Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education

Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education

Edited by
Eyvind Elstad
University of Oslo, Norway
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6300-646-0 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6300-647-7 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-648-4 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2016 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductionvii
Eyvind Elstad

Part I. Educational Technology Beyond Learning

1. Educational Technology – Expectations and Experiences: An Introductory

Overview3
Eyvind Elstad

2. ICT and Education Beyond Learning: A Framework for Analysis,

Development and Critique 29
Gert Biesta

Part II. Educational Technology in Schools

3. Educational Technology in Schools: Policymaking and Policy Enactment 47

Eyvind Elstad

4. What Explains Pupils’ Perceived Motivational Conflict between Academic

Work and Off-Task Behaviour in Technology-Rich Classrooms? 59
Eyvind Elstad, Thomas Arnesen and Knut-Andreas Christophersen

5. Why Is There a Wedge between the Promise of Educational Technology

and the Experiences in a Technology-Rich Pioneer School? 77
Eyvind Elstad

6. On the Life of ICT and School Leadership in a Large-Scale Reform

Movement: A Case Study 97
Trond Eiliv Hauge

7. A Small Step Strategy to Boost Integration of Digital Technology in

Learning and Teaching at an Upper-Secondary School 117
Tarja Tikkanen

Part III. Social Networking Sites, Social Media, and Internet:

Challenging Issues for Schools

8. Social Networking Sites, Social Media, and Internet: Challenging Issues

for Schools 139
Eyvind Elstad

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

9. The Social Media Natives: The Relationship between Young Peoples’

Media User Type and Their Media Use at School 149
Petter Bae Brandtzæg

10. Cyber Harassment and Quality of Life 163

Steinar Thorvaldsen, Anna-Maria Stenseth, Gunstein Egeberg,
Geir Olaf Pettersen and John A. Rønning

11. The Impact of Cyberbullying and Cyber Harassment on Academic

Achievement183
Gunstein Egeberg, Steinar Thorvaldsen and John A. Rønning

12. Ninth Graders’ Use of and Trust in Wikipedia, Textbooks, and Digital
Resources from Textbook Publishers 205
Ove Edvard Hatlevik

13. Examining Gender Differences in ICT Literacy, Interest, and Use:

Norwegian Results from the ICILS 2013 221
Inger Throndsen and Ove Edvard Hatlevik

Part IV. Coda

14. Backwards and Forwards: Reflections on Teaching in a Digital Age 243

Avril Loveless

vi
 EYVIND ELSTAD

INTRODUCTION

For more than three decades, researchers, policy makers and educationalists have all
harboured great expectations towards the use of technology in schools. This belief
has received a hard knock after an OECD 2015-report has shown that computers
do not improve pupil results: Investing heavily in school computers and classroom
technology does not improve pupils’ performance, and frequent use of computers in
schools is more likely to be associated with lower results. Educational technology
has raised false expectations. The prevailing view of educational technology has
shifted. Nevertheless, hardly anyone wishes for a situation in which pupils do not
use technology in the service of learning: education is supposed to prepare for the
future, and it is evident that technology is one of the answers to the challenges of
the future. Many school professionals, however, feel uncertain how schools should
tackle challenges relating to the distractions that hamper in-depth learning, easy cut-
and-paste solutions and online offensiveness that occur while pupils are at school.
The initiative to provide a tablet or PC for each pupil is continuing despite a lack of
evidence that it is beneficial to learning. School professionals and policy makers are
seeking answers to the question of how schools ought to relate to challenges created
by the use of technology in the school. The book is an attempt to raise questions and
start a debate. The book presents new research relevant to a better understanding of
the challenges and opportunities inherent in educational technology and strategies
are discussed in relation to handling these challenges. Rather than presenting ready
solutions, the book attempts to provoke debate and to contribute to a firmer grasp
on reality. The articles in this volume offer an up-to-date discussion. In tackling
the critical issues created by technology, this book provides an important resource
for student teachers, teachers, education scholars and those interested in a critical
examination of digital expectations and experiences in school education. The
authors do not present a common front on the complex question of the proper use
of information and communication technology in the school but instead present a
diversity of arguments and viewpoints.
A main justification of this book is a turn of ICT appreciation: educational
technology has raised false hopes. Computers do not improve pupil results: PISA
results show no appreciable improvements in pupils’ attainment in reading literacy,
mathematics literacy and science literacy in countries that have invested heavily in
ICT for education (OECD, 2015). This OECD study shows that there is no single
country in which the internet is used frequently at school by a majority of students and

vii
E. ELSTAD

where students’ performance improved (2015). Frequent use of computers in schools

is more likely to be associated with lower results! Pupils who use ICT moderately
at school have better learning results than pupils who use ICT very frequently (and
of course better than pupils who use ICT rarely). The top-performing countries in
digital reading and navigation skills are very cautious about using technology in
their classrooms. What are the consequenes of this study? This book is an attempt to
explicate, illustrate, and critically examine the digital expectations and experiences.
The demise of traditional schooling has often been predicted based on the
assumption that media-related developments will explode it apart and revolutionise
thinking about education. The 21st-century student has experienced the shift from
the world of writing and the book to the world of images and the screen. Political
expectations for the modernisation of schooling through the use of information and
communication technology and the allocation of funds in accordance with politically
created agendas have led to perceived pressure on school staff to employ information
and communication technology as a teaching aid. Many schools are consumed
by a race in which they haphazardly adopt the latest technological gadgets, but
many teachers do not understand how to incorporate these devices into existing
instructional methods.
Books dealing with the use of information and communication technology
(sometimes abbreviated ICT) in the school have been published over the years. Is
there any need for a new book on this phenomenon? The articles in this volume offer
an up-to-date discussion on the challenges of technology use in school education. In
tackling the critical issues created by technology, this book provides an important
resource for student teachers, teachers, education scholars and those interested in a
critical examination of digital expectations and experiences
This book publishes results from a new research project funded by the Norwegian
Research Council1 entitled Learning in the 21st century: Capitalising on students’
digital strengths; compensating for desired capabilities. This research project
produces research and knowledge relevant to student teachers, teachers, school
leaders, researchers and other individuals with an interest in the use of information and
communication technology in school. The book is thus aimed at the academic world
and the teaching field and at policy-makers and other socially minded individuals.

Dissenting Opinions on Technology Use in Schools

From time to time, heated debates regarding the use of information and communication
technology in the school arise among parents, politicians and educators. This is as it
should be in a democracy. Powerful commercial interests promote the idea of I-pads
or tablets for all pupils and smart boards in all classrooms. Most people have strong
views on information and communication technology, and many feel qualified to
express these views. The purpose of this collection of articles is to present research
relevant to understanding of and debates on information and communication
technology in the school. I have asked leading educational researchers to shed light

viii
 INTRODUCTION

on different aspects of this topic. The authors do not present a common front on the
complex question of the proper use of information and communication technology
in the school but instead present a wide diversity of arguments and viewpoints.
Authors are responsible only for the content of their own chapter, but all the articles
are based on the academic principles of objectivity, restraint and investigative
factuality. It is my belief that these qualities will improve the debate regarding the
educational technology in schools.
Differing opinions regarding the use of information and communication
technology in the school abound: should it be introduced in small steps or great
leaps? Does increased use of information and communication technology, in fact,
lead to educational improvements? What implications does the use of technology
within and outside the school have for the in-depth learning necessary to understand
the material in core academic subjects? Are all forms of educational renewal
based on information and communication technology beneficial? These are a few
amongst many questions. Those who work in the school system—teachers and
school leaders—have differences of opinion on these and many other issues. There
also appear to be generational gaps in teachers’ views of using information and
communication technology in teaching (Elstad, 2006). Generational differences,
however, stand as only one of several different contributory factors. More knowledge
of teachers’ attitudes towards the potential use of information and communication
technology in the school is needed.
It is tempting to believe that research can determine once and for all whether
information and communication technology promotes better learning. Sadly, this is
not the case as that general question is dependent on a large number of factors. By
asking more specific questions, though, research can provide some insights into how
information and communication technology can either serve as tools for better and
smarter learning or stifle learning. Normative questions about the nature of future
schooling depend on what values that, at the most fundamental level, we wish to
promote. In considering this kind of question, researchers are on equal footing with
other citizens in determining what constitutes a good school. It is my hope, however,
that the interested reader will find in this book a better foundation for understanding
the potential uses and pitfalls of using information and communication technology
in the school.

NOTE
1
The book is funded by grant no. 218245 from the Norwegian Research Council.

REFERENCES
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Directorate of Education and Training. (2006). Læreplan i norsk. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/
kl06/NOR1-05

ix
E. ELSTAD

Elstad, E. (2006). The relevance of rhetoric to the study of power in communication and communicative
adequacy. The International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(1), 1–11.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of
Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International computer and information literacy study
assessment framework. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Social networking addiction: An overview of
preliminary findings. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence,
and treatment (pp. 119–141). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Kietzmann, J. H., Silvestre, B. S., McCarthy, I. P., & Pitt, L. F. (2012). Unpacking the social media
phenomenon: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 109–119.
Milson, A. J. (2002). The Internet and inquiry learning: Integrating medium and method in a sixth grade
social studies classroom. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(3), 330–353.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2015). Fagmiljø for analyse på læring til Bergen. Retrieved from
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/fagmiljo-for-analyse-pa-laring-til-bergen/id2423937/
Official Norwegian Reports. (2015). Fremtidens skole—Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser (Official
Norwegian Report no. 8). Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2015-8/
id2417001/
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning.
Making the connection. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.
Shiveley, J. M., & VanFossen, P. J. (2012). Toward assessing Internet use in the social studies classroom.
Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 1–32.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning:
A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.

x
 PART I
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY BEYOND LEARNING
 EYVIND ELSTAD

1. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY –
EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES
An Introductory Overview

THE PURPOSE

In this chapter, I provide a general introduction that, I hope, will help the reader
see the more particular contributions in a broader perspective. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide an overview of the core topics and issues addressed in the book
and to reflect more deeply on digital expectations and experiences in schools.

TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN PROCESS OF CHANGE

A great technology-driven process of change is at work in today’s world. Information

and communication technology is transforming many day-to-day activities, even in
the workplace. Technology is replacing manual labour and transforming the nature
of work, and employees might lose the race against the machines. Work life has
become more technologically intensive (Wajcman, 2008), and for those with know-
how, the threshold to the world of technology has been lowered: it now takes only
days for the technologically competent to master new computer programmes and
new technological solutions (Cuban, 2009). Individuals who have a low level of
education or did not complete secondary education have a greater chance of being
left behind by technology-driven developments in the workplace than their more
highly educated counterparts (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006).
We can reasonably maintain that schooling and higher education result in
robustness and skill in dealing with change. The general formational effect of
education provides the requisite cognitive qualities for understanding (Bildung) and
dealing with social changes, including in the field of technology (Blankertz, 1969).
The question of information and communication technology in school, therefore,
touches upon the core tasks of education. This is the explicit theme of Chapter 2.
Biesta argues that connecting the question of information and communication
technology to that of school education raises questions about the aims of schooling,
the content of schooling (the curriculum, in the restricted sense of the word) and the
forms of schooling (pedagogy or didactics).

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 3–28.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. ELSTAD

THE SCHOOL IN THE DIGITAL AGE

The quality of education has powerful economic effects, and economic growth is
strongly affected by the skills of workers (Hanushek & Wössmann, 2010: 251). What
people know matters. Education’s most important tasks include lay the foundation
for their future roles as employees (Hanushek, 1979; Todd & Wolpin, 2003), citizens
(Lochner, 2011; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) and users of digital technology. In
addition to transmitting knowledge (Cuhna & Heckman, 2007), school acts as a
sorting machine: firms infer worker’s ability from their education (asymmetrical
information), and students choose an education level to signal their ability to potential
employers. Schools determine which individuals will advance to which studies in
higher education (Burgess, McConnell, Propper, & Wilson, 2007), while education
also indicates students’ qualifications to potential employers (Spence, 1973). This
arrangement is functional due to asymmetrical information: education acts as a
signaling, or screening, device for unobservable ability. However, this process
touches upon deeper issues of the values in education. Biesta emphasises that school
education is orientated towards three purposes: qualifications, or engagement with
knowledge, skills and dispositions; socialisation, or engagement with traditions and
ways of being; and subjectification, or engagement with the question of the person
as a subject of action and responsibility. These three purposes are explored further
in Chapter 2.
It has been suggested that the way the school system is operated is the result
of industrial society’s need for instrumental skills1 (symbolised by the three Rs, a
widely used abbreviation for the basic elements of the primary school curriculum:
reading, writing and arithmetic) and that the school system should be reformed to
accommodate society’s need for more specialised skills that require deeper insights
to meet future unexpected challenges (Schleicher, 2015). The development of PISA
tests reflects this endeavour. The OECD first administered the PISA in 2000 as an
in-depth test of reading literacy skills (defined as understanding, using, reflecting
on, and engaging with written texts), but the tests have evolved into an assessment
of complex competencies: ‘(1) establishing and maintaining shared understanding;
(2) taking appropriate actions to solve problems; and (3) establishing and maintaining
team organisation’ (Schleicher, 2015, p. 18). The demands on modern education
systems are changing fast, and international assessments must evolve in response.
For instance, a priority in the forthcoming PISA 2018 is the assessment of global
competence, defined as ‘the capability and disposition to act and interact appropriately
and effectively, both individually and collaboratively, when participating in an
interconnected, interdependent and diverse world’ (Schleicher, 2015: 18). The PISA
assesses four dimensions of global competence: (1) communication and relationship
management; (2) knowledge of and interest in global developments, challenges
and trends; (3) openness and flexibility; and (4) emotional strength and resilience.
The PISA is designed to capture some of the broad cognitive, social and emotional

4
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

competencies emerging in a world of increasing migration and international

exchange.

MASTERING TECHNOLOGY IN KNOWLEDGE- AND

SERVICE-BASED ECONOMIES

In the knowledge- and service-based economies of Europe, businesses are becoming

increasingly dependent on a highly qualified workforce, and European countries
need to justify high salaries and generous welfare systems by achieving high
productivity (Krugman, 1994; Audretsch & Welfens, 2013). The low productivity
in many European countries, then, is a critical challenge. High skill levels are a key
resource for sustainable, technology-intensive production, and the school system
needs to lay a foundation for these skills. Mastering technology is a significant factor
in employees’ ability to govern the direction of their career and work life.
Social life outside the workplace is also undergoing change. An individual’s
social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2001), manifested concretely in web friends
and numbers of likes and dislikes, is increasingly significant in individuals’ self-
worth, self-esteem and ability to take action and perceive opportunities to take
control of their lives (Gerlitz & Helmond, 2013). At the moment, social capital is
built through apps called Uber, Airbnb and so on; tomorrow, such innovations will
be called something else (Gardner & Davies, 2013). An app is a computer program
designed to run on smartphones and tablet computers. These devices are often sold
with several apps bundled as pre-installed software (calendar, mapping program
et cetera) and an app for buying music or other media. The user of an app can see how
previous users rated a driver or a landlord, who, in turn, can see how other drivers
and landlords have rated the passenger and the tenant. Consequently, the individual’s
ability to build social capital is important in a digitalised world (Ahn, 2012). These
interactions are examples of the workings of the new globalised capitalism (Hill &
Kumar, 2012) and its penetration into life both in today’s society and in what we can
glimpse of tomorrow’s society. Mastering technology is an important factor in our
ability to govern the direction of our lives as citizens.
The increased interaction between buyer and seller enabled by information
and communication technology has parallels in the use of media by youth. Social
networks created by means of digital technology play an ever-greater role in the
accumulation of social capital and perhaps in the formation of self-image, self-
esteem and mental development (Chen, 2013). This increasingly dominant role of
technology, especially social networking sites, in the lives of young people (Shen,
Liu, & Wang, 2013) is the theme of Petter Bae Brandtzæg’s chapter (Chapter 8).
Youth are active Internet users and spend much of their free time on social media and
computer games (Hellström et al., 2012). Some studies have found that computer
games can be used as effective, motivational learning environments (e.g. Papastergiou,
2009). A surprising finding is that out-of-school gaming helped boys in vocational

5
E. ELSTAD

studies improve their English reading skills (Brevik, 2016). The once-sharp divide
between school and leisure time is eroding. There remain several crucial questions:
Will and how can the school as an institution relate to this comprehensive process
of change known as the digital revolution (Vavik & Salomon, 2015)? How can the
school build a bridge between the world of youth and the world of school to enable
students to learn in a new digital age? What are the good examples of bridging?
These questions are addressed in a twin book named Educational technology and
polycontextual bridging.

A NEVER ENDING STORY: THE GULF BETWEEN THE WORLD

OF YOUTH AND THE WORLD OF THE SCHOOL

A well-known quotation from Aristophanes (often misattributed to Socrates)

complains:
Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority;
they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they
no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter
before company; gobble up their food and tyrannise their teachers.
This quotation shows that the gulf between the interests of children or young people
and the interests of the adult life for which school should prepare them existed 2500
years ago. Is the gulf between the world of youth and the world of the school as great
in today’s digitalised society, or has it become even greater?

PREPARING 21ST-CENTURY PUPILS FOR A GLOBAL SOCIETY

It must also be acknowledged that the diversity, complexity and rate of social change
are growing quickly in the knowledge- and service-based economies of Europe. The
school needs to lay a foundation on which pupils can build the knowledge, skills
and attitudes needed in tomorrow’s European society. In the 21st century, important
skills are both subject specific and universal: the ability to learn, communicate,
collaborate, participate, explore and create. These skills are often referred to with
the term the 4 Cs: (1) critical thinking and problem solving; (2) communication;
(3) collaboration; and (4) creativity and innovation (NEA, 2015). Subject-specific
skills are necessary but insufficient by themselves. To this list of important skills,
we could add the ability to persuade other people, to negotiate, to cooperate—tasks
which demand both social and emotional skills. Deming (2015) has demonstrated the
growing importance of social skills in the labour market: employment opportunities
and wage increases in the United States are greatest in jobs that draw on social skills
and reasoning ability. That replacement of manual labour by technology is presented
as further evidence of the increasing importance of social skills: ‘while computers
perform cognitive tasks of rapidly increasing complexity, simple human interaction
has proven difficult to automate’ (Deming, 2015, p. 1).

6
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

It is proposed that incorporating the technological innovations of which young

people are major users can contribute to the necessary transformation into a school
system adapted for the future. Research shows that young people have digital
capabilities; some researchers regard youth as digital natives, in contrast to teachers
who are disrespectfully described as digital slow-coaches (Elstad, 2006) or digital
immigrants (Prensky, 2000).

GENDERED DIFFERENCES IN PUPILS’ ATTAINMENT

Hærnes, Markussen and Røed (2016) investigate developmental effects of

commercial television exposure during childhood and found that higher exposure
to commercial television reduces cognitive ability and high school graduation rates
for young men, but not young women. The effects are largest for exposure during
pre-school and elementary school age. This finding suggests that availability of non-
educational media content is a factor in the widening educational gender gap. A
plausible explanation is that television-watching crowds out reading more for boys
than girls.
Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman and Gebhardt (2014) conceptualise information
and communication technology literacy in two major dimensions: (1) collecting and
managing information; and (2) producing and exchanging information. Collecting
and managing information consists of knowing about and understanding computer
use and accessing, evaluating and managing information. Producing and exchanging
information entails transforming, creating, sharing, and using information safely
and securely. Throndsen and Hatlevik (Chapter 13) use this conceptualisation of
ICT literacy to explore gender differences among Norwegian pupils and find clear
trends: girls achieve higher levels of information and communication technology
literacy than boys. This gendered difference is not surprising as globally, adolescent
girls demonstrate better reading comprehension and literacy than adolescent boys
(OECD, 2013). Boys, for their part, outperform girls in maths and science in nearly
all countries. However, in Scandinavian countries, gender differences in science
and maths are very small, and Swedish girls out-perform boys even in maths.
Swedish schools encourage pupils to exhibit a high degree of self-determination,
which reinforces independence, and girls generally have stronger self-discipline for
school work than boys (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006). Therefore, the strong self-
discipline of girls within this school system which heavily emphases autonomous
decision making might explain why Sweden lies so far from the norm in the relative
maths performance of boys and girls.

CAPITALISING ON STUDENTS’ DIGITAL STRENGTHS AND

COMPENSATING FOR DESIRED CAPABILITIES

A core challenge is how schools can make use of these digital strengths as part
of efforts to improve education. Frequent use of information and communication

7
E. ELSTAD

technology can create distractions amongst learners and lead both to off-task
behaviour that hinders learning (Fried, 2008) and to the so-called butterfly defect,
which refers to young people’s tendency to jumping from place to place in their
extra-curricular Internet use (Salomon & Almog, 1998). Wisdom, however, is not
to be found by roller-skating in the library (Smedrud, 2015: 24): “Technology can
amplify great teaching but great technology cannot replace poor teaching” (OECD,
2015: 4). Technological devices can be a distraction. Non-academic use of personal
computers (PC) in the classroom often occurs as pupils keep several windows open
and easily switch between them (Elstad, 2006). In a survey, 56.6% of pupils at an
upper-secondary school reported that teachers do not know what they are doing with
computers (Hatlevik et al., 2013). Many pupils are experienced at quickly clicking
onto the academic window when a teacher is near (Blikstad-Balas, 2012). Chapter 4
addresses this topic. Research has shown that, when pupils are distracted from
lessons and lose concentration (Beland & Murphy, 2015), learning decreases (Fried,
2008). This is a serious challenge, which is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
Another factor is self-regulation problems among students (Oreopoulos,
2007). Given that knowledge acquired at school is an important factor in securing
employment, a key question is how information and communication technology
could support better and smarter skills acquisition. Many countries suffer from high
rates of pupils failing to complete their education (De Witte & Csillag, 2014). The
most important factor determining whether pupils will drop out of school is the
skills they bring from lower secondary school (Markussen, Frøseth, & Sandberg,
2011). Some drop-outs chose to enjoy computer gaming and social media rather
than concentrating on their academics (Schargel & Smink, 2014). Getting a job
without completing upper secondary school or sixth-form education is possible, but
there is an increased risk of falling permanently outside the labour force (Wang &
Fredricks, 2014). Therefore, it is important to understand how schools can influence
pupils’ ability to develop greater resilience and determination when they experience
learning as boring (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012; Rumberger & Rotermund,
2012; Schargel & Smink, 2014). This topic is discussed in Chapter 4 and 5.

PROMOTION OF LEARNING BY INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

Information and communication technologies do not necessarily promote learning.

Computers do not improve pupils’ school results; indeed, frequent use of digital
technology in schools is more likely to be associated with lower results. PISA results
show no appreciable improvements in pupil attainment in reading, mathematics or
science in the countries that had invested heavily in information and communication
technology for education (OECD, 2015): Pupils who frequently use computers at
school have poor learning outcomes.
Technologies re-shape the learning environment and influence learning
processes in favourable and unfavourable ways. Although the typical objective of

8
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

technology is to improve productivity (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012; Audretsch &

Welfens, 2013), this is not the objective of education (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010). No clear research-based evidence has supported that information
and communication technology supports school learning of the material valued by
society (that is to say, by the individuals within society who have the authority
to decide the knowledge and skills regarded as most important). In other words,
access to information and communication technology in school is by no means a
comprehensive solution to the school’s needs for modernisation (Cuban & Jandrić,
2015). Chapter 5, for instance, shows that major innovations can lead to loss of
the teacher’s operational authority within the classroom and result in frustrations,
especially in the age of so-called teacher accountability which assigns the teacher
clearly defined responsibility for what pupils learn (Christophersen, Elstad, &
Turmo, 2010).
However, it is difficult to see how the school can meet future skills needs by
neglecting information and communication technology as a school subject. In Poland
and Slovenia, information and communication technology is a school subject. In
Norway it is integrated into several school subjects (however, it was a mandatory
subject from 1994 to 2005). The question of whether information and communication
technology supports learning is dependent on the rationale for the activities in which
the school directs pupils to engage (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Freeman
et al., 2014).

SCHOOL SYSTEMS’ NEED FOR A BETTER RESPONSE

TO A CHANGING WORLD

The key question is what use information and communication technology can
have when the objective is to promote learning material crucial to meeting the
challenges of the future. A central ambition of this book is to contribute to an
improved understanding of these issues and challenges. The reader, therefore,
will also find chapters discussing the rationale and premises for uses technology
in school. Chapter 2 is devoted to this issue. The twin book named Educational
technology and polycontextual bridging contains chapters discussing good
ways to make use of young people’s digital strengths within school teaching.
Chapters in this book report how schools have tackled challenges building bridges
between young people’s digital strengths and school’s educational mandate to
teach academic material and social skills. However, the present book has thus a
practical mission, in addition to discussing abstract issues. We are aware that the
presence of information and communication technology in the school can easily
distract pupils from the very acquisition of knowledge that the school should
enable (Beland & Murphy, 2015). Therefore, the opportunities for the school to
strengthen pupils’ ability to lead themselves through a school day and leisure time
filled with distracting temptations from expected learning activities (Chapter 4)
are also discussed.

9
E. ELSTAD

DREAMS OF A FULLY DIGITALISED SCHOOL

Technological advances make it possible for pupils to work on their own without a
teacher physically present. Pupils can log into and work with educational programmes
designed by experts. In this way, pupils can learn at their own pace without the digital
delays that hinder the modernisation of teaching. Digitalised help facilities can meet
any need for explanation, while digital cognitive tutors can supply individual follow-
up. Today’s dreams concerning the digital modernisation of the school bear traces of
a number of innovations (Schofield, 2006). One example of this is follow-up aided
by data mining and learning analytics (Siemens & Baker, 2012), which have received
great investments from Norwegian educational authorities (Ministry of Education
and Research, 2015). Data mining is a process used by enterprises to turn raw data
into useful information, for instance, to look for patterns in large batches of data.
Enterprises do so to learn more about their users, develop more effective feedback
strategies (e.g. marketing), increase sales and decrease costs. This process could also
provide pupils with individualised academic customised for their needs (in the same
way that Amazon suggests new book purchases based on earlier purchases or digital
traces left from Internet usage).
The vision of a digitalised school is strongly supported by commercial providers
of digital support systems (Cuban, 2009). To some, a fully digitalised school seems
a dystopia (Skagen, 2014), while for others, it is a beautiful, futuristic dream (Søby,
2013). What is certain is that examples exist of systems that near what can be
described as a fully digitalised school (Erstad et al., 2001). Examples, as presented
in Chapter 6, can also be found of schools that have made brave attempts to take the
leap and become fully digitalised. But the leaders have changed their strategy along
the way (Chapter 5). There are also examples of schools in which information and
communication technology is relatively little used (Cuban, 2009), as illustrated in
Chapter 6. There is a breadth of variety strategic approaches (Wastiau et al., 2014).
The institution of the school has shown an astonishing ability to survive despite all
the winds of change that have blown through other social institutions. The school has
been touched by technological developments but not changed to the extent envisaged
years ago by many researchers and policy makers, such as Seymour Papert, who
predicted:
There won’t be schools in the future … I think the computer will blow up
the school. That is, the school defined as something where there are classes,
teachers running exams, people structured in groups by age, following a
curriculum—all of that. (Popular Computing, October 1984, p. 11)

FOUR VISIONS

The debate on information and communication technology in schools features four

visions of technology use. (See Figure 1 for the varieties of ideal types). Firstly,
the issue of technology influences the teacher’s vision of developing professionally

10
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

relevant digital skills to use technology in teaching (Petko, 2012; Beetham & Sharpe,
2013). The realisation of this vision depends on the teacher enabling teaching and
learning in a technologically equipped learning environment and challenging pupils
make productive and relevant use of information and communication technology.
Better and smarter learning arise from the use of such skills. To turn this vision into
reality, educational authorities in some countries have made major investments in
improving teacher skills and greatly increased in the number of computers in schools
(Hatlevik & Throndsen, 2015).

Figure 1. Stylised visions of the operations and dynamics of the use of information and
communication technology in schools (adapted from Olsen, 2005, p. 8)

Secondly, the issue of technology affects pupils’ vision of taking responsibility

for their situation as learners and making independent decisions about when and
how to use information and communication technology within and outside the
school (Zimmerman, 1989). A divided view of the practicality of taking personal
responsibility for one’s choices amidst of a thicket of technological alternatives
is apparent amongst some pupils. For instance, Norwegian pupil organisations
protest that teachers may restrict the free use of mobile phones (Ertesvåg, 2015).
Young people seek to gain influence and strengthen pupil rights’ within the school
system, including participating in the formal decision-making processes of the
school (Osler & Starkey, 2005; Starkey, Akar, Jerome, & Osler, 2014). Democratic
participation by students in the school’s decision-making apparatus emerged as early
as the 1970s, while the vision of pupil influence has been developed and extended in
more recent times (Osler, 2010; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).
Thirdly, the issue of technology in the school influences the vision for the
effective administration of the school. Electronic platforms improve information
and communication technology for all users (pupils, teachers, parents and school
administrators) and can lead to efficient solutions which consume fewer resources.
For instance, electronic books decrease the consumption of trees for paper production
and simplify the logistics of teaching resources.
Fourthly, the advent of competition among schools necessitates that schools
make themselves attractive to survive. Friedman (1962) advocated the introduction

11
E. ELSTAD

of market mechanism into public school: the presence of competition raises overall
productivity of schools’ contribution to value added. However, the empirical results
of Friedman’s theory are mixed (e.g. Greene & Kang, 2004; Geller et al., 2006;
Hsieh & Urquiola, 2006). There is no clarity on this topic. However, technology-
based modernisation is regarded as a signal of quality in schools. This view puts
pressure on schools to use the best available technology, especially technology
attractive to decision makers. A hybrid form of the promotion of societal efficiency
arises from the synergy of education administration and market competition:
technological diffusion in the school sector may cultivate employee skills necessary
for enterprises to reap the benefits of information and communication technology
for economic growth.
These four stylised visions presented in Figure 1 may be at odds with each other;
therefore, their intentions need to be balanced. To this end, we need to consider a
perceptual combination of conceptual perspectives and weigh their contributions
against each other. Good learning demands academic commitment and effort on
the part of pupils, who nevertheless might believe that the teacher needs to deliver
inspiring teaching for pupils to attain good results (Elstad, 2006). A tension exists
between pupils’ desire to be guided through a progression of demands leading to the
desired qualification (Lundgren, 1999) and teachers’ emphasis on problem-solving
tasks which require the pupil to exert effort to attain a deep understanding of the
subject in a mindful transfer of learning (Perkins & Salomon, 2012). Knowledge-
thirsty pupils do exist—for instance, those who wonder why insects are usually
smaller than mammals—but such thirst for knowledge is by no means a universal
feature of youth in our culture. It is the task of the school to persuade pupils to think
deeply about the questions which civilisation has tasked the school with addressing
(Perkins, 2008). The entertainment industry makes only a limited contribution to this
goal. In-depth learning can be regarded as of crucial importance for 21st-century
European countries. In-depth learning based on problem solving can frustrate a
struggling pupil, and completion of their education will require self-discipline and
perseverance. In short, the principles of the most effective teaching might be at odds
with pupils’ desire for full self-determination in schooling.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

The school of educational theories on educational technology and its use in school
has distinct traditions, including perspectives used as theoretical lenses in this
book. To aid understanding, the five theoretical perspectives are outlined in this
chapter: (1) the behaviourist view, (2) the cognitive view, (3) the time discounting
perspective and its’ egonomics, (4) game theory as a theoretical lens, and (5) the
socio-cultural view of learning. The perspectives called (1), (2), and (5) are well
known, however, time discounting theory and game theory can fill up blanks in the
theoretical landscape of educational technology. In this book, I use these perspectives

12
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

to discuss how educational technology may influence learners’ academic work and
teachers’ work.

Behaviourist View of Knowing and Educational Technology

Before the most recent elaboration of the behaviourist view, a mechanical teaching
machine was being developed. Such machines rely on a design which interprets
behaviour as responses to stimuli in a situation where the machine introduces a
task. An early attempt to use technology in line with behaviouristic principles was
made in 1926. Sidney Pressey constructed a self-scoring teaching machine based
on multiple-choice questions, such as ‘Using Ohm’s Law if E = 12 and I = 4: R = ?
Options A: R = 8, B: R = 16, C: R = 3, D: R = 48’ (Lumsdaine, 1960). The pupil quite
simply had to press a button to select option A, B, C or D and received immediate
feedback on whether the chosen alternative was correct. This mechanical format,
however, proved to be cumbersome and impractical, so Pressey’s machine never
made a breakthrough in the school.
However, the idea of teaching machine was re-ignited in 1958 when Skinner
(1958, 1983) advocated for the development teaching machines which could allow
pupils to be active users and receive immediate reinforcement from the machine’s
response. Skinner (1958) asserted that learned behaviour should be shaped in small
steps, which are explicitly reinforced. Learning could be improved by well-defined,
target-based learning schemes and programmed instruction, also called behavioural
objectives. School tasks could be broken down into simple components treated as
prerequisites for more complex tasks to lead to the accumulation of skills (Gagne,
Wager, Golas, Keller, & Russell, 2005). This is the behaviourist view of knowing
(Greeno et al., 1996). Precise knowledge of what the learner is to learn enables
designing technological aids (called programmed instruction, computer-assisted
instruction and intelligent computer-assisted instruction) that meet the purpose.
Programmed instruction is a sequence of frames consisting of learning material: a
question is displayed, the pupil actively responds, and feedback or reinforcement is
delivered immediately. Skinner (1958) argued that method could minimise the use of
prompts and allow pupils to work at their own pace. The teacher could benefit from
more free up time to help those who need it most. However, the small-step approach
is often experienced as boring.
During the 1960s, more functional technology was tested, and since then, interest
in teaching machines has flourished. The development of educational computer
programmes based on behaviouristic principles has contributed to this growth,
which has accelerated since the breakthrough of computer technology into society
in the 2000s. This type of technology has become widespread in nursery schools
and schools (Vangsnes et al., 2012). In nursery school, letter and word recognition
is taught through educational programmes designed to meet children’s expectations
for decoration and audible rewards. Extensive experiments with games and i-Pads
based on the behaviouristic perspective are being conducted in schools and nursery

13
E. ELSTAD

schools (Zidianakis et al., 2012). However, drill and practice devices also remain
popular (Connolly et al., 2012).
The core of this learning-environment design is that a technological device
typically presents a question to be answered. The learner responds by doing a task.
The technology then provides immediate feedback about whether the answer was
correct. The simplest feedback method is merely to indicate whether the selected
answer was correct or incorrect. The learner can quickly change the answer (in line
with behaviouristic design principles). Alternatively, the technology can present a
total of correct and incorrect answers and provide feedback concerning how many and
which answers were correct. Countless computer programmes have been designed
to make an encouraging sound when the learner selects a correct answer and a less
pleasant sound when the learner answers incorrectly. Computer-assisted instruction,
which relies on the Skinnerian model of instruction and other behavioural models
of instruction (e.g. performing a tutorial role that tests student comprehension), is a
further development of simplistic teaching machines (Steinberg, 1984). Other methods
in this area that have flourished include: computer-assisted learning, computer-based
learning, human-computer interaction, computer-supported collaborative learning,
computer-mediated communication, computer-mediated discourse, computer-
supported cooperative work and technology-enhanced learning. These methods
are designed to offer well-organised information and training through a prescribed
course of study (Greeno et al., 1996). Clear goals, feedback and reinforcement are
key components of the behaviouristic learning environment, and computer systems
provide training opportunities.

Cognitive View of Knowing and Educational Technology

The cognitive view emphasises processes that promote conceptual understanding,

problem solving and reasoning. The learning environment should encourage pupils’
to construct understandings of concepts and mental models through reasoning in
activities (Greeno et al., 1996). Applied to teaching machines, the cognitive view of
knowing stresses the importance of deep-level information processing for building
mental models. For example, technology designed based on cognitive principles
which emphasises didactic explanations of learning materials—a so-called intelligent
computer tutor—was developed in the 1990s.The components of an intelligent
computer tutor are an expert module, a pupil module and an instructional module,
which are embedded in a learning environment. Advanced forms of feedback might
involve the learner receiving either correction throughout the learning process, or
explanation regarding why answers are incorrect or a combination of both). Research
shows that errors made by pupils are not coincidental but are based on systematic
misunderstandings and incorrect reasoning, analogous conclusions, heuristics and
cognitive biases (White, 1993).
Computer programme designers have sought ways to counter these
misunderstandings. Some scholars, however, argue that designers of learning

14
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

environments should instead build on these misconceptions and view them as

potential learning resources (Smith et al., 1994; Larkin, 2012). Learning with
understanding is the most important objective, and pupils’ ability to understand
phenomena which depend on mental representations draws heavily on their
preconceptions. Further, technology can help in learning technical material by
providing understanding impossible to observe or experience in everyday life
(for instance, a Newtonian world without friction). The learning effect, though,
depends on how the learner actually uses the digital representation to gain a
better understanding or mental model of a complex phenomenon. Some computer
programmes support learning via manipulatives, or features invisible to the human
eyes, but these programmes have not yet experienced a breakthrough in schools
(Zacharia & de Jong, 2014).
We can consider the example of a cognitive learning environment from the field
of mathematics which relies on digital devices. The study of mathematics is based
on axioms, which makes it possible to identify breaches of the rules of mathematics.
For instance, 40% of students in first-level economics course (Sydsæter, 2003, p. 29)
used incorrect analogous reasoning that if (AB)t = AtBt is correct, then 2a+b must
be 2a + 2b. Some students also deduced that 2ab must be 2a2b (Matz, 1982). These
linearity errors are not random errors but the logical continuation of procedural rules
learned in mathematics (Matz, 1982). When selecting an analogous solution as an
alternative answer in an intelligent computer tutor, the learner receives electronic
feedback that explains why the chosen answer was incorrect.2 Koedinger and
Anderson (1998) colleagues developed a tutoring system for high-school algebra
and geometry. Pupils can read explanations showing, for instance, that setting
figures into an algebraic formula demonstrates that the temptingly simple analogous
solution is incorrect. Such feedback can help the learner understand why an answer
is incorrect and correct a misunderstanding. Of course, the teacher could also correct
misunderstandings, but teachers have limited time to follow up with each pupil at
a school. Digitalised aids that help explain academic misunderstandings thus can
contribute to greater efficiency in the school’s teaching. Kluge’s chapter in the twin
book Educational Technology and Polycontextual Bridging is devoted to learning
algebra with games.
Flipped classrooms are another approach which relies on digital devices
(Thompson, 2011; Tucker, 2012). For instance, the online Khan Academy offers a
set of structured educational materials for math. Through this series of free, short,
teacher-created videos and interactive lessons, instruction that earlier used to occur
in class can be accessed at home. This opportunity for online instruction at home can
reinforce classroom lessons and free class time for other activities (Murphy, 2014;
Ruipérez-Valiente et al., 2015; Zellner, 2015). Pupils have the opportunity to see in
the home what they missed by watching videos or solving exercises.
Programmes such as Geogebra, Kikora and Dragonbox can raise a decision-
making problem to a higher analytical level. Technology, in this instance, can be said
to represent a person plus (Perkins, 1993).3 Pupils, for instance, can use Geogebra to

15
E. ELSTAD

interpret curvilinear functions which illustrate typical company productivity without

using a derivation to analyse the function (Hohenwarter et al., 2009). An explanation
of the direction of productivity might be understandable, but schoolchildren usually
lack the fundamental mathematical knowledge necessary to follow this strictly
logical-sequential subject of study (for example, to understand calculus). A quadratic
function is any function with the form y = ax2 + bx + c. The numbers a, b and c
are the coefficients of the equation; a is the quadratic coefficient, b is the linear
coefficient, and c is the constant. The graph of a quadratic function has a general
shape called a parabola. The location and size of the parabola depend on the values
of a, b, and c. For instance, the shape of the parabola resembles a U when a > 0
and reverses when a < 0. In addition, the pupil can explore how the size of b and c
influences the location and size of the parabola as the graph is moved to the right or
left, up or down. Using Geogebra can help build an understanding of how a, b and c
influence the graph of the parabola.
In studying an academic subject, such as mathematics, the learner’s goal is
understanding. It is important both to cultivate understanding and to comprehend
the basic rules governing mathematics. Other aids, such as Photo-Math app,
do not necessarily help learning (Hamadneh, 2015). The key question is how
the technology is used. When an equation is scanned from a textbook or screen,
Photo-Math shows the various stages in solving the equation, as well as the correct
answer. When using Photo-Math, the pupil might not need to employ thought at all
when solving mathematical equations and so might not learn anything useful about
solving equations. The same might be occurring when learning a foreign language
by using a translation programme, such as Google Translate. In such cases, the use
of technological aids may be a disservice, although it can have benefits, not the least,
increasing motivation for a subject (Godwin-Jones, 2011).
A learning environment designed to improve pupils’ understanding adheres to
cognitive principles, while a design intended to reinforce an association between
stimulus and response is based on behaviouristic principles. There, however, is not
sharp division but a continuum between learning through tasks that demand deep
thought and understanding and through material divided into small areas taught by
individual training and (Gagne et al., 2005). In other words, the distinction between
behaviouristic and cognitive design principles is not always clear-cut (Curzon, 2003).
It is easier to design meaningful teaching machines with feedback mechanisms for
subjects that have a firm logical and sequential structure (e.g. mathematics) than in
more loosely structured subjects (e.g. history). Using a teaching machine for history
could easily lead to pupils attempting to simply learn facts rather engage in a deep-level
learning approach. Therefore, it is not evident that multiple-choice-based teaching
machines are a good approach for a subject such as history. Some technology, though,
does appear to promote learning in subjects with a loose knowledge framework. For
example, the programme EssayCritic provides feedback on texts which pupil load into
the programme. The programme gives students a list of topics already are included in
the text and suggestions for missing topics (Cheung et al., 2007).

16
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

We can conclude that it is easy to design learning systems that promote learning
factual knowledge, but designing learning systems that facilitate in-depth learning is
more demanding, although not impossible (Perkins, 2013). There is a large selection
of quiz-like tasks teaching factual knowledge but far less educational material
designed to develop in-depth understanding.

Time Discounting and Egonomics

George Ainslie (2001) analyses dynamics of multiple selves as a bargaining process:

conflicting reward-seeking processes may arise spontaneously to get incompatible
goals available at different times. Humans bargain the processes with each other,
and claim that this bargaining can create ego functions like willpower from the
bottom up. This view is extensively outlined in Chapter 4. Time discounting is
a way of directly comparing present and future rewards (or punishments). Our
decisions require us to weigh consequences that are distributed over time. Practically
all human beings face ‘choice-situations’ in which they must to choose between
immediate and delayed rewards. When humans have choices between something
they can achieve at different points in time, the relative valuation of the choices
is discounted according to expected delays until realisation. The subjective value
of a delayed reward is inversely related to the postponement of the delay (Ainslie,
2001), a hyperbolic pattern that has been observed in extensive research on human
decisions since individuals have a tendency to attach more importance to rewards
in the near future than to rewards in the distant future (myopia). The volitional
processes according the valuation of rewards and punishments are here seen as inner
bargaining processes in which any plan we make at one moment must be sold to
ourselves at future moments. A new kind of challenge arises with the free access to
Internet in the classroom; the students use computers partly for academic work, and
partly for off-task behaviour. Volitional strategy is therefore the conscious faculty by
which a person may impose some overriding value on extrinsic temptations (Ainslie,
2001). In Chapter 4 the authors try to identify and describe the most prominent of
these strategies called egonomics.
How should schools arrange things so that pupils can manage school demands
on their own? How can schools design components of a self-discipline program so
students with volitional problems succeed better? To do so, schools must design
institutional features that support volition to work, i.e. that influence the students to
be more sophisticated about their own volitional strategies. Teachers and principals
are planners of institutional arrangements and need to be sophisticated about their
design choices. By including volitional issues as a purpose for well-designed
instructional interventions, pupils’ use of volitional strategies can be increased.
Paternalistic constraining of pupils’ digital off-task behaviour corresponds to the
notion of the guardian, the person who knows what is good for the learner. How can
designers for learning choose among paternalistic options? When a teacher imposes
external limitations on the students’ behaviour, the locus of control is outside the

17
E. ELSTAD

learner. It is possible, however, to enhance autonomy and self-determination through

paternalistic policies. Libertarian paternalism is a foundation for rethinking the
question of institutional design; it preserves freedom of choice, but accepts that the
school is moving students in a direction that will promote their future achievements.

