the students to relate theory to practice (cf. Ribeaus & Enochsson, 2021). In such cooperation, structured critical reflection is a possible way to create opportunities for approaching and understanding each other's contexts and conditions. All suggestions and wishes of the three groups are dependent on agency, partly within the different domains, and partly between them. Here it is noteworthy that the method of the study has inspired the participants to find new forms of cooperation. All three groups advocate focus group discussions as a tool for sharing perspectives.

Limitations of the study
The scope of this study is limited and therefore the results are not generalizable. The area is not thoroughly researched and there is great potential in, for example, further exploring how agency can be linked to teachers (and teacher educators) digital competence. Such a study can be important to legitimize the educators' agency, in relation to their work with digital tools in preschool.

Conclusion
The study highlights how the use of various resources in educational contexts is offering opportunities for cooperation between university and preschool, to reduce the gap between theory and practice. The study also implicates that the degree of the actors agency, or even their experienced agency, affect their feelings of either content or frustration.
Anyhow, the students' negative experiences do not take away their wish for more cooperation with the local teacher educators. It might even be possible to assume that they strengthen the appeal for cooperation. At the same time, a feeling of powerlessness emerges in the teachers' statements about the lack of adequate learning environments, facilities, tools, and technical support. Despite good intentions, the teacher educators do not have or get opportunities to create grounds for cooperation.

Opportunities for cooperation
What opportunities are there, then, for cooperation between the three groups included in the study? If we assume that all groups are part of a didactic design, the actors are (or are expected to be) participants and actively engaged in the process (cf., Selander & Kress, 2021). All types of design processes include three elements: the resources that are available in the design, the design itself, and the redesigned representation (New London Group & New London Group, 1996). All elements and participants interact in an active, dynamic process. In the context of the study, the resources available in the design are described in the informants' statements. The design itself emerges in the analysis of those statements-what teaching resources are present and used, and what kind of agency do the participants possess? The third aspect of the design process, the redesigned representation, might be the account of opportunities for cooperation. In that phase, all actors must feel actively involved in the process to make sure that their needs are fulfilled (Scanlon, 2010).

A mutual learning arena
The purpose of the study was to explore and analyse existing opportunities for and impediments to cooperation related to digital competence for three groups: preschool teacher students, local teacher educators, and teacher educators at a university. The study was a try to fill part of a specific research gap in the area of interaction between schools, in this case preschools, and higher education (cf., Lang, 2010;Scott, 2015). The results and analysis indicate that more cooperation could provide the actors with a chance to reach shared understanding and identify gaps in the present didactic design. In addition, perhaps such understanding could be a basis for interacting around professional development opportunities in a technology-rich society-not only for the preschool teacher students but also for teacher educators in the field and at the university. A developed cooperation could become a mutual learning arena, combining theory and practice (cf., Carmi & Tamir, 2021;Ribeaus & Enochsson, 2020;Ødegaard, 2011).