Game Theory as a Theoretical Lens

In Chapter 5 I use the observational lens of game theory through which to study
interactions in the classroom with a view to seeing how ICT affordances may
influence behaviour. One way of analytically approaching the systemic nature of
life in the classroom is to view the parties to the interaction as intentional players.
Game theory is an analytical theory that defines instrumental, rational players as
having a consciousness of each other’s consciousness inasmuch as each participant
achieves a result which depends partly on his or her own actions and partly on the
actions of others. Game theory can clarify how the players respond to structural
changes, and how the outcome in the form of patterns of interaction is explained
by the logical structure of the problems confronting the players. Central to game
theoretical analysis is an understanding of the situation and the construction of a
situation-logical model and logical derivatives of the model.
In game theoretical analysis, changes in the institutional framework surrounding
the interaction between rational parties are isolated: ‘Its method consists in
analysing the social situation of acting men sufficiently to explain the action in terms
of the situation, without any further help from psychology’ (Popper, 1976: 102). In
Chapter 5, the analysis is based on hermeneutic insight into case material (interviews
and classroom observations) from a school. The construction of a game theoretical
model on the basis of the case material is a rational reconstruction of how institutional
features are embodied in the basic logic of systems and can influence the actions of
rational players (Elstad, 2002). The behaviours are thus explained by the incentive
structures inherent in the institutional framework, i.e., I assume that among the
player characteristics presumed by this analysis, accountability failures may emerge
as a rational response to the institutional framework. The game theoretical analysis
method must be said to be an example of parsimonious explanation (Occam’s razor).
On the basis of a very simple model, an attempt is made to explain as much as
possible with as little as possible.
An important step in the game theoretical analysis consists of constructing game
theoretical models that capture core elements in the interactions between teacher
and students in the existing institutional frameworks. The content of the models
is believed to consist of reasonable assumptions about all aspects of interaction in
the classroom. I use the rules of logic in order to derive consequences from theses
assumptions. Model analysis provides the basis for logical deductions, understood
in the following as patterns of interaction what are called equilibrium when each
player has made his choice. These model results must then be put back into an
educational context and interpreted. The game theoretical analysis framework is

18
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

useful in revealing dilemmas and trade-offs in the intersection of curriculum and

pedagogy. One of the dilemmas is related to the teacher’s control, i.e. aspects of
the interaction situations that capture tensions with regard to the locus and extent
of control in classroom situations, and the effects on the content of schooling. The
rational reconstruction constructs ‘a theory of intended or unintended institutional
consequences of purposive action’ (Popper, 1976: 104), how situation structures
may affect interaction patterns in the classroom, the content of schooling.

Sociocultural View of Knowing and Educational Technology

During the 1990s, sociocultural theories of school and learning were popular
amongst Nordic educational researchers and gained particular currency in the Nordic
education professions (Säljö, 2013). The sociocultural or situative perspective
(Greeno, 2011), derived in part from the concepts of Vygotsky (1997), highlights the
role of social interaction in learning through collaborative activities. Sociocultural
theory is founded on a theoretical basis developed by Vygotsky and applied to the
didactic use of information and communication technology (Mercer & Howe, 2012).
This sociocultural framework is used as an analytical lens in several chapters in the
twin book Educational technology and polycontextual bridging.
The social practices of inquiry and sense-making have been successfully applied
in schools. Computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) are a
design experiment relying on the sociocultural perspective of knowing (Scardamalia,
2002). CSILE are designed to make knowledge processes accessible to all and to
foster the creation and continual improvement of public artefacts and community
knowledge. They provide a community space for carrying out collaborative academic
work (Rahikainen et al., 2013). Most of the chapters in the twin book Educational
technology and polycontextual bridging present examples of social practices of
inquiry and sense-making in schools.
Proponents of the sociocultural view of knowing emphasise authentic tasks in
the school (Andersson & Andersson, 2005). Many adherents of the theory urge
allowing learners a freedom of action while working with tasks in the school; it
is not certain that the school and teachers should have the power to define what is
important to learn (Van Lier, 2008). This perspective stresses the social aspects of
the learning process, including pupil collaboration and social interaction (Greeno,
2011). Pupils can even interact in a global classroom and create new knowledge
(Higgins, Wolf, & Torres, 2013). Information and communication technology opens
up for such possibilities. Assessments of teachers’ practice of their profession often
employ metaphors, such as scaffolding and coaching, to describe desirable qualities
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Some proponents of this view point to the old
apprenticeship concept as an ideal model of teacher – pupil interaction. The cognitive
apprentice ideal is based on a gradual approach to learning. Scaffolding and coaching
are used in the early phases, but as the learner masters more of the subject, the
scaffolding can be dismantled (Jin & Corbett, 2011). Here, too, information and

19
E. ELSTAD

communication technology provides digital aids that can function as scaffolding.

The radical ontological idea that knowledge is built into artefacts (Säljö, 2013)
points towards the conclusion that the learner’s use of artefacts should be tested in
school exams, supporting the view that the pupils should be allowed to use all aids,
including information and communication technology, during exams (Prøitz, 2010).

LEARNING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The purpose of this chapter was to provide a general introductory text that, I hope,
helps the reader see the individual contributions in this book in a broader perspective.
The authors’ chapters show that educational technologies do not necessarily promote
learning but certainly re-shape the learning environment and influence learning
processes in favourable and unfavourable ways.
This book contributes to a critical examination of educational technology, its’
expectations and experiences. The expectations are great. European school systems
were built for economies and societies that no longer exist and must respond
better to a changing world. As European industries increasingly lose ground as an
employment mechanism, the school systems still reflect their origins as a means
to meet industrial society’s need for instrumental skills. In contrast, creativity,
cross-disciplinary problem solving, performative skills, blended and cross-arena
learning and working patterns, including crowd collaboration, are important skills
for the 21st century. Future areas of employment growth in European societies will
be found more in highly skilled areas, such as niche products, than in industrial
mass production of goods, where European countries lose out in competition with
the low-cost economies of developing countries. Research provides evidence for
a deep learning approach (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, &
Gielen, 2006). Carrying out a deep learning approach, however, requires sacrifices
and dedication, which can easily be lost in the battle against easy solutions. Future
employees and employers then should invest in skills development, which demands
a basis of technical skills to which schools should contribute. Tomorrow’s pupils will
increasingly compete in a transnational or global society and so must be proficient
communicators, collaborators, critical thinkers and creators (the 4 Cs, NEA, 2015)—
skills important for the 21st century.

NOTES
1
In the late 18th and early 19th century, the role of schools in preparing children to work in the
manufacturing industry was centered around the three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic). However,
Sir William Curtis (1795) included reading and writing, arithmetic and reckoning and wrighting and
wroughting in the 3 Rs (Stevens, 2008).
2
An example of feedback is the following: Insert a = 1 and b = 3 into 2a+b and 2a + 2b , and check the
answers. If we do so, 21+3 = 24, which is 16. However, 21 + 23 = 10; therefore, 2a+b is not 2a + 2b.
3
A person-solo is the person without resources in his or her surround while the surroundings in the
classroom form the persons plus (their surround).

20
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

REFERENCES
Agustina, J. R., & Gómez-Durán, E. L. (2012). Sexting: Research criteria of a globalized social
phenomenon. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1325–1328.
Ahn, J. (2012). Teenagers’ experiences with social network sites: Relationships to bridging and bonding
social capital. The Information Society, 28(2), 99–109.
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.
Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496.
Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andersson, S. B., & Andersson, I. (2005). Authentic learning in a sociocultural framework: A case study
on non-formal learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(4), 419–436.
Aristophanes. (1994). The clouds (D. C. Stevenson, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/
Aristophanes/clouds.html
Audretsch, D. B., & Welfens, P. J. (2013). The new economy and economic growth in Europe and the US.
Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology. A cognitive view. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century
learning. London: Routledge.
Beland, L. P., & Murphy, R. (2015). Ill communication: Technology, distraction & student performance
(CEP Discussion Paper No. 1350). London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Berti, A. E., Bombi, A. S., & Duveen, G. T. (1988). The child’s construction of economics. Paris: Editions
de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Blankertz, H. (1969). Bildung im zeitalter der grossen industrie: Pädagogik, schule u. berufsbildung im
19. jahrhundert (Vol. 15). Hannover: Schroedel.
Blikstad-Balas, M. (2012). Digital literacy in upper secondary school – what do students use their laptops
for during teacher instruction? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(02), 81–96.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An
experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Brevik, L. M. (2016). The gaming outliers: Does out-of-school gaming improve boys’ reading skills
in English as a second language? In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational technology and polycontextual
bridging. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is
accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the
economy. Boston, MA: Brynjolfsson & McAfee.
Burgess, S., McConnell, B., Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2007). The impact of school choice on sorting by
ability and socioeconomic factors in English secondary education. In L. Woessmann & P. E. Peterson
(Eds.), Schools and the equal opportunity problem (pp. 273–304). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cabot, M. A. (In press). In or out of school? Meaningful output with digital and non-digital artefacts
within personal English learning ecologies. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy.
Cain, N., & Gradisar, M. (2010). Electronic media use and sleep in school-aged children and adolescents:
A review. Sleep Medicine, 11(8), 735–742.
Chen, W. (2013). The implications of social capital for the digital divides in America. The Information
Society, 29(1), 13–25.
Cheung, W. K., Mørch, A. I., Wong, K. C., Lee, C., Liu, J., & Lam, M. H. (2007). Grounding collaborative
learning in semantics-based critiquing. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies,
5(2), 40–55.
Chittenden, T. (2010). Digital dressing up: Modelling female teen identity in the discursive spaces of the
fashion blogosphere. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(4), 505–520.

21
E. ELSTAD

Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: The
Taiwan college students’ case. Computers & Education, 35(1), 65–80.
Christophersen, K. A., Elstad, E., & Turmo, A. (2010). Is teacher accountability possible? The case of
Norwegian high school science. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 413–429.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94(1), 95–120.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2),
661–686.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing
mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cuban, L., & Jandrić, P. (2015). The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and
future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, 425–439.
Curzon, L. B. (2003). Teaching in further education: An outline of principles and practice. London: A&C
Black.
De Jong, T. (2011). Instruction based on computer simulations. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 446–466). New York, NY: Routledge.
Deming, D. J. (2015). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market (No. w21473).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
De Witte, K., & Csillag, M. (2014). Does anybody notice? On the impact of improved truancy reporting
on school dropout. Education Economics, 22(6), 549–568.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-
discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198.
Duncum, P. (2011). Youth on YouTube: Prosumers in a peer-to-peer participatory culture. The International
Journal of Art Education, 9(2), 24–39.
Dupper, D. R. (2013). School bullying: New perspectives on a growing problem. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elstad, E. (2006). Understanding the nature of accountability failure in a technology-filled, laissez-faire
classroom: Disaffected students and teachers who give in. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4),
459–481.
Elstad, E. (2012). Volitional learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encylopedia of the sciences of learning
(Vol. 7, pp. 3429–3433). New York, NY: Springer.
Elster, J. (2006). Weakness of will and preference reversals. In J. Elster, O. Gjelsvik, A. Hylland, & K. Moene
(Eds.), Understanding choice, explaining behaviour (pp. 57–74). Oslo: Oslo Academic Press.
Erstad, O., Frølich, T. H., Kløvstad, V., & Vestby, G. M. (2000). Den langsomme eksplosjonen (report).
Network for IT Research and Competence in Education, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). Learning lives connected: Digital youth across school and
community spaces. Comunicar, 20(40), s89–s98.
Ertesvåg, F. (2015, August 17). Giske: Krever SMS-varsel til foreldre om elev-fravær og forsinkelser.
Retrieved from http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/skole-og-utdanning/giske-krever-sms-varsel-til-
foreldre-om-elev-fravaer-og-forsinkelser/a/23504056/
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence,
beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Figlio, D. (2007). Boys named Sue: Disruptive children and their peers. Education Finance and Policy,
2(4), 376–394.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Students’ use of and engagement
with ICT at home and school. In J. Fraillon, J. Ainley, W. Schulz, T. Friedman, & E. Gebhardt (Eds.),
Preparing for life in a digital age (pp. 125–166). Melbourne: Springer International.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

22
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3),
906–914.
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional
design. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and
imagination in a digital world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New
Media & Society, 15, 1348–1365.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing
perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Mobile apps for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2–11.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic
rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769–792.
Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In T. Koschmann
(Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 41–71). New York, NY: Springer.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In L. B. Berliner & R. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). Excessive computer game playing: Evidence
for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 290–292.
Hamadneh, I. M. (2015). Math teachers’ attitudes towards photo math application in solving mathematical
problem using mobile camera. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(14), 1930–1936.
Hansen, S. (2002). Excessive Internet usage or ‘Internet addiction’? The implications of diagnostic
categories for student users. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 232–236.
Hanushek, E. A. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production
functions. Journal of Human Resources, 14(3), 351–388.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-
differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63–C76.
Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2010). Education and economic growth. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, &
B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2, pp. 245–252). Oxford: Elsevier.
Hatlevik, O. E., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Læring av IKT. Elevenes digitale ferdigheter og bruk av IKT i ICILS
2013 [ICT learning. Pupils’ digital skills and use of ICT in ICILS 2013]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2013). Monitor skole. Om digital
kompetanse og erfaringer med bruk av IKT i skolen [Monitor school. On digital competence and
experience with ICT in schools]. Oslo: IKT Senteret. Retrieved from https://iktsenteret.no/sites/
iktsenteret.no/files/attachments/monitor_skole_2013_4des.pdf
Hellekjær, G. O. (2012). Fra Reform 94 til Kunnskapsløftet: en sammenligning av leseferdigheter på
engelsk blant avgangselever i den videregående skolen i 2002 og 2011.[From Reform 94 towards The
Knowledge Promotion: A comparision of reading skiss in English from sixth form pupils in 2002 and
2011]. In T. N. Hopfenbeck, M. Kjærnsli, & R. V. Olsen (Eds.), Kvalitet i norsk skole (pp. 153–171).
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hellström, C., Nilsson, K. W., Leppert, J., & Åslund, C. (2012). Influences of motives to play and time
spent gaming on the negative consequences of adolescent online computer gaming. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28(4), 1379–1387.
Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout,
delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 41(2), 156–166.
Herrnstein, R., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D., & Vaughan, W. (1993). Utility maximization and melioration:
Internalitites in individual choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6(3), 149–185.
Hill, D., & Kumar, R. (2012). Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences. New York, NY:
Routledge.

23
E. ELSTAD

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on
labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–482.
Hernæs, Ø., Markussen, S., & Røed, K. (2016). Television, cognitive ability, and high school completion
(IZA DP No. 9645). Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor.
Higgins, L., Wolf, M. M., & Torres, A. M. (2013). Opening the doors to a global classroom: An international
social media collaboration. NACTA Journal, 57(3a), 40–44.
Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2009). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to
secondary school teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 28(2), 135–146.
Hysing, M., Pallesen, S., Stormark, K. M., Jakobsen, R., Lundervold, A. J., & Sivertsen, B. (2015). Sleep
and use of electronic devices in adolescence: Results from a large population-based study. BMJ Open,
5(1), 1–7.
Jin, W., & Corbett, A. (2011). Effectiveness of cognitive apprenticeship learning (CAL) and cognitive
tutors (CT) for problem solving using fundamental programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 42nd
ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 305–310). Dallas, TX: Association
for Computing Machinery.
Kirby, K. N., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1995). Preference reversal due to myopic discounting of delayed
reward. Psychological Science, 6(2), 83–89.
Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a
cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5(1), 161–179.
Kolb, B. (2013). Brain plasticity and behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2015). Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge
acquisition? Contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–11. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1016535
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age.
Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
Krugman, P. (1994). Past and prospective causes of high unemployment. Economic Review-Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 79(4), 23–23.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gaming addiction: A systematic review of empirical
research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10(2), 278–296.
Landstedt, E., & Persson, S. (2014). Bullying, cyberbullying, and mental health in young people.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42(4), 393–399.
Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about “misconceptions”: Preservice secondary science teachers’ views
on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96(5), 927–959.
Liu, C. (2014 January). Long term effects of video and computer gaming overuse on depression, conduct
disorder, and substance use disorder among adolescents in the us. Paper presented at Society for
Social Work and Research 18th Annual Conference: Research for Social Change: Addressing Local
and Global Challenges, San Antonio, TX.
Lounsbury, K., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2011). The true prevalence of ‘sexting’. Durham, NH:
Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1960). Teaching machines. An introductory overview. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser
(Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning (pp. 5–22). Washington, DC: National
Educational Association.
Lundgren, U. P. (1999). Ramfaktorteori och praktisk utbildningsplanering. Pedagogisk Forskning i
Sverige, 4(1), 31–41.
Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)
informed views. Childhood, 19(1), 129–144.
Markussen, E., Frøseth, M. W., & Sandberg, N. (2011). Reaching for the unreachable: Identifying
factors predicting early school leaving and non-completion in Norwegian upper secondary education.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 225–253.
Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring
systems for high school algebra errors (pp. 25–59). New York, NY: Academic Press.

24
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.
Melkevik, O., Torsheim, T., Iannotti, R. J., & Wold, B. (2010). Is spending time in screen-based sedentary
behaviors associated with less physical activity: A cross national investigation. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(46), 1–10.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and
potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.
Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A. E., Mislevy, J., & Hafter, A. (2014). Research on the use of
Khan Academy in schools: Research brief. Retrieved from http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/
publications/2014-03-07_implementation_briefing.pdf
National Education Association. (2015). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An
educator’s guide to the ‘four Cs’. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
Olsen, J. P. (2005). The institutional dynamics of the European university (Arena working paper 15).
Arena: University of Oslo.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.
Oreopoulos, P. (2007). Do dropouts drop out too soon? Wealth, health and happiness from compulsory
schooling. Journal of Public Economics, 91(11), 2213–2229.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 results in focus. What
15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris, France: Organisation of
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning.
Making the connection. Paris, France: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.
Osler, A. (2010). Students’ perspectives on schooling. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact
on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.
Papert, S. (1984). Trying to predict the future. Popular Computing, 3(13), 30–44.
Perkins, D. (2008). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster.
Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, D. N. (2013). Knowledge as design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of
transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening
the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers
& Education, 58(4), 1351–1359.
Popper, K. R. (1976). The logic of the social sciences. In T. W. Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf,
J. Habermas, H. Pilot, & K. R. Popper (Eds.), The positivist dispute in German sociology (pp. 87–104).
London: Heinemann.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of television. New York,
NY: Penguin Books.
Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes: What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they
defined? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137.
Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research,
2(1), 41–51.
Rahikainen, M., Jarvela, S., & Salovaara, H. (2013). Motivational processes in CSILE-based learning. In
B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences
(pp. 50–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

25
E. ELSTAD

Richards, R., McGee, R., Williams, S. M., Welch, D., & Hancox, R. J. (2010). Adolescent screen time
and attachment to parents and peers. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(3), 258–262.
Rindal, U. (2013). Meaning in English: L2 attitudes, choices and pronunciation in Norway (Vol. 174).
Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in
the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Leony, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2015). ALAS-KA: A learning
analytics extension for better understanding the learning process in the Khan Academy platform.
Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 139–148.
Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high school
dropout. In S. Christenson (Ed.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 491–513).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sacerdote, B. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much
do we know thus far? Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, 249–277.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social
memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1),
53–64.
Säljö, R. (2013). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal
relations. The Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222–241.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1996). Learning in wonderland: What computers really offer education.
In S. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of education (pp. 111–130). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Santana, A. D. (2011). Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper Research
Journal, 32(3), 66.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In
B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Schargel, F., & Smink, J. (2014). Strategies to help solve our school dropout problem. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schleicher, A. (2015, October). Innovations in PISA to assess a wider range of skills. ESHA Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.esha.org/sites/default/files/eshamagazinedownloads/Esha-Magazine-
October-2015.pdf?ESHA%20Magazine%20October%202015
Schofield, J. W. (2006). Internet use in schools: Promise and problems. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, C. X., Liu, R. D., & Wang, D. (2013). Why are children attracted to the Internet? The role of need
satisfaction perceived online and perceived in daily real life. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1),
185–192.
Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. D. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards
communication and collaboration. In S. Buckingham Shum, D. Gasevic, & R. Ferguson (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ‘12)
(pp. 252–254). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Simensen, A. M. (2010). English in Scandinavia—a success story. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, &
J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching
(pp. 472–483). London, UK: Routledge.
Skagen, K. (2014). Digitalisering som statlig avdidaktisering av klasserommet. Norsk Pedagogisk
Tidsskrift, 98(6), 440–451.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977.
Skinner, B. F. (1983). A matter of consequences. New York, NY: Knopf.
Smedrud, M. S. (2015, September 22). Ut mot teknologiovertro. Klassekampen. Retrieved from
http://spotidoc.com/doc/4492779/professor-advarer-mot-negative-konsekvenser-som
Smith III, J. P., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist
analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.
Søby, M. (2013). Synergies for better learning – Where are we now. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy,
1(2), 3–11.

26
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Starkey, H., Akar, B., Jerome, L., & Osler, A. (2014). Power, pedagogy and participation: Ethics and
pragmatics in research with young people. Research in Comparative and International Education,
9(4), 426–440.
Stevens, B. (2008). The story of the three Rs. Education, 4(4), 6.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to
learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279–294.
Sydsæter, K. (2003). Matematisk aanalyse. Bind 1. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). English subject curriculum. Oslo: The
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.
Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy is changing the rules of education. Wired Magazine, 126, 1–5.
Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for
cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F3–F33.
Trnka, R., Martínková, Z., & Tavel, P. (2015). An integrative review of coping related to problematic
computer use in adolescence. International Journal of Public Health, 61(3), 317–328. doi:10.1007/
s00038-015-0693-8
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83.
Vangsnes, V., Økland, N. T. G., & Krumsvik, R. (2012). Computer games in pre-school settings: Didactical
challenges when commercial educational computer games are implemented in kindergartens.
Computers & Education, 58(4), 1138–1148.
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and
the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–86). London: Equinox .
Vavik, L., & Salomon, G. (2015). Twenty first century skills vs. disciplinary studies? In Y. Rosen,
S. Ferrara, & M. Mosharraf (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill
development (Vol. 1, pp. 1–12). New York, NY: IGI Global.
Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (2012). Informal reasoning and education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of
psychology (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Wajcman, J. (2008). Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. British Journal
of Sociology, 59(1), 59–77.
Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem
behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85(2), 722–737.
Weinstein, A. M. (2010). Computer and video game addiction—A comparison between game users and
non-game users. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36(5), 268–276.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the ‘good’ citizen: Political choices and pedagogical goals.
Political Science and Politics, 37(02), 241–247.
White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition
and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.
Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric
circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum.
Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.
Zellner, A. (2015). 21st century rewards: A case study of Khan Academy and digital badges from an
educational psychology perspective. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, 2015(1), 1899–1906.
Zidianakis, E., Antona, M., Paparoulis, G., & Stephanidis, C. (2012). An augmented interactive table
supporting preschool children development through playing. Proceedings of the AHFE International
2012, 21–25.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329.

27
E. ELSTAD

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eyvind Elstad is a Professor at the Department of Teacher

Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Norway. Among his research interests are teachers’ work,
teacher education, and teaching and learning in technology
rich environments.

28
 GERT BIESTA

2. ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

A Framework for Analysis, Development and Critique

(N)o technology can fix a bad educational philosophy or compensate for bad
practice. In fact, if we are going in the wrong direction, technology will only
get us there faster.
 (Haddad, 2008, pp. 6–7)

INTRODUCTION

The discussion about ICT and education has become complex and complicated.
This is not just because there are many opinions floating around about alleged
benefits and pitfalls of ICT, but also because the presence of ICT is vast. In its many
manifestations, of which computers, the internet and social media are currently the
most prominent, ICT has become an undeniable part of the lives of many, albeit
that not everyone has similar access to what is available, nor are the benefits shared
equally. The same is true for education, where ICT also has an undeniable presence,
albeit again that what this presence makes possible and who benefits from it remains
an important educational and political question.
To the extent to which we can see ICT as a tool or a collection of tools, there
is the obvious but important question – as with all tools in education – how such
tools help and how such tools or hinder our educational efforts. An answer to this
question requires a view of what we believe education to be for, that is, what we
see as the aims and as the purposes of education – a question that is often forgotten
in the excitement about what ICT potentially can offer. We have to bear in mind,
though, that ICT is a bit more than a tool or, to be more precise, that the politics of
this tool may differ significantly from, say, the politics of the textbook or the politics
of chalk and talk. This has partly to do with the huge economic interests in the sale
of hardware and software. But it also has to do with the ways in which ICT is part of
an ‘economy of desire’ (e.g., Yuran, 2014) that makes this particular set of tools far
more tempting and hence far more difficult to resist (see, e.g., Zembylas & Vrasidas,
2004; DiPetta, 2008).
In this contribution I wish to focus on two aspects of the discussion on ICT and
education. The first has to do with ICT, learning and educational purpose. Here I
will suggest that any discussion about the pros and cons of ICT in education should

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 29–43.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
G. BIESTA

not take place with general reference to learning, but should rather focus on more
precise questions of the purpose, content and ‘form’ of educational learning. Here I
seek to move the discussion about ICT and education ‘beyond learning,’ as indicated
in the title. The second has to do with the particular position of the school, where
‘position’ is meant both literally and metaphorically. It concerns questions about the
school as place and location, but also questions about the particular role, task and
responsibility of the school. This discussion is particularly important in order to have
an informed discussion about the question to what extent what happens in school
should be connected to or disconnected from what happens in the world ‘outside’
of the school. I preface my discussion of these issues with some more general
observations about the current position of ICT in education. In the concluding
section I also return to questions about the politics of ICT and what this means for
education and the role of ICT in it.

ICT AND EDUCATION: WHAT’S GOING ON?

The discussion about ICT and education has sprawled into so many directions that it
is not only difficult to gain an accurate overview of what is going on, but that it has
also become quite difficult to make a meaningful contribution to it. Google Scholar,
a fairly reliable resource for trawling publications, lists 3,550 publications for the
exact phrase “ICT and education,” 23,200 for the exact phrase “ICT in education,”
and 861,000 publications with both the words “ICT” and “education” in the title,1
including a growing number of handbooks (see, for example, Adelsberger et al.,
2008; Voogt et al., 2008). There is not only the issue that publications about ICT and
education have mushroomed, but so has the penetration of ICT in schools, colleges,
and universities, and in educational processes and practices in the workplace and
throughout life.
With these developments have come huge expectations about everything that
ICT is supposed to deliver, change and improve, fuelled by huge promises about
ICT’s potential for doing so. Haddad (2008), in a very helpful analytical review
published by the World Bank, distinguishes between four different attitudes towards
the potential of ICT for education: those of believers, skeptics, agnostics and
pragmatists. He describes the four positions as follows:
Believers think that under the right conditions technologies can have a
monumental impact on the expansion of learning opportunities to wider
populations, beyond the confines of teaching institutions and over the
lifetime of the individual. Also, technologies can improve the teaching/
learning process, enhance higher levels of cognition, and facilitate institutional
management.
The skeptics have been told many times before that certain technologies, from
filmstrips to tape-recorders to television, would remake their world. Why is it
any different this time?

30
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

The agnostics are not sure. They have an open mind but do not think that there
is enough evidence to incorporate ICTs into educational systems. They think
that our empirical knowledge of the effectiveness of different ICTs is spotty,
and that our experience with what works and does not is still tentative.
The pragmatists are holding back. The technologies are changing so fast and
prices are dropping so rapidly, that they are waiting for the technologies to
stabilize and prices to hit bottom. (Haddad 2008, p. 4)
He also highlights that, despite this range of different attitudes, “every school
system across the world is under tremendous pressure to provide every classroom
(if not every student) with technologies, including computers and their accessories
and connectivity to the internet” (ibid.). Such pressures come from vendors eager
to sell their technologies, parents “who want to ensure that their children are not
left behind in the technological revolution,” businesses “who want to replicate in
schools the dramatic impact that ICTs have had in the worlds of commerce, business,
and entertainment,” and technology advocates “who see ICTs as the latest hope to
reform education” (ibid., pp. 4–5). Although the temptation is “to introduce ICTs
immediately and to full scale” Haddad warns – and I agree – “that integrating
technology into the educational process is not a simple, one-step activity [but] an
intricate, multifaceted processes that involves a series of deliberate decisions, plans
and measures” (ibid., p. 5).
Amongst the challenges Haddad lists in relation to this, I wish to highlight the
following three:
Rigorously analyzing educational objectives and changes.
Determining which educational objectives are best pursued for ICT application.
Understanding the potential of different ICTs for different applications. (ibid.,
p. 5; emph. in original)
The reason for highlighting these is because they allude to a common omission –
and perhaps we could even call it a mistake – in many discussions about ICT and
education, namely the suggestion that ICT simply ought to be incorporated in
education because it is available, without asking the question what ICT might be good
for, that is, without connecting questions about the adoption of ICT to deliberation
about the purpose (or purposes; see below) of education. One risk here is that the
incorporation of ICT becomes an all or nothing matter, rather than one where precise
questions are asked about which educational objectives are best pursued for ICT
application. Another risk is that technology is merely seen as a means for achieving
educational ends, without asking how the means themselves affect what it is one
seeks to achieve – something that also has to do with understanding the potential of
different ICTs for different applications.
In the background there is also the argument that because ICT has become
ubiquitous in the lives of children and young people, it would make no sense to

31
G. BIESTA

exclude it from schools. One version of this argument is the idea of the so-called
‘digital natives’ (first coined by Prensky, 2001), where the suggestion is that because
young people are growing up in an environment saturated with ICT their educational
needs are supposed to be fundamentally different from generations that have grown
up before the advance of ICT. Irrespective of whether this is true or not – and it
remains tempting to point out that neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates grew up in such
an environment – the mere fact that this is the case, is in itself never a sufficient
argument for changes in educational practice. One could, after all, also make a claim
that compared to previous generations young people today are ‘sexual natives,’ but
few would see this as a compelling argument for changing the curriculum along
these lines. Similarly, recent generations have grown up in a world saturated with
cars, but driving lessons have still not appeared on the school curriculum.
These observations are particularly pertinent in relation to the question what
role ICT might in exploring – and potentially resolving – issues pertaining to
the relationship (or lack therefore) between, on the one hand, schools and other
educational settings and, on the other hand, the ‘everyday’ lives of children and
young people. Some have argued that the advance of ICT, particularly in the form of
computers and the internet, has significantly undermined the privileged position of
the school in society, since nowadays information is far more widely, far more easily
and far more rapidly available than in the past. Rather, therefore, than focusing
on the school and what it has to offer educationally, it has been argued that the
omnipresence of ICT provides a strong (and according to some even compelling)
argument for shifting the focus to learning. The idea here is that such a shift can
make clear that learning takes place both inside and outside of the school, so that
the new challenge becomes that of exploring how productive connections between
learning across different locations can be established (for such a line of thought see,
for example, Kumpulainen & Sefton-Green, 2014).

ICT, EDUCATION AND THE QUESTION OF PURPOSE

The shift from education to learning – and in some cases more specifically from
teaching to learning – is a recurring theme in discussions about ICT and education.
This partly has to do, as mentioned, with the fact that the access to information
provided by the internet means that the teacher, but also the curriculum and the school,
seem to become far less important as sources of knowledge and information. It also
has to do with the assumption that ICT appears to have the potential for tailoring
education in a much more refined and effective way to the needs and preferences
of individual ‘learners’ – note the term – than what teachers are supposedly be able
to do (unless under the kind of favourable circumstances, including a low teacher-
student ratio, that are not commonly found in contemporary school education),
which his another reason why the learning of the learner has moved to the focus of
attention. Haddad (2008, pp. 15–16) argues, for example, that although ICTs “do
not substitute for the school or diminish its role [they] can improve performance of

32
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

conventional schools,” particularly by broadening “the concept of the school beyond

the traditional confines of space and time.” In such an ‘enhanced’ school model the
school building transforms into a “knowledge infrastructure,” the teacher as provider
of knowledge turns into the teacher “as tutor and facilitator,” textbooks and audio-
visual aids are replaced by “multimedia materials,” and rather than the classroom,
the “individual learner” becomes the unit of educational attention.

The Problem with ‘Learning’

The suggestion that schools are for learning, that the task of the teacher is to facilitate
learning, and that ICTs can be an important tool for supporting, enhancing and
improving learner – both inside and outside the school building and both inside and
outside of the ‘remit’ of the school as institution or idea (see also the next section) –
has become a common and popular way to talk about education. If in the past much
discussion about education focused on what is generally seen as the ‘input’ side of
education – teaching and the curriculum – over the past decades the attention has
increasingly shifted towards the ‘receiving’ end of the spectrum, where we can first
of all find the learner and secondly the learning ‘outcomes’ contemporary learners
are supposed to produce and which, in the ‘age of measurement’ (Biesta, 2010),
have become the object of ongoing careful, and detailed monitoring and measuring.
While the rise of a ‘new language of learning’ Biesta (2006) can be understood as
part of rebalancing educational discourse so that it no longer exclusively focuses on
the input side, I have argued in several publications that the language of learning
is not entirely helpful – and perhaps we should even say: rather unhelpful – in the
context of education, also if, in that context, we seek to come to a judgement about
the potential usefulness of ICT. There are a couple of issues, which partly have to
do with the concept of ‘learning’ and partly with the role and status of learning in
education.
One unhelpful aspect of the language of learning – and this refers to the concept
itself – is that in the English language ‘learning’ can refer both to an activity and to
the outcome or result of such an activity. So when we say that ICT might support
or enhance or improve student learning, it is not immediately or entirely clear if we
mean the process of learning or learning as result. The solution here is simply a matter
of precision where, when we refer to activities of students, it is generally preferable
to use words that clearly indicate an activity, such as the word ‘studying’ but also
words such as ‘trying,’ ‘making an effort,’ ‘practicing,’ or, more concretely, ‘trying
to master,’ ‘trying to memorise,’ ‘trying to make sense of,’ ‘trying to understand,’
and so on.
A slightly more serious issue is that the word ‘learning’ can be used in relation to
a wide range of different outcomes and results. So to simply say that someone has
learned is hardly ever enough. Here we can at least make a distinction between [a]
learning as a change in cognition or understanding (such as in sentences like Peter
has learned that E = mc2 or that the sun revolves around the earth – which concerns

33
G. BIESTA

matters of fact – but also Peter has learned that lying is objectionable or that sexual
intercourse before marriage is a sin – which concerns moral matters and beliefs,
which some also see as matters of fact but others see as moral values); [b] learning
as a change is attitude, ability or performance (such as in sentences like Mary has
learned to ride a bike, Mary has learner to keep her balance, Mary has learned to
walk, and also – and this is already a bit more complicated – Mary has learned
to speak or Mary has learned to be patient); and [c] learning as an increase in or
change of awareness (such as in sentences like Lesley has learned that she is not
good at mathematics, Lesley has learned that she can’t keep secrets, or Lesley has
learned that she will never be smart enough to go to university). This brief overview,
which of course is far from complete, already indicates that if we say that the task of
education is to make students learn, we are simply not saying enough. It also shows
that general claims about the ability of ICT to improve or enhance learning are also
fairly empty. In short: any use of the word learning requires additional information
about what we may term the ‘content’ of the learning, that is, about what someone
has learned or is supposed to learn.
Whereas this is already an issue when we talk about learning in general – and we
have to concede that learning is something that can happen anywhere and anytime –
it becomes even more pressing in the context of institutionalised education, that
is, education in schools, colleges and universities. Rather than to maintain that the
purpose of institutionalised education is that children and young people learn, I
wish to suggest that the point of education in those settings should always be that
children and young people learn something and not just anything, that they learn
it for a particular reason, and that they learn it from someone. Unlike learning in
general, education therefore always raises questions about content – the ‘what’ –
about purpose – the ‘what for’ – and about the relationships that are most conducive
for this. The focus on content, purpose and relationships distinguishes the language
of learning from the language of education.

The Threefold Character of Educational Purpose

Of the three – content, purpose and relationships – I wish to argue that the question
of purpose is the most fundamental and most central question, because it is only
when we have a sense of what it is that we seek to achieve and what we seek our
students to achieve, that we can begin to specify what content(s) should be involved
and how we should utilise educational relationships. (In English the latter question
can be seen as that of ‘pedagogy,’ while in Germanic and Scandinavian languages,
this is the question of ‘didactics.’) But here we encounter what may well be the
most important issue with regard to the discussion about ICT and education, which
concerns the fact that education, unlike a range of other human practices, is not
orientated towards a single aim, but actually ‘functions’ with relation to a number of
purposes or, as I prefer to call it, a number of different domains of purpose.

34
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

The argument starts with the simple observation that in many if not all instances
of education there are a number of things happening at the same time. First of all we
may assume that education is always about ‘something,’ that is, about knowledge
and skills that are made available to students and that they acquire as a result of
their own efforts and those of their teachers. This is where education functions
as qualification, as the knowledge and skills ‘on offer’ qualify students for other
activities, be they specific (such as in the context of work) or more general (such
as the idea that general education ‘qualifies’ children and young people for life
in complex modern societies). Much discussion about and research on education
focuses on the qualification function of education, and some would even go as far as
to claim that this is the only thing that schools should be concerned with.
However, whether schools or policy makers or teachers like it or not, whilst
teachers and students are focusing on qualification, students are also being introduced
to cultures, practices and traditions and the ways of doing and being that come with
these. These include general cultures and traditions – social, political, aesthetic and
religious cultures and traditions for example – but also specific cultures, traditions
and practices, such as professional practices. This is where education functions as
socialisation, which it not only does deliberately and openly but, as the literature on
the hidden curriculum has made clear, also happens ‘behind the backs’ of teachers
and students.
In addition to qualification and socialisation I wish to suggest that education,
when it occurs, always also in someway impacts on the person of the student –
it makes them more knowledgeable and skilful, or less so, of course; it provides
them with abilities to think critically, or not, to be compassionate, or not, and so
on. We could refer to this dimension as that of ‘person formation.’ However, in
order to highlight that what occurs here is not about the acquisition of (an) identity –
which, so I wish to suggest, actually takes place in the ‘domain’ of socialisation
where we ‘identify’ ourselves with particular cultures, traditions and practices –
the preferred term for this third domain is subjectification, which has to do with
the ways in which students, through and as a result of their education, can act and
exist as subjects in their own right (rather than objects of the aims, purposes and
interventions of others).
The claim is that education not only ‘functions’ in relation to these three
dimensions – that is, that when education happens, there are always qualification,
socialisation and subjectification ‘going on’ – but also, and for precisely this reason,
that when we design and enact education, we always need to consider what the
potential ‘effects’ in these three domains are. That is why they not only can be seen
as three domains or dimensions in which education functions, but are also to be
understood as three purposes or three domains of purpose (and the idea behind
referring to them as domains of purpose has to do with the fact that with regard to
each there can actually be quite different views about what ought to happen, that is,
quite different views about concrete aims and purposes).

35
G. BIESTA

Implications for the Analysis and Design of Education

Acknowledging the multi-dimensional character of education is important for a

number of reasons. One is that it provides a framework for analysis of educational
processes and practice in that we can ask with much more precision than when using
the general and in a sense bland language of learning what the potential and actual
‘impact’ of educational efforts, practices and processes in each of these domains is.
So rather than to look at school education, or education in other settings through
the question what children and young people may ‘learn’ from it or are actually
‘learning’ from it, the framework allows us to ask what knowledge and skills they
may be gaining, how they are being positioned in (relation to) particular cultures,
traditions and practices, and how this may impact on their personhood or, more
specifically, their ‘ability’ to act and exist as subjects.
What will become immediately visible when we begin to look at education in this
way, is that the three dimensions are indeed dimensions, which means that although
they can be distinguished in our analysis, they can not be separated, but always
occur together. Even to teach that two and two equals four, or how to tie one’s
shoelaces, is not just about the acquisition of knowledge and skills, but immediately
communicates (powerful) messages about traditions and cultures – such as that we
find it important that you know this and can do this – and has an impact on how
students can exist and lead their lives.
But this particular way of looking at education not only has implications for how
we might analyse what is going on, but also is important for the design of education.
There are two issues that are important here. The first is that in designing education
it no longer suffices just to state what children and young people ought to acquire in
terms of knowledge and skills. We also need to consider the cultures, practices and
traditions that we want them to engage with and/or become part of, and we need to
articulate the ‘person qualities’ we seek to foster and promote. We need to develop,
in other words, a multi-dimensional account of the purposes of our educational
efforts and activities. Yet because the three dimensions of education always in some
way occur together, the most complex question we need to consider has to do with
the interaction between the three domains. This is the question how what we seek
to achieve in one domain may affect what we seek to achieve in the other domains.
The predicament may be well known in education, though it is not often articulated
clearly, neither in the language of learning, nor in discussions about educational aims
and objectives.2
Simply put the issues are that if we seek to achieve something in one domain,
we always need to ask what the potential impact of this in the other domains is. Put
differently, we can never state aims and ambitions for qualification, socialisation
and subjectification separately, but always need to consider what we might call the
‘side effects’ that ambitions in one domain have for what is possible or may happen
with regard to the other domains. Perhaps the most straightforward example – and
actually also the most topical one – is that if we seek to steer our students towards

36
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

high performance in the domain of qualification, for example by creating very

competitive classroom cultures, but putting students under significant pressure
(either via threats – punishment, naming and shaming, consequences of failure –
or via potential rewards), we may of course well be able to ‘produce’ particular
performance in the domain of qualification, but at the very same time sending out
strong messages in the domain of socialisation – such as ‘see your fellow students
as competitors,’ ‘see education as a matter of winning,’ ‘accept that reward and
punishment are acceptable ways to motivate people,’ and so on – and are through
this also impacting on how they may become as human beings, that is, as subjects
in their own right. Of course as educators we may decide that this is a price we
are willing to pay for high performance in the domain of qualification, but by
acknowledging the three-fold character of educational purpose, we can see that
everything we do in education always has a price, and the question we therefore
should consider is whether we are willing to ‘pay’ this ‘price.’ This, of course, is
not a matter of science, it’s not an issue that large scale randomised controlled trials
can solve for us – it requires judgement about what we consider to be desirable and
acceptable in education and human action and interaction more widely. It requires, in
other words, value judgements – that is, judgements about what we value and about
what we ought to value in education – and explicit justification of our decisions and
actions.

ICT and Education: Considering Means and Ends

There are two implications for the discussion about ICT and education that I wish to
highlight here. One follows more or less directly from what I have said so far in this
section, in that if we wish to have any discussion about the role of ICT in education
we need to consider this in the context of the three domains of educational purpose –
not just one of them – and when doing so we need to consider ‘side effects’ and what
we might term ‘trade offs.’ We need to consider, in other words, what the ambitions
we may formulate with regarding to the use of ICT in education with regard to one
domain imply for what we can and cannot achieve in the other domains. Whereas my
examples focus on the domain of qualification – mainly because most contemporary
ambitions about education are articulated within this domain – the argument of
course also holds for ambitions in the other two domains. If, for example, we wish
to initiate our students into the ‘culture’ of ICT – an ambition in the domain of
socialisation – we need to consider what this ambition may imply for the domains
of subjectification and qualification; what kind of messages it might communicate
with regard to these domains, what it makes possible in relation to them, and also
what it may not make possible or hinders or prevents from happening. All this
can be covered under Haddad’s argument for the need for “rigorously analyzing
educational objectives” (see above), albeit that the ‘rigour’ I have argued for is not
just a matter of strictness and clarity, but also a need to take the particular structure
of the purposes of education into consideration.

37
G. BIESTA

With regard to the other aspect Haddad mentions – Determining which educational
objectives are best pursued for ICT application – it should now at least be clear
that such a determination cannot be done by considering each domain of purpose
separately in order then to ask how useful, meaningful or effective the use of ICT
might be. Here as well we need to remain mindful of possible side effects and trade
offs, because the conclusion that a particular ICT application may be useful for,
say, ambitions in the domain of qualification is in itself not yet a sufficient reason
for adopting that application. Such a conclusion can only be reached after we have
considered the full picture across all three domains of purpose.
But there is one further implication that seems to be absent in Haddad’s list, which
has to do with the fact that the ‘how’ of education, that is the way in which we do
things and the kind of technologies we deploy (and here I use technologies in a very
broad sense, including all the objects and artefacts that play a role in education, from
pen, paper, books and chalk up to 3D virtual reality) are not to be seen as neutral
instruments that only need to be effective for bring about certain results. Unlike, say,
in medicine where the only consideration is whether particular drugs or therapies
will or will not produce desired effects, the relationship between the means and
ends of education is not a technical or external relationship. In education means and
ends are internally connected which means that their relationship is constitutive,
not technical (see Carr, 2003). A simply way of putting what is at stake here, is that
students not only learn from what we say, but that they also learn a lot from how
we say it and from what we do, particularly if our actions are in conflict with our
messages. More generally the point here is that the ‘form’ of education also has
educative ‘power,’ which means that how is as important as what we do it for.
What this means more concretely is that the technologies we use in education
should not only be judged on their effectiveness but also on what they potentially
communicate to our students (and this in each of the three domains). This is where
the whole discussion on educational effectiveness often is misguided, as it tends
to be focused on the question of the effectiveness of educational technologies and
strategies but forgets to ask what kind of messages are conveyed – implicitly or
explicitly – when such technologies and strategies are being deployed. This is
particularly important for ICT because in many of its forms and manifestations it
tends to be much more tempting than older technologies and thus tends to be much
more seductive and more difficult to resist. To keep ones educational head ‘cool’ in
light of this, can be a real challenge, both for teachers and for students.

ICT, THE SCHOOL AND SOCIETY

The second issue I wish to consider in this chapter has to do with the position and
role of the school and the question what ICT may or may not have to do there. The
‘there’ is in a sense already the point where the discussion must start, as it raises
the question what the school actually ‘is’ and how we might understand its place,
location and position.

38
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

The Double History of the Modern School

One useful entry point for this discussion is a historical one, and the suggestion I
wish to make here is that in order to understand the school and its position in society
we need to acknowledge the double history of the school. Part of this history, and
perhaps the most common and visible part, has to do with the emergence of the
school as a response to processes of modernisation (see also Oelkers, 2005). The
key point is that that as a result of processes of modernisation society increases in
complexity and be comes structured in such a way that it begins to lose its educative
‘power.’ If in pre-modern societies children could pick up most of what they needed
for their lives by just ‘being around’ – often because they were an active part of
what was going on. The increased complexity of modern societies, including the
increased separation of ‘work’ and ‘life,’ raised the question how the next generation
could be effectively prepared for their later life, including their work life, but also
their social and societal and civic life, and here the modern school emerged as the
place where such preparation could take place. From this angle the school has a clear
role and position in modern society and we could also say – and this is important for
the discussion – that society has clear and legitimate expectations about the school.
The school, in other words, need to work for society and needs to work well.
Much contemporary policy and research approaches the school from this angle,
partly by measuring how well the school is performing its task – hence league tables,
hence discussions about added value and return on investments – and partly by
constantly adding tasks to the remit of the school so that it can become even better at
preparing the next generation for its future. With regard to the latter we can not only
think of the rise of all kinds of ‘educations,’ such as citizenship education, ecological
education, personal, social, moral and health education, but also the rise of all kinds
of ‘literacies,’ of which ICT literacy is definitely one.
But seeing the school as s function of and for modern society is only one part
of the history of the modern school. If in that history the school is complete ‘open’
towards society and its demands and desires, the other history of the school is that
of the school as a place somewhere in between ‘home’ and ‘the street,’ a place that
is precisely shielded off from demands of society so that there are opportunities for
children and young people to experiment, try out, practice and grow up without
the constant pressure to do everything already perfectly and under the direct ‘gaze’
of society and all the groups and fractions that want something from the school.
That this is part of the history of the school as well – and therefore also part of the
rationale for the modern school – can for example be seen in the idea of compulsory
education, still not a reality for many around the world, and, in countries where this
has become reality, the ongoing increase of the school leaving age. Whereas this
can, of course, also be seen from the fact that children and young people need to
learn more and more in order to become prepared for what many see as a society
that is constantly becoming more complex, compulsory schooling and the rise of the
school leaving age are also clear signs that society wants to give its next generation

39
G. BIESTA

time – and in this light it is interesting to remind ourselves that the Greek word
‘schole’ indeed refers to such ‘free time,’ that is, time not yet ‘claimed’ by work or
other societal demands (see Masschelein & Simons, 2012).
Here we could say that the task of the school is not only that of providing a
‘filter’ in relation to societal demands (on this idea see Mollenhauer, 2013), but
that the school should also actively resist such demands where they run the risk of
obstructing or destroying the ‘free time’ the next generation needs for growing up.
This also includes helping the next generation itself of becoming to judge about what
in the world it is worth following, and where resistance is called for (see also Biesta,
2013a, 2015). In this historical line then, we could say that the task of the school
is not preparation but discernment or, in more proactive language, that the task of
the school – or in the words of Philippe Meirieu: the duty of the school – is to resist
(see Meirieu, 2007). That is why many would argue that the literacies at stake in
contemporary education should always be critical literacies and not just functional
literacies.

The Case for Integration and Connection: Towards a Learning Infrastructure

The distinction between the two histories of the school is relevant for the discussion
about ICT and education, because it provides two very different frameworks for the
discussion. If we take the first history as our frame of reference, then it would follow
that the stronger the connection between school and society is, the better this would
be. One could even argue that to the degree that the school becomes an obstacle for
the integration of the new generation into society we need to get rid of the school
and find different, more effective ways for such integration. Such a line of critique
is often aimed at the artificial character of much that happens in schools, and argues
that the more the next generation can be educated in ‘real life’ contexts, the better
this would be.
This way of thinking is not only behind the argument that ICT should have a place
in the school simply because it has a place, and a quite dominant one, in life outside
of the school. It is also used in the promotion of ICT in education because of its
ability to connect children and young people quickly and effectively with the world
outside of the school. And it is an argument for connecting life inside and outside
of the school as much as possible in order to create one single, strong, coherent and
all-encompassing learning environment, or perhaps we should refer to it more as
a learning system, a learning infrastructure, or learning as a total institution (for a
more general critique of such a development see Biesta, 2013b).

The Case for Separation and Disconnection: The School as Sanctuary

If we take are starting point in the second history of the school, the question of the
relation between life inside and outside the school and the role and position of ICT
becomes quite a different one. Here we could say that the whole point of the school

40
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

and the wider ‘project’ of schooling is to maintain a critical distance vis-à-vis society
and a place a refuge from society: the school as sanctuary. This means that attempts
from the side of society to bridge this distance between school and society and in a
sense ‘take over’ the school have to be seen as deeply problematic, precisely because
such developments would undermine the main raison d’être of the school. From this
perspective the artificial character of the school, the fact that the school is precisely
not identical to society, is precisely seen as a good thing that needs to be cherished
and protected, rather than that it is a problem that needs to be overcome, because if
the school becomes identical to society, it disappears as school (see Sidorkin, 2002).
The idea that the school should keep a certain distance from society, is not only
meant as an argument against what, following Habermas (1987), we might call the
colonisation of the school by society. It also implies that we should be wary of signs
where the school would be colonising the lifeworld of children and young people by
demanding that what happens in their lives should be made functional and ‘useful’
for the school. This is particularly a concern as a result of what is happening in and
around the school within the historic – or perhaps we should call it a ‘logic’ – of the
school mentioned above. ICT plays a role in all this because even as a technology –
that is, without even considering what ICT is supposed to do in the school – it already
quite easily penetrates the ‘borders’ of the school, both because it is omnipresence
in modern societies and because it is immensely more tempting because much more
connected to our desires, than the older technologies of education.

ICT, the School and Society

Being aware that there are two histories of the modern school that provide quite
different views about what the school ‘is’ and what the school is for, is important
because depending on how one sees the school in relation to society – either as a
function of and for society or as a sanctuary in society – has significant implications
for one’s views about what ICT should and should not be doing in the school and in
supporting the remit of the school. To show that there are at least different ways of
understanding this remit and the way in which the school should define its place in
and in relation to society, is therefore of crucial importance in order to be continue
to be able to think critically about ICT and education.

CONCLUDINGS: ICT, GOOD OR BAD?

ICT in education, good or bad? Posing the question is important, but assuming that
the answer is a simple dichotomy is naïve. ICT provides powerful tools, also for
education, but its power is not just beneficial but can also bring about a distortion
of what education ought to be responsible for. I first of all hope to have shown that
the answer to that question can no longer be ‘learning’ but needs to be much more
precise. I also hope to have shown that the answer to that question can no longer be
given in a one-dimensional way, but needs to take into consideration that education

41
G. BIESTA

always carries a responsibility for three domains, and hence not only needs to find
out what it seeks to bring about in each of these domains but also needs to take into
account that the domains do not exist independently but are always entangled in a
number of complex ways. And I hope to have shown that any discussion about ICT
and education can no longer assume that a stronger connection between the school
and the world outside of the school is automatically the preferable situation.

NOTES
1
Search conducted in Google Scholar on 2 January 2016. It is remarkable that on this date there were
already 1390 publications with “ict” and “education” in the title with a 2016 publication date.
2
It is absent, for example, in Bloom’s still widely used taxonomy of educational objectives.

REFERENCES
Adelsberger, H., Kinshuk, H., & Pawlowski, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook on information technologies
for education and training. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, & New York, NY: Springer.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2013a). Responsive or responsible? Education for the global networked society. Policy
Futures in Education, 11(6), 734–745.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2013b). Interrupting the politics of learning. Power and Education, 5(1), 4–15.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). The duty to resist: Redefining the basics for today’s schools. Research on Steiner
Education 6/Special issue 2015, 1–11.
Carr, D. (2003). Making sense of education. An introduction to the philosophy and theory of education
and teaching. London & New York, NY: Routledge.
DiPetta, T. (Ed.). (2008). The emperor’s new computer: ICT, teachers and teaching. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Volume two: lifeword and system: A critique of
functionalist reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Haddad, W. D. (2008). 2008: Analytical review. ICT-in-education toolkit. Washington, DC: World
Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/11/10060461/icts-education-
reference-handbook-vol-2-3-analytical-review
Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning and how to research it?
International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 7–18.
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2012). Apologie van de school. Leuven: Acco.
Meirieu, P. (2007). Pédagogie: Le devoir de résister. Issy-les-Moulineaux: ESF éditeur.
Mollenhauer, K. (2013). Forgotten connections. On culture and upbringing. London & New York, NY:
Routledge.
Oelkers, J. (2005). Reformpädagogik. Eine kritische Dogmengeschichte. 4. vollst. bearbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage [Progressive education: A critical history of fundamental ideas. 4th revised and
expanded edition]. München: Juventa.
Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Sidorkin, A. (2002). Learning relations: Impure education, deschooled schools, and dialogue with evil.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Voogt, J., & Knezek, G. (Eds.). (2008). International handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, & New York, NY: Springer.
Yuran, N. (2014). What money wants: An economy of desire. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2004). Emotion, reason, and information and communication technologies
in education: Some issues in a post-emotional society. E-learning, 1(1), 105–127.

42
 ICT AND EDUCATION BEYOND LEARNING

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gert Biesta is Professor of Education and Director

of Research in the Department of Education, Brunel
University London. His work focuses on the theory
and philosophy of education and the theory and
philosophy of educational and social research, with
particular interest in questions of democracy and
democratisation.

43
 PART II
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
 EYVIND ELSTAD

3. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

Policymaking and Policy Enactment

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the vital issues addressed in
this part of the book and to reflect on the contextual background of policymaking and
policy enactment of educational technology in schools. This section centres around
the Norwegian social context as an example discussion case. After the Second World
War, Norwegian education changed course from encyclopaedic-centred schooling
in the grammar-school tradition to a pupil-centred schooling based on ideas derived
from American progressive pedagogy. The progressive movements in education
had over several centuries after the Second World War a hegemony in Norwegian
education among bureaucratic officeholders, educational researchers, and several
teachers especially in primary school. However, a turnaround of educational
policy and management was instigated by a center-conservative government in
2002. The first disappointing results from the Programme for International Student
Assessment—PISA 2000—gave a legitimation this turnaround, and during the years
that followed has the governing system moved toward increased accountability
based on performance measures. The advent of educational accountability after
the millennium has created more external pressure for improved performance in
schools, and performance measures are used as indicators of goal attainment. But
progressivistic ideas of using educational technology as a force of developing new
teaching methods and the educational zeitgeist of accountability are, however,
embedded side by side in Norwegian education policies for school enactment.
This is an amalgamation of educational progressivism and result orientation. In
this introductory text I discuss, interrogate and identify problems inherent in the
tensions between the ideals of educational progressivism and the ideals of precise
and adequate measurements of pupil performance in the service of result orientation.
These tensions induce still challenges of Norwegian education in the 21th century.

CHANGING POLICYMAKING IN NORWAY

Larry Cuban has shown how earlier technologies (television, radio et cetera) have
been tried out in schools without making a great impact on how teaching is carried
out or on the patterns of work within the school (Cuban, 1986). Educational use

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 47–57.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. ELSTAD

of television and radio had never a breakthrough in Norwegian schools. However,

the situation is very different in respect of digital technology, which is why this
presentation of technology in Norwegian schools is preoccupied with digital
technology.
The Norwegian education authorities have been in the forefront of international
development in terms of using information and communication technology in schools.
As early as 1987 the use of computers in schools was presented as a requirement and
as a resource for inter-disciplinary work in schools. This was regarded as important
at that time because schools were expected to help limit future social dividing lines
in the technological skills of young people. Computer programming also came in
as an elective subject in schools. Computers made a hesitant entry into schools,
meeting spasmodic enactment and scepticism on the part of many teachers, as well
as enthusiastic experimentation with technology in some subjects (the present author
having been one of the enthusiastic teachers).
The Ministry of Education invested heavily in developing specific Norwegian
educational programmes for the Norwegian educational system in the 1980s.
This governmental investment in information technology (White Paper no. 39,
1983–1984) began with the establishment of a central secretariat, the Data Secretariat,
to carry out research and development work (White Paper no. 37, 1987–1988). In
1989, the Ministry of Education believed that one of the programmes that had been
developed, Winix, had a significant commercial potential that could form the basis
for further use both in Norwegian education and in the international market. In 1992,
the Ministry of Education therefore set up a state-owned limited company to launch
Winix as a commercial product. The following year, this commercial company was
wound up. 100 educational programmes were produced. Winix also developed
a communications programme along the lines of today’s learning platforms.
Attempts were made to use educational programmes in various subjects and types
of school, to develop teacher skills and to disseminate and integrate information
technology in schools and training programmes. The governmental initiative was
however organised without a proper framework or adequate answerability to the
national leadership. As a consequence, the project did not receive adequate overall
management. The initiative began with grandiose expectations of schools adapting
to a new age of digital revolution but ended with uncontrolled costs, subsequent
court cases and compensation. Even though the educational ideas on which Winix
was built have proved to have commercial market value, the concept that the
Norwegian government itself should be responsible for developing educational
programmes and learning platforms has been discredited. The Ministry of Education
therefore changed its handling of digitalisation work for schools.1 Since that time,
providers of technological hardware and software have been commercial businesses,
which leads to an increased emphasis on commercial self-interest and significant
access costs amongst bodies involved in the debate on the use of technology in
education.

48
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

1995–2001: PUPIL-FOCUSSED PEDAGOGY AND

COMMUNICATION-TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES

In the wake of the Winix scandal, Norwegian government policies on technology

in education changed. This change heralded a new and offensive initiative for
communication technology in the school. The research and skills network for IT in
Education (ITU) was established in 1997 as a government initiative: “on behalf of
the ministry, ITU is to contribute to a modernisation of the Norwegian educational
system through the use of ICT”. The following policy statement was made: “Teachers
with computer-phobia need to prepare for a tough future, because IT will penetrate
every last corner of the Norwegian educational system. … IT will not be an option
but will run throughout the whole learning process” (Pedagogisk Profil no. 1, 1998).
At the turn of the century, the then Minister of Education, Trond Giske, formulated
a vision that communication technology would “revolutionise both the way we learn
and teach … The truly major changes will arrive when we have developed new
educational methods based on communication technology”. The suggestion was also
made that “The teacher will principally be a guide rather than an instructor/lecturer
… The schoolmaster is a thing of the past!” (in 2000, cited from Skagen, 2014). This
is pupil-centred pedagogical thought.
In July 2001 one of Norway’s leading newspapers printed an article headed
“Reform attempts in 700 schools” (Kluge, 2001). Reformation of teaching
methods was discussed. One of the top civil servants in the Ministry of Education
and Research, Ole Briseid, condemned in 2001 teacher-centered instruction and
emphasized progressive, student-oriented and activity-oriented teaching methods:
The Ministry has wanted to reform the teaching methods in schools (in Norway)
for a long time. Now this is finally happening. The Ministry has wanted this
for a long time. He (Briseid) wants more project work, less traditional teaching
using the blackboard as a visual aid and more problem-based teaching. To a
larger extent, pupils will work independently and in groups with topics they
develop themselves. The teachers will be more like supervisors than lecturers,
and computer technology forces the development of new teaching methods.
(Kluge, 2001, emphasised here)
This is an example of strong process steering. This example illustrates how the
education policymaking in Norway was aligned with ideas linked to a progressive
school philosophy until 2001. Briseid’s proclamation of steering work processes
was in accordance with the Labour Party’s governmental policy at the time (Skagen,
2014). The self-satisfaction with the education policy was high (despite Norway
had in 1995 the lowest score2 of all European countries in Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study). An educational county-director declared later in
2001 that “The Norwegian school has never been better” (Skrede, 2004).
The state school system was and is very pervasive in Norway. Only about three
percent of primary and lower secondary-school pupils and seven percent of upper

49
E. ELSTAD

secondary pupils attend “independent” schools.3 Further, Norway is amongst the

countries with the highest use of internet and data technology. As such, they represent
interesting laboratories for observing the consequences of ICT in the school.
Educational policy in Norwegian society is driven both at national level and by the
local education authorities. Most Norwegian schools are owned by local authorities
and county councils and it is these that are responsible for the teaching quality. This
section of the book deals with how national and local policy is enacted or exercised
in respect of schools. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 present three case studies regarding how
ICT has been enacted in the school. Policy is re-made in schools: it is enacted,
translated and interpreted, and changed according to the contextual constraints and
affordances of a school (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012). These chapters explain how
the policyenactment really may happen at three schools. These three cases are so
varied that they can illustrate the breadth of how ICT is implemented in Norwegian
upper secondary schools.

After 2001

Two aspects of Norwegian educational policy after the turn of the century will be in
focus here: (1) result-focussed policies that make teachers and schools accountable
for the learning results attained by pupils and (2) a powerful focus on strengthening
the situation regarding technological equipment in Norwegian schools, including
computers or later Ipads for all pupils from 2006 – subject to an expectation that
expensive equipment will actually be used.
In 2004, the Ministry of Education presented an action plan entitled Programme
for digital skills 2004–2008, which announced an impending large-scale introduction
of ICT into all levels of the educational system. Digital skills became a central issue
in educational policy, alongside knowledge promotion. Digital skills were launched
as the fifth core skill, to be included in all subjects on an equal footing with the
other core skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Even though individual
teachers allegedly have full freedom in their choice of teaching methods, the
curriculum lays down that digital tools are to be used in specially-defined areas.
Examples also exist of regional management of schools’ use of technology: some
counties, for instance, have laid down that computers should be used in at least
50% of lessons. The principal strategies used by the authorities to persuade schools
to adopt communication technology have been increased access to equipment and
skills development for teachers. In addition to this, teaching has to ensure that stated
skills targets will be achieved by pupils in the use of communications technology.
In 2006, pupils’ “use of digital tools” was defined as a core skill by the national
educational authorities.4 All in all, there has been a very strong emphasis on the
adoption of communication technology in Norwegian schools.
The first PISA tests created a shock for Norwegian politicians, leading to a
powerful realignment of Norwegian educational policies: a new Norwegian school
reform called the Knowledge Promotion reform. This initiative involved introducing

50
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

national tests and making local authorities and counties responsible for measuring
pupil results in exams and tests. It was later also clarified that the teacher should
bear a clearly-defined responsibility for pupil learning (White paper no 11, 2009).
At the same time, the extensive focus on the individual use of computers meant that
teachers felt that they lost something of the operational control they exercised over
what pupils were doing during lessons. Pupil fascination for the communication and
gaming possibilities of computers and mobile phones was a challenge. Teachers also
faced unregulated absence and latecoming to lessons: until 2005 the regulations gave
pupils the right not to be excluded from teaching if they arrived late and to be given
a grade set by the teacher even in the event of substantial absenteeism. In 2015 the
teachers were given greater authority to act as classroom leaders: “pupil effort is to
form part of the assessment criteria” (Education Act § 3-3). The current regulations
mean that pupils will not be given a half-yearly graded assessment if they have
more than 15% absence in that subject. The Conservative minister for education –
Torbjørn Røe Isaksen – asked teachers to lock the door at the start of lessons and
to confiscate mobile phones. This was in order that the teacher should assume the
role of classroom leader and be given the necessary authority to lead pupil learning
processes. The Labour Party’s leading education politician Trond Giske – who
as Minister of Education 15 years earlier had been fascinated by the idea that the
teacher would assume the role of “guide instead of instructor” – argued in 2015 that
the teacher should check the log of pupils’ technology use and maintain surveillance
of pupils’ computer use during lessons in order to ensure that digital teaching aids
would not be used for extra-curricula activities. In other words, 2015 saw broad
political agreement in Norway that an increased emphasis on the responsibility of
teachers for pupil learning needed to be backed up by more operational authority
within the classroom. The pupil-centred policies were abandoned in favour of a
broad political consensus on more teacher-controlled direction of pupil activities
during lessons and a strengthened position of authority for the teacher in the form
of an increased repertoire of sanctions limiting pupils’ use of communication
technology within the school. At the same time as teacher responsibility for pupil
learning results was made clear, an equipment revolution and investment in digital
skills were taking place in the school.
In the school curriculum,5 the use of technology is emphasised as an explicitly-
specified demand through learning targets. In history, for instance, the pupil is to be
able to “use digital tools to collect information from a variety of media”. In English,
the pupil is to be able to “assess various digital resources and other aids in a critical
and independent manner and use them in his or her own language learning”. In
foreign languages they should be able to “use digital resources and other aids”.
There are many examples of these demands. During the past decade, schools have
invested heavily in equipment and skills and the school environment for pupils
has gradually become marked by the use of computers, Ipads and similar. There
is however a breadth of variety in access and use, both between different schools,
different subjects and different pupils. Norwegian schools are located in the very top

51
E. ELSTAD

category in terms of density of technology both in elementary and upper-secondary

schooling (Wasteau et al., 2013).6 Some surveys have shown that both access to and
use of digital equipment, as well as teacher skill and pupils’ home background, are
of significance in terms of pupils’ digital skills. The most important explanation,
however, may be the question of how digital learning resources match up with the
way teachers traditionally have carried out the task of instructing.
The results from Norwegian Monitor 2013 indicate the following:
• In year group 7, 15.2% of pupils believe that they spend too much time on non-
academic matters and that the use of computers and tablets is a disturbance to
schooling. 18% believe that teachers do not know what pupils are doing on
computers and tablets in the school.
• More than one in four pupils believe that computers and tablets steal time that
they should be spending learning curriculum-related subjects and that it is easier
to cheat in digitally-based tests than in others.
• In the 9th year group, 32% agree that teachers do not know what pupils are doing
in the school, while 26.4% believe that it is easier to cheat in digital tests. In
addition, 19.9% and 17.5% respectively believe that too much time is spent on
non-academic matters and that the use of computers and tablets is a disturbance
to schooling.
• For all year groups, results indicate a negative correlation between digital skills
and an experience of unease relating to the use of computers and tablets.
There is considerable breadth of variety in teacher attitudes towards how pupils
may use communication technology during lessons. At the one extreme, some
teachers believe that computers have no place in the school. At the other extreme we
find the belief that pupils should have the right to use communication technology at
all times while in school and that the school should not place any limitations on pupil
use of computers (ITU, 2003). Between these two extremes there is a continuum of
intermediate positions. There are indications that teachers who have been inclined
towards the comprehensive use of technology have acknowledged the need to limit
pupils’ free use of technology. This may, for instance, take the form of locking
pupils’ mobile phones in a cupboard at the start of the school day and returning them
at the end of the day. At some schools, computers are handed out by the teacher
only in situations in which the teacher believes that computers should be used.
Opportunities also exist to shut off or limit internet access during parts of lessons.
In other words, the use of technology in such cases is situational and depends on
personal judgements regarding when the use of computers is advantageous from a
learning perspective.
Communication technologies do not necessarily promote learning, but
technologies re-shape the learning environment and influence learning processes
in favourable and unfavourable ways. It has also been suggested that technologies
affect how we are to understanding learning and how learning should be documented
in the school. For instance it is claimed that pupils should have the same information

52
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

resources available in an exam situation that they would have in real life (Prøitz,
2014). Others suggest that cognition becomes externalised through the availability
of technologies (Säljö, 2001). This in turn is a view that has radical implications
for how schools ought to document and verify learning. The educational authorities
have advanced policies that change the conditions of the traditional school exam,
in that pupils are now to have access to technological aids during the course of the
exam.
Some counter-arguments have been raised against these standpoints. Teachers do
have an opportunity to assess pupil use of technology by other means than through a
written exam. The proponents of this thinking point out that a written exam in which
pupils can use technological aids may lead to pupils making use of other people’s
texts and that this makes it difficult to assess work as an independently-conceived
product. Plagiarism from the internet appears to be a significant problem (Skaar &
Hammer, 2013). A constant dance is played out between the teacher or marker on the
one side and the individuals submitting their work for assessment on the other. Cut-
and-paste strategies are employed when pupils work with texts for school. The school
then employs technology intended to identify plagiarism. Some pupils then answer
this challenge by taking steps to ensure that the plagiarism detector fails to identify
the plagiarism (for instance by replacing word spaces with an invisible x). The point
is that this is a strategic game that is played out between the school’s exercising of
its demands and control and the pupils’ inventiveness in getting around the school’s
attempts to check that submitted work is an independently-produced product. This
damages the credibility of the exam system in that what is being assessed is not
necessarily the pupil’s own knowledge and ability to carry out independent work
(Skagen, 2014). An applicant’s individual knowledge and skills are significant to a
university or employer. This leads some people to defend the idea of exams without
access to digital aids. Others claim that putting learning to the test without external
aids is an artificial test situation, arguing that pupils should also be able to learn
through an exam in terms of using available learning resources in the same way that
this happens in real life (Prøitz, 2014).
In respect of the rationale for the use of technology in school there is a gap between
the views of educational researchers and those of teachers.7 As a generalisation,
teachers perceive the need to control pupil use of technology in school more vividly
than educational researchers.8 This difference of views regarding the need to control
the use of technology can have its origins in differing core educational values
but can also be viewed in connection with the practice that Norwegian teachers
are held responsible for what the pupils learn. A rational response to a policy that
places weight on school accountability is to select teaching methods that the teacher
considers effective for the purpose of the teaching: pupil learning. The role of
“teacher as activator” is viewed as exercising a greater effect on learning than the
role of “teacher as facilitator” (Hattie, 2009). Inquiry-based teaching and web-based
learning score badly in comparisons of effectiveness relating to teaching methods.
A number of surveys indicate that off-task behaviour becomes a significant problem

53
E. ELSTAD

when pupils have a free access to the internet. For this reason, teachers’ resistance
towards allowing pupils free and unrestricted access to communication technology
during lessons is understandable. Learning environments with a high density of
technology may be less effective for attaining good learning results than those that
are disparagingly termed traditional teaching. The conclusion is inescapable that the
question of communication technology in the classroom touches upon core values
regarding what kind of school we want to have.

NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY: A DRUNKEN WALK

During the period 1999–2013, four large programme initiatives have been launched
at national level that has included ICT policy enactment in the school. Despite this,
no great leap in educational practice has been apparent. It is nevertheless undeniable
that a considerable expansion has taken place during this period in the use of digital
technologies during this period, although the extent of ICT engagement can vary
from school to school and from teacher to teacher. We will focus first on national
educational policy. Great changes have been apparent in national educational
policy over a short period. This is illustrated by statements made by the two most
recent ministers for education. The previous Norwegian education minister Kristin
Halvorsen (2009–2013) stated: “I would encourage schools to use the internet and
social media as much as possible … Social media are something of which young
people have a good mastery. Why not use them more in teaching? For instance by
using blogging and twittering as an arena for Norwegian teaching as well as writing
essays”. She pointed out that “it is relevant to learn to convey opinions quickly and
precisely through social media. Such subjects as music, food and health and fitness
can also easily be made more interesting for young people”.
While the previous minister of education was boundlessly enthusiastic, the current
education minister Torbjørn Røe Isaksen (2013-present) is fundamentally sceptical
towards ICT use in the school and would prefer greater discipline: “Today’s pupils
have had too much digital freedom … Research has shown that the downside of the
digital reform is that Norwegian pupils use a disproportionately large proportion of
lesson time in surfing on Facebook and other social media. Very many teachers tell
me that they are uncertain how to handle this. Uncertainty has been created in the
school due to our concern with digital skills. Many people believe this means that
pupils must have continuous free access to computers, but this is not the case …
Teachers should not be afraid to require that PCs and mobile phones be laid aside for
periods” (Todal, 2015). In another interview he says that: “The most important things
is not the tools that we use but that pupils learn more. Appropriate and sensible use
of ICT can assist with this”. In other words, national policy in respect of ICT use in
the school has shifted from great enthusiasm and techno-centric praise to cautious
realism based on teacher experience. A metaphor for the trajectory of school politics
in Norway after the millennium is ‘drunken walk’: A drunkard stumbling home in
the middle of the night, swerves back and forth, take a step to the left (Giske) and

54
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

then a step to the right (Clemet), then to the left (Halvorsen), and later to the right
(Isaksen).

LOCAL EDUCATION POLICYMAKING IN NORWAY

While national education policy is common for all schools, there are great disparities
in how local authorities exercise their policies. In other words, local authorities and
counties have considerable autonomy resulting in differences. In this part of the
book, three articles will analyse how three sixth-form colleges from three different
counties implement strategies to use ICT within the school’s work. When the
“Knowledge Promotion” reform was introduced at the beginning of the century,
digital skills were introduced as a so-called core skill. One consequence of this was
that county councils gave all sixth-form pupils their own PC. In each of these three
counties, a PC initiative means that pupils are each given their own PC on their
first day. Communication about homework, tests, submission of work, etc., occurs
via a digital platform. Schools are to a large extent equipped with internet access
and digital displaying equipment such as whiteboards or similar. The teacher has
a significant degree of self-determination regarding how and to what extent ICT is
to be used in teaching. Local educational authorities may have targets about how
regularly ICT should be used, but neither the school nor the county council can
sanction teachers who do not use ICT in their teaching.
The school case analysed in Chapter 5 is a former model school in terms of
ICT use, although no single trace remains of such ambitions in the school’s own
presentation of itself. The school was formerly at the forefront of ambitious ICT
implementation in everyday educational life. This is no longer the case. It is therefore
interesting to analyse how and why the school’s ICT focus came to an end. An
ICT focus is incidentally almost entirely absent from the county council’s strategy
documents for its upper secondary schools. One mention is made of the county
council instituting a professional network for teachers to promote “educational use
of ICT in teaching and the strengthening of collaboration between the professions
and professional-related courses”, but that is all.
The school analysed in Chapter 6 is located in a county in which the politicians
have set ambitious goals for ICT use in the school. These goals are set out in strategy
documents that provide “clear directions for ICT use in the educational sector …
Schools are required to show how they are enabling the systematic development
of skills in practical and pedagogic ICT use and how ICT use is promoting pupil
learning”. It is expected that “all teacher and pupils will also actively use ICT tools
in connection with learning and assessment. The teacher is to ensure varied ICT use
in teaching in a way that promotes motivation and learning”. The strategy includes
skills development for leaders, teachers and pupils, improved technical provision
and resources for learning as well as initiatives for school leaders and school
development in relation to ICT use. This county has to a high degree invested in a
model school, which is one of Norway’s most modern upper secondary schools, in

55
E. ELSTAD

which digital forms of working play a considerable role in school life. This school
has been in the forefront in terms of using computer games as a teaching resource
and has won several prizes for its innovative work.
The school analysed in Chapter 7 is located in a county whose goal is that “all
pupils and staff [should] use digital tools and resources in all subjects”. It is a goal
that “resource individuals in the educational use of ICT should work actively to
develop pupil and staff ICT skills and requirements and demands are made and
follow-up provided in respect of professional development for individual members
of staff. The school is to have an oversight over digital tools, resources and learning
materials in all subjects and should have set minimum standards for the use of
digital tools, resources and materials in all subjects”. Little sign of this is apparent,
however, in the school that is studied. This shows that upper secondary schools
enjoy significant autonomy in decision-taking.
Part II starts with a chapter on pupils’ perceptions of motivational conflict between
industrious academic work and specious off-task. This chapter provides new insights
into how pupils experience weakness of will in encounters with the enchantments
of technology and employ self-regulating strategies to combat weakness of will. In
short, the availability of information and communication technology in the school
has a multitude of effects and provides no magical formula for attaining better and
more intelligent learning. This, instead, emerges as deep, conceptual understanding
and higher-order thinking. The endeavour to produce this learning ‘requires intensive
teacher-student interactions, and technology sometimes distracts from this valuable
human engagement’ (OECD, 2015: 3). We clearly need greater knowledge of how we
should make use of educational technology within the school, as well as how to avoid
the unfortunate effects. The chapters of this book are contributions to meet this need.

NOTES
1
I treat the Ministry of Education as one decision unit. However, different views and tensions between
these are acknowledged by the author. This is an avenue for future research.
2
Science topics in the 4th grade (9 years old pupils).
3
The latter are governed by special laws, receive significant state subsidy and therefore are required to
meet strict conditions.
4
Some ambiguity thereby arose regarding what should be understood as “core”. Reading is a basic
skill, but using digital skills to read from a screen is also a basic skill. “Digital skills are the sum of
simple ICT skills, in the same way as reading, writing and arithmetic, along with more advanced skills
which secure a creative and critical use of digital tools and media” (KUF 2003-04: 48).
5
The national curriculums in force in Norway are to be understood as legally-valid regulations which
are binding for those who responsible for implementing the curriculum in the teaching provision.
6
Pupils in Norwegian classrooms use digital aids at school almost twice as often as the average in the
TALIS survey carried out in 2013 (OECD, 2014).
7
Traditional teaching is regarded as lessons that begin with the teacher’s synopsis of an academic topic,
followed by an activity, concluding with the teacher’s summary of issues dealt with in the lesson or
homework to be completed by the next lesson.
8
It is noteworthy that a book such as Multimedia learning (Cambridge University Press, 2009) written
by Richard E. Mayer does not contain a single observation on or reference to off-task behaviour.

56
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

REFERENCES
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary
schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. The Teachers College Record, 95(2),
185–210.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice?.
Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109–125.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school
classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),
813–834.
Giske, T. (2000, August 7). Giske expect school revolution. ITU-magasinet.
Giske, T. (2001). Lecture at the University College of Vestfold.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.
ITU. (2003). Digital dannelse. Oslo: ITU.
Kluge, L. (2001, July 5). Reformforsøk i 700 skoler. Aftenposten.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning. Making the connection. Paris: OECD.
Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes in education-an explorative cross-case
analysis of policymakers, teachers and scholars (PhD thesis). University of Oslo, Oslo.
Säljö, R. (2001). Læring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv. Oslo: JW Cappelens forlag.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social
memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1),
53–64.
Skaar, H., & Hammer, H. (2013). Why students plagiarise from the internet: The views and practices
in three Norwegian upper secondary classrooms. International Journal for Educational Integrity,
9(2), s.15–34.
Skagen, K. (2014). Digitalisering som statlig avdidaktisering av klasserommet. Norsk pedagogisk
tidsskrift, 98(06), 440–451.
Skrede, S. (2004, December 20). Hvorfor er norske elever svake i fag og på topp i bråk? Aftenposten, p. 11.
Todal, P. A. (2015, February). Ein stor og naiv entusiasme. Dag og Tid, 20.
White Paper. (2009). The teacher. The role and the education (White paper no 11). Oslo: Ministry of
Education.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eyvind Elstad is a Professor at the Department of Teacher

Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Norway. Among his research interests are teachers’ work,
teacher education, and teaching and learning in technology
rich environments.

57
 EYVIND ELSTAD, THOMAS ARNESEN AND
KNUT-ANDREAS CHRISTOPHERSEN

4. WHAT EXPLAINS PUPILS’ PERCEIVED

MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN
ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK
BEHAVIOUR IN TECHNOLOGY-RICH
CLASSROOMS?

INTRODUCTION

Self-discipline is more important than IQ in predicting academic performance of

adolescents (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005) and is therefore important in classrooms
where autonomous pupils are expected to manage school demands on their own.
A new type of challenge has appeared with the advent of free Internet access in
the classroom. Off-task behaviour is often specious compared to deeply-oriented
industrious academic work. Motivational conflicts may, therefore, arise between the
immediate rewards of pleasure-driven electronic chatting, surfing, and gaming, and
the long-term rewards of academic achievement.
The purposes of this article are (1) to discuss theoretically pupils’ motivational
conflict and weakness-of-will; (2) present the results of a survey conducted to
compare the antecedents (motivation, regulatory strength, and ICT use in school) of
pupils’ motivational conflict induced by the advent of extensive Internet access in
Norwegian and Swedish classrooms, and more limited access to Internet in Finnish
classrooms; and (3) discuss possible strategies executed by pupils and teachers
to regulate specious off-task behaviour. In achieving the third purpose, we go the
normative way.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this theoretical discussion, we connect together two strands of research: discounting

theory (Ainslie, 2001) and theory of ego-depletion (Baumeister et al., 1998).

Time Discounting Theory

Time discounting is a direct comparison of present and future rewards. Our

choices are distributed over time, and each local choice directly influences future

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 59–75.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. ELSTAD et al.

choices (Herrnstein, Loewenstein, Prelec, & Vaughan, 1993). The self is viewed as
comprising several decision-making systems that might be in conflict one another.
Self-control problems can be illustrated by thinking of intra-personal bargaining
between a myopic ‘doer’ and a far-sighted ‘planner’ as a metaphor for self-regulation
strategies. An internality is the consequence of the different time-selves of the same
person. When a youngster sets an alarm clock 5 meters from the bed at night to
wake up at 6 a.m. the next day, the far-sighted planner within outdoes the myopic
doer. When the alarm goes off the next morning, the two selves are, once again, in
conflict with one another; what the youngster decided to do the night before might
be rejected. An externality is similar, but occurs in the interaction of people, for
instance, an individual’s choice is a consequence of a technologically driven activity
experienced by others (in the school context, fellow pupils and teachers). The two
terms internality and externality are used here to denote the implications of a pupil’s
use of information and communication technology (ICT). ICT affects the cognitive
processing of a stimulus, which is an internality. This choice can be suboptimal in
the light of personal preferences. If so, this choice is heavily discounted.
Decisions often require weighing consequences distributed over time. Humans
continually face situations in which they must choose between immediate and delayed
rewards. In choices between options that can be achieved at different points in time,
the relative value of the options is discounted according to expected delays until
realisation. In a hyperbolic pattern observed in extensive research on human decisions
(Green & Myerson, 2004), the subjective value of a delayed reward is inversely
related to the postponement of realisation (Ainslie, 1975) because individuals tend to
attach more importance to rewards in the near future than those in the distant future
(myopia). Such behaviour is characterised by dynamic inconsistency, and it is the
modus operandi of weakness of will. Willpower is needed to overcome this state.
Thus, the model of hyperbolic discounting explains the qualitative properties of the
classical weakness-of-will dilemma (Elster, 2000).
Disaffected pupils often experience a motivational conflict between the long-term
goal of getting through school and immediate options that seem to loom large. The
presence of computers might trigger a desire for fun. Some pupils told one of the
authors, “Lessons are unconcentrated, super-unconcentrated! We chat, check e-mail,
play computer games, but that’s really good fun”. “We kids, we love to chat on
mobile phones. That’s just about the best thing we know. And then you go and give
us a toy that’s twice as good. And then you’re surprised that we don’t concentrate”?
A teacher told one of the authors, “It’s like letting them loose in a sweetshop and
saying, ‘Help yourselves. Take what you want’. It is difficult to bring them back
again because they actually get sucked into the screen”.
This tendency is shown in Figure 1. The curves in Figure 1 cross at t*. Curve II
in Figure 1 represents the present value of reward B, that is, off-task behaviour, and
curve I the present value of reward A, that is, academic work. At time point t1 in
Figure 1 (well before the time of choice), the pupil is assumed to have A and B as
future options. At t1, the pupil intends to take the greater, delayed reward at t3. After

60
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

t*, the present value of the smaller reward dominates, and at t2, the pupil chooses
the smaller reward. Laboratory and field studies of time discounting have found that
discount rates are often much greater in the short term than in the long term, which
reflects hyperbolic discount functions (Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995). The attractiveness
of a reward increases when it can be obtained immediately. At time point t1 (ex ante)
in Figure 1, the pupil is assumed to have I and II as options. At t1, the pupil values
academic activity that contributes more towards realising a long-term educational
goal than towards non-academic activity. Before time point t*, the immediate value
of alternative II is greater than the immediate value of alternative I, but between t*
and t2, the immediate value of alternative I is greater than the immediate value of
alternative II. Non-academic activity offers a quick gain and looms larger than the
academic work, which provides the long-term benefits of education. If the desire for
learning can overpower that for quick gain, self-regulation occurs. In the absence of
strong self-regulation for learning or parental limitation of non-academic activity,
the realisation of alternative I will acquire higher utility than that of alternative II
when the immediate reward is near.

Figure 1. Motivational conflict between t* and t1 when non-academic activity offers quick
gains and looms larger than academic work (modified from Ainslie, 2001)

Discounting of present and future rewards includes, on the one hand, learning
efforts with foresight (a positive internality) and, on the other hand, disruption of
concentration (a negative internality). Our cognition is formative by our agentic
efforts, so when we use social media extensively at the same time as carrying

61
E. ELSTAD et al.

out learning tasks, we train the brain to constantly switch between the activities.
Multitasking that reduces concentration span, nevertheless, is an example of a
negative internality (Ophir et al., 2009). Strictly speaking, multitasking is not
possible. Instead, what takes place is sequential tasking. The pupil can maintain in-
depth focus on only one activity at a time. Each time a pupil is interrupted, it takes
time for them to return to in-depth processing of thoughts. The brain’s efficiency
decreases drastically when a person constantly switches between tasks that claim
awareness. The consequence is a weakening of the contact points between nerve
cells, resulting in a more fragile, weaker memory than if multitasking were avoided
(Ophir et al., 2009). Constant switching between activities, then, unequivocally
has a negative effect on learning (Fried, 2008; Bowman et al., 2010). However,
technology can also have a positive effect on the learning process, which is a
positive internality. For example, learning with multimedia tools can help us better
understand complex mechanisms than learning without such tools. The use of ICT
can thus create mechanisms leading to both positive and negative internalities.
Externalities are consequences of a technologically driven activity experienced
by others and can be classified as positive and negative externalities. Research
has recorded instances in which good social learning occurs during participation
in group processes where technology is used as a tool for information acquisition
and communication (Kollöffel & de Jong, 2015). This is an example of a positive
externality. Some studies have raised the question of whether the mediating effects
of technology can be isolated or whether some other factor (e.g. attention paid to
the research subjects) creates positive externalities. A negative externality occurs
if a pupil is distracted other pupils off-task activities (Figlio, 2007). The reduced
concentration on the tasks that the pupils should be performing contributes to an
unfortunate pattern of interaction: weak academic motivation spreads from one pupil
to another (Battaglini et al., 2005).

Ego Depletion

The use of willpower draws on a limited inner resource, and “one act of volition will
have a detrimental impact on subsequent volition” (Baumeister et al., 1998: 1252).
This process is called ego depletion, and it refers to a temporary reduction in pupils’
capacity to execute self-discipline caused by prior exercise of willpower. If resisting
the temptations to check Facebook can cause a pupil to tend to relax the efforts
required for depth-orientation of academic work, we can say that off-task behaviour
and academic work draw on the same limited resource. With the emergence of free
Internet access in the classroom, new challenges of self-regulation appear. Norway
and Sweden are in the top echelon of countries with highly digitally equipped schools,
while computers are more seldom used in Finnish schools (Wastiau et al., 2013).
Norwegian and Swedish pupils have their own computers, and often their mobile
phones with Internet access as well. Computers are meant to be used in school as
writing tools, for simulations, gathering information, and communication, and pupils

62
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

are expected to make academic use of the Internet. However, the technology also
affords the possibilities of electronic chatting, surfing, and gaming. A new type of
motivational conflict arises with free access to Internet in the classroom; pupils use
computers partly for academic work and partly for off-task behaviour. Pupils may
have an acknowledged long-term objective for their education, for which continuous
hard work in school is necessary. A few pupils are disaffected, and they may lack the
regulatory strength to work purposefully in the here and now.
Motivation refers sometimes to an end state but also sometimes to the means
through which that state is determined, and more generally to management of
the cognitive processes that govern pupils’ choice, effort, and persistence. Self-
regulatory strength in a school setting deals with the processes involved in
maintaining and enacting learning intention via effort and persistence until it is
fulfilled, while overriding, for instance, an impulse for specious off-task behaviour
in the classroom.
Self-regulatory strength is a cognitive term for willpower. Willpower can be
segmented into four different, consecutive phases (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987).
The first phase is called the pre-decision phase, and it involves setting preferences
amongst wishes and desires by determining their desirability. Once such preferences
are set, a pupil faces the challenge of how to get started with goal-directed behaviours
(second phase). The execution of goal-directed action—called regulatory strength
or will in this article—is the third task (action phase). In the fourth phase (post-
action), a pupil needs to decide whether the desired goal has indeed been achieved
or whether further effort is necessary. Self-regulatory strength for mental effort is the
will to consciously undertake, persist in, and fulfil a particular learning goal (whether
formally or institutionally defined or self-chosen or conceived).The distinction
between motivation and self-regulatory strength is supported by experiments
(Gollwitzer, 1999) and surveys (McCann & Turner, 2004: 1710).

Hypotheses

Based on these theoretical considerations we deduce hypotheses. We present the

following hypotheses for this theoretical framework:
• Hypothesis 1: A pupil’s self-regulatory strength is a negative predictor of
motivational conflict induced by ICT.
• Hypothesis 2: School motivation is a negative predictor of motivational conflict
induced by ICT.
• Hypothesis 3: School motivation is a positive predictor of a pupil’s self-regulatory
strength.
• Hypothesis 4: ICT use in school is a negative predictor of a pupil’s self-regulatory
strength.
• Hypothesis 5: ICT use in school is a positive predictor of motivational conflict
induced by the presence of ICT affordances.

63
E. ELSTAD et al.

• Hypothesis 6: School motivation is negatively associated with ICT use in school.

• Hypothesis 7: ICT use in school is a positive predictor of motivational conflict
induced by presence of ICT affordances.
In sum, motivational conflict and preference reversal may occur.

METHODS

Research Strategy

As stated Norway and Sweden are in the top echelon of 1:1 access to computers in
upper secondary school, while computers are more seldom used in Finnish upper
secondary schools. Therefore, we compare the antecedents of pupils’ motivational
conflict in Norway/Sweden to that in Finland.

Sample

The empirical study that forms the basis of the present analysis was completed across
60 secondary and upper secondary schools between February and March 2013.
We chose schools located in, or close to, main city areas in the Nordic countries
because city teens are most likely to have full broadband access and, thus, have
the opportunity to engage in the same spectrum of digital activities and develop
similar digital habits in all three countries. A total of 3400 pupils (15–17 year olds)
in general study programs participated voluntarily. None of the pupils who were
present declined to participate in the survey.

Instrument

The pupils answered a questionnaire on different aspects of school situations and

propositions about schools. The questionnaire was partly self-developed and partly
adapted from internationally validated scales and surveys such as ‘Pupil-related
aspects of school climate scale’, ‘Approaches to learning scale’, and ‘Disciplinary
climate scale’ from PISA 2009, and ‘Self-control scale’ by Tangney, Baumeister
and Boone (2004). The work was done within a classical test theoretical paradigm
in which psychological constructs are contextualised through a set of individual
questions posed to the pupils. To assess the measurement reliability of the indicators
for each of the scales, we used Cronbach’s alpha. Alpha Coefficients of .70 or higher
were considered acceptable (Nunnally et al., 1994). Two of the concepts had Alpha
values lower than .70. However, this can be explained by the fact that only two items
were used.
The pupils were asked to respond to questions by rating them on a Likert scale.
Seven constructs were included in the structural equation model: Self-regulatory
skills in academic settings (per_I) α = .62 (e.g. “I experience difficulties in
concentrating (reversed)”); Motivational conflict induced by ICT (con_I) α = .68

64
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

(e.g. “I lose focus on my school work when I use the PC in school”); School
motivation (val_I) α = .67 (e.g. “I enjoy school learning”); Internet use in school
(“Time spent online while in school”). ICT use in school was measured by: “How
many hours per day do you spend on the Internet in school?”

Procedure

The pupils completed the paper-based survey and handed them to their teachers,
who in most cases collected the questionnaires on behalf of the project and sent
them to the research coordinator. The pupils were asked to respond to questions
on a 6-point Likert-scale with alternative response choices: Strongly disagree (1),
Disagree (2), More disagree than agree (3), More agree than disagree (4), Agree (5),
and Strongly agree (6). An exception was the last-mentioned construct Internet use
in school (where pupils ticked the following boxes: 0–1 hours, 1–2 hours, 2–3 hours,
3–4 hours, 4–5 hours, and more than 5 hours).

Figure 2. Structural equation modelling of exogenous variables (per_I = pupil’s

self-regulatory strength; ict = ICT use in school; val_I = school motivation) and
endogenous variable (con_I = motivational conflict induced by ICT). 53% of the
variance of the con-variable is explained by the exogenous variables.
Samples from Norway, Sweden, and Finland spliced together

65
E. ELSTAD et al.

Data Analysis

Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the relationships between the
variables. Structural equation modelling is suitable for confirmatory factor analysis
and path analysis, and allows for analysis of latent variables with multiple indicators
and multiple equations, and testing complex causal theories with multiple pathways.
In the Figures 3, 4 and 5 ellipses, circles, and rectangles represent the latent variables,
measurement errors, and measured variables, respectively. The structural model
consists of terms with paths (arrows) between them. The paths indicate theoretical
common causes, and the digits (standardised regression coefficients) reflect the
measured strength of the connections. Higher numerical values of the standardised
regression coefficients represent higher strength. We based the assessments of fit
between the model and data on the p-value of χ2, RMSEA (root mean square error
of approximation), CFI (Confirmative fit index), and GFI (Goodness-of-fit index).
The standard criterion of p > .05; RMSEA < .05; and, GFI and CFI >.95 were used
to indicate good fit (Kline, 2005). The measurement and structural models were
estimated using IBM SPSS Amos 22. The values RMSEA = .066, GFI = .983 and
CFI = .954 indicate that the structural model in Figure 3 showed acceptable fit
(χ2 = 204.859, df = 15, p < 0.001).

Figure 3. Samples from Norway and Sweden (n = 2422). Structural equation

modelling of exogenous variables (per_I = pupil’s self-regulatory strength;
ict = ICT use in school; val_I = school motivation) and endogenous variable
(con_I = motivational conflict induced by ICT)

66
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

Figure 4. Sample from Finland (n = 978). Structural equation modelling of exogenous

variables (per_I = pupil’s self-regulatory strength; ict = ICT use in school; val_I = school
motivation) and endogenous variable (con_I = motivational conflict induced by ICT)

RESULTS

The structural equation modelling shows the pathways (arrows) between the
variables. The following table summarizes the analysis results of the Norwegian and
Swedish samples:
Hypothesis no. Wording Result

1 Pupil’s self-regulatory strength is a The association between these

negative predictor of motivational variables is strong and significant, and
conflict induced by ICT therefore, the hypothesis is supported.
2 School motivation is a negative The association between these
predictor of motivational conflict variables is clearly significant and,
induced by ICT. therefore, the hypothesis is supported.
3 School motivation is a positive The association between these
predictor of pupil’s self-regulatory variables is clearly significant and,
strength therefore, the hypothesis is supported.
4 ICT use in school is a negative The association is not significant and
predictor of pupil’s self-regulatory the hypothesis is not supported.
strength

(continued)

67
E. ELSTAD et al.

(Continued)
Hypothesis no. Wording Result

5 ICT use in school is a positive The association is not significant and

predictor of motivational conflict the hypothesis is not supported.
induced by ICT
6 School motivation is associated The association between these
with ICT use in school. variables is not significant and the
hypothesis is not supported.
7 ICT use in school is a positive The association between these
predictor of motivational conflict variables is not significant and the
induced by ICT. hypothesis is not supported.

Some differences emerge in the Finnish sample: Access to ICT in school is

negatively associated with motivational conflict, while the other path coefficients
follow the same patterns as in the Norwegian and Swedish samples. An inference is
that ICT use in Finnish schools does not induce motivational conflict.

Discussion

This study shows that the different levels of access to ICT in school in Swedish/
Norwegian schools versus Finnish schools makes a difference. Self-discipline is
important in contemporary Norwegian and Swedish classrooms, where autonomous
pupils are expected to manage school demands on their own. They are even more
clearly important in out-of-school settings, where independent adolescents do their
homework. This study shows strong associations between motivational conflict
(and the psychic costs of resisting digital temptation) and pupils’ self-regulatory
strength. If pupils expend their limited willpower resources, they may undergo ego
depletion (Baumeister, 1998). Several experimental studies support the theory on
ego depletion: the psychic costs of resisting temptation may impact self-regulation.
A meta-analysis of 83 studies tested the effect of ego depletion on task performance
and related outcomes, alternative explanations and moderators of the effect, and
additional strength model hypotheses, revealed empirical support for the influence
of ego depletion on self-control in task performance (Hagger et al., 2010). Although
the present study does not provide evidence of the limited resource theory and,
hence, evidence that ego depletion occurs by the act of using willpower, we presume
that this can plausibly be interpreted from our statistical results.

The School’s Design of Institutional Features

The challenge is to find an optimal libertarian paternalism with respect to how schools
should influence autonomous pupils in a direction that enhances their emphasis
on long-term academic achievement against immediate, but inferior gratification.

68
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

Understanding how to design institutional features to influence pupils’ choices in

directions that improve their academic achievement is one of the major challenges
in education. How can schools design components of self-regulated learning so
that pupils with regulatory problems succeed better? To succeed in this regard,
schools must design institutional features that support the willpower to work, that
is, features that influence pupils to be more sophisticated about their own regulatory
strategies. Teachers and head teachers who plan institutional arrangements need to
be sophisticated about their design choices. Paternalistic constraining corresponds
to the Kantian notion of the guardian, the person who knows what is good for the
pupil (Kant, 2000): Shield the classroom from temptations of non-academic activity.
Blocking access to certain types of material (Big Brother, pornographic web sites,
music downloads) is a possible teacher strategy. This might reduce off-task behaviour
somewhat, but it will come at the expense of the notion of self-determination by pupils.
Another strategy is to alter the strength of external incentives (rewards and
sanctions) executed by the teacher or other school staff. Furthermore, one can
possibly obtain a greater degree of consistency at individual schools by the using
of sanctions embodied in the school’s rules. Consistent implementation of the rules
as a systemic strategy will have a greater chance of being seen as credible use of
sanctions. The advantage of this regime is that the threat of sanctions acts as a
deterrent and does not therefore need to be implemented. This is the big stick effect,
namely, the threat of disciplinary action is enough in itself, so there is no need to
actually impose sanctions. The dismal inference is that the possibility of a forfeit
must exist if the threat of a sanction is to be regarded as credible. However, such
regimes may have an adverse effect on well-being and relationships of trust.
Yet another strategy is to strengthen the incentives that impact interaction
conditions via teachers’ and pupils’ strategic considerations, for instance, a system
of assessment by tests (for example, high-stake tests, publication of test results),
greater element of assessment by examination to provide standards for the incentive
structures of teachers and pupils. However, high-stake accountability uses of
assessment have their own undesirable side effects, for example, distortion of
education owing to narrow teaching from the viewpoint of testing. A fascinating
strategy to reduce the mismatch between school content and students’ spontaneous
desire for learning involves teachers engaging pupils by sugar-coating learning,
or making learning tasks more palatable, or concentrating more on the curriculum
content that appeals to pupils’ spontaneous learning desires.

Pupils’ Self-Regulation Strategies: Egonomics

Another vein of strategies is cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic

interest through proximal self-motivation as opposed to distant self-motivation
(Bandura & Schunk, 1981). This phenomenon is named egonomics (Schelling, 1978),
and egonomics is a form of self-management. By including willpower as a purpose
for well-designed instructional intervention, pupils’ use of self-regulatory strategies

69
E. ELSTAD et al.

can be increased as well. An attractive way of reducing the extent of non-academic

activity is to lay the ground for the pupils themselves to behave more responsibly
with respect to their obligation of engaging in programme activities that lead to
learning. This requires that pupils assume responsibility when the teacher performs
transfer of agency of learning from herself to the pupils. Thus, responsibility towards
schoolwork goes hand in hand with the noble goal of education.
The first three strategies for executing self-regulation are deduced from the theory
of the hyperbolic discounting model, and the next six strategies are linked to ego-
depletion theory.
1. Pre-commitment
When certain options are eliminated, seductive temptations such as distractions to
academic pursuit afforded by, for example, games and the Internet, are physically
unavailable. This choice may be interpreted as a pre-commitment, a regulatory
strategy that involves imposing restrictions on one’s own future behaviour, similar
to Ulysses, who ordered his men before setting out towards the Sirens: “You must
bind me hard and fast, so that I cannot stir from the spot where you will stand me …
and if I beg you release me, you must tighten and add to my bonds” (Homer: The
Odyssey). A closely related regulatory strategy is the implementation intentions
strategy (Gollwitzer, 1999). This strategy involves looking at the current decision
as part of a series of identical decisions in the future. Such bunching of choices
becomes a variant of making certain possibilities physically inaccessible. Some
pupils “bunch” their choices together to make them appear as a single choice
by re-framing the situation. Establishing a decision frame for an either-or-choice
thus means looking upon the choice as one (and only one) decisive choice rather
than a succession of options. Bunching choices together in a single decision is an
effective regulatory strategy.
2. The pupil involves the teacher as a control unit
Some pupils may choose control by the teacher. This occurs when a pupil chooses
a school in which teachers make demands and impose sanctions. This is because
pupils are allowed to apply to schools of their choice at the upper secondary level.
Therefore, pupils need to think about constraining their own future actions when
choosing a school. An example of self-commitment is that the pupil may choose
a school with a teacher-dominated classroom. This choice may entail the choice
of teacher control.
3. Imposing costs
Pupils can impose costs on themselves to decrease the chance of failure. Richard
Thaler provides a teacher-learner example of self-imposed costs. Thaler helped a
PhD candidate called David who was so involved in so many other projects than
fulfilling his PhD thesis, that he was not able to focus his attention on the thesis.
Thaler offered David the following deal: “David would write Thaler a series of
checks for $100, payable on the first day of each of the next few months. Thaler
would cash each check if David did not put a copy of a new chapter of the thesis

70
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

under his door by midnight of the correspondent month” (Thaler & Sunstein,
2008, 46). Thaler said that he would use $100 to have a party without David,
but with some of David’s friends. The result of this arrangement was that David
completed his thesis four months later. This is an example how a learner is able to
impose costs via an arrangement. A school pupil can arrange a similar agreement
with his or her mother.
4. Self-imposition of consequences
Occasionally, pupils choose to take short breaks after fulfilling academic tasks.
For instance, they use measures such as patience, electronic games, and chat
as rewards for self-discipline to motivate themselves for continued effort to
complete school assignments. By imposing a delay between the time of choice
and the time at which a specious reward is available to the pupil, the present value
of the specious reward is made to appear smaller than that of the larger long-term
reward. This strategy entails self-provided rewards and punishments.
5. Cue-avoidance
Some pupils avoid exposure to distractions to bolster their intention to learn
(when other more enjoyable things are possible). This strategy is also called
environmental control (Corno, 1993) and resource management (Pintrich, 2000).
When a pupil’s attention is influenced by the off-task behaviour of other pupils,
negative externality effects are created between the pupils. External effects
originating from other disaffected pupils are cues for temptations and frustrations
that could stimulate a pupil’s tendency to pursue spontaneous pleasure. What
pupils choose is strongly influenced by the context in which they make their
choice. For instance, drug addicts may suffer a relapse simply by seeing drugs.
The relapse is therefore induced by visual cues. Cue avoidance is a strategy for
drug addicts to not expose themselves to visual cues.
6. Goal-oriented self-talk
Goal-oriented self-talk involves the use of sub-vocal statements (“I can do this”)
while a pupil is involved in academic work. A pupil’s inchoate appreciation of
changing preferences leads him or her to use a regulatory strategy to overcome a
temptation. In this context, pupils may use an inner conversation to control their
actions.
7. Attention management
Attention is the first element in information processing. Through deliberate
attention management, a pupil can influence the relative strengths of the action
tendencies in the set of options at a given moment (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999).
When behaviour is in the process of instigation (for example, when the pupil has
started an off-task behaviour), it is more difficult to overrule a pleasure-driven
action than when the pleasure-driven action has not commenced. Attention
management is a regulatory strategy used to increase focus on effort and academic
achievement. An example of active attention management is when pupils have to
find their places in a new classroom. Some of them typically choose their desks

71
E. ELSTAD et al.

in front of the teacher because other chatting pupils disturb them or because they
are eager for the teacher’s attention.
8. Transcending and attribution manipulation
Transcending means focusing attention beyond the immediate stimulus
(Baumeister et al., 1994). In this way, the pupil can overcome frustrations and
disappointments by trying to see the long-term implications of the choices made
here and now. For example, some pupils transform assignments or self-imposed
tasks in a mental sense so that the activity becomes a step towards achieving a
personal objective. If one sees oneself as a future medical practitioner when one is
doing one’s homework, the activity may seem more meaningful than if one simply
judges the activity in isolation. Transcending can also include acknowledgement
of the undesirable consequences of a particular action sequence.
9. Interest enhancement
To increase enjoyment while completing their work, pupils can try to make
the activity more interesting. The evidence linking interest enhancement to
academic achievement is less certain (Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000; Wolters, 1999),
but Sansone et al. (1999) reported that pupils involved in interest enhancement
persisted longer at repetitive work than the pupils who did not. Interest enhancement
is a strategy to make the task more immediately relevant or fun to complete. Further
research is needed to provide a better understanding of this regulatory strategy.

Limitations and Need for Further Research

In this section, we raise a few concerns about the method used in this study and
emphasize the need for complementary research approaches to develop a richer
understanding of the links between motivational conflict and self-regulation. It has not
been practicable for us on this occasion to couple our survey data with indicators for
value-added measures in the period before data collection. Coupling measurements
of pupil attitudes with performance measurements is highly demanding in research
terms, because this requires measurements at several different points in time. It is
also demanding because Norway and Sweden have regulations that place limitations
on practical opportunities available to researchers for conducting empirical surveys
involving relatively substantial data. It is, however, possible to carry out analytically
oriented small-scale surveys, which can be useful in research for assessing possible
causal processes. In fact, we recommend such a research endeavour.
This study has inherent limitations that apply more or less to every equivalent
study based on a cross-sectional approach. Multiple factors may influence
behaviour. Arguably, longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies are needed to
determine causality. Cross-sectional studies only provide a momentary glimpse of a
phenomenon, and they do not allow for the testing of causal relationships between
the independent and dependent variables. Reverse causation may play a role.
Omitted variables may have influenced the overall model, and variables missing
from the model might be important. This methodological approach employed in this

72
 MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

study makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions without first acknowledging the
need for further validation of the findings that we regard as central. A few of the
path coefficients are so small that we must urge caution. We believe, however, that
our basic theoretical model is rooted in a strong research foundation, and we do not
believe that the statistical associations highlighted in this study can be the result of
coincidence or spurious connections.
Our study can be interpreted as an empirical support of the following statement:
regulatory strength is a key resource. In common with many other studies, our study can
underline the importance of school motivation. We see a strong statistical association
between pupils’ positive perceptions of the teacher and the extent to which the pupils
value the school as an institution. Moreover, the construct ‘school motivation’ is
slightly negatively related to the use of the Internet in class (path coefficient = –.10
in Figure 2) and pupils’ sense of a motivational conflict (path coefficient = –.76),
thus adding to its positive direct influence on regulatory strength. This shows that
a greater emphasis on pupil socialisation in the school community can also affect
the same pupils’ self-regulation in learning. We need to conduct further research to
understand the mechanisms involved in the cognitive and motivational processes
that contribute to making pupils value the school more strongly as an institution.
An in-depth qualitative follow-up study could be interesting to gain insights into the
underlying processes of cognition. In-depth case studies with think-aloud protocols,
observations, and interviews with pupils could be an interesting approach to that end.
Digital media has attained a considerable position among the youth and it
contributes to promoting trans-national cultural tendencies. The investigation
reported in this article was conducted among 15–17 year-olds in Norway and
Sweden. A further validation of this study should be done in different countries,
different school contexts, and among students of different ages. This, too, is an
avenue for further research.

REFERENCES
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.
Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463–496.
Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through
proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 585–598.
Battaglini, M., Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2005). Self-control in peer groups. Journal of Economic Theory,
123(2), 105–134.
Baumeister, R., Heatherton, T., & Tice, D. T. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-
discipline. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a
limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252.
Corno, L. (1993). The best laid plans: Modern conceptions of will and educational research. Educational
Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic
performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944.
Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

73
E. ELSTAD et al.

Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of
Public Economics, 91(5), 901–914.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3),
906–914.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic
rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769–792.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model
of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational
and will states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101–120.
Herrnstein, R. J., Loewenstein, G. F., Prelec, D., & Vaughan, W. (1993). Utility maximization and
melioration: Internalities in individual choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6(3), 149–185.
Kant, I. (2000). Om paedagogik. Aarhus, DK: Forlaget Klim.
Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2015). Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge
acquisition? Contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–11.
McCann, E. J., & Turner, J. E. (2004). Increasing pupil learning through will control. Teachers College
Record, 106(9), 1695–1714.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3(1), 248–292.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-discipline. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schelling, T. C. (1978). Egonomics, or the art of self-management. The American Economic Review,
68(2), 290–294.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–322.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.
New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.
Waite, B. M., Levine, L. E., & Bowman, L. L. (2009). Instant messaging, multitasking and media use
of college youth: Connections to impulsiveness and distractibility. American Journal of Media
Psychology, 2(3/4), 126–146.
Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT
in education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11–27.
Wolters, C. (1999). The relation between high school pupils’ motivational regulation and their use of
learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11,
281–299.
Wolters, C., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between pupils’ motivational beliefs and their use of
motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 801–820.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Eyvind Elstad is a Professor at the Department of Teacher

Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway.
Among his research interests are teachers’ work, teacher
education, and teaching and learning in technology rich
environments.

74
MOTIVATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC WORK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOUR

Thomas Arnesen is a PhD student at Stord/Haugesund

University College. Among his research interests is
teaching and learning in technology rich environments.

Knut-Andreas Christophersen is associate professor at

Department of political science, University of Oslo. His
research interests are research methodology and statistics.

75
 EYVIND ELSTAD

5. WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE

PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND
THE EXPERIENCES IN A TECHNOLOGY-RICH
PIONEER SCHOOL?

INTRODUCTION

Many initiatives relating to ICT implementation in schools are derived from a smart,
cybernetic style of thinking about the future of education. However, despite major
endeavours regarding ICT implementation, not much has changed in terms of core
activities in school (Cuban, 2009). Larry Cuban discussed different scenarios in 1993
and concluded that ‘Computers meet classroom; classroom wins’ (Cuban, 1993).
Certainly, what happens in the classroom after a reform effort from teacher-centred
instruction towards pupil-centred learning environments on the basis of extensive
ICT usage is not exactly the same as before; however, the essential regularities are
often the same as before the reform came into operation (Cuban, 2013). What does
this mean? In order to gain a better understanding of the situational constraints and
operational features within the school organisation, we must consider in greater
detail the dynamics of social interaction between school leaders and teachers on
the one hand and the teacher and pupils on the other (Elstad, 2002). The focus of
this chapter is on processes of change within schools or, more specifically, why a
school’s bold implementation of ICT might lead to quite different results than are
intended.
This chapter relies on a theoretical framework based on game theory, which
implies a focus on the notion of power. The formal distribution of power in schools
often consists of three hierarchical levels: school leaders, teachers and pupils. If
school authorities want to introduce the use of ICT in schools, then an obvious
conclusion is to strengthen the fundamental authority of school leaders so that the
necessary changes come from the top of the school organisation in a forceful manner.
This simplistic sketch of the distribution of power does, however, conceal significant
factors that are necessary for the execution of power to succeed.
What I am attempting to do is to better understand the mutual dependencies
between the parties that are significant for the success of ICT implementation. An
important argument in this chapter is that the relationship between school leaders
and teachers may be seen as a bargaining process in which rational parties watch
and interpret each other’s behaviour. The bargaining involves a process of mutual

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 77–96.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. ELSTAD

accommodation rather than communication that culminates in clear agreement

(Schelling, 1980). In addition, it is important to understand the manner in which
the system of interaction between school leaders and teachers is influenced by the
interaction between teachers and pupils. The two systems of interaction do actually
influence each other. The theory of rational interaction is here used as an analytical
tool. Although it is claimed that the theory of rational interaction has become a
universally accepted tool and language in many areas of the social sciences (The
Royal Academy of Sciences, 2005: 2), the theory has rarely been used in analyses
of internal interaction in schools and educational systems (Elstad, 2002). In
order to better understand the mutual dependencies between the parties and the
entanglements between the two systems of interaction, I shall analyse a school
case that demonstrates the complexity of the relationships between the parties in a
school’s systems of interaction.
The case material takes as its point of departure a situation in 1999 in which a
local Norwegian education authority and the principal had ambitious plans to create
‘the school of the future’ (Erstad, 2000). ICT was to function as a crowbar for the
increased use of problem-based learning, project work and co-operative learning.
These sorts of ideas were strongly supported by the highest-ranking senior civil
servants at the Ministry of Education at the turn of the millennium (Elstad, 2012)
and were actively supported by the local education authorities who, among other
things, issued every pupil with a personal computer.
This local ICT reform was thought to lead to rather different results than had
been envisaged. As the analysis in this chapter will show, this state of extensive use
of portable computers and free access to the Internet influenced first and foremost
the balance of power between teachers and pupils; consequently, the use of portable
computers in the classroom influenced the relationship between teachers and school
leaders. A tug-of-war bargaining situation between teachers and school leaders
ensued. The analysis of this situation will demonstrate that the potential for steering
from the top and bringing about change is a more complex issue than simply a
rhetorical invocation of ‘powerful leadership’ (Elstad, 2006). ICT reform in schools
depends on a series of conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for the desired
changes to take root.

CASE STUDY: INTERNET USE IN A PIONEER SCHOOL

Context

Since the 1990s and up to 2003, there has been a strong commitment from
educational policy circles in Norway to reform the teaching methods in schools,
for instance, more project work and problem-based learning and less blackboard
teaching; pupils were to work independently and in groups on problems they
developed themselves. Teachers were to be supervisors rather than lecturers, and
ICT was to promote new teaching methods (Elstad, 2012). Educational authorities

78
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

rewarded schools that distinguished themselves in terms of implementing this

pedagogical idea. One of these schools – The Pioneer School – committed itself to
becoming a showcase, ‘the school of the future’.
The setting of the empirical material (observations, surveys and interview
material) presented here is The Pioneer School. Local education authorities wanted
to commit to one pioneer school as a showcase rather than to distribute the available
funding among many schools. The school’s leadership showcased the school as
follows: ‘We are Europe’s number one school when it comes to the use of portable
or mobile computer technology’; ‘This is the school of the future, the beginning
of something new; it will spread; it has national value’. The school’s ICT policy
appeared as bold aims: ‘extensive use of ICT in the teaching of all subjects’ and
transformation of the teaching methods in the school in which ‘the teacher must dare
to give control to the pupils’.
The principal of The Pioneer School first wanted ‘full access to and use of the
Internet’, ‘extensive use of ICT’ and transformation of the teaching methods in the
school in the direction of more ‘co-operative learning, work in an interdisciplinary
manner and project orientation’ (citation from school documents). In the initial
phase of the reform, these goals were central for the school leaders. The vision was
that ‘teacher and pupils shall be connected to one another, and the teacher can make
available all his learning resources and conduct a more direct dialogue with the
individual pupil’.
When the ICT reform was initiated, some teachers (about 10%) signalled
relatively rapidly that they were reluctant while others (about 30–35%) demonstrated
enthusiasm. At the time, the latter group shared the principal’s bold vision as ‘the
school of the future’ as well as the constructivist teaching practices slated to be
realised. This section of the teaching staff may be seen as the principal’s power base
in the attempt at change. However, the majority of the teachers adopted a wait-and-
see attitude.
A new kind of disciplinary problem arose with the advent of the extensive use
of computers with Internet access. The teachers very quickly discovered that a
considerable proportion of the pupils took advantage of the opportunities that the
portable computers gave them in terms of intensive non-academic activity (for
example, electronic games like Patience, surfing pornographic websites, watching
Big Brother and engaging in chat, hacking etc.). They felt powerless in terms of
controlling pupils’ classroom activities. Nearly all teachers felt that an ability to
maintain discipline and order in the classroom was paramount. Their problem of
maintaining control of the pupils’ activities was consequently taken up with the
leaders, with a demand that the teachers follow a joint systemic strategy backed
by the leaders. However, for the first years, the leaders did not wish to have joint
guidelines on rules regarding the pupils’ use of their portable computers because the
teachers should ‘dare to give control to the pupils’.
After two years, most of the positively minded teachers changed their view of
the need for managerial intervention and put forward a demand to the leaders. The

79
E. ELSTAD

control issues were the subject of conflict and blame. Not until five years later did
the leaders change their strategy. The demand for a joint systemic strategy to reduce
the problem of non-academic activity was then granted: ‘We shall have to conduct
a consultation round with all staff with respect to what we can and cannot accept in
the way of pupil behaviour in general’. This managerial intention and intervention
to restore teachers’ control of classroom operations is here understood in light of a
lasting tug-of-war process between the teachers and leaders. The school strategy
moved from encouraging pupil collaboration and discussion, pupil-led projects and
pupil-centred environments towards more teacher-centred instruction. The restoration
of teacher-based control lasted until 2010; a new education policy unravelled this
fragile operational control in the classroom and induced renewed challenges relating
to digital off-task behaviour. Another feature is that the promotion of the school as
a spearhead of new ideas – ‘Europe’s number one – disappeared from the school’s
internet pages.
In this chapter, I analyse these dynamics and how the loss of teachers’ control
of classroom operations might have induced a wedge between digital expectations
and reality.

Theoretical Framework

Bargaining theory is seldom used in the literature on school management, leadership

and administration. Bargaining theory is conflict-oriented in focusing on situations
in which a better bargain for one means less for others (Schelling, 1980). The
interdependence of decisions is the core of the analysis. Bargaining theory deals
with a more narrow class of problems than game theory: interaction which involves
both explicit bargaining and the tacit kind whereby adversaries watch and interpret
each other’s behaviour (Schelling, 1980).
Bargaining is ubiquitous. Analyses using bargaining theory can clarify how
outcomes, in the form of patterns of interaction, are explained by the logical
structure of the problems confronting the players: ‘Its method consists in analysing
the social situation of acting men sufficiently to explain the action with the help
of the situation, without any further help from psychology. … The explanations of
situational logic described here are rational, theoretical reconstructions’ (Popper,
1976: 102–3). Situations are analysed as games. A game is a situation of strategic
interdependence. Each party has an awareness that the other party is trying to outdo
the adversary at the same time as each agent seeks to achieve a result that depends
partly on his own and other people’s actions. The dynamics of interaction are here
explained by those solutions that stand out as equilibria when the suppositions
of rational parties are confirmed through the de facto decisions of the remaining
actors.
The interaction between the leaders and teachers is modelled as tug-of-war
bargaining while that between the teacher and pupils is modelled as ultimatum games

80
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

(Thaler, 1988). The internal dynamics of how the two interaction systems influence
each other require explanation. A central link in the interconnection between the
two interaction systems is the teacher’s perceptions of operational control in the
classroom.

The School Context

The school experiment was initiated in January 1999. I visited The Pioneer School
for the first time in March 2001 to conduct observations and interviews and, up to
the end of 2004, maintained contact with teachers and the management of the school
through interviews and informal communication. I renewed this contact in 2015.
The empirical material from 2001–2015 consists of classroom school documents,
observations and interviews with teachers (who were interviewed partly individually
and partly in groups) and pupils. Classes in The Pioneer School had been using
portable computers. Where possible, I crosschecked information that was given in
individual interviews with other information to which I had access (other interview
statements, the school’s internal documents, observations, etc.). The teachers and
pupils were also interviewed individually and in groups. My appraisal is that the
teachers who participated in the group interviews gave the impression of being very
frank, and I regard the information given as trustworthy because untrue information
would have been corrected by colleagues. For me, observations of classroom
interaction were a supplement to the interview material because they helped me
correct my interpretation of interview statements as part of a validation process.
This applied, in particular, to cases in which several alternative interpretations were
possible.

PHASE 1: THE TEACHER HAD OPERATIONAL

CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM

Teacher-Pupil Interaction

In Phase 1, it was assumed that the equilibrium in the interaction between the
leaders and teachers was understood in accordance with an implicit contract and
consent between the leaders and the pupils. Teacher-pupil interaction was regulated
within the framework of a teacher-governed regime (Model 1). The numbers of the
matrix indicate the parties’ ordinal rankings of possible outcomes. A higher number
is preferred to a lower number. Firstly, I identify the actors’ dominant strategies:
(A) Adapt is better for the pupil than stand firm (because 2 is better than 1 and 3
is better than 2), and (B) Carry out threat is better for the teacher than giving in
(because 3 is better than 2 and 3 is better than 1). Equilibrium is a combination of
strategies whereby the players involved have chosen their best strategy, given the
strategy chosen by the other player.

81
E. ELSTAD

Figure 1. The discipline model (Model 1)’s pay-off matrix

Teacher-Leader Interaction

Figure 2 symbolically depicts the bargaining problem. The feasible set of the
bargaining problem is the convex envelope in Figure 2. Any solution in the
bargaining set is a possible candidate for agreement. The vertical axis is defined in
terms of a satisfaction index for the teachers (where the control issue is an important
entity), and the horizontal axis is defined in terms of a satisfaction index for the
leaders (where the realisation of ‘the school of the future’ is an important entity).
The line T’T’ depicts the teachers’ reservation value in relation to consent. The line
A’A’ is the leaders’ reservation value backed by means of power. Point Y is the initial
outcome. Although the parties’ conflict of interests should not be concealed, there is
no obvious conflict in Phase 1.

Figure 2. Feasibility and distributional properties of power: A bargaining problem.

In looking for agreement, the parties might adjust at e.g. point Y

82
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

PHASE 2A: THE TEACHERS MAKE EMPTY THREATS

The Laissez-Faire Policy

In order to bring about ‘the school of the future’, the principal was of the opinion
that ‘The teachers must dare to give control to the pupils’ and that ‘The portable
computers are pulling pedagogy in the direction we wish: more independent,
problem-solving work and more project work’. This kind of commitment was the
prime mover of the dynamics of change at The Pioneer School. The school’s policy
turned out to influence the teachers’ sense of control over classroom operations.
The teachers’ vulnerability, in turn, influenced the relationship between the teachers
and the school leaders. New kinds of disciplinary problems arose with the advent
of the laissez-faire policy. The situational logic of classroom interaction changed,
first, Model 2 and, second, Model 3. In Phase 2, the teachers (including those who
were initially enthusiastic) experienced increasing frustrations and dissatisfaction
over the loss of operational control, i.e. a worsening of their experienced situation,
while the principal experienced the Phase 2 development as a clear improvement:
‘there’s a great deal of movement in relation to before’ (principal’s statement). The
individual discontent produced demands which were communicated to the leaders.
The tug-of-war bargaining was explicit. In order to understand how the outcome
of these dynamics corresponds to the parties’ relative power, I employ bargaining
theory.

Teacher-Pupil Interaction (Model 2)

Immediately after the pupils were allocated their own computers, some teachers
reported extensive non-academic activity during lessons (illegitimate chatting,
surfing, Patience and the like). This activity was mapped through sporadic classroom
observations, spot checks of the pupils’ Internet surfing, pupils’ statements in
interviews and a survey in the form of a questionnaire.
Even though leaders had little direct contact with pupils, the pupils at the school
where the reform was taking place sensed disagreement among the leaders and some
of the teachers:
Of course, X (name of a leader) is very upset about it (when the pupils are not
allowed to use their portable computers all the time). You see, he wants us
to use computers. But there are of course some teachers who are doing their
utmost to stop this.
The pupils felt empowered to resist or ignore the teachers’ demands: ‘Turn off your
screens’:
Then in comes the teacher who now says that we’re not going to use the
portable computers today either. And then they simply sit there like, after all
they’ve turned them on, you’re on the Internet, you can do absolutely anything

83
E. ELSTAD

you like. We were threatened in the first form. There was nobody who did what
the teacher asked us to. (pupil’s statement)
If the threat is to confiscate the network card, an order that is not perceived as credible,
the threat does not have a deterrent effect: ‘When they just make empty threats like
that, we can’t be bothered to listen to them. Then they (the teachers) don’t bother
to say it anymore’. Even in situations where the teacher observes that the pupils are
engaged in non-academic activity, it is not uncommon for the teacher to refrain from
intervening: ‘Often, everyone’s on the Internet or playing Patience or something,
and the teacher just stands there and stares, doesn’t he?’ (pupil’s statement).

Figure 3. Model 2: The teachers’ threats are empty

Teacher-Leader Interaction

The non-academic use of portable computers was also reported in the press. In an
interview in a local newspaper, one of the school leaders defended this non-academic
activity:
There isn’t only a negative side to their (the pupils) seeing computers as a toy.
When they surf the Internet and download programmes, they acquire a good
deal of digital literacy. They’ll be able to transfer this knowledge to schoolwork
and working life later.
An exasperated teacher commented that ‘This undermines the teacher’s legitimacy
when she says: “Turn off your screens because now we’re going to do something
else”. Then, they’re not quite sure of the teacher’s legitimacy’. In this way, the school
leaders influenced the pupils’ desire of a vested right in using the computer ‘for
anything they like’ within the framework of project work as a method of working:
‘a very good way of doing it is that you get quite a few free topics; you don’t
necessarily get an assignment that says “do this and that”, but you have some choice
yourself and can pick something that interests you a bit’. ‘The dream is an even freer
school day. At a similar school in Sweden, the pupils can choose where they want to
work. [Teachers] should be advisers whom we can contact when we have questions’
(pupil’s statement). A representative example from the early days illustrates this:

84
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

There is loud music from several sources downloaded from the Internet.
Some pupils have linked up to each other and are playing football. One is
writing up his French homework. Two are busy finding a free server (Short
Message Service) on the Internet so that it will not cost them anything to send
messages… One boy is playing a game of Patience. Another is surfing while
his neighbour is chatting. (Erstad et al., 2000: 202)
‘When I’ve been put in a system in which it’s impossible to operate, I do what’s
best for me’. When a teacher gives in, pupils’ achievement depends even more
strongly on their self-directive power of agency in their academic work. The
teacher gives the pupils an academic agenda for their learning activity, but he or she
chooses to abdicate his or her role as classroom king when it comes to maintaining
classroom control. The teacher does this by giving in rather than insisting that
pupils discontinue their non-academic activities. Moreover, the teacher does not
try to maintain control of time. Even though pupils have a working plan to follow,
the teacher does not attempt to capture everyone’s attention when he or she comes
into the classroom. The teacher moves around the classroom and advises those
who ask for help. The transition between recess and lesson is therefore quite fluid.
A well-considered defence strategy of ‘giving in’ induces less stress and fewer
frustrations for the teacher. The retrospective rationalisation of this choice is the
motto: ‘responsibility for their own learning’. ‘There are many teachers who think:
“responsibility for their own learning. What happens, happens. They are accountable
to themselves’” (teacher’s statement). This is the core of the laissez-faire regime:
the locus of control is transferred from the teacher to the pupil. There are pupils
who grow in responsibility under such an institutional framework and who behave
responsibly. However, this does not apply to all pupils: ‘Lessons are unconcentrated,
super-unconcentrated! We chat, check e-mail, play computer games, but that’s really
good fun’ (pupil’s statement quoted from Erstad et al. 2000: 208).

PHASE 2B: TEACHERS ABDICATING THEIR ROLE AS CLASSROOM KING

Teacher-Pupil Interaction (Model 3)

Many teachers were unsure whether they had sufficient authority to put an end to the
misuse of computers. ‘There are many teachers who think: “responsibility for their
own learning. What happens, happens. They are responsible themselves”’. ‘You
lose all control. And then, I don’t give a damn. When I’ve been put in a system in
which it’s impossible to operate, I do what’s best for me’ (teacher’s statements). In
the laissez-faire regime, teacher gives in, and pupils choose to stand firm. This bad
equilibrium is the consequence of the teacher’s and the pupils’ preferences.
Teachers who consciously gave up any ambition to control their pupils’ operations
experienced less stress. One teacher’s utterance describes how his approach to
control underwent a transition from an empty threat strategy to one of giving in:

85
E. ELSTAD

Figure 4. Model 3: The laissez-faire equilibrium

Chaos reigned during my lessons. The pupils didn’t pay attention and did other
things. Basically, the pupils were in their own individual “playrooms” and
were using the Internet on their own. The attention they paid to the subject was
minimal. [Then] I started to think afresh. I had to stop focusing on everything
that was wrong that irritated me. I had to stop being the classroom policeman.
I had to give up on having control of everything and everyone. From that day
on, I no longer focused on the pupils’ [mis-]use of the Internet and chat. The
pupils had to take responsibility for their own learning. I could only be a guide.
For the teacher, the ‘giving in’ strategy results in fewer frustrations than that entailing
the ‘carrying out of threats’:
Teacher: You lose all control. And then, I don’t give a damn.
Interviewer: Do you feel that you have control?
Teacher: No, I don’t. I don’t have any control at all. When I go around and
see what they have on their screens, I can see that it’s something
completely different from what they should have.
Interviewer: So what do you do then?
Teacher: I don’t do anything. Nothing at all. They’ve been told: You must
complete the assignment by Tuesday. I just take control of what
they produce on Tuesday.

Teacher-Leader Interaction

For many teachers, the lack of control resulted in frustrations mounting over time.
The principal’s assessment of the experiences of the transformation project after
the first year was that: ‘I’ve never seen such speedy results as we’ve seen here this
spring’. At this time, the leaders had plans for a forced pedagogical development
pace by abandoning textbooks in six central school subjects. In Figure 5, the laissez-
faire policy manifests itself as a movement in a south-easterly direction, i.e. outside

86
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

the area of contract, from Y to Z. If the leaders are powerful actors with a reservation
value of A’’A’’, then the area of possible agreement is empty.

Figure 5. The laissez-faire policy induces a laissez-faire equilibrium in the teacher-pupil

interaction, which in turn induces a new equilibrium (Z) in the teacher-leader interaction

A bargaining process will generally be dependent on the specific time horizon

within which the negotiations are seen (Elstad, 2002). If the parties have no future
together, the bargaining set is empty. Here, reference may be made to teachers who
first chose long-term sick leave and thereafter early retirement while other teachers
opted to exit. Why should the more powerful party – the leaders – negotiate? For
two parties who have varying degrees of common interest or conflict and have a
future together, the rational course is to bargain. Conflict induces something to
bargain about, and common interest induces something to bargain for (Schelling,
1980). The medium of communication partly constitutes demands and offers
between teachers and leaders and partly a tacit kind in which adversaries interpret
each other’s behaviour. The process of negotiation between leaders and teachers
under study here is tug-of-war bargaining. Bargaining theory provides no definite
predictions and robust results but may be of help in understanding the mechanisms
of negotiations (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981). The outcome is not clear agreement
but mutual accommodation. A central mechanism to which attention will be paid
here is that deviations from the area of agreement between two parties sets in motion
forces for the re-establishment of an agreement, just as trembling is triggered if the
temperature of the body falls below a critical value.
School leaders have the means by which they can sanction teachers (Becker,
1953). The leaders made use of their power and authority in the face of teachers

87
E. ELSTAD

who resisted, inter alia, by means of warnings and orders understood as coercive
instructions. The principal directly addressed teachers whom he considered were not
observing the school’s aim of extensive use of ICT.
An example of a warning was a written reprimand to a teacher who displayed
insubordination:
X (name of a middle leader) dropped in on your class. In reply to his question
of whether the pupils had logged onto the platform to obtain instructions and
information, he was told that they never use portable computers and that most
of them had not brought theirs. … It would be most welcome if you could
explain what isat the bottom of the pupils’ statement.
The aim of extensive ICT use was conveyed as an order to the teachers. An
example is when the principal spoke of:
expectations with respect to pedagogical practice (inter alia, extensive use of
ICT in the teaching of all subjects). It is expected that all teachers will provide
for the use of ICT in their teaching, precisely to make clear the expectations the
school has with respect to pedagogical practice.
The warnings and orders were designed to alter the actions of resistive teachers in
a direction favourable to the leaders. In spite of the principal’s legal basis for using
his means of power, the vision of ‘the school of the future’ was not realised. After a
commitment of four years of reform (‘extensive use of computers’), a comparative
investigation showed that the school was not significantly different in these priority
areas from other schools in the area.

From Enthusiasm to Discontent

Early in Phase 2, the leaders had a certain ideological control of the situation in
the sense that the majority of teachers either supported or remained neutral to the
rationale of the transformational purposes despite widespread acknowledgment of
problems with non-academic activity:
In the autumn, we shall arrive at some clear rules … that the school has some
joint rules. We are spending so much time and energy on this! For example, we
can take the aerial or format the hard disk in the event of use of a machine for
games. (statement by an enthusiastic teacher)
However, the demand for joint rules was not satisfactory to or backed by the
leaders. ‘Among the teachers, there’s been a large majority in favour of having
common guidelines on this (non-legitimate use of computers). But no, there are
no boundaries’. Joint rules are something ‘we’ve called for at meetings with the
leaders, but they said no; they don’t want them’. The loss of control resulted in
frustration, and pent-up frustrations gave rise to voiced protests and exits as outcomes
(Hirschmann, 1970).

88
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

Frustrations Spread to the Principal’s Power Base

A small minority of teachers were somewhat negative of the school’s reform since
the project’s inception. Those teachers who were enthusiastic or neutral experienced
increasing levels of frustration in Phase 2:
I’ve got a competitor that’s far, far more popular, but that’s got infinitely less
to give; I dare contend. It’s like letting them loose in a sweetshop and saying:
“Help yourselves, take what you want” … It’s difficult to bring them back
again because they actually get sucked into the screen. These pupils are lost
as far as anything I can give them is concerned. … This PC has come between
me and the pupils in many situations that I find very difficult. We teachers
have curriculum guidelines to follow. Some of the material is quite heavy, and
some of it is boring for the pupils. And then there’s tremendous pressure on us
teachers because it’s always our fault (that they are bored).
The teachers’ loss of control led to widespread discontent as operational control
can be seen as part of the professional role exercised by teachers. If teachers are to
be held responsible for the quality of their professional role, they must also have
control over significant factors in the teaching situation (Ingersoll, 2006). The
new disciplinary problems engendered disharmony. The teachers at The Pioneer
School were conscious of being cheerful and good tempered and wanted to behave
in a spirit of co-operation rather than domination: ‘If I’m the police with the job of
watching everything pupils do, then my role of teacher is completely destroyed’.
Early in Phase 2, there was no collective awareness of the intensity of the
frustrations taking hold of individual teachers: ‘It seemed as if I was the only one who
was struggling, and nobody said anything’. The increase in individual discontent did
not produce explicit collective protest in this early phase, but the group interviews
in this phase of the school reform made many aware of the frustrations. In the group
constellations, practically all the teachers acknowledged the need for managerial
intervention and a joint systemic strategy at the school for reducing the problem of
non-academic activity.
One reason that many of the teachers shared the desire for a common systemic
strategy was that:
If you don’t have sanctions that apply to the whole school, then after a while,
we face … We get a feeling of powerlessness. We give up, and then the pupils
take over … We sit there, and we can’t take the computers from the pupils
simply because they (the pupils) have misused them.

The Formation of a Teachers’ Coalition

Many of the teachers who were initially enthusiastic also experienced profound
frustrations:

89
E. ELSTAD

Those who were very enthusiastic to start with are now becoming considerably
more sceptical. So now there are very few left of the enthusiastic leading lights
… The mood is considerably more negative than it was a while ago. The most
activist teachers now say ‘I can’t use it (ICT) in my subjects’. Half a year ago,
it was fantastic. (teacher’s statement)
Those teachers who initially constituted the principal’s power base formed a coalition
with the negative teachers to demand managerial intervention. This coalition was
able to strengthen its bargaining power vis-à-vis the leaders.
Ted (pseudonym) was a striking personality among those teachers (until he later
left the teaching profession). He spoke up early about the problem of the pupils’
non-academic activity in class and demanded that the leaders lay down common
rules to tackle this. When the reform started, Ted was looked upon as the subversive
colleague, the troublemaker. In Phase 2, a number of the enthusiastic teachers
changed their opinion of Ted; his status was raised: ‘I didn’t see completely eye to
eye with him (Ted) a year ago. … This is a problem for the leaders. You can’t leave
it up to the individual teacher’.
Ann (pseudonym), who could be perceived as an informal leader among the
enthusiastic teachers (until she later chose to leave the teaching profession), stated
during this phase that:
I feel that a lot of what’s negative is in fact becoming a leadership problem.
They must do something about it because now it’s being made clear by many
that unless the leaders do something now about some of the negative signals
that are coming from so many teachers, and if they go on dealing with this at
the teaching level, then we shall in fact stagnate.
The two front figures, Ann and Ted, were coming closer to each other in their
perception of reality, beliefs and common understanding of the problem: ‘I’ve been
saying it for a long time myself, but when she (Ann) says it, it starts to become
interesting and worth listening to’ (Ted’s statement). Teachers are more likely to choose
individual exit rather than the collective protest strategy, but in different forums, those
at The Pioneer School put forward their demand that the leaders should do something
about their perception of having lost control. For example, the teachers sought
‘Better possibilities of controlling the technology and getting hold of a surveillance
programme’ (written statement). Another example came from a staff meeting which
put forward the following written demand communicated to the leaders:
It is time we adopted a much stricter attitude towards the misuse of computers.
Not only does this prevent good teaching and have a detrimental effect on
teachers’ motivation, it also distracts pupils to an unacceptable degree. There
must be an end to cosiness. We must be stricter.
This is an example of an explicit demand and commitment expressed by teachers.
Several of the teachers who were initially enthusiastic (e.g. Ann) supported this

90
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

protest statement. Different groups of teachers formed a coalition demanding

managerial intervention, which contributed to increased bargaining power. The
teachers strengthened their relative position in the power structure by means of the
formation of this coalition. The principal was becoming a commander with no army
to command. He had to do something; and he did.

PHASE 3: A NEW SCHOOL POLICY (2003–2008): THE LEADERS’

HEROIC FIGHT FOR TEACHERS’ OPERATIONAL CONTROL

While the leaders had no desire to introduce a common set of rules in Phase 2, they
successively applied other corrective measures to develop a modus vivendi and meet
the teachers’ demands for managerial intervention.
The leaders’ offers in the early stage of the bargaining (Phase 2) with the teachers
comprised:
1. Threats: A spot-check showed that ‘in one week, there were 20,000 porn hits
at school. It was miles more than all other hits’. The leaders threatened that the
computers would be withdrawn unless this porn surfing ceased. However, this
threat did not have a deterrent effect on the pupils.
2. Disabling Internet access to Big Brother transmissions: ‘We teachers warned
against this. We shouldn’t have chatting and all that sort of thing’. However, the
leaders were very liberal and saw the positive side of chatting: ‘You can chat
about subjects, can’t you?’ ‘But after two years, there was the realisation that this
could not go on. A number of possibilities have been closed down’.
3. Refusal: The principal accepted that individual teachers could refuse to allow
pupils use of their computers. ‘I asked the leaders whether they thought computers
were important because you can’t have constant conflict. So the leaders said: ‘All
right’. However, several teachers felt unsure about whether they had real backing
to enforce refusal.
4. Teachers were given an on-off button for Internet connection for the whole class
at school, which made it possible to disable the pupils’ access to the Internet for
periods of time.
Despite the fact that these measures were implemented, control of classroom
operations was a recurrent theme in the advances made by teachers on the school’s
planning days, at section meetings and in other forums. The teachers’ frustration
persisted. The parties watched and interpreted each other’s behaviour. In a statement
to a newspaper, the leaders asserted: ‘We must admit that we have some way to
go before we find good solutions to how we are to tackle it (the problem of non-
academic chatting, games and surfing)’.
Consequently, a coordinated process was initiated during the course of the school
year 2003/2004, with the restoration of the teachers’ control of the pupils’ operations
as its goal (Phase 3). The teachers entered Phase 3 with input into behavioural rules
and standards for pupils. Further, the school invested in developing its own expertise

91
E. ELSTAD

through teacher collaboration on the use of the technology (Brøyn, 2009). This
endeavour became systematised and was sustained by the leaders over time, having
built subject-specific instructional representations (subject pages on an electronic
platform where teachers enter or obtain, change and use what others have posted).
The teachers’ opportunities for professional development encouraged this integration
of ICT and school subjects. Middle leaders were then appointed to manage teacher
collaboration on professional growth as well as the integration of ICT and school
subjects (Brøyn, 2009).
The timing of this reorganisation and teacher collaboration coincided with a
substantial systemic change in Norwegian educational policy. Before the millennium,
the steering of teaching methods (project work) was fundamental. From 2003, the
national authorities became more concerned about results (Ministry of Education,
2003), and a national quality evaluation system was established.
The publishing of pupils’ results is coming soon, and this school, which was
conscientious when this was in fashion, can see that we will come out with
statistics showing that many pupils have no marks in one or more subjects.
This is leading to a total ideological turn-around in order to come out better in
the statistics. (teacher statement)
The principal appointed an internal committee that developed ‘8 Rules in
Cyberspace’, but extensive problems with hacking and games continued. In a threat
directed at all the school’s pupils, the principal stated:
We have already come across pupils who have installed or downloaded
programmes that may either make the computer unstable or overload the
school’s network in a very destructive manner. When we come across pupils
who had broken the rules in respect of these matters, we shall consistently
suspend such pupils from the school for a period of 1 to 5 days. … Pupils
who are discovered playing on their machine at school will first be subject
to forfeiture of their personal computer, after which the file types will be
examined. These pupils are liable to the same consequences as those who are
detected during spot checks.
This threat also failed to reduce the problem of non-academic activity to a significant
degree. The principal stated:
We had a new set of ICT rules ready. We sent out a clearer message to our pupils
with respect to the misuse of computers (downloading of games and disorder
in class). We haven’t suspended any pupils on account of this, but we’ve had
10 to 15 pupils in for interviews, pupils who had downloaded ‘filth’ on their
machines or who had disobeyed their teachers’ orders. The downloaders had
to come to the ICT Department every week for 4 weeks to show that their hard
disks were clean. Chat is a major distraction factor. The chat channel shall
be closed… because that will put a stop to most of the pupils’ chat activity.

92
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

We observe a good deal of distraction and unnecessary loss of time among

pupils because chatting goes on during class.
The chat channel was now closed. The school moved the administration of computers
from the pupils to the school and passed stricter rules for the use of the school’s ICT
resources. One month later, all chat options were barred.
The force of the measures gradually led to the teachers’ experiencing operational
control in the classroom (Model 1 in Figure 1). The development of the relationship
between the leaders and teachers in Phase 3 is illustrated by successive returns to
the area of agreement, from Z and back towards Y (compare Figure 5). The leaders’
turn-around operations in Phase 3 are interpreted here as rationally accommodating
the school’s internal tensions, a response to the restructuring of education policy at
the time, the changed beliefs among the school leaders or a mix between these three
incidences.
In 2005, pupils were deprived of the right to manage the applications on their
own PCs at school. The first step was the prohibition of the principal poker games.
However, the poker trend flared up again with the advent of Internet on mobile
phones. The principal then performed a short shrift and prohibited all card games.
The school’s IT department blocked all websites that offered gambling. The school
also controlled which sites pupils could access. Access to Facebook, YouTube and
MSN were constrained during school hours. Digital off-task behaviour decreased.
‘The PC is a tool, not a toy. Therefore we need to add some restrictions for pupils’
(principal statement).

PHASE 4 (2008–2016): MORE FIGHTS TO SUSTAIN TEACHERS’

OPERATIONAL CONTROL

Laptops became mandatory for pupils in upper secondary schools in Norway in

2007. Local education authorities decided then that all pupils in all schools should
have their own laptops from 2008. However, pupils now became administrators of
their own laptops and not the schools’ ICT department. Electronic network solutions
were now centrally steered. Teachers felt that they had lost some aspects of their
operational control of pupils’ use of the computer in the classroom. A renewed phase
of digital off-task behaviour subsequently arose. Some classroom situations can be
characterised by Model 2 while others can be characterised by Model 1. Teacher
autonomy and the degree to which teachers act on practical matters in their teaching
shape teachers’ classroom management strategy. However, the school leaders fought
unequivocally to sustain teachers’ operational control in the classroom. The laissez-
faire classroom (Model 3) was a thing of the past. The teachers’ beliefs and values
reflected what they did in the classroom. At the same time, they chose what to
endorse, reject or modify in terms of ICT use. The principal criticised the transfer
of administrative control of pupils’ computer use from the school staff to the local
education authorities as this made it more difficult to shield the classroom from the

93
E. ELSTAD

temptations of non-academic activity (to block pornographic web sites, downloading

of music):
Pupils have received the world’s most powerful entertainment package in their
lap, and it is naive to think that the teacher’s professional arrangements are
to oust social media throughout the lecture. Even the most conscientious and
motivated pupils, often girls, have their Facebook window open all the time,
and we are particularly concerned about the impact that digital temptations
have for the weakest pupils. (principal’s statement)
However, this criticism has not been perceived by the local education authorities:
‘We have not had any case on the table highlighting the sharp formulated utterance
that the teacher should deny the pupil use of the personal computer (in the classroom)’.

CONCLUSION

Why do the realities in a technology-rich pioneer school lag noticeably behind the
bold promises of educational technology (i.e. that computer use has the potential to be
a powerful catalyst leading to more constructivist practices on the part of teachers)?
The reason is that political expectations regarding the modernisation of schooling
through the use of information and communication technology and the allocation
of funds in accordance with politically created agendas are not compatible with the
situational constraints and operational features within the school organisation. There
are fundamental reasons within schools as institutions that make them quite different
from enterprises and public administration (Cuban, 1993, 2009). The promise of
educational technology was anchored in the dream of increasing teacher and pupil
productivity via pupil-centred learning environments based on pupil-led projects
and constructivist teaching practices. However, increased productivity was not
the typical result in The Pioneer School. A laissez-faire equilibrium evolved in the
interactional patterns between pupils and teachers, and teachers became frustrated.
This frustration manifested itself in a tug-of-war between the school leaders and
teachers. However, the school leaders changed their minds and accommodated the
teachers’ demands. A turn-around operation ensued.
One of the lessons learnt is that school leaders and policy-makers should
understand the perspectives of teachers before planning and implementing bold
educational technology plans. Operational control is very important for teachers
(Emmer & Hickman, 1991). Further, as shown here, the operational features of
the two social systems (teacher-leader interactions and teacher-pupil interactions)
which influenced the structure of social exchanges were the essential elements in the
mutual relations between the school’s teachers and leaders. The dismal inference is
that the possibility of a forfeit must exist if threats of sanctions are to be regarded as
credible. The wedge between the promise of educational technology and the realities
shaped by the technology was induced by the teachers’ loss of operational control
in this school studied. The reality lagged considerably behind the initial visions of

94
 WHY IS THERE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY?

extensive use of computers in the classroom. Some readers – myself included –

might interpret this case study as evidence of a naïve design and implementation
of the school’s ICT policies in this first phase. Other readers might interpret it as
evidence of resistant teachers.
Educational technology has been a strong trendsetter (Amiel & Reeves, 2008).
However, technology is not the goal (Biesta, this volume); it should be used to create
better learning and free resources for teaching. The time is opportune for the teacher
to be placed at the centre of technology strategies in schools. If the premise is that
‘Teachers should have a clear responsibility for what pupils learn in school’ (Ministry
of Education, 2008), my inference is that technological affordances in the classroom
should be designed to strengthen teachers’ role execution. Norwegian education
authorities have in the last decade invested heavily in 1:1 access to computers
and tablets. Today, Norwegian schools have a very good digital infrastructure.
Little, however, has been done in terms of using technology so that the teacher has
operational control over academic work in technology-rich classrooms. Technology
has the potential to strengthen pupils’ learning and free teachers’ time so that they
can work more on teaching and pupils, but the problem of loss of control must be
solved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks go to everyone at The Pioneer School (the leaders, the teachers and the
pupils) for allowing me access to themselves and the inner life at the school, not
least to T. H. Frolich and G. M. Vestby for their generosity in making their empirical
material available to me. My thanks also go to Tore Nilsen who helped me with an
interview in November 2015.

REFERENCES
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking
technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining: Power, tactics and outcomes. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Becker, H. S. (1953). The teacher in the authority system of the public school. Journal of Educational
Sociology, 27(3), 128–141.
Brøyn, T. (2009). 10 år med PC i alle fag (10 years with PC I all subjects). Bedre Skole, 1, 38–41.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice?.
Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109–125.
Elstad, E. (2002). Towards a model of strategic actions in the classroom: Games theory as research
heuristic. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 65–82.
Elstad, E. (2006). The relevance of rhetoric to the study of power in communication and communicative
adequacy. The International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(1), 1–11. Retrieved
from http://iejll.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/iejll/index.php/ijll/article/view/610/272

95
E. ELSTAD

Elstad, E. (2012). PISA debates and blame management among the Norwegian educational authorities:
Press coverage and debate intensity in the newspapers. Problems of Education in the 21st Century,
48(1), 10–22.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 755–765.
Erstad, O. (2000). Den langsomme revolusjonen (The slow revoluation). Retrieved from
http://www.ituarkiv.no/filearchive/fil_itu_rapport_11.pdf
Ingersoll, R. M. (2006). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Kultur for læring (Culture for learning). Oslo: White paper from Ministry
of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Læreren (The teacher). Oslo: White paper from Ministry of Education.
Popper, K. R. (1976). The logic of the social sciences. In T. W. Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf,
J. Habermas, H. Pilot, & K. R. Popper (Eds.), The positivist dispute in German sociology (G. Adey &
D. Frisby, Trans., pp. 87–104). London: Heinemann.
Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(4),
195–206.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. (2005). Robert Aumann’s and Thomas Schelling’s contributions
to game theory: Analysis of conflict and cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.nobel.se

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eyvind Elstad is a Professor at the Department of Teacher

Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Norway. Among his research interests are teachers’ work,
teacher education, and teaching and learning in technology
rich environments.

96
 TROND EILIV HAUGE

6. ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

IN A LARGE-SCALE REFORM MOVEMENT
A Case Study

BACKGROUND

In this chapter, the understanding and use of information and communication

technology (ICT) as part of a large-scale reform movement at one secondary school
in Norway is explored by analysing leadership practices and technology use patterns
over time. This upper secondary school opened in 2010 and offered general studies
as well as vocational courses. In 2011, a comparative case study including this school
was conducted, focusing on ICT tool use and leadership practices. Three exemplary
schools with a high level of ICT use were compared (Hauge & Norenes, 2015).
This study is a follow-up to that 2011 study, looking particularly at the evolution of
leadership and ICT practices at the institutional level. The empirical data are based
on document analysis, school websites, and interviews with the school leadership
team and groups of teachers leading school improvement projects.

INSTITUTIONAL UPTAKE AND INTEGRATION OF ICT

The dissemination and integration of innovative technology into schools is a complex

process. Its success depends on a high quality mix of technological infrastructure,
teachers’ and students’ digital competencies, a culture of teaching and learning,
organisational norms, educational designs and, last but not least, support from the
principal and other school leaders (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2016; Lafferrière, Hamel, &
Searson, 2013; Olofsson, Lindberg, Fransson, & Hauge, 2011; Peled, Kali, & Dori,
2011; Vanderlinde, Aesaert, & van Barak, 2015). At the same time, researching
the dissemination and integration of ICT into schools is becoming increasingly
complex due to ever-changing technology and increasing access to ICT resources in
informal settings, which has altering the balance between formal and informal uses
of technology in education (Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver, 2009; Cox, 2013).
Consequently, understanding ICT and learning requires researching a multitude of
perspectives and practices, making it difficult to single out any simple effect of ICT.
Compared to existing comprehensive research of innovative technologies and
pedagogy: students’ learning and classroom work, and technology-enhanced and
computer-assisted learning (cf. Cox, 2008; Laurillard, Oliver, Wasson, & Hoppe,

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 97–115.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
T. E. HAUGE

2009; Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & ten Brummelhuis, 2013; Wasson, Ludvigsen, &
Hoppe, 2003), the institutional settings and conditions for the dissemination and
integration of technology remain an underexplored field of research (Vanderlinde,
van Braak, & Dexter, 2012). Thus, though we know a lot about how technologies
can be used in experimental settings, we know less about how technology-enhanced
practices can be designed for learning in real classroom settings and institutionalised
as such. This study fills that gap, as it analyses a unique combination of technology-
enhanced practices pursued by the school principal and leader team through a large-
scale development strategy observed evolving over time.

TOOLS AND DESIGNS FOR LEARNING

The integration of technology into teaching and learning has been a leading goal of
learning technology development since the early seventies. Many governments and
educational leaders have along the way sought to increase student achievement and
enhance their learning experiences (Cox, 2008; Lafferrière et al., 2013; Lawless &
Pellegrino, 2007). Consequently, a multitude of small-scale learning designs and
large-scale reform movements have been implemented in many countries (Blau &
Shamir-Inbal, 2016; Erstad & Hauge, 2011; Voogt & Knezek, 2008).
In the extensive research literature on ICT and school learning, the barriers to or
“essential conditions” for successful technological implementation and integration
are growing concerns (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2016; Cox, 2013; Cuban, 2001;
Searson, Lafferrière, & Nikolow, 2011; Selwin, 2011; Somekh, 2007). Divaharan
and Ping (2010) summarise the research this way:
It can be deduced from the findings presented from the literature review
that there are some key factors that influence teachers’ intention of ICT use.
The factors identified are availability of time, access, shared vision, relevant
professional development, multi-faceted leadership, and functioning as a
learning organization. (p. 743)
As a whole, a complex set of challenges is raising when examining the conditions
for technology use in school regarding, for example, institutional infrastructures,
educational cultures, sociocultural contexts, general academic climates and
leadership, prevailing pedagogies and forms of teaching, teacher beliefs and digital
competencies, and the level of motivation for reform (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2016;
Hatlevik, Gudmundsdóttir, & Loi, 2015; Meyer, Abrami, Wade, & Scherzer, 2011;
Olofsson et al., 2011; Orlando, 2014; Sipilä, 2014; Warschauer, & Matuchniak,
2010).
Twenty-first century education stresses seamless and all-encompassing
integration of digital technologies into physical, organisational and educational
environments. Based on research from the last 10–15 years, it is now understood that
new technologies can no longer be perceived as optional adds-ons to the learning
environment. ICT has become part of the ecology of education and must be seen

98
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

and acted upon both in a systemic way and as a system in itself (Kirschner, 2015).
Thus, research on technology integration should be expanded to include design
interactions between the particular technological system or tool and other student
learning activities. From this perspective, information, communication and learning
technologies are more than tools: they program activities and require strong support
to be used for teaching and learning purposes. Scaling up ICT reforms requires
designing and redesigning educational environments from a systemic and ecological
perspective. In this study, we followed a school that had taken large steps toward
implementing such a design ecology.

RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS

We need to learn more about how education institutions develop over time under the
new conditions of teaching and learning within a digital society. This is the motive
for this follow-up investigation of one case-study school that has implemented
information, communication and learning technologies on a large-scale. At the outset
in 2010, the school was expected to demonstrate excellent practices over time in the
use of technology for teaching and learning (Hauge & Norenes, 2015). At the start,
the school was given extra financial resources and freedom in selecting teachers with
high-level competencies in technology and interest in developing new teaching and
learning designs. This meant that the school received support and freedom from the
local education authorities to create a new educational path. These conditions must
be considered when evaluating the outcomes. With this background, the study set out
to answer the following research questions:
• How has the school implemented and integrated new technologies into its
leadership and educational practices?
• How has the school designed its educational and technological ecology?
• What have been the principal’s and the other school leaders’ priorities in
developing the culture of teaching and learning?

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Leading an upper secondary school involves overseeing a complex set of

departments and subject areas that often work independently, but are all guided
by the overall school goals and knowledge structures. Thus, the school principal is
in charge of a network of essentially overlapping activity systems, which interact
to form the organisation. This notion of an activity system comes from cultural-
historical activity theory (CHAT), as modelled by Engeström (1987, 1999), with its
origins in the Russian psychology work of Vygotsky (1978) and Leont’ev (1978).
An activity system is defined by the historical relations between an object-oriented
activity, the participants and the community to which they belong, and the regulation
of work and distribution of labour between the participants and the mediating

99
T. E. HAUGE

artefacts (tools and signs) operating in the activity. This system theory focuses on the
transformational nature of collaborative endeavour and collective intentionality (cf.
Blackler & Regan, 2009; Daniels, Edwards, Engeström, Gallagher, & Ludvigsen,
2010; Sannino, Daniels, & Gutiérrez, 2009). Applying to this study a historical and
contextual approach to understanding activities and their origins may help explain
the dynamics of technology implementation within the larger ecology of leadership,
teaching and learning, and the essential conditions for integration.
From the CHAT-perspective, the driving force for learning and development is
included in the object of activity. The object has a dual nature: it is material as well
as ideational (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006). The former reflects the realization of the
activity (e.g., a product, a text, a physical-material design) while the latter embodies
the direction of the activities (e.g., motives, visions, joint productions); the former
holds product features while the latter holds process features. Thus, the object of
activity not only mirrors essential features of the activity but is also integrated into
the activity. From this interactive perspective, the object is constantly evolving
and changing due to its dual material and social construction (Foot, 2002). As the
object is always embedded in and constructed by the cultural-historical activity, it
“determines the horizon of possible actions” (Engeström, 1999, p. 381). Applied to
the current research context, the CHAT perspective directs attention not only toward
tool-mediated activities, what they are and how they function, but also toward
the evolving object of education integrated into and directing institutional school
activities.
In this study, the cultural-historical and systemic perspective is applied to
illuminate how the school has let new technologies live and grow over time. The
unit of analysis is the school as an institutional activity system with a primary
focus on school leadership and teaching and learning in the context of ICT. In
particular, the ecology of education and technology, and its essential design features
and development objects, were prioritised in the empirical investigations. Two
innovative sub-systems of this ecology (Green Innovation, School Media group),
representing cross-level activities, were also selected to illuminate how teachers and
students were involved and how contexts mattered in the development processes.
Practices and contradictions between different sub-systems of the school – e.g.,
subject departments, teacher teams – were not part of the investigation.

METHODS AND EMPIRICAL DATA

This study builds on the earlier qualitative case study of the same school published by
Hauge and Norenes (2015) based on focus-group interviews with the principal and
key co-leaders (deputy head/development leader, heads of departments) of the school
in 2011 (n = 3, in total). In this first stage of investigation, field information about
technological, organisational and educational structures, as well as school websites
and school planning documents, played a role. Data collection occurred between
August and November 2011, one year after the school opened. The interviews

100
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

focused on the technologies in use, conceptions of technology and pedagogy, and the
design of local websites and digital tools reflecting the school leaderships’ vision,
goals and practices. In addition, school leaders were questioned about teachers’ use
of technology to obtain an overall picture of ICT practices at the school and how the
standards and expectations of the teachers’ use of ICT were shaped.
The second stage and follow-up investigation was conducted from November
to December 2015. Again, the principal, the deputy head and the key co-leaders
participated in a focus-group interview (n = 7 persons) lasting for about one-
and-a-half hours. In addition, two groups of teachers responsible for top-priority
development projects – Green Innovation (n = 6 teachers) and the School Media
group (n = 6 teachers) – were interviewed. All discussions were audio recorded.
The groups were selected, through collaboration with the principal, to broaden
understanding of the school’s innovation potential, staff collaboration, work
distribution and technology use. At this second stage, field observations and school
planning and development documents from websites were collected.
The semi-structured interview of school leaders concentrated on questions such
as: What does the school want show to the outside world about its activities? How
has the educational objective evolved over time? What are the major questions and
concerns today for the school leader group? What are the primary results of the work
done at the school over the last five years? What are the meaning of ICT and the use
of technology today compared with the situation five years ago? What are the top
priorities for teachers’ use of ICT today?
In the teacher interviews, we discussed topics such as the aims and objectives of
project work, how projects had been developed, the use of technology and educational
tools, student learning and development, accountability issues, leadership and work
distribution within the group, and contradictions within and sustainability of the
work.
The audio-recorded material constitutes the primary data analysed. At both
investigation stages, selected sequences from the audio-recorded material were
transcribed and analysed to study perceptions of the educational objective, how the
objective had been transformed over time and manifested in the work of leadership,
teaching and learning. In this context, how conceptions of technology were perceived
and used in leadership and development activities were of particular interest.
Through these data, the study aims to provide an overall picture of the construction
and evolution of the object of activity and its interconnections with school leadership
and educational practices.

SOME KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOL

In fall 2015, about 840 students in grade levels 1–3 studied at the school. The
largest group (n = 540) was in the three-year general studies program, specializing
in language, social science, math/science, economy and music. The school had also
a large group of students in vocational study programs such as health/social work

101
T. E. HAUGE

(n = 70), media and communications (n = 100), and service/transport (n = 60). Other

specialised programs included small groups of students with deaf disabilities (n = 9)
and students in need of work-life training (n = 7). An additional group of students
(n = 200) was in a distributed hospital follow-up teaching program. Ninety teachers
were employed at the school in the mainstream model.
The student intake was framed by the free school choice policy run by the regional
education authority. The reputation of the school had steadily increased since 2010,
which meant that its student recruitment and intake qualifications were higher than
other schools in the region (3.7 mean point value above the regional values in 2015).
The number of school dropouts had been low over time. In school year 2014–2015,
only 2.7% of students dropped out. Comparatively, for the years 2013–2015, the
number of dropouts for all regional schools was about 6.3%.
From the beginning, recruited teachers had to demonstrate high digital
competencies in and motivation for innovative teaching. They were expected to have
a personal profile on Facebook and to participate in social media networks run by
the school. The principal was hired two years before the school opened, and some
of the other school leaders were hired half-a-year before it opened. They obtained a
clear mandate to advance the school’s use of technology for teaching and learning.
This small leader group played a key role in designing the recruitment policy,
technology priorities, teamwork structure and educational designs. Over time, the
school established partnerships with various universities for teaching, research and
development work. Two of the teachers had earned Ph.Ds.
The school had a semi-open/flexible building on three floors with large open
spaces, an amphitheatre and lecture theatres. Most of the classrooms, of different
sizes, had glass walls facing corridors, and they were well equipped with technological
infrastructure and digital tool facilities.

APPROACHES TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

When the school opened in 2010, the principal and the other school leaders bore a
heavy burden: They were expected to build a high-profile ICT school. The question
was how? Regarding the 2010–2011 school year, the interviews and field observations
revealed a wide range of technology and media used to manage and direct the school,
as well as for educational matters. During this period, the school managed to use and
implement advanced technology on a large scale for communication, information
sharing and collaborative decision-making among school leaders and teachers.
Facebook, Google Docs and wiki-sites were used regularly for this purpose. All
teachers were expected to be on Facebook and to use the local learning management
system (LMS) for educational purposes. A variety of technological learning tools
were also used. At that time, compared to other high-profiled ICT secondary level
schools, this school took a big institutional step toward ICT integration (Hauge &
Norenes, 2015). In Table 1, a snapshot of its ICT use pattern is provided, outlining
the general practice in 2010–2011.

102
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Table 1. General overview of digital technologies in use 2010–2011

Learning Used as an overall management shell for education at the institutional

Management level: Internal delivery and storage tool for student learning
System (LMS) documents, message system between students and school/teachers.
Home pages Used as an external information system at the general level. Is based
on a common district authority design.
E-mail The email-system frequently used for 1:1 communication. Played a
minor role as a joint problem-solving and production tool.
GoogleDocs/other Important tool for developing and sharing education plans and
interactive writing documents among leaders, teams of teachers and the staff as a whole.
tools Also used for teaching and learning.
Facebook Principal/co-leaders, teachers and students encouraged to have an
active profile/use. Used as a tool for sharing events and experiences
at the institutional level. Frequently used by school leaders, teachers
and students for educational purposes. Facebook groups for
communication between the school and the parents are organized.
Twitter Twitter stream regularly used by school leaders and teachers. Used for
information sharing.
Wiki Used extensively to share documents concerning school management
and development for leaders and teachers.
Blogs Used frequently by some of the school leaders and teachers to inform
about ongoing development work and events.
Video productions Extensive video film productions connected to internal development
projects and education practices.
Student learning Numerous student learning tools used at all course and subject levels.
tools Growth in OneNote use.

Regarding the 2011 ICT use patterns shown in Table 1, the interview of the
school leaders revealed a shared and collective approach to school management and
leadership. Excerpt 1, below, confirms the goal of sharing and transparency and
school leaders’ increasing involvement of teachers as participants in the process of
stimulating collective expertise in education and the use of technology. Throughout
the interview, there was a determined attitude to treat learning as a principle of
leadership; the use of technology and staff development was also discussed. The
following passage discussing the use of wiki sites illustrates this approach.
In Excerpt 1, we see the enactment of leadership by the principal and one of
the co-leaders using the collaborative wiki tool for collective knowledge building
around student assessment (lines 1–7). The technology was a mediating tool for
group discussions, sharing of practices and experiences through the open process
of writing. The leaders experimented with a strategy for collective learning without
themselves becoming too involved in the teachers’ discussions (lines 8–11).

103
T. E. HAUGE

Excerpt 1: Collective knowledge building with a wiki

1 Co-leader 1: When talking about digital tools, we prefer tools that support sharing and
2 collaboration; that’s a priority. When working with such tasks as these (points to the
3 screen) in large meetings, we split into small groups. For example, in student assessment
4 discussions, we ask our teachers to share their success stories and positive experiences,
5 and then write the stories into the wiki. Everyone has to see what the others are thinking.
6 First of all, you have to talk in groups and then you can share with others (shows a website
7 from the wiki). All the texts from the groups are here – everyone can see it.
8 As leaders, we are not working together with the teachers when they are discussing and
9 sharing; we are participating in pre-planning and subsequent discussions.
10 Principal: We are very much in a process, because our school has newly opened; we don’t
11 have all the answers.

In 2015, we observed the school still working on a large scale and multiple levels
with digital technology and media. The transparent and participatory approach to
leadership was evident. The open Facebook site shared upcoming events, news
and basic information about the running the school. It was possible to navigate and
read information in a rich wiki platform presenting the school’s vision, learning
philosophy, organisational model, overall plans and development projects illustrated
through pictures/videos and student comments. At the same time, blogs by the
principal and those teachers leading development projects were used to share
information. In restricted online areas, students and teachers had their own websites
or Facebook groups to discuss and share experiences. Further, we noticed that
the local LMS offered by the regional education authorities was used as a general
platform to provide study information to students and parents. As we moved into the
levels of teaching and learning, a multitude of technologies for different subjects
was observed; some were free online tools or other specific learning assets related to
subject matter. The following programmatic description on the open school wiki site
is worth noting for its contribution to an understanding of the richly varied attitudes
toward technology across the school:
The challenges that your students will meet must to a large extent be solved by
technology. Some of this technology exists, some of it is still not developed. At
the same time, new challenges arise from the fast development of technology.
This requires an ability to reflect on ethical questions and a set of values. [Our
school] will continue to be in front when it comes to applying technology to
foster innovative learning. Games and simulation technology are of special
interest to us, and will be worked on through the Next Level project. We will
also continue our use of social media to encourage socio-cultural learning and
a culture of knowledge sharing.
Looking at some of the school’s top-priority development projects, we observed how
over time the school had managed to develop and support several innovative learning
projects involving students, teachers and external partners in joint technology use and

104
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

collective learning efforts. Our 2015 interview with teachers taking part in the School
Media group and the Green Innovation project confirmed this dynamic situation.

School media group. Students and teachers in the media and communications study
program had formed a media group running an institutional media-based publication
platform. They were responsible for reporting significant events and conferences at
the school, and media houses in the region followed and often used the news they
reported. The media group covered the school’s annual Future Conferences, where
school values were showcased and where questions about sustainability, technology
and human dignity were discussed every year. In 2015, the group covered the Theme
Conference about Coding and Gaming in School, hosted by the school in cooperation
with the National Centre for ICT in Education. The following Excerpt 2 from the
interview of teachers in this group illustrates the school’s integrated perspective on
the use of new technologies and media.

Excerpt 2: We are working like the media houses

1 Teacher 1: In general, we are working like the media houses in publishing web-based news.
2 The website is a portal for the students’ work, and the goal is to be open to untraditional
3 learning approaches. Students are learning to be producers of knowledge, not only
4 consumers. In this way, they are learning the rules of the game outside of school.
5 Teacher 2: Our websites are going to be more than great places to visit: they will be filled
6 with substantial information.
7 Teacher 1: The School Media group fulfils an important function; we serve as the face
8 of the school for the outside world. Students know that; they are motivated and take on
9 the responsibility.
10 Teacher 3: Parents are supporting our work. They are eager to come to the open parents’
11 meetings – and they tell us that they very much would have liked to have been students
12 at the school.
13 Teacher 4: We are learning together with the students. For students as well as for teachers,
14 it’s OK to try and fail. That’s part of our schools’ philosophy of learning.

Excerpt 2 underlines the very important function of the School Media group in
running the school’s information sites for the outside world. The work is intended for
educative purposes and the students take on the responsibility seriously (lines 1–9).
According the teachers, parents are enthusiastic about the group’s work and support
what the students are doing (lines 10–12). In the last part of the excerpt, the teachers
highlight the school’s philosophy of appreciating experimentation as a normal part
of everyday practice (lines 12–14).

Green innovation. This was the newest addition to the school’s general studies
program. In 2015, twenty students at the second grade level started studying physics
and information technology. They worked closely together with the students doing
marketing and entrepreneurship. All students met together in technology and science
classes. The mission of this pilot study was described as follows:

105
T. E. HAUGE

What will we work with in the future? A lot of future jobs still don’t exist. We
know that innovation will play a major role in creating new jobs, and we also
know that they will involve technology. Green innovations will be the most
viable. If Norway wants to play a leading role in how our world is evolving,
work on green innovations should start in school. (School wiki)
Excerpt 3 illuminates the approach to teaching and learning in the Green Innovation
project.

Excerpt 3: We are preparing for the future

1 Teacher 1: The use of technology for teaching and learning is a natural part of everyday
2 practice for all of the school’s students and teachers.
3 Teacher 2: In the early years, students and parents were very concerned about why they
4 shouldn’t use textbooks. Now, this conflict is long past. We use the tools that fit the task
5 best – digital or analogue learning resources are used in a proper mix. Today there are no
6 questions about why we are no longer using textbooks as a primary learning source.
7 Teacher 3: In our work with Green Innovation, we have to look forward. In textbooks, we find
8 classical knowledge. However, in this project, students have to look for new information in other
9 places. For us, the important thing is to help the students find the most relevant information.
10 Teacher 4: Workers of tomorrow have to prepare for a different society than the one we have
11 today. Thus, students have to learn how to create and design new things and to combine
12 knowledge in new ways. In this project, we intersect the subject disciplines of economics,
13 natural sciences and technology to help students learn to be part of the society of the future.

In Excerpt 3, teachers in the Green Innovation project emphasise that new

technologies are a natural part of everyday practices at their school. However,
they use the tools that best fit the tasks at hand, including in the Green Innovation
project (lines 1–6). In assisting the students learning how to search for new kinds
of information, the teachers have to look outside of classical textbook information
(lines 7–9). In this project, the teachers’ core approach to learning is highlighted by
their emphasis on students’ need to learn how to create and design solutions for the
future (lines 10–13).
In addition to the two projects discussed above, the project Games in the Classroom
played an important role in driving the school’s increased use of technology in
teaching and learning. This project used gaming as a learning tool. It involved
several subjects, for instance Norwegian, physics, social sciences and religion.
Coding, drone construction and robot programming were also part of the learning
activities. The work was shared with all teachers, and the lead group of teachers
worked hard to encourage and help other teachers to use games as part of their
ordinary teaching. In addition, through workshops and seminars, the school shared
its knowledge with teachers from other schools. Materials on how to use specific
games to teach a variety of subjects were published on the project web site. Looking
forward, the school set the goal of establishing a research-based competence centre

106
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

in this field of learning in cooperation with researchers from the regional university.
The National Centre for ICT in Education was a cooperating partner in the project.
Taken altogether, the development projects involved a multitude of new
technologies, including digital technologies and media, used for various teaching
and learning purposes and for stimulating teachers’ cross-curricular teamwork. All
of these projects required serious design competence for planning teaching and
learning. It is worth noting that, in addition to these top-priority institutional projects,
in late 2015 there were more than thirty smaller technology-oriented projects planned
or already implemented by individual or groups of teachers. All of them were shared
on an open web site. Moreover, the school was designing new digital exams and
negotiations with the regional education authorities and the Norwegian Ministry of
Education were underway.

EMERGING OBJECTS OF ACTIVITY

In the 2015 interview with the school principal and team leaders, a significant shift
in their focus on technology use and learning was observed, compared with the 2011
interview. The changes can be traced back to the evolution of learning as a prominent
leadership priority. The identity of the high-profile ICT-school was working, but
the concept of learning for the future had overtaken its ICT profile. The object of
education and learning had moved to the foreground. In the following discussion,
this development will be illustrated by looking at the school’s vision and concept of
learning, and how students, teachers and leaders had been involved in constructing
its institutional educational objects.

A FUTURE-ORIENTED VISION

The opening sequence of the 2015 interview provides strong testimony of how the
leadership group worked over time together with the staff to construct the school’s
identity, expanding basic values of teaching and learning, and ways of thinking
about and using technologies for learning. In the first years of the school’s existence,
the strong expectation that it would use ICT at all levels created internal and external
tensions and a heated organisational environment. At that time, and still, visitors
wanted to see and learn from the school, headlines in local newspapers and national
media debated ICT and how it would benefit student learning, and parents eagerly
followed how the school would best organise studies and teach their children.
During this turbulent period, the deeper conceptual meaning of the overarching
goal and vision for the school emerged. In 2015, Bold Minds Interacting [Dristige
hjerner i samspill], was still the school’s motto. It played a significant role in
leadership, organisational development, teaching and learning. The following
Excerpt 4 from the last interview with the school leaders makes the meaning of this
vision concrete.

107
T. E. HAUGE

Excerpt 4: The vision and values

1 Deputy head: The vision is very important for the school – for all of us, we are working
2 on it continually, and we want to show the outside world how important it is for our
3 education. The vision reflects creativity, boldness and innovation, and collaboration and
4 interaction between people working together.
5 Co-leader 1: The vision has grown in its meaning, and the values behind it are more than ever
6 being supported. Today, we really want to show these values to the outside world, and that we
7 are working on a sustainable perspective for preparing students for the changing world.
8 Principal: We – and the school – are changing in ways we did not foresee in 2010. The
9 world is changing and we have to rethink our approaches.
10 Principal: Our perspective of learning means a lot to us. It’s grounded in socio-cultural
11 theory. And – it’s a necessary contrast to the focus on technology. When the outside world
12 was pressing the school quite hard, we had to believe in our conception of learning and the
13 socio-cultural values behind it.

Excerpt 4 provides glimpses of the school’s vision and the role it played in school
management and leadership. The vision is associated with creativity, innovation,
collaboration and interaction (lines 1–4), sustainable education for a changing world
(lines 5–9) and a socio-cultural perspective on learning (lines 8–13). Excerpt 2 shows
leaders with a strong collective identity based on a shared vision that has evolved in
its meaning over the prior five years.

Changing Foreground of Technology and Learning

While in 2010 words such as ICT, technology tools, mobile learning devices, and
digital skills and competencies played an important role in school rhetoric, in
2015, discussions highlighted the values of a future-oriented school and learning
environment. In 2010, these values were stated institutionally, but remained in the
background compared with high-level technology practices. In 2015, there were no
questions about the legitimacy of digital technologies, either internally or externally.
Excerpt 5 of the leader interviews confirms this.
Excerpt 5 illuminates the shift in focus on the school’s conception of digital
technologies. ICT is no longer important in itself; it is subordinate to the learning
tasks of the study programs (lines 1–7). However, at the same time, a differentiated
picture of “new” technologies has emerged – ones that were new in 2010 have
become “old” and integrated into daily work solutions, and the newcomers in
2013–2015 (e.g., games) are still in the design phase of development (lines 8–12).
A critical and evolutionary perspective on technology application seems to be an
integrated part of the leadership philosophy (lines 13–14).

Leadership and Participation

Given strong expectations when the school began that it would make use of large-
scale ICT from the regional education authorities, the principal and the leader group

108
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Excerpt 5: A focus shift

1 Principal: We have finished the start-up phase. The external attention to the use of ICT
2 has changed. Internally, we have also changed – the IT-plan is no longer an important
3 theme of discussion. We talk about subject teaching, students’ learning and innovative
4 practices. Technology is not important in itself.
5 We are changing, not because of technology but because of changes in society. For
6 example, the importance of climate change – we have to respond to it. In such a
7 situation, the question of, for example, iPad implementation is not very interesting.
8 Co-leader 1: We are still working hard on the basic use of technology at all levels;
9 however, the work is aligned to the socio-cultural understanding of learning. We have
10 gotten used to some basic technology tools; now they are no longer visible at the same
11 level (e.g., Facebook), but new technologies are continually popping up (e.g., games),
12 and they require more attention to be used properly.
13 Principal: We have learned to ask critical questions about new technologies. It is a natural
14 process to ask how they can be applied to teaching and learning and redesigned for our purposes.

had a leadership mandate to implement technology. In 2015, reflecting on this start-

up situation, the leaders agreed that school leadership had changed from a top-down
to a bottom-up democratic leadership style. The teachers interviewed appreciated
this change. The following Excerpt 6 from the leader interview illuminates some of
important premises behind this approach.

Excerpt 6: Confidence and interaction

1 Co-leader 2: The technology has been a prerequisite for our school’s development. When
2 you use technology to share opinions and experiences across school levels, to talk with
3 experts outside school or with people in other countries, or when teachers and students are
4 writing together on the same Google document, something happens. The world is coming
5 quite near and is integrated into classroom activities.
6 Co-leader 4: It’s a strong culture of sharing at our school. We are used to share experiences,
7 documents and ideas with each other. It’s a culture of leadership. The technology supports
8 the sharing activities across levels – it goes fast. For example, because of immediate and
9 routine digital publishing of leader meetings, other people in the organisation can easily
10 read the decisions that are made.
11 Principal: Confidence between people is the main indicator of success to our school. We
12 have to work on it everyday, including students and parents.
13 Co-leader 2: Sharing, collaboration and interaction in our group make us feel safe and confident.
14 Co-leader 3: I am happy to be part of an organisation that is so open to the world, in which we
15 all together can make a contribution to our students, their learning and understanding of society.
16 I also appreciate that the school has such an open attitude toward the testing of new ideas and the
17 development of technological solutions as part of the work (e.g., the Green Innovation project).
18 Co-leader 5: What makes our school different from other schools? Here, we are allowed
19 and encouraged to engage in new projects, and also to create our own projects. In fact, we
20 are given freedom to develop the school further, and we are being listened to.
21 Principal: Our teachers have a very strong commitment to the school. They are proud of
22 what we are doing and they share our values, to a large degree.

109
T. E. HAUGE

Excerpt 6 shows how technology facilitates communication processes across

institutional levels and contexts and supports the sharing of ideas and experiences
(lines 1–5). The culture of sharing is also an important part of a management and
leadership style that contributes to confidence building between leaders and teachers
(lines 6–13). Notably, the school co-leaders expressed that the principal and the
group as a whole supported them in suggesting new projects, and that they feel they
are being listened to (lines 14–20). At the end of Excerpt 4, the principal emphasises
her experience that teachers seem to be proud of the school and that they identified
themselves with its way of working (lines 21–22).
Excerpt 6 and the interviews with teachers and leaders as a whole reflect a
dominant cultural pattern of school support for the values of confidence between
people and of participation and the sharing of ideas as important forces and objects
of management, leadership and institutional development. When discussing concrete
development activities, such as the Green Innovation and the School Media group
projects, teachers confirmed that the overarching ideas of leadership and development
meant a lot to them. Their work and initiatives were appreciated and supported from
above. “We are leading knowledge workers, well-educated people who need to be
respected and trusted as learners and developers of the school”, one of the co-leaders
said when interviewed. She then initiated a discussion of the school leader group’s
leadership style. Teachers in the above-mentioned groups and the co-leaders seem
to agree that the driving force for school development was the teacher community.
The role of the principal and the leader group had become to orchestrate and support
local initiatives in light of the school’s vision. The leader group concluded that the
leadership and school development approach had turned into a bottom-up approach
and had been more democratic in recent years.

DISCUSSION

While prior research on uptake and use of ICT in schools has underlined the
complexity of implementation and integration (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2016;
Lafferrière et al., 2013; Olofsson et al., 2011; Peled et al., 2011; Vanderlinde et al.,
2015), this study tells a more optimistic story. This study shows that it is possible to
implement ICT on a large scale in an educational institution as complex as an upper
secondary school. How was this possible?
The school began in 2010. In the second year of its existence, a wide range
of digital technologies and media were used on many levels, the teaching staff
comprised people with high-level digital competency, and the students were exposed
to a learning situation that involved the use of laptops. Compared with two other
upper secondary schools in Norway considered to be exemplary ICT users at that
time, this school expanded technology for teaching and learning on a wider level
(Hauge & Norenes, 2015). In 2015, the school was still operating with a high-level
use of ICT; digital technologies had become institutionalised at a deep level of
education and management; a differentiated perspective on technology had arisen;

110
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

and a shared vision of technological leadership in teaching and learning was guiding
development. What had been the driving forces of these developments?
Technology is not important in itself. The significant driver of school development
is learning and the way people conceptualise themselves as learners for the future.
This was the main message communicated by the school leaders and teachers when
they looked back on their school’s development history. However, a socio-cultural
conception of learning was also prominent in their descriptions of development being
connected to values supporting teacher and student participation, interaction, trust
and confidence; the sharing of ideas and experiences; and experimentation with new
practices. At the same time, both school leaders and teachers were very concerned
about how these values took shape in the everyday practices of their respective
communities and how they influenced students’ learning.
Figure 1 is an attempt to illustrate this conceptual interactivity between approaches
to learning and development. The three levels of community show the ecology of
activities constituted by the school’s student body, teaching staff and school leader
group. Together these communities form the school’s larger activity system and make
up its network of overlapping sub-systems of management, teaching and learning. In
particular, Figure 1 highlights the overlapping and interdependent functions of these
major school communities as they focus on a set of shared values and practices.

Figure 1. Tools for school leadership and development across community levels

111
T. E. HAUGE

Figure 1 illustrates how the school’s tool-community interactions in carrying out

activities can be perceived as an ecological entity. At the same time, it points to
the significant mediating tools for leadership and technology use, and for attaining
the object of school development. According to the analysis above, the tools also
signalled approaches to decision-making by and work distribution between teachers
and school leaders. While the vision of the school can be said to function as “the
horizon of possible actions” (cf. Engeström, 1999), we may conclude that the five
leadership tools – (1) learning, (2) sharing, (3) participation and interaction, (4)
trust and confidence and (5) experimentation – are the major driving forces for
school development and technology use. They are the ideational as well as material
concretisations (cf. Kaptelinen & Nardi, 2006) of the overall object of the school
leadership as they have evolved over time.
The complexity of ICT in education reflects the ever-changing technological
development of society. In this school, teachers and leaders were quite aware of
these rapid changes and had learned to adapt to them. Many of the discussions
about technology use in 2010–2012 were already out of date, and an ecological
understanding of technology and learning from a future-oriented perspective
dominated discussions in 2015. In Figure 2, this conceptual development is illustrated
by the shift in emphasis on the conceptions of technology and learning.

Figure 2. The changing position of technology and learning in the school over time

Figure 2 illustrates school’s situation in 2010 and at the end of 2015. This
study confirms the strong pressure in 2010 from regional education authorities for
ICT use by the school. Consequently, a large-scale uptake and use of technology
served as a baseline for the school’s survival. The school succeeded in utilizing
technologies on many levels during its history, and its legitimacy in the region as a
knowledgeable and highly competent organisation using technology in a complex
educational setting is unquestionable. However, it is worth noting changes in the
concept of technology during this period. By 2015, learning was emphasised more
than merely using technology. At the same time, the concept of technology itself
had grown more global, extending the concept of ICT that had been dominant in

112
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

2010. The many development projects run by the school since then with varying
approaches to technological application show the dynamism in the field and the
necessity of bringing learning to the foreground as an object of school development
and technology use.

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This study has shown that it is possible to implement new technological tools on a
large scale in a complex educational institution and to let technology become part
of the ecology of education and learning. These findings add to the body of research
emphasising that technologies must be seen as more than just tools; they shape
activities and require serious design planning to be used for teaching and learning.
Used properly, technologies shape new practices and conceptions of learning
(Kirschner, 2015; Selwyn, 2011; Säljö, 2010). Three main lessons from this study
can be drawn for large-scale technology reform, not only at the classroom level but
also at the institutional level.
Ecological design approach to leadership, teaching and learning: Technology
integration should be structured through the development of an ecological design
approach to leadership; technology use; and learning for students, teachers and
school leaders.
Development of a shared vision: Technological integration should be supported
through the development of a shared institutional vision of school leadership,
management, development and learning.
Development of tools for institutional learning: Technological implementation
and integration should be accompanied by the development of tools for institutional
learning and ensuring trust, confidence, participation and interaction across school
community levels. Transparency and the sharing of ideas and experiences between
individual teachers and school communities, as well as continuous experimentation
with innovative practices, are essential for development.
Consequently, scaling up technological reforms involves designing and
redesigning educational environments from a systemic and ecological perspective.
This work requires a deliberate policy to recruit and a development strategy that
includes digitally knowledgeable teachers.
The primary limitation of this study is its lack of a deeper investigation of classroom
interaction and student learning. However, many previous studies in this field have
confirmed that it is possible to design and develop rich learning environments
through the use of high-quality technologies on a small-scale level. The greater
problem arises when designing new practices at an institutional level. Learning how
small-scale use designs can be redesigned for use in a larger institutional context
remains a challenge for school leaders and education ministers. This study has made
a contribution to that understanding.

113
T. E. HAUGE

REFERENCES
Blackler, F., & Regan, S. (2009). Intentionality, agency, change: Practice theory and management.
Management Learning, 40(2), 161–176.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2016). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture:
The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/
s10639-015-9456-7
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the technology
landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 56–69.
Cox, M. (2008). Researching IT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of
information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 965–981). London, UK: Springer
Science+Business Media.
Cox, M. C. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: Research challenges and issues for e-learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 85–105.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Daniels, H., Edwards, E., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010). Activity theory
in practice. Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London, UK: Routledge.
Divaharan, S., & Ping, L. C. (2010). Secondary school socio-cultural context influencing ICT integration:
A case study approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 741–763.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström,
R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–39). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Erstad, O., & Hauge, T. E. (Eds.). (2011). Skoleutvikling og digitale medier. Kompleksitet, mangfold
og ekspansiv læring [School development and digital media. Complexity, diversity and expansive
learning]. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Hatlevik, O. E., Gudmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary
students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use
of information and digital competence. Computers & Education, 81, 345–353.
Foot, K. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: A case study in object formation and identification. Mind,
Culture and Activity, 9(2), 132–149.
Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O. (2015). Collaborative leadership development with ICT: Experiences
from three exemplary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(3), 340–364.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design.
Cambridge, MA & London, UK: MIT Press.
Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional
Science, 43(2), 309–322.
Lafferrière, T., Hamel, C., & Searson, M. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of technology
integration in educational settings: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 463–473.
Laurillard, D., Oliver, M., Wasson, B., & Hoppe, U. (2009). Implementing technology-enhanced learning.
In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced
learning: Principles and products (pp. 289–306). London, UK: Springer Science+Business Media.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review
of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, E. J., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., & Scherzer, R. (2011). Electronic portfolios in the classroom:
Factors impacting teachers’ integration of new technologies and new pedagogies. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 191–207.
Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, O. J., Fransson, G., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Uptake and use of digital
technologies in primary and secondary schools – A thematic review of research. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy, 6(4), 208–226.

114
 ON THE LIFE OF ICT AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: Change fatigue and knowledge insecurity influence
practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 427–439.
Peled, Y., Kali, Y., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). School principals’ influence on science teachers’ technology
implementation: A retrospective analysis. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(2),
229–245.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social
memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1),
53–64.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and expanding with activity theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searson, M., Lafferrière, T., & Nikolow, R. (2011, June). TWG 7: Barriers to successful implementation
of technology integration in educational settings. Paper presented at the meeting of the EDUSummIT,
Paris, France. Retrieved from http://whitelabel.kennisnet.nl/fileadmin/contentelementen/kennisnet/
EDUSummIT/Documenten/2011/7_EDUsummIT_2011_BarriersEssentials.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age. A critical analysis. London, UK: Routledge.
Sipilä, K. (2014). Educational use of information and communications technology: Teachers’ perspective.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 225–241.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT. Researching the art of education. London, UK:
Routledge.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Dexter, S. (2012). ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform:
Disentanglement of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers and Education, 58(4), 1339–1350.
Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & van Barak, J. (2015). Measuring ICT use and contributing conditions in
primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 1056–1063.
Voogt, J., & Knezek, G. (2008). International handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education. London, UK: Springer Science+Business Media.
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, D., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does
ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(1), 4–14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analysing evidence of
equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.
Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (2003). Designing for change in networked learning
environments. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Trond Eiliv Hauge is professor at Department of

teacher education and school research, University of
Oslo, Norway. His key research interests are teacher
education, school leadership, school development,
ICT and learning. Current research and development
activities are school leadership and digital learning
environments, and designing for teaching and learning.

115
 TARJA TIKKANEN

7. A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST

INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
IN LEARNING AND TEACHING AT AN
UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL

“[T]here is no quick fix” that will make schools “arrive on an equal footing
when it comes to the integration of ICT ”.
 (Tømte, Hovdhaugen, & Solum, 2009, p. 25)

INTRODUCTION

This article presents a case study from one upper-secondary school, analyzing a
small-step development strategy to intensify integration of digital technology in
learning and teaching in the school. As all schools in Norway, also this one has
gradually increased their pedagogic use of the new artefacts, digital tools and
media, in the classrooms, with an ultimate goal to facilitate and promote learning
among pupils. In practice, however, the change has shown to be slow in terms of
introducing new pedagogic approaches. Furthermore, the effects on learning are far
from unproblematic to measure. The new initiative taken in the upper secondary
school presented here aimed at addressing these challenges. A small-step strategy
was adopted to boost digitalizing of the school. The means to this end was to start a
fully digital class, where all teaching methods and learning materials in each subject
where only digital. This plan was fully in line with the National Curriculum for
Knowledge Promotion (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006) regarding digital
competence, as well as the requirement for pupils and teachers to use ICT across all
school subjects at all levels of school, in order to meet curriculum competence aims
(Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2012).
The initiative was organized as a three-year experiment, here called the Digital
Class (DC). The idea was that the project, limited by time and number of participants,
would help to gain valuable insight, experiences and competence, later to be used to
expand the fully digital teaching and learning to the whole school. Furthermore, the
team of the teachers involved in the DC were to become facilitators, internal trainers,
to guide learning and competence development among their colleagues. Thus, the
idea was that the small-step strategy would gradually lead to full integration of
digital technology and media into the teaching and learning practices at the school.
This article describes the process and outcomes two and a half years into the DC.

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 117–135.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
T. TIKKANEN

Besides the national educational policy (see introduction to this section of the
book), the DC was linked to a strategic educational priority 2011–2014, information
and communication technology (ICT), and digital school sub-strategy for the same
period in upper secondary schools by the local educational authorities. These strategic
priority areas provide important signposts to the schools, dealing with quality of both
processes and performance. The institutional strategies at schools’ and their local
action plans are to be lined with these strategies. Thus, the policies “trickle down”
to the institutions, which again incorporate them into their institutional policies,
the idea being that the focus on and interest in ICT will finally “spill over” to an
individual level (Tømte, Hovdhaugen, & Solum, 2009, p. 24). The ICT-strategy in
the county comprised of digital competence, use of digital teaching aids, as well as
routines and tools related to these.
The closer to the pupils the means to digitalizing schools come, the more visible
becomes the issue of teachers’ digital competence. The latter is central in this case
study, along with an organizational learning perspective. Digital competence is
defined as one of the core skills in the Norwegian educational system (Ministry
of Education and research, 2006). Nevertheless, while infrastructure is good, the
use of digital tools in teaching and learning is low by teachers and pupils, and in
international comparison school leaders are less concerned about adjusting for
teachers’ competence (Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2014;
Ottestad, 2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study
(ICILS) 2013 showed that in Norway:
• learning quality could be better and more evenly shared,
• teachers have positive attitudes towards pedagogical use of digital tools, but have
shortage of competence,
• pupils are digitally experienced, but the experiences come mainly from homes
and are predominantly related to use of digital media during leisure,
• a future challenge is to create a school that incorporates digital tools in their daily
practice and with a better quality in learning (Fraillon et al., 2014; Ottestad, 2014).
The paper is structured into six main parts. After describing some conceptual
starting points, research method will be briefly explained. The third section describes
the small-step strategy in terms of the implementation of the DC experiment in the
school. In the fourth section the outcomes of the project are presented relative to the
DC project goals. The fifth section is a discussion, building on the assessment of the
project by the Project Leader and the conceptual framework. The chapter closes by
some tentative conclusions.

CONCEPTUAL STARTING POINTS

When implementing a small-step strategy, as opposed to a large-scale, comprehensive

strategy (Elstad and Hauge, this volume), the micro-circumstances on the level of
the classroom gain in importance on the side of institutional factors. Table 1 outlines

118
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

the framework used in this study to understand the small-step strategy implemented
in the case school (the School from here on). Literature on change in schools provide
guidance in implementing change, but also suggests that there is no set recipe for
change (Tearle, 2004). Key concepts and elements adopted in this study to understand
the implementation are competence, support, ownership, learning culture, and
leadership. Thus, the framework suggests a scaffolding to integration of technology
in the school (Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005). It builds largely on the broad
scholarly work on learning organizations, including informal learning on the context
of work, and to some extent on change management. Besides the author’s long-
term engagement in these themes (e.g. Tikkanen, 2002, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2006),
literature has been reviewed and synthetized from many other scholars addressing
schools in the field of organizational learning, development and leadership (e.g.
Cibulka, Coursey, Nakayama, Price, & Stewart, 2000; Giles & Hargreaves, 2006;
Liljenberg, 2015; Silins & Mulford, 2004), workplace learning and communities of
practice (e.g. Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004), as well as change management and
ICT in schools (e.g. Tearle, 2004), just to name a few.

Table 1. Central scaffolds to technology integration in learning and teaching

through a small-step strategy

Factor Description

Competence Teachers need to have solid pedagogical, digital and subjects-related

competence.
Support Various sources. Technical, administrative, financial support and flexible
person resources, as well as collegial support.
Ownership On the side of anchoring a change process in the institutional strategy, a
collective ownership of the goal and process is needed for a successful
implementation gradually (small-step).
Learning culture Organizational learning culture is a necessary foundation for
implementing a change and for rooting the change into the
organizational narrative.
Leadership Dedication and devotion to, and leadership of the change process by
the top- and middle-management is necessary. Besides back-up and
support, they can provide direction and guidance as needed, as well as
safeguarding legitimacy in and prestige of the effort.

As described in several articles in this volume and elsewhere, teachers are just one
factor among many others in implementing change in schools. However, in the case
described here, where focus is on a level of class of pupils, teachers’ competence,
indeed, may make it or break it. This aspect is part of a closely related but more
processual concept teachers’ professional development, emphasizing schools as
learning organizations (Senge, 1990) and teachers’ development through strong

119
T. TIKKANEN

learning communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) with opportunities for
and culture of informal workplace learning and growth in collaboration (Argyris &
Schön, 1978; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Giles & Hargreaves,
2006; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004; Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005; Tikkanen,
2005a, 2006). Regardless of the long-term focus on educational technology, a big
challenge still today is that teacher education does not sufficiently prepare their
students with skills and competence to pedagogical use of digital tools and media
to promote learning at schools (Krumsvik, 2011; Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005).
Thus, providing development opportunities for teachers’ competence in this area
is an important success factor to integrating new technology to schools. Teachers’
pedagogical, digital and subject-related competence is crucial for success in
learning facilitation among pupils. Besides these elements, the model Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK-model) by Harris, Mishra and Koehler
(2009) underlines the importance of teachers’ skillfulness in negotiating the
relationships between these three, and this, as emphasized by Staples, Pugach and
Himes (2005), by using technology in the service of the curriculum. Teacher’s digital
competence has been defined as their “proficiency in using ICT in a professional
context with good pedagogic-didactic judgment and (…) [their] awareness of its
implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of pupils and students”
(Krumsvik, 2011, pp. 44–45). Among different definitions of digital competence, this
one is useful for the purpose of this study as it focuses on teachers’ professional and
pedagogical use of ICT, thereby distinguishing them from other users (Røkenes &
Krumsvik, 2016). Furthermore, a core in this definition is continuous reflection among
individual teachers as well as collectively at schools. Thus, it both presupposes and
supports schools as learning organizations, in a process of continuous development,
largely pushed forward by the rapid development of technology.
Systematic support mechanisms need to be in place at school and resources
available for teachers in the classroom in order to the technology implementation
to succeed (Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005; Tearle, 2004). Financial and technical
support are crucial. Availability of additional person resources and their flexible use
is often also necessary, especially in planning phase and early in the implementation
process. Administrative and collegial support are central, too (Elstad, 2008; Hauge,
2011; Tearle, 2004).
The existence of an institutional strategy does not guarantee that a teacher
collegium will build a shared vision about (Hauge, this book) or a joint ownership
to a change process, but without a strategy the likelihood of the latter two is smaller.
A shared ownership means a shared language about and a shared discourse on
the change process. The former two are necessary for rooting the change into the
organizational narrative, the narratives members of an organization are telling about
the organization (Vedøy, 2011). These narratives constitute collective interpretations
of the organization (Wertsch, 2012), in this case of “our school”, i.e. the school’s
identity.

120
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

There is solid body of literature showing that development and change are easier
in organizations characterized by strong learning culture (Cibulka et al., 2000;
Liljenberg, 2015). As shown by Hauge (this book), adult learning is a significant
driver of school development. Teacher identities, which also incorporate strong
learner identities, pave way for development of learning culture in schools. In a
strong learning culture, continuous change and development, at their best, turn into a
need. In a weak learning culture, change and development may easily be interpreted
as ‘more work’ or even as a threat.
Even if not an easy task in a changing landscape of technologies, the role of school
leadership in school development and implementing technology-related change
cannot be over-emphasized (Hauge, 2011). Change in school rarely succeeds without
management and leadership if educational aims and objectives are to be met (Tearle,
2004). There is a mutual dependency of administrators and teachers in bringing
about change, an operational feature in a school organization (Elstad, 2008), whether
the change is implemented as top-down or bottom-up. Besides direction, support and
prestige, it is school leaders, who must secure that the focus in the implementation
is on the object of change, here digitalizing of the school. As pointed out by Erstad
and Hauge (2011, p. 237), it is the object that gives the drive and direction to the
development work to be carried out, at the same time concretizing the content that
work. Furthermore, leadership of a learning organization calls for an approach
emphasizing development, learning and challenging rather than management, quick
solutions and confirming (Liljenberg, 2015).

METHODOLOGY

The school’s participation in the research project L-21, was a result of the DC.
The DC was a planned to be a three-year project. The data collection for this study
took place about two and half years into the process. Thus, this is a cross-sectional
case study. It aims to an in-depth understand of the technology integration process
primarily through a retrospective account and reflections of a single informant, the
project leader, and secondary through a document analysis (Creswell, 1994).
The case study builds on information from interviews, documentation and the
school’s website. The author carried out three interviews, all with one informant, the
DC Project Leader. The interviews were informal and unstructured (Merriam, 1998).
The first interview took place face-to-face at the School early in November 2015, and
focused on understanding the plan for and implementation of the small-step strategy.
The first draft of the article was written based on the notes from the interview. The
draft was then sent to the Project Leader for a member check and commentary. After
receiving the comments, the author carried out the second interview in January 2016,
this time via Skype. This interview aimed at deepening and further specifying the
description in the first draft, as well as gathering further information of the learning
outcomes. Little of the latter was available at that time. The third interview, which

121
T. TIKKANEN

was a telephone interview in April 2016, focused on the goal achievement (Table 2).
Policy and strategy documents – planning documents and annual reports – by the
local school authority and from the School provided additional information sources.
Access to these and some additional materials, such as a project presentation (a pdf-
file), were granted by the Project Leader. Finally, the School’s website has been used
as a source for broader information about the school.
The textual description here is constructed based on the notes that the author made
when interviewing the Project Leader. Member checks (respondent validation), by
presenting the text after the first and the second interview to the informant, were
carried out for authenticity of the description, i.e. to improve its accuracy, credibility
and transferability (Creswell, 1994). Later in the chapter, a few direct quotes from
the second interview are presented. The interviews were partly carried out in English,
partly in Norwegian. The Norwegian notes have been translated into English by the
author.
The description presents the DC experiment predominantly with the eyes of the
Project Leader. This choice was made because – as described later in this article –
the planning and implementation of the project at the school ended up being limited
to the particular full digital classes and teachers involved in it. The experiment
became ownership of the digital class team only. Middle-management as well as
the teacher collegium were regularly informed about the situation in the DC, and
the head-master was providing support when the project team specifically requested
for it. However, there appears to have been little active interest and involvement in
following up the DC by the school leadership or by other teachers.

THE SMALL-STEP STRATEGY

Let us start with one class. That is not insurmountable. We shall have just one
group of teachers, sharing a joint goal. That would make it easier to gather
valuable learning experiences. We were hoping to find out whether this could
be something that could, little by little, be implemented in the whole school.
This section describes first the project goals for the DC and, second, the
implementation plan. In the third part the school context, teacher collegium and
the DC team are presented. The rest of the section describes pupils participating in
the project, the role of school administration and leadership in the DC, and finally
briefly the school’s infrastructure and digital resources and materials used in the DC.

Goals for the Digital Class Project

The aim in fully digitalizing the learning and teaching methods and materials in the
class was not the technology itself (Salomon, this volume), but better learning and
learning conditions for the pupils (Elstad, this volume). The DC team set the goals
for the project based on the three main areas of the ICT-strategy in education defined

122
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

by the local school authorities: (i) digital competence, (ii) use of digital teaching
aids, and (iii) routines and tools. In line with these, they specified seven working
goals/sub-goals for the DC (Table 2).

Table 2. Project goals for the digital class (DC) and outcomes measurement

Sub-goals Measurement

1. To strengthen pupils’ digital skills within a A survey of digital skills at the beginning
broad area. and the end of a school year.
2. To contribute to development of best Experience-based assessment and feedback
practice by using digital teaching aids/ to the pupils.
working methods within every subject and
on their premises.
3. To contribute to better learning of the Compare the grades in the first year (VG1)
subjects by using digital working methods. between the DC and the other classes.
4. To contribute to a better class-environment National annual pupil-survey and a survey
by using digital working methods. to all classes.
5. To contribute to bringing teaching at school A classroom study.
closer to pupils’ digital daily round.
6. To contribute to develop teachers’ skills A survey and annual developmental talks.
and competence in teaching and classroom
leadership by using digital teaching
methods.
7. To contribute to exchange of experiences The participating team, the DC-team, shall
and dissemination of skills and competence share their knowledge and experiences
within the collegium by regular exchange with their non-participating colleagues in
of information and experiences from the the subject-teams and on a plenum, e.g. on
project. planning days or on joint meetings. Reports
from the team-meetings will be made
available on the it’sLearning platform.

Only digital learning materials and teaching methods were to be used in these
classes, in all subjects and by all teachers. An important goal set for the pupils was
that they would learn digital skills without the use of technology being separated
from the subject content and -learning. An example of this was a project where the
pupils made video recordings, where they tell about the parallel processes of their
use of technology and learning in the subjects. Another learning goal for the pupils
was better subject knowledge by the help of fully digital teaching methods and
learning materials. The aim was to compare the learning outcomes in each subject,
measured as school marks, between the partially digital (non-DC classes) and fully
digital classes at the School.
Besides advancing the classroom practice by using only digital working methods
and learning materials, an idea behind the experiment was to find about the best

123
T. TIKKANEN

practice when it comes to the use of digital resources and digital working methods.
Furthermore, the pupils were to develop their skills both as “consumers” and
“producers” of digital contents. At the same time the working methods were to
be adjusted to each of the subjects. The framework for the work would be set by
the contents for each subject, the didactic principles behind each subject and the
distinctive characteristics of the tasks.
One of the goals was culturally oriented: to bridge the gap between the two digital
realities, the school’s rather traditional educational culture, partially digitalized,
and the culture of the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), where digital tools and
social media dominate much of the pupils’ everyday life and their ways to process
information.
Two of the project goals (Table 2) were related to teachers’ digital competence.
All teachers had basic digital competence, albeit to a varying degree. Along with
using only digital learning materials and teaching methods in the DC, the teachers
in the DC team would develop further their digital competence in teaching and
classroom leadership. Besides developing their own digital competence, the DC
team was also aiming at sharing their experiences, as well as knowledge and skills
gained in the project, with their non-participating teacher colleagues at the school.
The DC team members were to become internal agents, who could help other
teachers in their classes with their competence development. Thus, competence
development was planned to take place through informal and non-formal workplace
learning (Fenwick, 2010; Tikkanen, 2005a, 2005b, 2006; Van Woerkom & Poell,
2010). However, the teachers had also an option to request access to formal training,
such as external courses and, if needed. During the project the Project Leader signed
in as a student to take a master’s degree in ICT in learning. Later, however, he had
to temporally terminate the studies due to the heavy overall work-load due to DC
project leadership.
As Table 2 shows, a plan for measurement of the project outcomes was also
made. The main issue in the DC, pupils’ learning outcomes, are not covered in this
study. This was because the results were not available for this study. At the time of
the second interview, the final grades for the first DC had just become available.
However, the comparisons across the classes had not yet been made by the Head of
the Department in charge of these, nor were the results available at the time of the
third interview.

The Implementation Plan

The plan was to carry out an experiment of a fully digital class for three consequent
years, each year on the first grade only. The reason for the latter was that after a
more generally oriented first grade, all pupils in the upper-secondary schools in
Norway will have to make a choice for half of their subjects for the second and third
year. Consequently, when the pupils continued to the second and third grade, they
were back in an ordinary, partially digital class. They were no longer being taught

124
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

with only digital methods or studying using only digital learning materials. Figure 1
illustrates the DC plan.

Figure 1. Plan for the three-year fully digital class experiment and reality in the
beginning of the third year 2015: The experiment was terminated

The DC team chose a timeframe of three-year for the implementation. It would be

long enough to find about the results for the first DC class by the time they completed
the upper secondary school, and compare these with the results in the partially digital
classes. Also, within that timeframe, all three digital classes would have completed
the first year in upper secondary school. In principle, the timeframe also allowed for
comparisons of the learning outcomes across the three digital classes.

The School, Teacher Collegium and the DC Team

The school was a large upper secondary school with about 540 students and about
50 teachers. The school provides several study choices for the pupils. Between
2013–2015 fully digital class was one of these. All the classes were partially digital,
but there was great variation in the degree of use of digital teaching methods and
learning materials.
All teachers at the school, interested in the idea of DC, had a possibility to
participate in the project. However, it soon turned out that most of the teachers were
little pleased with the idea of establishing a DC and opposed it. They were afraid
that they would not feel confident in teaching situations, i.e. that they would find
themselves in situations which they would not master/have command for (Tearle,
2004). School leaders did not appear to try actively to intervene in the discussions
and concerns at the start, nor facilitate the attitudes of the teachers. Thus, they did
not seem to play a dynamic and helping role in making the DC project a shared
experiment with collective ownership. Consequently, only limited number of

125
T. TIKKANEN

voluntary teachers were involved in the DC project. The team consisted of not only
those with strong devotion to digital learning environment and methods, but also
teachers with different interest, curious enough to be part of the DC project.
Thus, a group of enthusiastic teachers, who had very positive attitudes towards
digital tools and media in education, and who were eager and motivated to make a
change, started the DC project. None of the teachers in the team had prior experience
with fully digital learning environments and -practice. The teachers in the School
had observed that many students struggled with their digital competence. The
early discussions in the team were about resources and ramifications concerning
implementation of the DC. The project-team worked tightly together, starting from
a two-days’ planning workshop outside the school. The latter was very successful,
also helping the team members to learn to know each other better, not least their
skills and digital competence. The teacher, who initiated the project, became Project
Leader. During the project, the team held weekly meetings, where they discussed
both the issue of teachers’ competence and the project progress and outcomes. In
line with the plan, they informed their non-participating colleagues in the meetings
of subject-teams and on plenum, e.g. on planning days or on joint meetings.

Pupils in the Digital Class(es)

Establishing of the digital-class study choice was advertised to potential new

pupils to the School. Thus, the pupils chose to attend the digital-class out of their
own interests, voluntary. A total of five parallel first classes started when the DC
experiment started in the autumn 2013. As described above, only one of these was
chosen as the first DC. The reasons were, first, the modest interest among schools
teachers to join the DC experiment and, second, the high costs related to running
the class. The idea was that attending the fully digital first class, would later benefit
learning also in the second and the third grades, where school work was only partially
digitalized.
There were 27 pupils starting the first year of DC, 15 boys and 12 girls. The
second year the number was almost the same, 26 pupils (Figure 1). However, gender
balance was more skewed than the first year: only nine girls started at the DC the
second year. Opposite to the plan, no DC was started the third year. We will discuss
the reasons to this later in the chapter.

The Role of Administration and School Leadership

The school administration and management were strongly involved in the decision
to establish the DC. Also during the implementation, they provided good backup
and help to the team, when they signalized a need for this. In the beginning of the
DC the school’s principal was rather newly appointed. A well-functioning line of
communication secured a continuous information flow with regular updates from the
bottoms-up. The Project Leader had weekly meetings with his superior, Head of the

126
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Department, who again had weekly meetings with his superior, the principal. Thus,
the DC team got good support from the school leadership to the implementation
of the small-step strategy to intensify the integration of digital technology into the
schools’ pedagogy, into learning and teaching. Consequently, the early start of the
DC was unproblematic and the team got a good deal of freedom to act and arrange
the DC upon their choosing. The Project Leader experienced it very positively that
he had a good deal of power to control the project and access to it by the outsiders.

Infrastructure and Digital Tools and Learning Materials

Most of the digital resources – tools and the necessary infrastructure – were already
in place when the DC project started. Additional investments were an Apple-TV in
the classroom, apps to the pupils’ iPads, and a license to the digital textbooks. All
learning materials, in every subject were digital. Ordinary textbooks were replaced
by digital books. The latter were to be exact copies of ordinary books and to be used
by all the teachers participating in the DC.

FROM ENTHUSIASM TO SURRENDER IN FRONT OF

CHALLENGES IN THE CLASSROOM

In this section the focus is on the implementation of the DC plan and the project
outcomes. By the time of the interviews, the project had progressed midways to
its third and final year (Figure 1). However, only two of the three planned fully
digital first classes had been implemented. After the second year, a decision was
made to drop the last, the third digital class, planned to be started in 2015 (Figure 1).
The project was prematurely terminated. What happened? The presentation, which
roughly follows the project goals, to the extent activities in regards these had been
registered, tries to answer this question.

Pupils’ Learning and Digital Competence

The DC aimed at two outcomes in regards learning among pupils: that they would
strengthen their digital skills and achieve better learning results in each subject.
When it comes to the latter (sub-goal 3, Table 2), the results from the follow-up
of the marks and their comparisons were not available for this study. Nor was the
Project Leader aware if all the students participated in the survey at the end of the
first grade(s). When it comes to digital skills, they were measured in and compared
between the fully and partially digital classes in the beginning of the project
(baseline). The results showed that the pupils in the digital class actually had poorer
digital competence than those in partially digital first grades. There was no clear
explanation for why this was the case. While contingencies may have influenced the
result, part of the explanation could have been the fact that the pupils in the digital
class had a great interest in the digital, but less so in the academic work, as it soon

127
T. TIKKANEN

turned out. The self-assessment of the digital competence among many of the pupils
was much more positive that what it was by the school’s measures, even if it was
high in some specific areas. This was the situation both in the first and the second
year digital class. As a rule, the pupils could have well-developed skills in playing
games, but very little of the digital-technical competence. Thus, by marking one
class as a digital class, the School seemed to have attracted a particular group of
pupils. Later in the project, the DC team learned, on the one hand, that many pupils,
especially the boys, were dedicated gamers. Girls, on the other hand, were interested
in learning to blog and to get competence in social media. They were hoping to be
able to make it their living, their profession.

“Best practice” and better class-environment by using digital teaching aids and
working methods. The development of best practice (Table 2) was to be measured
through experience-based assessment and feedback to the pupils. The assessment
comprised of evaluation of the student assignments in terms of learning they
indicated, resulting sometimes but not always to feedback to the pupils. Assessments
were done along the course of the DC, more during the first than the second digital
class.
The project team learned some lessons in the direction of “best practice”, in the
sense that some approaches worked better than others. The most important one was
the awareness and knowledge of when to use digital tools and when to limit their use
in the class. The background here was that pupils used PC and tablet PC to various
distraction. Adopting the “best practice” led to a positive development of the pupils’
understanding and use of digital learning aids. As a consequence, during the spring
term it was possible to implement more demanding and complex projects with the
students. However, instead of giving up distraction and entertainment during the
lessons, they started to use smart phones to this end. They were simply easier to hide
under the desks, beyond teachers’ eyes.
The development of learning environment in the class (sub-goal 4, Table 2) was
to be measured with the help of the annual, national pupil surveys. Results of these
were not available to the study.

Challenges with classroom management – the focus moves off from the DC and
teaching and learning per se. A classroom study was to be carried out in each digital
class to measure the effects of using only digital tools and learning and teaching
methods at school on bridging the gap of the digital cultures in the school and among
pupils. It was unclear whether the classroom study was carried out. However, the
DC project was reaching out towards the pupils’ digital daily round by using a lot of
social media, especially facebook, with them and among them in the school work.
This had clear effects within some subjects. For example, in the English language
a good connection and communication was developed between the pupils and the
teacher. Indeed, many more pupils participated in the discussions than what would

128
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

have been the case in the classroom. Teachers in other subjects made corresponding
observations. Use of social media made it also easier to send messages to students of
other things than those related to school subjects, and much easier than by using the
learning management system (LMS) used at the school. It turned out that the LMS
was not an integrated part of the pupils’ daily round, their ‘digital culture’, as social
media was. Through the latter information comes to you instantly, while with the
latter one needs to make an effort to specifically search for this information.
According to the Project Leader, the decision to prematurely terminate the DC
was not directly related to the DC experiment and arrangements around it. At least
partly it was affected by the difficulties faced during the second year digital class, the
“several other things that were happening at the school” that took the focus off the
DC. These were contingencies of social nature, primarily a challenging mix of the
students. Many pupils had big psychosocial challenges, such as with their learning
motivation and concentration, among others. These caused big challenges to teachers
leading learning activities and to classroom management. As a consequence, some
of the DC team members started to look for other jobs. Two of the teachers from
the DC team had left the school, one of them to teacher training at the regional
University College.

Teachers’ Competence

When the DC started, digital competence was not an issue. All participating teachers
were considered to possess the competence necessary to run the DC. Yet, two of
the project goals underlined the development of teachers’ digital competence.
Implementing the DC lead to a good deal of learning among the team members, for
better and worse. Their digital competence received a new boost in a fully digitalized
learning environment. The team managed to create a dynamic, supportive learning
culture and environment amongst themselves. Participation in the project challenged
their pedagogical practice, pushing to rethinking of it. The development of teachers’
digital competence was to be followed up by a survey. The survey was not carried
out. However, teachers’ digital competence was part of the annual developmental
talks, as competence in general is always a theme in these.
One of the goals was to build digital competence among the DC participants and
through their change-agency share it and promote the learning among their non-
participating teacher colleagues. All the minutes of the DC team meetings were
made available on the teachers’ site on the school’s LMS, as were different articles
and information about other resources that the team was using – and learning from.
However, sharing experiences on plenum did not happen.
Yet, several issues in the DC implementation and its outcomes point to major –
indeed, insurmountable – challenges exactly and primarily with teachers’ competence.
Majority of the teacher collegium was resistant towards a fully digital class to begin
with, the experiment was prematurely terminated, and two of the teachers in the

129
T. TIKKANEN

project team had left the school before the planned completion of the project. There
was no systematic competence follow-up built in the project.
This is where we failed most.
According to the Project Leader, it would have been possible, but it just did not
happen. In the second interview the Project Leader himself raised the question
of whether the project team really had the necessary pedagogical and didactic
competence to carry out the DC experiment.
What turned out to be the case was that many [teachers] continued to apply
traditional, ‘analogical’ pedagogy in the classroom. The digital context within
the digital tools were tuned down on the grounds that the digital shall not be
emphasized at the expense of the subject knowledge.
This suggests that the teachers’ competence – digital and otherwise – in the DC team
may not have been much beyond the level to allow them (to continue to) use ICT as a
tool as opposed to truly integrate ICT, in the sense of changing strategies for learning
and using digital technology to this end (Hetland & Solum, 2008, p. 37).
The great freedom of the team to plan and implement the DC and the Project
Leader’s power to control the project, although positively received, turned against
their good intentions.
In retrospection, my needs [in regards the implementation of the DC] were not
strong enough. We should have had some rounds with competence development
for the teachers who were involved and needed in [but had left] the project. We
should have had a different dialogue of [competence development] than what
we did.
In the third interview, the Project Leader, ascertain that he has “learned more about
the project by reading about it [the second member check] than when in it” i.e.
when implementing it. By that time he has developed a clearer view on competence
development as a success factor. He now underscores the missing formal competence
development and the fact that the team only relied on experience-based learning, as
major shortcomings in the project: “the teachers should have participated in some
formal digital competence development on the side of the practice-based learning”.
Thus, the findings suggest that while practice-based learning is important – indeed,
necessary – on the context of digital competence it can be very time-consuming
and ineffective method for professional development, if the basic foundational
knowledge and skills are weak or missing.

Practical Challenges with Availability of the Digital Learning Resources

There were some practical issues, which caused unexpected challenges to the
DC implementation. First, some teachers experienced it problematic that students
brought their own device in the classroom. Second, the learning materials and

130
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

their providers caused further challenges. The digital textbooks were not ready
the first year with interactive functions, nor were their contents as promised. As a
consequence, the school had to pay extra to have the contents as they wanted to have
them. The publishing house to provide digital textbooks, had informed the school
that analogical and digital books would be exactly similar by their content and
layout. This turned out to be misinformation and caused a good deal of frustration
in the daily work of the teachers during the first year. During the second year, these
types of troubles were much smaller, and the DC team had a better overview of
what was available on the market. Nevertheless, digital books for mathematics and
foreign languages were abandoned during the second year. Teachers felt that they
do not have control over pupils’ use of tablet PCs. During the first year, most of
the pupils used the full digital books. Some pupils in some subjects did complain
for high amount of screen-time and, therefore, were allowed to only use analogue
books. However, as remarked by the Project Leader, screen-time appeared never to
be a problem with mobile device and social media, nor with TV.

DISCUSSION

Not much has happened… But we have gained some experience about
digitalizing of the school. (Teacher/Project Leader)
The study has shown that, while the DC plan was ambitious, marking a small-step
strategy to digitalize the School and to bring their learning and teaching on the 21st
century, its implementation failed. There are many existing examples of successful
small-scale design for rich learning environments with high-quality technologies
(Hauge, this book). What were the issues causing the DC experiment to fail?
The school had a very good digital infrastructure. There were some problems and
frustrations with the digital learning materials in the beginning of the project. Other
than that, the study revealed no technical-practical challenges in the implementation,
nor with the general support system at the school. The biggest challenges that emerge
from the data relate to teachers’ competence, project ownership, leadership, and the
schools learning culture (Table 1). In the following, these are discussed in more
details.
An interesting question that the study raises is to what extent the DC team fell
in the same “trap” as their pupils, overestimating their competence to implement
the full digital class and the DC experiment? Correspondingly, to what extent may
they have underestimated, or been unaware of the role of solid pedagogical and
digital competence in implementing a demanding project like the DC? Whether
the competence challenge was related to their proficiency in using ICT with good
pedagogic-didactic judgement (Krumsvik, 2011) or their overall pedagogic and
digital competence (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009), is hard to say based on the data
used in this study. The case study by Staples, Pugach and Himes (2005) concluded
that preparing schools for technology integration is a complex issue, necessitating

131
T. TIKKANEN

a “stewardship” where “teachers and principals must always juggle multiple levels
of professional development and expertise, moving back and forth between the
technology itself and the curriculum” (p. 306). An additional competence element of
great importance here is project management and leadership. While the project goals
were thought thru, the expected outcomes were much less so.
We should have thought much more thoroughly what kind of results we could
expected from the project. These were never systematized, nor evaluated.
These became very vague, both in terms of the competence of pupils and
teachers. There is a lot to learn from this project.
From the perspective of a small-step strategy, the project ownership was problematic
from the start. The DC never become an ownership of the whole school. The DC
team had “no particular prestige” invested in the project. They all did it because
they were interested in it, and only because of that. According to the Project Leader,
while the teacher collegium has high respect to each others’ work, most teachers at
the school did not even notice (register) the project, because they were not involved
in it. Though, they were kept informed about it. However, as long as it “did not
disturb” their way of running their daily work at school, they did not pay attention
to it. “They forgot about it.”
The DC started in 2013 as the School’s project, backed strongly by the school
administration, but by 2015 it ended up being a “pet project” of the teachers in the
DC team, especially the Project Leader.
This has been a personally-driven project. We did not manage to institutionalize
the project. This is what we need to do, if we want to be successful over time.
It is important to keep in mind that the DC was not the only initiative taken at the
school to take their learning on the 21st Century. All teachers worked with digital
forms of teaching. Yet, while digital learning resources are available and used to
some extent, by some teachers, it is the traditional textbooks, which still are most
used for teaching and learning. When the pressure gradually increases, also from
outside the school (media, parents, etc.), less and less teachers can simply ignore to
take digital learning resources in use. This creates ownership to the “digital project”
at the school, as the Project Leader reasoned it.
That the DC project did not succeed, does not necessarily mean that the School’s
learning culture was weak. However, the low collective interest in – indeed the
resistance of – the new initiative and little proactive support by and involvement
of the leadership, speak on behalf of that. More focus on creating joint acceptance
and ownership, might have contributed to the digital process becoming a part of
the school’s identity – part of the school’s narrative (Vedøy, 2011), potentially
strengthening a positive circle. It would have been easier to focus on competence
development and to get teachers’ and parents’ support on the full digital class
concept. In retrospection, in the second interview the Project Leader, ascertain that
“this [ownership] is a precondition for success”.

132
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Besides competence, the Project Leader relates the problems with the DC to two
main issues, communication and leadership. On the one hand, communication in
the project team and between the Project Leader and the rest of the team, while
unproblematic, was not optimal. On the other hand, the low involvement of, loose
follow-up and apparent unclear expectations by the school leadership, lead to a
situation where support from administration was not there, when the project team
would have needed it. Nor seemed the leadership play an active role in building
shared ownership around the DC. The case study by Staples, Pugach and Himes
(2005) suggests that teacher leadership is as important factor as the leadership from
the principal, largely because the latter seldom possesses the required technology
expertise to guide and inform the technology integration.
The DC team did gain valuable learning experiences in and from the project.
Indeed, the DC project, again, showed that change provides positive learning
opportunities – even if not successful as such – but that change takes time, and
makes demands on people (Tearle, 2004, p. 348). As the project, nevertheless, was
prematurely terminated, an important question is, how will the experiences gained
be made use of in future development of digitalizing of the School? At the time of
the first interview the Project Leader was positive to the future of the DC.
The teachers left in the DC team, need to sit down with the school
management to discuss thoroughly what to do with the DC project. We need
to get this [full digital class] back as a school’s project, on the management’s
lead…
Three months later, he was less optimistic. The discussion with the school
management ended up being a quick chat in a hallway. It appeared that the school
leadership had challenges of their own. The timing was poor to take up the DC, an
unsuccessful attempt. It would be “too much for them to take responsibility for [it]
now. Maybe later…”.

CONCLUSIONS

This was a case study carried out on one school, based on one experiment with
two full digital classes. However, some tentative conclusions can be made. First,
national and local strategies are of limited help as long as schools do not have
their own implementation strategies and concrete action plans. Secondly, boosting
the development of full digital school – to the extent that is desirable – will only
succeed to the extent we succeed in providing opportunities for competence
and professional development to teachers and school leaders. Sufficient digital,
pedagogical and leadership competence (school and classroom management) is
crucial to success. Thirdly, enthusiasts as change agents, leading and promoting
implementation of ICT in schools can get things going, but even they can only take
an initiative so far, unless all teachers and management have ownership to it, unless
the initiative is grounded on strong organizational learning culture, and unless it is

133
T. TIKKANEN

backed-up and promoted by proactive involvement of visionary, unyielding school

leadership.

REFERENCES
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elstad, E. (2008). Towards a theory of mutual dependency between school administrators and teachers.
Bargaining theory as research heuristic. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
36(3), 393–414.
Erstad, O., & Hauge, T. (2011). Ekspansiv skoleutvikling – kompleksitet og mangfold. In O. Erstad
& T. E. Hauge (Eds.), School development and digital media – complexity, diversity and
expansive learning [Skoleutvikling og digitale medier – kompleksitet, mangfold og ekspansiv læring]
(pp. 231–244). Oslo: Gyldendal. [In Norwegian]
Fenwick, T. (2010). Beyond individual acquisition: Theorising practice-based collective learning in HRD.
In M. Van Woerkom & R. Poell (Eds.), Workplace learning. Concepts, measurement and application
(pp. 26–40). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital
age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report. Cham:
Springer.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations
and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge
and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
Hauge, T. E. (2011). Skoleledelse i digitale omgivelser [School leadership in digital surroundings]. In
O. Erstad & T. E. Hauge (Eds.), School development and digital media – complexity, diversity and
expansive learning [Skoleutvikling og digitale medier – kompleksitet, mangfold og ekspansiv læring]
(pp. 64–82). Oslo: Gyldendal.
Hetland, P., & Solum, N. H. (2008). Digital kompetanse i norsk lærerutdanning (NIFU STEP rapport
28/2008). Oslo: NIFU STEP.
Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (2004). Rethinking the concept of community of practice in relation to
schoolteachers’ workplace learning. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 21–31.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2011). Digital competence in Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre
utbildning, 1(1), 39–51.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liljenberg, M. (2015). Distributing leadership to establish developing and learning school organisations
in the Swedish context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 152–170.
Merriam. S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). Kunnskapsløftet: Kvalitetsrammeverket [Knowledge
Promotion: The quality framework]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2012). Rammeverk for grunnleggende ferdigheter
[Framework for basic skills]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.

134
 A SMALL STEP STRATEGY TO BOOST INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Ottestad, G. (2014, November 28). Digitale ferdigheter: Norske elever blant de aller beste [Digital skills:
Norwegian pupils among the very best]. Utdanningsnytt.no.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2016, June). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital
competence in Norwegian teacher education. Computers & Education, 97, 1–20.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. London:
Random House.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations – Effects on teacher leadership
and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 15(3–4), 443–466.
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge:
Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3),
285–311.
Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 331–351.
Tikkanen, T. (2002). Learning at work in technology intensive environments. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 14(3), 88–97.
Tikkanen, T. (2003). Management’s and employees’ views on learning culture in SMEs: A cross-national
comparison. In Proceedings to the 3rd Conference on Researching Work and Learning “Work and
Lifelong Learning in Different Contexts”, Book III: Theme 5: Learning communities, pp. 178–187.
Tikkanen, T. (2005a, December 11–14). Teachers – The professionals in formal learning as practitioners
in informal workplace learning. In P. Hager & G. Hawke (Eds.), Conference papers: 4th International
Conference on Researching Work and Learning. Sydney, Australia.
Tikkanen, T. (2005b). Reconciling learning, human resource development and wellbeing in the workplace.
British Journal of Occupational Learning, 3(1), 33–54.
Tikkanen, T. (2006). Mot lærende skoler i Sandnes kommune. Mellomveisrapport: RELFUS-prosjekt
skoleåret 2005–2006 [Towards learning schools. Midway report: REFUS-project the school year
2005–2006]. Arbeidsnotat IRIS – 2006/130.
Tømte, C., Hovdhaugen, E., & Solum, N. H. (2009). ICT in initial teacher training: Country report,
Norway. Oslo: OECD Publishing.
van Woerkom, M., & Poell, R. (Eds.). (2010). Workplace learning. Concepts, measurement and
application. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vedøy, G. (2011). Organisasjonsfortellinger og kollektiv læring [Organizational narratives and collective
learning]. In O. Erstad & T. E. Hauge (Eds.), Skoleutvikling og digitale medier – kompleksitet,
mangfold og ekspansiv læring [School development and digital media – Complexity, diversity and
expansive learning] (pp. 146–160). Oslo: Gyldendal.
Wertsch, J. V. (2012). Narrative tools and the construction of identity. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire,
A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing identity in and around organizations (pp. 128–146).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tarja Tikkanen is Director of the Norwegian Centre for

Learning Environment and Behavioural Research in Education
at the University of Stavanger and Professor in Education at the
Stord/Haugesund University College. She has a long record of
national and international research in lifelong learning and job-
related competence development. Much of the latter has dealth
with challenges posed by technology.

135
 PART III
SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND
INTERNET: CHALLENGING ISSUES FOR SCHOOLS
 EYVIND ELSTAD

8. SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES,

SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNET
Challenging Issues for Schools

INTRODUCTION

The study of information and communication technology in the school needs

constant renewal as the ways in which technology is used are constantly changing.
For instance, social media, especially social networking sites, play a far larger role
in the lives of young people today than 10 years ago (Boyd, 2014). The nature of
social media is also subject to change and has given rise to the concept of social
networking addiction (Griffiths et al., 2014). Research on social media is in its
infancy (Kietzmann et al., 2012), and there is uncertainty about how the use of
social media interacts with academic tasks and schooling. In this part of the book,
we explore the bright and dark sides of social networking sites, social media and
Internet. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the topic ‘social networking
sites, social media, and Internet’ as challenging issues for schools, and to provide an
overview of the chapters in this part of the book.
Technology has become ubiquitous in nearly every contemporary situation,
while social networking sites, social media, and Internet have acquired considerable
importance in the lives of young people. Alongside their interest in social networking
sites, social media, and Internet, schooling constitutes a core component of the life
of children and adolescents. Youth’s use of social networking sites, social media,
and Internet creates tensions between traditions and expectations of renewal within
the school. Vital questions ask: How can schools capitalise on students’ digital
strengths? And how can the risks be avoided?
The nature of source criticism and critical thinking has changed in the digital
world (Buckingham, 2013). A core goal of the school system is to prepare pupils
to become citizens with critical-thinking ability, so they can better detect lies
and manipulation in the digital world. Schools must help pupils become critical
consumers of Internet services and electronic media, helping them make informed
decisions and avoid harmful pitfalls. The emphasis on rhetoric in Norwegian
courses is an example of such education: ‘The aims of the studies are to enable
pupils to explain the argumentation employed in non-fiction texts by applying their
knowledge of rhetoric’ (Directorate of Education and Training, 2006). In the twin

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 139–147.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. ELSTAD

book Educational technology and polycontextual bridging, the interested reader will
find several chapters on how schools can build bridges between the techno-fixated
world of pupils and the materials and mandate of the school.
The Internet also lends itself to switching between textual criticism and what in
educational terms is regarded as off-task behaviour—a form of multi-tasking that
decreases learning potential. In response to this challenge, the public Norwegian
Ludvigsen Commission has expressed trust in the school’s ability to strengthen
pupils’ self-regulating ability (Official Norwegian Reports, 2015). The Internet
requires good navigation skills. Navigation, in turn, demands metacognitive
regulation, defined as ‘the ability to organise complex hypertext structures into
a coherent mental map, experience in evaluating the relevance of pages, and a
repertoire of effective strategies for reading on line. Without these, ‘students find
themselves digitally adrift’ (OECD, 2015, p. 187).
The increasing use of information and communication technology raises
challengies for the school:
Empowering young people to become full participants in today’s digital public
space, equipping them with the codes and tools of their technology-rich world,
and encouraging them to use online learning resources—all while exploring
the use of digital technologies to enhance existing education processes …—
are goals that justify the introduction of computer technology into classrooms.
(OECD, 2015, p. 186)
Pupils need to be critical users, especially when using the Internet as a means
of accessing information (Milson, 2012) and social networling sites as well. For
instance, in social studies, students can use the Internet to study authentic texts and
make critical judgements of their validity (Shiveley & VanFossen, 2012). However,
information available digitally might have been posted online with the express intent
of propagating incorrect information. Therefore, the ability to critically analyse
information is important for the individual, as well as society. The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement promotes a broad concept
of this ability, defining computer and information literacy as ‘an individual’s ability
to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate
effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society’ (Fraillon, Schulz, &
Ainley, 2013, p. 17). This topic has significance to this book.

LEARNING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SCHOOL

Pupils live much of their lives outside the school (Cabot, in press), and many of
young people develop many of their ideas about the nature of the world around
them in interaction with physical objects and people (Voss, Perkins, & Segal, 2012).
For instance, a child might observe that, in a shop, adults pay for goods using a
bank card and receive cash in return. This observation could lead to the conclusion
that money comes from shops, but subsequent experience will correct such ideas

140
 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNET

(Berti et al., 1988). Problems arise, however, when the feedback mechanism is
absent. Although we can observe a stone being thrown into the air and returning
to earth, false ideas about energy might survive the lessons of experience, allowing
alternative ideas about energy and gravity to persist and possibly resist teaching
(Gilbert & Watts, 1983). Research indicates that educational computer programmes
might be suitable for correcting such misunderstandings (de Jong, 2011; Zacharia &
de Jong, 2014). Therefore, teaching and academic tasks can make use of activities
in which pupils gain conceptual understanding of concepts by manipulating
simulations. The cognitive perspective on knowledge emphasises such learning.
There is a widespread understanding that technological devices promote learning
inside and outside school. For example, there are clear indications that Norwegian
student understand English better today than 20 years ago simply because they
regularly use the English language during their leisure time (Simensen, 2010). This
situation offers the potential for positive synergy between the use of the English
language in Norwegian youth culture and the school’s task of teaching English
(Rindal, 2013). The English curriculum can incorporate pupils’ genuine leisure
interests into academic work in English (Hellekjær, 2012). One learning outcomes
is that ‘pupils are to create, communicate and discuss their own texts inspired by
English-language literature, film and cultural forms of expression’ (The Norwegian
Directorate for Education and Training, 2013, p. 1). The teacher here has the
opportunity to build bridges between leisure-time interests and academic material.
In contrast, the Norwegian maths curriculum describes almost no learning outcomes
that allow teachers to use pupils’ leisure-time cultural interests in academic subjects.
However, youngsters’ media use is not without harmful consequences. Hærnes
et al. (2016) found negative impacts on reading skills of TV exposure before the age
of 12 years. The developmental impacts of increased supply of TV entertainment
during childhood depend on the kind of activities TV consumption substitutes for.
The increase in media consumption has to a large extent substituted for reading,
particularly for boys. Some scholars have expressed that modern media encourages
a particularly passive form of engagement, and thus may be damaging to intellectual
development (Postman, 1985).
Modern media is a controversial issue. For some, the temptations of computer
games and social media are so strong that they risk an addiction problem (Chou &
Hsiao, 2000; Hansen, 2002). Social learning consists of learning from others, of
being sociable while learning to deal with others (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The
6-year-old’s brain is plastic (Kolb, 2013). Children who spend 12–14 hours a day
at a computer miss out on fundamental human activities, which many fear can
lead to unbalanced mental development (Grüsser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2006).
Introducing tablet computers at an early age may, for instance, might lead to
children becoming addicted to the screen (Grüsser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2006;
Weinstein, 2010). Unlimited Internet access can have negative consequences for
children’s development. The chances of addiction appear to increase in proportion
to how young the child begins with use of Internet. While do not know the

141
E. ELSTAD

consequences for mental development from extensive use of tablet computers

by the very young (Kuss & Griffiths, 2012), several studies have found negative
influences from extended screen time on adolescents’ sleep (Cain & Gradisar, 2010;
Hysing et al., 2015), physical activity levels (Melkevik et al., 2010) and social well-
being (Richards et al., 2010). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (2015) claims that ‘15-year-olds who spend more than six hours on
line every day are particularly at risk of suffering from lower emotional wellbeing
and of behaving in problematic ways at school, such as arriving late for class or
skipping days of school’ (OECD, 2015, p. 189). Based on these findings, some
public health authorities have warned about the possible negative consequences
of increased screen time and issued guidelines that recommend limiting children’s
recreational screen time.

EXPANDING THE REACH OF EDUCATION VIA

THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA1

The prevalence of the use of social media in youth culture is seen as a major
opportunity for schools to enhance the experienced relevance and impact of
education, thus bridging between out-of-school learning cultures and educational
culture. Allegedly, the “new learners” are not only consuming content, they are also
creating it and making it available through blogs, wikis, and other presentations of
their work that are available online in digital formats. Through social media and
networks (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) they share their own content as well as that of others
with the world outside the classroom. They are members of multiple connected and
networked communities, small and large, local and global. All of this connectivity
and sharing of content brings with it new forms of criticism, through features such
as blog comments and “like” buttons. The feedback, both positive and negative, can
be constant and become an expectation of the new learner.
Social networking tools are particularly suitable, among other functions, to
(a) create a socially-shared set of social views and norms, affording the opportunity
to take a stand on social issues (Biesta, 2011); (b) possibly affect attitudes, beliefs
and related “soft” cognitive-emotional aspects of social behavior, thus potentially
facilitating social bonding (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007); and (c) facilitate the
socialization of individuals into a democratic culture of respect and tolerance (e.g.
Marri, 2005). As described by Ito et al. (2010), “in friendship-driven contexts, young
people learn about the opinions and values of their peers through testing of social
norms and expectations in everyday negotiations over friendship, popularity, and
romantic relationships” (p. 340).
Social nets may “expand the reach of educational learning by affording unique
kinds of interaction” (Gavriel Salomon, oral communication). In particular social
nets can afford contact between minority and majority members, immigrants and
hosts, and members of adversarial groups such that these contacts can reduce
prejudices, racist views and stereotypes.

142
 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNET

USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

When using social media, an individual is both consumer and producer (Chittenden,
2010; Duncum, 2011), a double role the term ‘prosumer’ was coined to denote in
1980s America (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). The use of social media has seen a
sharp rise in recent years, especially amongst teenagers who feel the need to confide
in other teenagers, seek advice from others and create alliances and networks
(Bjarnason et al., 2010; Blank & Groselj, 2014; Boyd, 2014). However, there are
few signs that close friends use of social networking sites as a substitute for face-
to-face meeting (Brandtzæg, 2012). Brandtzæg (2012) found significantly higher
scores among social-networking-site users than nonusers in 3 out of 4 dimensions
of social capital (face-to-face interactions, number of acquaintances, and bridging
capital). However, users of social networking sites, especially male users, reported
higher levels of loneliness than nonusers. Caughlin, Liesel and Sharabi (2013) found
that face-to-face interaction and technologically mediated communication often
occur in the same relationships. Relational closeness is associated positively with
integration of face-to-face interaction and technologically mediated communication
and negatively to difficulties transitioning between modes.
Research on social media is still in an early phase, and there is uncertainty about
the effect of the frequency of use of social media on personality development. The
availability of information and communication technology may affect how children
and youngsters perform the self (Van Dijk, 2013) and develop self-esteem (Chrisler,
2013). Youngsters are concerned with their appearance, tend to narcissism and
extraversion and worry about the external attributes highly valued amongst the
other young people with whom they are in contact (Ong et al., 2011). Youth present
themselves in social media through text and pictures and engage in a great deal of
reciprocal communication (Davies, 2012; Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein,
2015). Technology presents new opportunities for communication, for instance,
between those unable to meet their needs for face-to-face social contact. Social media
can also compensate for a lack of social contact and have become an increasingly
important form of interaction for young people.
However, this form of interaction appears to change fundamental characteristics
of communication. For instance, others’ views of oneself are made visible through
likes and dislikes (Appel et al., 2015). Social media encourages the tendency
to seek confirmation of other people’s views of oneself and what one expresses
online. Selfies have become an Internet medium of self-expression which can
reinforce narcissistic proclivities (Ong et al., 2011). The number of likes, hits
or invitations to participate in digital networks can form a popularity score that
invites comparison and ranking (Christler et al., 2013; Appell et al., 2015). Self-
presentation in Internet-based media can reinforce a need to gain affirmation
through others’ regard. This tendency can have consequences for a young person’s
personal development, though it should be emphasised that this assumption is not
well grounded in research.

143
E. ELSTAD

In addition, the use of social media can reinforce proclivities for self-exposition
in which the need to be seen and liked is a key driver of self-esteem (Ong et al.,
2011). Face-to-face communication has been important in the socialisation of
children and young people. When Internet communication increases, and face-
to-face communication decreases, this changes the conditions of socialisation for
young people. Some have suggested that youth miss out on a defining characteristic
of humanity when they look at a computer screen for up to 14 hours a day (6½
hours of daily Internet usage is often regarded as normal) (Liu, 2014; Trnka,
Martínková, & Tavel, 2015; Norwegian Media Authority, 2015). The nature of
socialising is undergoing change (Greenfield, 2014), and what it might lead to over
time is presently unclear, so more research is needed in this area.

THE DARK SIDES OF MEDIA USE

Technology-driven developments mostly affect life outside school, although the

school’s activities have some significance in the phenomenon (Dupper, 2013).
In this book, Brandtzæg discusses the relationship between the young peoples’
media-user type and their media use at school (Chapter 8). Several relations are
possible. Teachers, for instance, might participate in web-based networks, and their
behaviour on social media can be interpreted as acceptance, rejection or offensive.
Accusations of cyberbullying by teachers arise primarily from pupils feeling
discriminated against by whom teachers allow to join their digital networks; rarely
is it a case of offensive remarks made by teachers (Landstedt & Persson, 2014).
The exclusion of pupils from digital networks can be perceived as offensive and,
consequently, as cyberbullying (Barlinska et al., 2013; Bauman, 2013; Cassidy
et al., 2013). This is the explicit theme of Chapter 9 and the implicit theme of
Chapter 10. Teacher’s tendency to create closed networks, however, generally arises
not from a deliberate aim to exclude anyone but from their need for confidentiality.
Cyberbullying is more widespread amongst pupils in secondary school than primary
school (Chapter 9), while the reverse is true in the case of physical bullying or one-
off physical offences (Kowalski et al., 2012). In addition to exclusion, web-based
communication concerning a young person’s appearance or clothing might be
regarded as offensive (Bazarova, 2012). The possibilities for anonymous comments
in web-based communication can encourage the direct expression of thoughts
which normal politeness would suppress in face-to-face conversation (Santana,
2011). These issues show the challenges of leisure-time activities and schooling in
the digital age.
What are the school’s and parents’ responsibilities to prevent social media from
hindering the development of young people? Young people use information and
communication technology in ways to which many parents have limited insight
(Dupper, 2013). Consequently, communication through social media is of prime
significance for the development of young people in a number of environments.

144
 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNET

Schooling should prepare children for adult life, so the school must relate to the
phenomenon of social media.
Social media can result in brutal experiences. Missteps immortalised on the
Internet might haunt individuals for the rest of their lives (Lounsbury et al., 2011;
Agustina & Gómez-Durán, 2012; Skog, 2015). The development of personal
protection lags far behind technological developments. Consequently, the school has
a responsibility to contribute to Internet safety. However, the stream of new social
media services can produce to abundant material with which the school has to deal
at the cost of established academic disciplines. Mastering technology is a significant
factor for the ability to govern the direction of one’s life as an intelligent user of
technology in daily lives.

CHAPTERS THAT FOLLOW

In Chapter 9 Petter Bae Brandtzaeg studies the relationship between young

peoples’ media user type and their media use at school. The purpose of this study
is to understand the relationship between the various user patterns among young
people and their use of computers and the Internet in school. First, by using cluster
analysis on survey data, Brandtzaeg identified four distinct user types among
youngsters (9–16 years): Sporadic Users (38%), Video Users (11%), Socialisers
(41%), and Advanced Users (10%). This finding indicates that social media natives,
understood as young people grown up with social media, are not a homogeneous
group of media users. Second, a concerning finding in Brandtzaeg’s study is that so
many of the user types lean toward a passive user style focused on entertainment.
In comparison to previous studies, there is a marked turn toward deriving more
entertainment value from computer and Internet use – where technology is used as
a toy more than a tool. A typical pattern towards instrumental or utility use is not
identified in his study. Third, Brandtzaeg study finds a relationship between how
young people use new media in general and how often they use computers and
the Internet at school. This latter finding suggests that schools may exert a strong
influence on how young people in the 21st century develop their user style and
competence level in new technologies. At present, schools might amplify rather
than equalise the digital divide between young people. Finally, the user typology
identified might help researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to better
understand the complex variations among social media natives.
Another aspect of social networking sites is explored in Chapter 10: cyber
harassment and pupils’ perception of quality of life. Thorvaldsen, Stenseth,
Egeberg, Pettersen and Rønning designed a questionnaire on cyber harassment,
which was answered by pupils. This questionnaire included a section of questions
concerning traditional forms of harassment and bullying, as well as a set of
quality of life questions. The main questions they asked were: (1) What is the
prevalence in percentages of classical bullying and cyberbullying; (2) Are there

145
E. ELSTAD

gender and/or age differences; (3) What percentage of children bullied classically
were also cyber-bullied; (4) In what way was the quality of life affected for
those that were classically bullied or cyber-bullied? Their main finding is that
pupils who report being cyber-harassed or cyber-bullied, report a significantly
lower quality of life-score than their non-harassed peers, and thus share the same
negative characteristics in relation to quality of life as classical harassment and
bullying. Cyberbullying is less common than classical bullying, but it now affects
some 3.5% of the pupils, and nearly half of the cyberbullying comes in addition
to traditional bullying.
Chapter 11 explores the impact of cyberbullying and cyber harassment on
academic achievement. The study of Egeberg, Thorvaldsen, and Rønning aimed
to compare two approaches in terms of how they predict academic achievement:
Cyberbullying is commonly measured by either an inventory of manifest variables
(i.e. cyber harassment) or the use of global items covering cyberbullying in general.
Their findings reveal an impact of cyberbullying and cyber harassment on academic
skills, and furthermore suggest that the choice of method (manifest variables
vs. global items) is of less importance in this regard. Furthermore, the impact of
cyberbullying and cyber harassment on academic achievement appears to be mainly
mediated through the victims’ perceived quality of life at school.
Internet can be a distraction and result in pupils cutting and pasting “prefabricated”
homework answers. Teachers are struggling cut-and-pasting to spot plagiarism.
Pupils are using cut-and-paste strategies – often by using Wikipedia – to push up
their coursework marks. The object of this Chapter 12 is to examine ninth grade
students’ use of and trust in information found on Wikipedia, in textbooks, and on
digital resources from textbook publishers. Additionally, it is important to identify
some characteristics of pupils using and trusting these resources. Hatlevik’s findings
indicate that textbooks are most used and trusted by students. Further, Wikipedia is
also used by many, but not trusted by all of its users. Digital resources from textbook
publishers do have a more limited use, but pupils report trusting in them. No gender
differences in use of resources were found, but there seems to be gender differences
in trusting textbooks, digital resources from textbook publishers, and Wikipedia.
It was not possible to identify any individual characteristics of pupils using and
trusting Wikipedia. But it seems that a higher level of mastery orientation is one
characteristic of pupils’ using and trusting information from textbooks and digital
resources made by textbook publishers.

NOTE
1
This text excerpt relies heavily on communication with Gavriel Salomon, Lars Vavik, and Thomas
Arnesen.

146
 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNET

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eyvind Elstad is a Professor at the Department of Teacher

Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Norway. Among his research interests are teachers’ work,
teacher education, and teaching and learning in technology
rich environments.

147
 PETTER BAE BRANDTZÆG

9. THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

The Relationship between Young Peoples’ Media User
Type and Their Media Use at School

INTRODUCTION

The 21st century society is becoming saturated by digital media. Digital screen
behaviours like television and video viewing, computer, tablet, and smartphone
use, as well as interacting on game consoles, are taking up more and more time.
In many ways, we can consider digital interaction as the new default activity, with
smartphones and social applications (hereafter, “apps”) that crave constant attention,
offering ubiquitous access to friends, information, and entertainment (Westlund &
Bjur, 2014). In addition to their use during leisure time, these digital habits also
might be increasingly present in young peoples’ formal and informal educational
settings. A new report by the Global Web Index (2015) indicates that individuals
aged 16–24 in the North America and Western Europe are online on their mobile
devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet) for 3.26 hours each day. In Norway, where this
study took place, 83% of children and young people between the ages of 9 and 16
years have their own smartphone (Barn og Medier, 2014). Norway is also regarded
as one of the most digital countries in the world (Brandtzaeg, 2014).
Many young people aged 15 years in 2015 started to use, the video-sharing
website, YouTube when they were six or seven years old and, the social networking
site, Facebook when they were 11 or 12 years old. Game consoles such as PlayStation
and Xbox have also been part of their childhood, and their first mobile phone typically
is a smartphone. This generation of young people can, therefore, be understood not
only as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), but also “social media natives,” as they
have grown up with and are comfortable interacting with social media. Social media
use represents a major shift from a digital world of passive receptivity to one where
users are actively engaged. Hence, an important question is whether young social
media natives embrace the vast of opportunities for participation provided by new
media (Ahn, 2011; Kostakis, 2011) to keep up with mastering 21st-century skills
(OECD, 2011; Thomas & Brown, 2011).
Due to the increasing importance of the Internet in the 21st century, there is a
growing awareness that the Internet and digital media should be integrated as
important and fundamental educational tools for young people. The necessity
to learn students’ “digital competence” is well understood in the educational and

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 149–162.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
P. B. BRANDTZæG

political realms in Europe. Digital competence is evolving as a fundamental skill

equal to reading, counting, and writing. Hence, an integration of digital tools into
the teaching of all subjects at school should be a priority. We also know that digital
media influences how and what young people learn (Johri et al., 2014), and digital
competence has been acknowledged as one of the eight key competences for lifelong
learning by the European Union (Ferrari, 2003).
The implementation of both digital competence and digital media into the
context of schools creates new challenges and opportunities for educators. Various
suggestions have been made to educate and engage young people in digital media
(Roodt & Peier, 2013). These approaches might vary heavily among schools (due
to varying degrees of access to technologies) and teachers (depending on their
technological ability and available opportunities to integrate technology in the
classroom). Moreover, how we should define and measure digital competence has
been heavily debated. The concept of digital competence has become more complex
with the development of an increasingly fragmented media landscape populated by
a growing array of social media applications. Ilomäki and colleagues (2014, p. 1)
therefore suggest a rather broad and flexible definition, where digital competence is
regarded as a capability “consisting of (1) technical competence, (2) the ability to
use digital technologies in a meaningful way for working, studying and in everyday
life, (3) the ability to evaluate digital technologies critically, and (4) motivation to
participate and commit in the digital culture”. But the questions remain: are all social
media natives digitally competent and/or active participants in the new interactive
digital reality? How is school affecting young peoples’ digital participation?
Still, researchers struggle to know how to measure digital competence and how
we should map young people’s usage of digital media both in their spare time and in
school. With current political and educational strategies in mind, we know that digital
media will further strengthen schools’ importance in developing digital competence
among children and young people. How schools are adapting to the increasingly
digital society and how children and young people use digital tools interchangeably
at school and at home are relevant factors to measure. This study aims to identify
different user types among young people in Norway and to further reveal how these
different types use digital tools at school.

BACKGROUND

Networked Society

It is important to identify changes in the way children and young people learn, play,
communicate, and connect with new media. The rise of social media in the last
decade has transformed the way children and young people learn and interact. In
Norway, Facebook usage increased from no users in 2005 to 80% of the population
ten years later (MMI, 2015), making Norwegians one of the most active social
media user populations in the world (Brandtzaeg, 2012). Worldwide, the number of

150
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

Internet users has grown from 361 million users in 2000 to over 3.3 billion users in
2015 (Internet World Stats, 2015).
Already in 2000, Castells (2000) claimed that we were witnessing a paradigm
shift from an industrial society to an information society and, more recently, to a
networked society. This networked society implies that there is a new infrastructure
for information and communication in which people use and are dependent on the
Internet (van Dijk, 2006). The rapid adoption of social media platforms such as
YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, SnapChat, and Facebook reinforces
this networked trend. On a general level, “Media production and consumption have
become a complex, highly interactive, personalized, and distributed ecosystem of
connected devices, people, and narratives” (Obrist et al., 2015, p. 34).

Digital Competence and the Digital Divide

Along with the development toward a digital networked society, digital competence,
or the 21st century skills (e.g., OECD, 2011; Thomas & Brown, 2011), are on the
political agenda. This begs the question: “why is digital competence important?”
One answer or argument is that children and young people need digital competence
because of the expected benefits of digital media in learning. A second answer is the
need for digital competence to navigate easily and effectively in the new networked
society. A third answer to the question of the importance of digital competence is
that it is needed to avoid the “digital divide”, or to help young people and citizens in
general reap the benefits of being active participants in the digital domain (NCCA,
2004).
The digital divide has traditionally been used to describe the disparity between the
“haves” and the “have-nots” in relation to their access or lack of access to the Internet
(Hargittai, 2002; Norris, 2003). However, in this new interactive environment with
increasing use of social media, it is also necessary to ask whether a similar divide
exists in respect to differentiated media usage. A binary focus on non-access versus
access or non-use versus use might lead to oversimplification of how people are
using new media. Previous research has shown that both the Internet (Brandtzaeg
et al., 2011) and social media (Brandtzaeg, 2012) are increasingly used for different
purposes now than they were previously. The Internet and social media are both used
for a variety of purposes such as information seeking, utility, debating, socialising,
and entertainment. Consequently, research should go beyond a binary understanding
of the digital divide by classifying diverse forms of participation into distinct media
user types. A user typology approach (Brandtzaeg, 2010) can help us to identify if
social media natives “use digital technologies in a meaningful way for working,
studying and in everyday life” (Ilomäki, Paavola, Lakkala, & Kantosalo, 2014, p. 1).
The media user typology approach measures all kinds of media activities in which
people are engaging or not engaging, and can also illuminate all components of the
media literacy model. Such categorisations of various media user types also can
provide a picture of typical competency profiles among children.

151
P. B. BRANDTZæG

According to Johnsson-Smaragdi (2001, p. 114), “with more media to choose

among and with greater control of which media, what content, and of where and
when to use it, individual preferences and lifestyles are becoming more important”.
Lüders (2008) has conceptualised this media development as “personal media”
because private individuals use new media technologies to create and share personal
expressions. This situation has intensified with the introduction of more mobile and
personal devices, and also with more advanced automatic tools for personalisation
and algorithms. Hence, different digital services modify our digital experience based
on our individual usage patterns, personal interests and preferences. It is argued
that the more mature and diffuse the infrastructure of the Internet and new media,
the more diversified or individualised the online behaviour in the user population
(Brandtzaeg, 2012).
The digital divide concerning participation inequality in new media environments
(Hargittai & Walejko, 2008) challenges the notion of an inclusive digital society.
Indeed, new media might deepen rather than reduce existing societal inequalities.
When different types of usage are distributed unevenly in the younger age groups,
there might be an effect of accumulation. Young people with more advanced usage
patterns and more digital learning at school might benefit and receive more access to
information and resources, and, even more significantly, social capital, than people
with no access or passive media usage patterns. This possible digital divide might
be even more pronounced in the context of Norway, the most digital society in the
world (Lüders & Brandtzaeg, 2014), where this study take place.

Digital Use in School

An interesting question with regard to media user types is to what degree the school,
media environment, or the context of usage plays a role in the way young people
use media technologies. This is not necessarily only a question of accessibility, as
several studies have found various usage patterns among people who share more
or less equal access (Brandtzaeg et al., 2011; Heim et al., 2007). Hence, it is also a
matter of social, cultural, and psychological accessibility or attractiveness (Johnsson-
Smaragdi, 2001; Endestad et al., 2011), which means that school will play a crucial
role in developing media usage patterns among young people. Roberts et al. (2004)
described a two-dimensional model of the media environment:
1. The physical environment: defines what kind of media young people can access
in their home and in their school.
2. The social environment: includes family norms, policies, and the general
household and educational orientation toward various media.
This means that, despite the fact that a lot of children and young people use digital
media in their spare time, school also plays a crucial role in equalising the digital
divide; this by promoting an active, varied, and critical usage of new digital media.
Several scholars, however, have criticised schools and the educational system for

152
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

being too slow to adapt to the Internet culture that social media natives represent
(Buckingham & Willett, 2013; Jenkins, 2007; Tapscott, 2008). According to Prensky
(2001, 2005, 2006), educators are teaching digital natives with methods that are no
longer valid and, in general, educators fail to understand modern students. Prensky
sees a large potential to include new technology in the classroom and finds that the
Internet and cell phones are teaching opportunities rather than distractions. This is in
line with Tapscott, who views the active and interactive media use of digital natives
as stimulating to increase intelligence, whereas the passive media use of the one-way
television generation is seen as stimulating ignorance (Tapscott, 1998).
Following Prensky (2003, 2006) and others, students with a digital home and
school environment may develop a greater ability to use and participate in digital
media and to adapt to 21st century skills. Young people with little access or low use
at home could, therefore, end up behind their classmates who have high access and
high use both at home and at school. Digital use in schools can, therefore, help to
reinforce existing social inequalities in the home (Castells, 2002). Or as Krumsvik
(2008, p. 3) asks: “What happens when access to technology, both in school and
homes, is very good among the majority of Norwegian pupils and rather poor
among a minority of pupils? Can this result in a Matthew effect (Merton, 1968)
and create an even larger gap between different groups of pupils concerning school
achievement?”
Hence, it is important to assess whether the school helps to reinforce or to equalise
the digital divide. There are several aspects of the school that could potentially create
digital inequality among students:
• Differences in digital literacy among teachers – some teachers have no facility
with digital tools or lack knowledge about how they should be utilised in teaching.
• Lack of digital effort by school owners and school management. It is important
that school owners and school leaders have plans for school use of digital tools
and support teachers’ use of digital aids in teaching.
• Differences in access – some schools have a faster Internet connection than others,
as well as newer and better digital tools than other schools (Brandtzaeg, 2014).
It is, therefore, important to correct for differences in knowledge, lack of
investment, and access to digital tools at the individual schools. Previous research
on children and young people’s use of digital media demonstrates major differences
in the use of digital media at school (Erstad, Gilje, & Arnseth, 2013). Similarly,
Krumsvik (2008, p. 5) claims that “ICT (Information Communication Technology)
access in school balances out the diversity which occurs in homes based on parents’
education, income and ethnicity”. Consequently, there is great interest to look into
schools’ role in the development of general usage patterns of new media technologies
among social media natives, and whether the school itself can contribute to more or
less digital inequality. In this area, there is a need for constantly updated knowledge
because both digital trends and patterns of use among children and adolescents
change rapidly.

153
P. B. BRANDTZæG

The contribution of this study is to estimate different user types concerning

different usage patterns or competency level of digital media among social media
natives, and to see how these various user types relate to the usage levels of
technologies at schools. This issue is of particular importance given the prevalence
of technology in society today. Identifying differences in technology usage and
digital divides also is relevant to the mastery of 21st century skills (OECD, 2011;
Thomas & Brown, 2011).

RESEARCH STUDY

This study was designed to address the existing research limitations described above
and to respond to the need for more research on the interrelated outcome of school
usage of digital media and user types in general. Our data allows us to investigate
a representative sample of children and young people. This approach was chosen
in order to offer as wide-ranging a perspective as possible on the usage patterns of
social media natives.
We use data from the “Children and Media” survey that took place in Norway
between mid-November 2013 and January 2014 (Barn og Medier, 2014). The survey
was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,850 children and
young people aged 9 to 16 years. The children were born between the year 2000 and
2007. The participants were recruited through schools, and the survey questionnaire
was administered via personal computer (PC) in the classroom. The children had one
dedicated school hour to participate in this study and respond to the questionnaire.
Using self-reported survey data is a common method in studies of media behaviour
and has proven useful (Westlund & Bjur, 2014), but we should of course exercise
caution about the quality of the responses from the youngest children in this survey.
According to Borgers and colleagues (2000, p. 60) “the cognitive, communicative
and social skills are still developing and this affects different stages of the question-
answer process”.
The sample participating in the study was recruited by Ipsos MMI, a professional
marketing and user research firm located in Norway. The results are weighted by
gender, age, and geography, using figures from Statistics Norway’s population
statistics.
The survey measured 24 different activities (e.g., use of social media, Skype,
gaming, chatting, contact with friends, video viewing, playing with pets online,
blogging, emailing, etc.) that children and young people possibly can do on the
Internet at school and at home. We aimed to apply two different analyses that could
illustrate how a different user type in children and adolescents is associated with
digital media use in schools.
Cluster analysis was used to group the young people with the same type of usage
patterns. Cluster analysis is a classification technique for forming homogeneous
groups within complex data sets (Borgen & Barnett, 1987), and has also been
widely used in previous studies to identify distinct user types of media users

154
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

(Brandtzaeg, 2010), social media users (Brandtzaeg & Heim, 2011; Brandtzaeg,
2012), and online users (Brandtzaeg et al., 2011), also among young children between
the ages of 9 and 16 years (Endestad et al., 2011; Heim et al., 2007; Westlund & Bjur,
2014).
In more detail, the k-means cluster analysis was used. According to Tan, Steinbach,
and Kumar (2006) k-means cluster analysis is recommended when the number of
entities (persons) in the analysis is more than 1,000 individuals. K-means clustering
is therefore often more suitable than other forms of clustering for large amounts of
data like the current dataset. The analysis included all children (N = 1,850) who
participated in the survey. The analysis reveals four distinct user types (Table 1).The
children were divided into four distinct user groups, based on the cluster analysis of
how often they participated in the 24 different activities on the Internet.
These four categories of users were then compared with what the children
reported that they “often use” at school, such as the Internet, computer games, social
media, tablet, and PC/Mac. School use appears in the rightmost column in Table 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

First we will present the access to different devices, such as computer, tablet, and
smartphone, among the users in this research sample.

Figure 1. Access to different digital tools across different

age groups in % (N = 1,850)

Figure 1 indicates that access increases with age, except that access to tablets
declines as young people reaches 15 years old and older. This result might be
explained by the availability of more and better quality smartphones to 15-year-olds,

155
P. B. BRANDTZæG

and that young people in this age range also have more access to computers. We
know from previous studies that access does not necessarily indicate usage, but we
know that if new media access is individualised and part of the “bedroom culture”,
it is more likely to influence choices (Endestad et al., 2011).
The results in this study (see Table 1) are not as black-and-white as digital
evangelists such as Prensky (2001) would have us think. Not all social media natives
are active and savvy users of digital and social media, and we see that frequency of
use and the purpose of using media are important factors that should be considered
(Brandtzaeg, 2010; Koutropoulos, 2011).

Table 1. Four media user types in % among children and young people,
and usage in school (N = 1,850)

User type User type/age/gender “Often use” at school

38 % Sporadics do not have much of an online Internet: 14%

Sporadics presence. They only sporadically engage in Tablet: 6%
some online activities. When this group logs PC/Mac: 12%
on to the Internet, they are primarily using Computer games: 5%
video services. This group comprises 56% Social media: 2%
boys and 44% girls. The average age for this
user group is 11.2 years.
11 % These users are only using social media to Internet: 28%
Video-users some degree and have hardly any experience Tablet: 11%
at all with email. Interestingly, a significant PC/Mac: 16%
number in this group report having a pet Computer games: 15%
online. Yet, the most typical usage pattern Social media: 5%
for this user group is heavy usage of video
services like YouTube and Netflix. 53% of
this group is boys. Average age 11.3 years.
41 % This group communicates often on Facebook, Internet: 42%
Socialisers Skype, and other messaging services. They Tablet: 8%
often use video and music services. They PC/Mac: 36%
never or seldom download content. They Computer games: 6%
seldom use email and never contribute with Social media: 18%
comments or engage in blogging. 51% of this
group is girls. Average age 13.5 years.
10 % This group typically uses a lot of different Internet: 45%
Advanced users activities online, including social media Tablet: 17%
and email. They are active participants by PC/Mac: 39%
creating and sharing online content, including Computer games: 19%
editing videos. Some in this group are also Social media: 25%
programming and creating apps. This group
comprises 60% boys and 40% girls. Average
age is 12.5 years.

156
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

Heterogeneous Media Lives

The results reveal that the young people (aged 9–16 years) have heterogeneous
media lives, which also are documented in a recent national survey with Swedes
born between 1994 and 2001 (Westlund & Bjur, 2014). The results reveal four
distinct media user types. These four categories of users show that there are major
differences in how children and young people participate in digital media. Part of the
difference is related to age, gender, and access at home.
Similar to other studies, great numbers of the users are quite passive users, while
the Advanced users make up the smallest group of users (see review of the media
user types in Brandtzaeg, 2010). It is, however, interesting to note that this consistent
pattern also applies to the social media natives. Too often in this kind of research
young people are seen as a homogeneous social group, which they are not. These
results, however, reveal that the pattern is more complex and nuanced than the
conception of youth as social media natives or digital natives. We see rather that
young people can be characterised by different kinds of media lives that are reflected
in various usage patterns. We also see that age and gender to some extent do play
a role, but the connection between media lives at school and the particular usage
pattern among young people might be the most striking finding in this study.

Digital Competency Profiles

By revealing a media user typology that measures all kinds of media activities young
people are or are not engaging in, we can also illuminate all components of the media
literacy model, and such categorisations of various media user types can provide
a picture of typical digital competency profiles among children. As described in
the introduction, a means of measuring digital competence has been difficult. This
study, identifying various usage patterns, might give an indication of how we can
easily different competency profiles can be revealed in the future.

Digital Media – More a Toy than Tool?

The results do also acknowledge that user types in the current media landscape are
not as quickly in flux or unpredictable as we might think. The user types revealed
over the last year have not changed significantly when we compare them with earlier
user typologies (e.g., Heim et al., 2007; Brandtzaeg, 2010; Endestad et al., 2011).
This result also suggests that the level of competency in technologies is not changing
significantly either, which might be a concern in a society struggling for digital
competence.
The most evident and important change is that we find a greater level of
entertainment usage than before, and that utility usage more or less has disappeared.
Utility usage was an apparent user type before, but it does not appear in the categories
in this present study. Endestad et al. (2011) finds 38% “instrumental users” and no

157
P. B. BRANDTZæG

typical entertainment users. One explanation is that the increasing use of devices
such as tablets and smartphones is forcing younger users toward more entertainment
use. The young people in the current study are using more multiple screens that
support or enhance the television-watching experience on YouTube and Netflix, and
might spend less time online on exploration and experimentation. Pre-defined app
use on tablets and mobile platforms might hamper the opportunities for exploration,
which are more evident with typical computer usage. Developments towards and
increased use of touch based app screens (e.g. iPad and smartphones) might in sum
transform digital media to a toy more than a tool, which might also explains the
disappearance of instrumental users and the increase of entertainment users.

Towards More Visual Communications

With and increasing use of Netflix and YouTube, we also know that social media
usage are turning into a more visual language with a greater focus on videos and
photos, which are true for popular social networking sites such as Instagram and
SnapChat. Recent studies (e.g. Brandtzaeg et al., 2015) also confirm that many
young people in social media report a turn towards increased use of visual forms
of expression, such as icons, emoticons (e.g. facial expression), photos and short
videos. Hence, youth are increasingly using photographs and visual elements, rather
than text, to communicate. This turn towards a more visual oriented youth language
should also be part of a 21st century skill, and something that the future education
should consider.

Different Media Lives at School

Table 1 shows a large difference in various media usage patterns between the
different user groups, but also large differences in the use of Internet and computers
at school. The results indicate that different user groups are offered a varied level of
access to the Internet and computers at school, which may suggest that the school
does not equalise but rather amplifies the digital divide. The analysis displays a clear
pattern in which a larger percentage of social users and advanced users often use PC/
Mac and the Internet at school. The advanced users also indicate that they most often
use social media, tablet, and computer games at school, despite the fact that they are,
on average, younger than socialisers.
The number of primary and secondary schools in the Norwegian Monitor 2013
confirm the digital divide in Norwegian schools (Hatlevik et al., 2013). This study
finds a lack of focus on digital education in many Norwegian schools, and also finds
major differences between schools in terms of access to and usage of computers and
Internet. To reduce the differences in digital competence among young people, the
same opportunities for digital learning should be implemented across schools. At
present, all schools have pen and paper, but all schools do not have computers and

158
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

Internet. A more equal access to computers and the Internet could have a significant
impact on preventing the digital divide among social media natives.

CONCLUSION

This study shows large differences between how young people in the 21st century –
social media natives – use new media, and that new technologies also are used to
varying degrees in schools. This study also shows an important relationship between
use of new media at school and what user type the young people are. Those with
a more passive usage pattern are low users of Internet and social media at school,
while those students with advanced usage patterns often use the Internet at school.
The results indicate that schools might amplify rather than equalise a digital divide
among social media natives. Hence, these results should foster a debate about the
commitment of the government and national authorities to the use of digital tools in
schools, as well as adjustments to the access to digital learning resources and digital
learning skills among schools.
The contribution of the present study is that it goes beyond most existing research
by not only looking at time spent with media, but how user types among young
people can be understood based on various new media activities, reflecting different
levels of digital competence in the 21st century. Thus, the present study is a step in
the direction of contributing to both more knowledge about complex variations of
new media usage and new knowledge on how future research easily can measure
differences in digital competence. In addition, this study shows a connection
between how various user types relate to technology use in school. It also shows a
turn from instrumental use to more entertainment use, where digital devices serve
more as toys than tools. This shift toward entertainment might be explained by the
convenience and portability of devices such as tablets and smartphones and increased
access to YouTube and Netflix. To counteract a development toward more passive
entertainment usage, I suggest focusing on more computer usage at school, as well
as support of usage patterns that relates to the more explorative and instrumental
aspects of new media.
However, our study suffers from some limitations, most of which can be
overcome in future research. The first limitation is the methodological approach
to the study of new media. For many years, media researchers have been asking
for studies that combine qualitative and quantitative methods (Kaare et al., 2007).
To some degree, the major quantitative approach in the present study may have
disregarded a fully user-centred perspective, as the users’ individual voices have not
been sufficiently heard. However, a quantitative approach has been justified in the
present study to identify different usage patterns among various individuals in the
youth population. This study is representative of the younger age segment, which are
unlike most previous studies. Nevertheless, future research should be complemented
with more qualitative data. Typically, qualitative studies should be followed by

159
P. B. BRANDTZæG

separate quantitative studies to test or extend a particular finding. Future studies

should include interviews with young people who represent different user types to
determine their ideas about how school usage affects their new media habits, or vice
versa, but also about how schools can support a move toward more instrumental and
explorative usage rather than entertainment usage.
The second limitation is related to the national context of this research. The current
findings might not hold true for all countries but are nevertheless relevant for an
international audience. The underlying development of technology change is not
unique to the Norwegian experience, but Norway is at the forefront of adapting to these
technologies. There are strong reasons to expect similar trends in other societies over
time, although their concrete manifestations may differ. Future studies should address
a comparison among countries to reveal differences from a cross-cultural perspective.
The third limitation is that our data are measurements of mainly self-reported
data, which may not always match users’ actual behaviour. Complementing our
questionnaire survey data with tracking of real behavioural data would be desirable
in future research. This is difficult to achieve across devices, but monitoring apps
could be installed on personal mobile devices. The measurement of usage frequency
is also limited; a better measure would take into account the average number of hours
spent daily online. Hence, future research should consider an improved measure of
media user behaviour.

REFERENCES
Barn og Medier. (2014). 2014 – Barn og Medier. En rapport fra Medietilsynet om barn og unges
bruk og opplevelser av medier. (A report on children and their use of media). Medietilsynet,
Fredriktstad. Retrieved from http://www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/2015/rapport_
barnogmedier_2014.pdf
Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 456–468.
Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive
development and response quality. Bulletin de methodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75.
Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2010). Towards a unified media-user typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review
of the research literature on media-user typologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 940–956.
Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2012). Social networking sites: Their users and social implications – A longitudinal
study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 467–488.
Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2014). Digitale skiller blant barn og unge i 2014: Hvor “flinke” er de digitalt
innfødte i verdens mest digitale land? – Rapport til Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet.
Medietilsynet. Fredrikstad.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2011). A typology of social networking sites users. International Journal
of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 28–51.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanovic, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide –
A jtypology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 69(3),
123–138.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Haugestveit, I. M., Lüders, M., & Følstad, A. (2015, online first). How should
organizations adapt to youth civic engagement in social media? A lead user approach. Interacting with
Computers. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwv041
Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (2013). Digital generations: Children, young people, and the new media.
New York, NY: Routledge.

160
 THE SOCIAL MEDIA NATIVES

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Endestad, T., Heim, J. Kaare, B., Torgersen, L., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2011). Media user types
among young children and social displacement. Nordicom Review, 32(1), 17–30. Retrieved from
http://www.nordicom.gu.se/sites/default/files/kapitelpdf/337_endestad %20et%20al.pdf
Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). Learning lives connected: Digital youth across school and
community spaces. Comunicar, 20(40), 89–98. Retrieved from http://www.revistacomunicar.com/
index.php?contenido=detalles&numero=40&articulo=40-2013-11
Ferrari, A. (2003). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in
Europe. Scientific and policy report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC83167.pdf
Global Web Index. (2015). Mobile use chart. Retrieved from http://www.globalwebindex.net/blog
Hargittai, E. (2002). Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people’s Web use skills. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1239–1244.
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital
age. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), 239–256.
Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2013). Monitor skole. Om digital
kompetanse og erfaringer med bruk av IKT i skolen. Oslo: IKT-senteret (Use of ICT in Norwegian
school). Retrieved from https://iktsenteret.no/sites/iktsenteret.no/files/attachments/monitor_skole_
2013_4des.pdf
Heim, J., Brandtzæg, P. B., Endestad, T., Kaare, B. H., & Torgersen, L. (2007). Children’s usage of media
technologies and psychosocial factors. New Media & Society, 9(3), 425–454.
Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2014). Digital competence – An emergent
boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 1–25.
Internet World Stats. (2015). The internet big picture: World internet users and 2015 population stats.
Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jenkins, H. (1997). Empowering children in the digital age: Towards a radical media pedagogy. Radical
Teacher, 50, 30.
Johnsson-Smaragdi, U. (2001). Media use styles among the young. In S. Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.),
Children and their changing media environment: A European comparative study (pp. 131–41).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johri, A., Teo, H. J., Lo, J., Dufour, M., & Schram, A. (2014). Millennial engineers: Digital media and
information ecology of engineering students. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(5), 286–301.
Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4),
525–538.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). From digital divides to digital inequality. US-China Education Review, 5(9),
1–16.
Lüders, M. (2008). Conceptualizing personal media. New Media and Society, 10(5), 683–702.
Lüders, M., & Brandtzaeg, P. (2014, online first). “My children tell me it’s so simple”: A mixed- methods
approach to understand older non-users’ perceptions of social networking sites. New Media & Society.
doi: 10.1177/1461444814554064
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
NCCA. (2004). Curriculum assessment and ICT in the Irish context: A discussion paper. Retrieved from
http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/ECPE/Curriculum%20AssessmentandICT.pdf
Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Obrist, M., Cesar, P., Geerts, D., Bartindale, T., & Churchill, E. F. (2015, August). Online video and
interactive TV experiences. Interactions, 22(5), 32–37. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2799629
OECD. (2011). The OECD programme for international assessment of adult competencies (PIAAC).
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/Chapter%2000%20PIAAC %20Tech%20Report.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational leadership, 63(4), 8–13.

161
P. B. BRANDTZæG

Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, Mom, I’m learning! How computer and video games are preparing
your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! New York, NY: Paragon House.
Roodt, S., & Peier, D. (2013, July). Using YouTube© in the classroom for the net generation of students.
In Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference
(Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. 473–488).
Tan, P., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, J. (2006). Introduction to data mining. New York, NY: Pearson, Addison
Wesley.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning. Lifewide Magazine, 11. Retrieved
September 10, 2014, from http://www.lifewidemagazine.co.uk/uploads/1/0/8/4/10842717/lifewide_
magazine_11.pdf#page=10
van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westlund, O., & Bjur, J. (2014). Media life of the young. Young, 22(1), 21–41.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Petter Bae Brandtzæg is Senior Research Scientist

at SINTEF. His main research interests are motivations
of participation in social media,social implications of
online usage such as digital divide, social capital, and
privacy,user behavior and user types online and in social
media, and big data and new forms of data collection in
social media.

162
 STEINAR THORVALDSEN, ANNA-MARIA STENSETH,
GUNSTEIN EGEBERG, GEIR OLAF PETTERSEN
AND JOHN A. RØNNING

10. CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE1

INTRODUCTION

Communications technology clearly has an impact on students and their well-being.

Smartphones have become all-in-one devices that combine the functions of a mobile
phone with those of a computer, providing online access 24/7. The technology has
also provided a new platform for bullying to take place. In this study, we analyse
how students in grades 4 to 10 at five schools in the city of Tromsø in Northern
Norway (N = 878) replied to a questionnaire on harassment, bullying and quality
of life. The response rate was 66.5%. The questionnaire comprised three distinct
measurement tools; KINDLR (Jozefiak, Larsson, Wichstrom, Mattejat, & Ravens-
Sieberer, 2008; Ravens-Sieberer & Bullinger, 2000) which measures children’s
quality in life (QoL); and a traditional and cyberbullying questionnaire. The aim of
the study was to investigate two different aspects of peer harassment; classical and
cyber, in order to determine whether these different forms of bullying differ between
genders, ages or QoL.
We employ the term classical bullying to refer to the “traditional” types of bullying
(mobbing in Norwegian) with which we are familiar in schools, and as established
by Olweus and subsequently by Roland. This is to differentiate between classical
bullying, which takes place in everyday life, and cyberbullying, which occurs
online, and/or via e.g. mobile phones. We use different terms to describe specific
negative acts: harassment, victimization, teasing, or abuse (Arora, 1994; Kowalski,
Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Mynard & Joseph, 2000; Rønning, Handegaard, &
Sourander, 2004; Peter K. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). We will call
this harassment; this term thus refers to specific acts, in accordance with Rønning
and Smith.

BACKGROUND

Traditional Harassment and Bullying

In Norway, research has focused on harassment and bullying for about 30–40 years,
during which time Olweus and Roland have contributed a great deal to the study
of bullying. The research interest in the field of bullying evolved in Scandinavia in
the sixties and seventies (Heinemann, 1973; Olweus, 1978). Bullying is commonly

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 163–182.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

regarded a subcategory of aggression. Olweus defined bullying in the following

terms:
A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly
and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other student.
(Olweus, 1993:9)
Olweus (2013) emphasizes three criteria in bullying, namely; intentional negative
acts, committed repeatedly and over time, and involving a certain imbalance of
power and strength. He also expands the definition and includes specific forms of
bullying, such as saying mean and hurtful things, ignoring or excluding, hitting,
telling lies and spreading false rumours.
On the other hand, Monks and Smith (2006) point out that not all researchers
agree on this definition of bullying. Some may regard an action that is not intended
to do harm as bullying, if the victim regards it as such. Nor does the attempt
necessarily have to be repeated if it has caused long-lasting fear of repetition (ibid).
Furthermore, the exact wording of the definitions used differs, making comparisons
across studies difficult (Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland, & Westby, 2014).
What most definitions have in common is that bullying is described as a set of
negative, unfriendly or aggressive actions. The term aggressive action or aggression
implies intent, as a negative behaviour based on a deliberate or unconscious desire
to harm the victim (Monks & Smith, 2006). That said, we need to bear in mind that
there are differences in opinion regarding how to operationalize the term bullying.
This fact is likely to influence prevalence estimates.
Earlier studies show that roughly five per cent of Norwegian school pupils,
perhaps even more, are being harassed at least once a week, and that the number
of victims sink according to age (Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Roland,
2014). Amongst the youngest pupils, the proportion is six to eight per cent, and
amongst the oldest it is two to four per cent.
Researchers have attempted to find reasons why some pupils are bullies while
others become victims. Olweus suggested that typical victims are more anxious and
insecure than students in general. They are also quieter and more sensitive, and are
often lonely at school and not aggressive. Frisén (2010) states that in adolescence,
peers are important, and if you are unpopular or rejected by friends, this can be
the loneliest time of your life. Jansen et al. (2011) found that anxiety, emotional
and motor problems, socioeconomic status and family breakup to be important
predictors of bully involvement.
In a study of 15 Norwegian primary schools, (Roland, 2014) found that in schools
with poor leadership there was more bullying. This was also the case if staff did not
cooperate well, especially with regard to educational issues. The same opinion is
also to some degree supported by the NIFU report (Lødding & Vibe, 2010). Various
studies indicate that classroom management and structure may have an important
impact on bullying (Lødding & Vibe, 2010; Roland, 2014; Wendelborg, 2014).
These studies considered several aspects of classroom and school management,

164
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

including teachers care for individual students, their ability to teach and organize,
and to control and intervene. It was also found that generally well-run schools, with
a digital learning platform and a good school administration, had lower levels of
bullying.
Arora (1994) published a checklist aimed at clarifying the actual extent of
bullying experienced by pupils in the course of a week. This approach is an alternative
to the global item approach. Arora based her list on three different categories of
traditional harassment: physical, verbal and social, and found this checklist to be
“an indirect but more precise measurement of bullying”, as there are many different
types of bullying, and several different definitions of bullying. Many teachers
may find the term “bullying” too emotive and suggest that children would not
provide reliable responses to such a direct question, and after an intervention a
higher number of incidents as “bullying” may be reported, due to the awakening of
sensitivity. Arora also stated that her “Life in school” checklist provides direct data
of actual bullying incidents as self-reported by students. Thus, data obtained are
based as closely as possible on actual occurrences rather than opinion (1999: 21).
While bullying is an abstract term and maybe difficult to grasp, harassment is more
easily understood, as it refers to specific incidents.

Cyber Harassment and Cyberbullying

Cyber harassment and cyberbullying make up a relatively new field for researchers,
obviously, since the devices used in this form of bullying have emerged fairly
recently. We therefore need to establish what should be included in the term cyber
harassment, as it includes a wide spectrum of behaviours.
There is some inconsistency regarding how to look upon cyberbullying and
cyber harassment. Some researchers emphasize typology and view cyberbullying
as a new category of bullying, while others emphasize location or environment and
make distinctions of where the incident happen (Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, &
Oppenheim, 2012). Tokunaga (2010) lists several rather different definitions used
in research and calls for more work to be done on theories and definitions. Olweus
(2013) argues that the definition of cyberbullying should derive from the one used
in traditional bullying.
Using the same terms as Olweus in his definition of bullying, Peter K. Smith et al.
(2008) defined cyberbullying as;
An aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using
electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who
cannot easily defend him or herself.
Menesini et al. (2012), compared the understanding of cyberbullying among
adolescents in six European countries. Here they looked at whether the three
criteria formed by Olweus for defining classical bullying also could be applied to
cyberbullying; intentionality, repetition and imbalance of power.

165
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

When studying intentionality, qualitative research has found that young people
regard it as cyberbullying when the perpetrator intends to harm another person.
Furthermore, they argue that in the virtual context a single aggressive act can lead
to an immense number of repetitions of the victimisation, without further direct
contributions of the original perpetrator (Ersilia Menesini et al., 2012: 455; Slonje &
Smith, 2008).
From this, we may interpret that repetition needs to be further studied, since a
single act can be shared and viewed a number of times. Olweus has investigated
whether cyberbullying items would relate differently from classical bullying items to
a variable with which these items can be expected to correlate (Olweus, 2013: 758).
In this study he found that the three key criteria in traditional bullying seem to
function in roughly the same way in cyberbullying. He further found that “Students
who were exposed to cyber bullying more often tended to have systematically poorer
self-esteem” (Olweus, 2013: 758). This is in accordance with classical bullying
situations. We still know little about long-term impacts of cyberbullying or whether
cyberbullying has less impact on the individual than other forms of bullying.
Regarding the criterion of imbalance of power, Menesini et al. (2012) suggested
that this criterion may differ in cyberbullying, since victims can use other strategies
to “avoid” perpetrators. They also refer to two other criteria that have been suggested
as being specific to cyberbullying; namely anonymity and public versus private.
The possibility of anonymity in cyberbullying is unique for this mean of bullying,
and it could leave the victim feeling powerless. They further state that, when
dealing with public versus private, young people consider it to be more serious if
an embarrassing picture is posted publicly, as the audience is larger than if it is sent
privately.
Another study by Menesini et al. (2011: 460) singled out different criteria for
cyberbullying. The clear first dimension is imbalance of power, and a clear second
dimension is intentionality, while at a lower level they identified anonymity.
This indicates that students look at two out of three traditional bullying criteria
as relevant to cyberbullying, namely intentionality and imbalance of power, but
excluded repetition. Imbalance of power may suggest that this is based not only
on the social status, popularity or strength of the person who bullies, but on a more
interactional description (Menesini et al., 2012). Regarding intentionality, there must
be a conscious wish to harm another person in order to consider it as cyberbullying;
otherwise, the behaviour is regarded as a joke. Menesini et al. (2012) suggest that
anonymity might change its impact on perception in relation to the other criteria and
needs to be considered together with other criteria in order to be fully understood.
The public versus private criterion did not show any relevance for the definition
of cyberbullying in the study by Menesini et al. They found that students regarded it
as cyberbullying whether or not it was sent to a larger audience. Nevertheless, this
may be considered a criterion in combination with other criteria (Menesini et al.,
2012).

166
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

The literature discussed above thus suggests that cyberbullying should be

defined by these three criteria: imbalance of power, intentionality and anonymity.
Concerning repetition, there appear to be a variety of opinions. Nevertheless, the
precise definition ought to be further investigated.
Kowalski et al. provided a brief overview of the different forms of cyberbullying.
Flaming “refers to a brief, heated exchange between two or more individuals that
occurs via any communication technology… flaming occurs in “public” settings…”
(Kowalski et al., 2012: 62). In cyberbullying literature, harassment is more one-
sided than flaming. Denigration is described as “information about another that
is derogatory and untrue” (Kowalski et al., 2012: 63), and impersonation is a
matter of posing as the victim, the most usual form being to access the victim’s
social media accounts and harass others, pretending to be the victim. Outing and
trickery refer to sharing personal, often embarrassing, information with others,
and tricking someone into revealing personal information about themselves and
then sharing this with others. Exclusion/ostracism takes place when someone is
excluded from for example a Facebook group or is “unfriended” on social network
sites. Another form of cyberbullying is to cyberstalk, which refers to using
electronic communications to stalk another person through repetitive harassing
and threatening communications (Kowalski et al., 2012: 67). The authors then
discuss video recording of assault or ‘happy slapping’ and hopping, which are
ways of utterly humiliating a target by digitally recording assaults on her or
him and uploading the recording to the Internet. In happy slapping, one person
approaches and slaps someone while another person records the action, while
hopping involves direct assaults. Finally, sexting refers to the sending or posting of
nude or semi-nude pictures or videos via text messages or other electronic means
(Kowalski et al., 2012: 68). All the categories above show that cyberbullying can
take many forms. Kowalski et al. also describe the most frequently used methods
of cyberbullying as; instant messaging, electronic mail, text messaging, bash-
boards (online bulletin boards) and social networking sites.
Staksrud (2013), refers to the most common forms of cyberbullying as “someone
sent me an insulting/ mean message on the Internet”, this is common among all
groups of students, but most common among 15–16-year-olds. The second most
common form Staksrud found was “someone posted an insulting/mean message on
the Internet so other could view it, or sent it to another”. She has also pointed to
seven major differences between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
1. You can never get away from it
2. Audio-visual material can be used to bully
3. Bullying can be documented
4. The bully can easily hide behind anonymity
5. Cyberbullying leads to new forms of exclusion, in the shape of digital isolation
6. Bullying can become more visible
7. Bullying can become less visible to parents, teachers and other adults.

167
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

Smith et al. (2002, 2012) divided cyberbullying into seven sub-categories; Text
message bullying, Picture/ Video Clip bullying (via mobile phone cameras), Phone
call bullying (via mobile phones), Email bullying, Chat-room bullying, Bullying
through instant messaging and Bullying via websites.
In a study involving 3767 students in grades 6–8, Kowalski and Limber found
that although 78% of the students surveyed had no experience of cyberbullying,
while 11% were victims of cyberbullying, 7% were both bullies and victims, and 4%
were bullies (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). No clear influence of either gender or age
has been confirmed in cyberbullying, even if there are some reports indicating that
girls are more at risk of being targeted (Tokunaga, 2010).

Quality of Life

Quality of life can be understood in many different ways, and there are various
definitions of this term. Frisch (2013: 202) refers to other and states;
…the current conceptualizations include the constructs of happiness, well-
being, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction, most emphasis is placed on
behavioural competencies or “functional ability”, which is often unrelated to
well-being or happiness.
According to Wallander and Schmitt (2001: 572), quality of life is by its nature a
holistic concept, an attempt to describe how well or poorly life works at a particular
point in time.
Jozefiak et al. (2008: 2–3), defined quality in life (QoL) as “the subjective
reported well-being in regard to the child’s physical and mental health, self-esteem
and perception of own activities (playing/having hobbies), perceived relationship to
friends and family as well as to school.”
From this one could suggest that QoL could be looked upon as the ways in which
a person perceives his or her social, physical and emotional functioning and how she
or he manages life. This is a simplified way of attempting to describe a complex term.
But like to other abstract terms, such as bullying, quality of life cannot be described
in a simple way, or as Jozefiak et al. (2009) state; there is “no gold standard for the
definition of QoL”.
In a review article, Huebner (2004) addresses the fact that relevant indicators of
subjective QoL in the school context have not been agreed upon, although there are
findings which indicate that life satisfaction may be relevant to school functioning.
This suggests that there is something to gain from studying possible associations
between QoL and bullying. The negative effect of bullying on pupils’ perception
of quality is made evident for the psychosocial QoL, but not for physical (Wilkins-
Shurmer et al., 2003). Allison et al. (2009) found impact of bullying in young age on
health related quality of life (HRQoL) in adulthood.
Research on the impacts of bullying reveals that victims, among many other
effects, suffer a poorer experience of quality of life (Wilkins-Shurmer et al., 2003;

168
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Frisén & Bjarnelind, 2010). Flaspohler et al. (2009) indicate that for children who
are bullied but enjoy the social support of their peers, there was a weaker association
between bullying and QoL, while those who received support only from teachers did
not display this effect. They further found that a combination of peer- and teacher
support provided the strongest buffer against the negative effect of bullying (ibid).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples

The analysis presented in this chapter is a part of the project “Well-being in Tromsø”,
of UIT the Arctic University of Norway. The data were collected during late autumn
2013 and early spring 2014. Special classes with pupils from other countries
than Norway were excluded because these lacked sufficient competence in the
Norwegian language. The project “Well-being in Tromsø” uses a range of methods
to gain information and understanding of students’ self-perceived bullying and their
self-perceived QoL. Here we seek to obtain a wide spectrum of descriptions of
these phenomena, and the possibility of investigating connections from a statistical
perspective.
We designed a questionnaire that was completed by pupils at five schools in
Tromsø. The questionnaire consist of three measurement instruments; the KINDLR
quality of life (QoL) questionnaire (Jozefiak et al., 2008; Ravens-Sieberer &
Bullinger, 2000); and a separate section of questions about classical and cyber
harassment including the “My Life in School” Checklist (Arora, 1994; Menesini
et al., 2011; Rønning et al., 2004).
The study was carried out digitally using Questback, which is a commercial tool
developed for use in a wide range investigations. Questback has a good reputation
for data security. Lower secondary school pupils are under 16 years old, so their
parents needed to consent to their participation in the survey. The parents were
contacted by the local school, given written and oral information about the project,
and asked for their consent.
The students were from a target five-school sample of 1321 students aged 9–16
in 2013–14. The final response rate was 66.5% of the students in grades 4 to 10
(N = 878), and the sample comprised 438 girls and 438 boys, with two cases missing
gender identification. The sample consists of 342 (31%) primary level students and
536 (69%) lower secondary level students. Written consent is given by parents to all
participating pupils. The project is approved by the Regional Ethical Committee for
Medical Research, REK-Nord.

Measures

The student questionnaire consists of 24 items for the KINDL questionnaire

(Ravens-Sieberer & Bullinger, 2000), 15 items for traditional harassment (Rønning

169
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

et al., 2004), eight items for digital harassment, 10 items for bullying (global), six for
perception of intervention in bullying incidents, items on gender involvement, and
items for background variables.
KINDLR measures experienced quality of life (QoL). The questionnaire consists
of 24 Likert-scale items associated with six dimensions as listed in Tables 6 and 7.
The sub-scales of these six dimensions can be combined to produce a total score
(TQoL). These dimensions consist of four questions from each of the following
categories:
a. experienced physical health (I felt ill, I was in pain, I was tired or worn out, I felt
strong and full of energy)
b. emotional well-being (I laughed and had fun, I was bored, I felt alone, I felt scared
and unsure of myself)
c. self-esteem (I was proud of myself, I felt on top of the world, I felt pleased with
myself, I had lots of good ideas)
d. relationship to family (I got on well with my parents, I felt fine at home, we
quarrelled at home, I felt restricted by my parents)
e. relationship to friends (I did things together with my friends, I was a “success”
with my friends, I got along well with my friends, I felt different from other
people)
f. relationship to school (doing the schoolwork was easy, I found school interesting,
I worried about my future, I worried about getting bad marks or grades).
Every question asks about the previous week’s experiences, and is scored on a
five-point Likert-scale (1 = “never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “often”
and 5 = “always”). The 24 items in KINDLR use these scales. Mean item scores
are calculated for all the subscales. Correlations with comparable QoL scales have
shown acceptable validity as well as satisfactory discriminant validity (Jozefiak
et al., 2009). Ten of the QoL items had reverse-order scaling, meaning that a higher
item implies a poorer quality of life.
The classical harassment inventory consists of 15 items from the Arora “Life
in School Checklist” (Arora, 1994). The measures use descriptive events, both
positively and negatively perceived. Particularly salient questions were selected
by Rønning et al. (2004) when the list was being revised, after similarities with
other victimization scales were taken into account. In the final version traditional
harassment is operationalized by 15 items investigating five verbal, six social
and four physical items. The study by Rønning et al. demonstrated acceptable
psychometric properties.
The cyber part of the survey is based on a questionnaire developed by Smith
et al. (2006) and Menesini et al. (2011). We investigated cyber harassment from two
perspectives: cyberbullying in general, which consists of five general variables,
and specific forms of cyber harassment, which consists of eight items that present

170
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

a set of event descriptions. The questions ask how often the respondent has
experienced any such events, which include “mean text messages or unpleasant
photos/videos on my phone” and “mean calls to my mobile phone”. The definition
of E-mail insults is “scary or nasty e-mails”. The three next items specify “insults
online (Facebook, Twitter or web)”, “teased or insulted by chat messages, as on
Skype or within games” and “insults on blogs”. One separate item describe posting
picture and video content: “unpleasant photos or videos of me posted on internet
(Facebook, YouTube, web and so on)”. The last item has a description of social
exclusion in cyberspace: “Banned me from a Facebook-group or the like where I
wanted to participate”.
For the items investigating harassment and bullying frequencies, we also
employed a five-point scale. Values are: 1 = “never”, 2 = “only once or twice”,
3 = “two or three times a month”, 4 = “about once per week” and 5 = “several times
a week”. The items on classical harassment use these scales, so do the items of cyber
harassment. The cut-off point for being harassed/bullied was set to “two or three
times a month” or more often. This is a well-known cut-off point in the bullying
literature (Arora, 1994; Olweus, 1993; Roland, 2014; Rønning et al., 2004; Smith
et al., 2002).

Analysis

For analysis of reliability, we computed Cronbach’s alpha for all subscales

as a measure of internal consistency. We investigated differences regarding
harassment and well-being between groups defined by gender or age by the chi-
squared test. Student’s t-test was used to determine whether there was a substantial
difference between means. Effect sizes were estimated by Cohen’s d-value,
with Cohen’s conventions: 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium, and 0.8 = large effect
(King et al., 2011: 267). All the analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 23
(Windows).

RESULTS

The fundamental concepts of this paper: bullying, harassments and quality of

life are first dealt with in general terms that provide descriptive information, and
subsequently in greater depth. The final part of this section deals with the relationship
between cyber bullying/harassment and QoL.

Reliability

The reliability Cronbach’s alpha measures yielded a value of a ranging from 0.61 to
0.82 for the QoL subscales, and 0.89 for the overall QoL questionnaire.

171
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

Bullying and Harassment

Table 1 shows all reported bullying and harassments (traditional and/or cyber) as
split between girls and boys. The table does not support the presumption that girls
and boys experience harassments equally (p-value 0.041), although the distribution
of bullying is more equally distributed among the genders.

Table 1. Self-perceived total bullying and harassment by gender

The Yes-column shows the incidence of harassment of students who reported
being harassed (classical and/or cyber) two or three times a month or more often,
and the No-column shows the number of reports of fewer or no occurrences.
The p-values are computed by the chi-square test.

Bullying (classical Harassment (classical

and/or cyber) and/or cyber)
No Yes No Yes

Girls 395 43 316 122

Boys 390 48 287 151
p-value 0.58 0.041

N = 876

Altogether, 78 students reported to be classically bullied and 13 reported to be

bullied only by cyber, hence 91 students (10.4%) reported either “traditional” or
cyberbullying. The overlapping group of both classical and cyber bullied consists
of 31–13 = 18 students (2.1%). The numbers of bullied girls and boys were quite
similar, at 37+6 = 43 girls and 41+7 = 48 boys. More occurrences of harassment
are reported than bullying. Both the classical and the exclusive cyber-only domains
offered a slight bias towards girls, although the difference was not significant
(p-value>0.05 by the chi-square test). The difference between genders summed up
for the classical and cyber harassment rates are larger, as also shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Self-perceived bullying and harassment by form and gender

Classical (all) Cyber (all) Only cyber (exclusively)

Bullying Harassment Bullying Harassment Bullying Harassment

Girls 37 117 15 30 6 5
Boys 41 139 16 28 7 12
Total 78 (8.9%) 256 (29.2%) 31 (3.5%) 58 (6.6%) 13 (1.5%) 17 (2.0%)

N = 876

172
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

The traditionally bullied group comprised 78 students. We also wanted to

investigate the extent to which the cyber-bullied group is related to the group
of traditional bullies. Within the traditional group, 18 students also reported
having been be cyber-bullied, so within the “traditional” group the relative risk
of experiencing cyberbullying is 18/78 = 0.23. The complementary group of
students, i.e. those who did not suffer traditional bullying, was at a relative risk
of 13/800 = 0.02 of suffering cyberbullying. The comparable risk factors based on
harassments were 41/256 = 0.16 and 17/620 = 0.03, respectively.
Table 3 compares students attending primary and secondary schools. There is a
significant difference in the incidence of cyber harassment between primary and
secondary schools (p-value = 0.003). This is natural because of more extensive
access to technology for older students, and i.e. Facebook requires all users to be
over the age of 13. No significant differences between school levels were observed
for cyberbullying.

Table 3. Cyberbullying and cyber harassment by school level

The Yes-column shows the incidence of cyberbullying and cyber harassment of
students who reported being bullied/harassed two or three times a month or more often,
while the No-column shows the number of reports of fewer or no occurrences.

Cyberbullying Cyber harassment

School No Yes No Yes

Primary (grade 4–7) 330 12 330 12

Secondary /grade 8–10) 517 19 490 46
p-value (Chi-square test) 0.98 0.003

N = 878

Table 4 shows the types of cyber harassment to which students reported that
they had been exposed. The most common form of cyber harassment is personal
messages, and the second most common is public online messages.

Table 4. Types of cyber harassment

Personal Public verbal Public Social

(SMS, mail, chat, calls) (blog, social media) visual exclusion
5.4% 2.7% 0.9% 0.6%

N = 878

173
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

Quality of Life vis-à-vis Bullying and Harassment

Table 5 presents the results for the relationship between self-perceived QoL, classical
bullying and cyberbullying. Here we observe that the non-bullied score significantly
higher in absolutely all categories of QoL. The same tendencies are observed within
the cyber domain, although the p-values are somewhat higher, presumably because
of a lower sample size. The table also shows the total construct TQoL and effect size
(Cohen’s d).

Table 5. Self-perceived quality of life vs. bullying

Classical Cyber
Non-bullied Bullied *p-value Effect Non- Bullied *p-value Effect
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) size bullied Mean (SD) size
Mean (SD)

TQoL 3.8 (.49) 3.3 (.55) <0.001 .96 3.8 (.51) 3.3 (.59) <0.001 .91
Physical 3.8 (.63) 3.3 (.75) <0.001 .72 3.7 (.64) 3.4 (.86) .036 .40
Emotional 4.0 (.60) 3.5 (.77) <0.001 .72 4.0 (.62) 3.4 (.87) .001 .79
Self-esteem 3.4 (.82) 3.0 (.95) <0.001 .45 3.4 (.83) 3.0 (1.03) .003 .43
Family 4.1 (.63) 3.7 (.81) <0.001 .55 4.1 (.64) 3.6 (.90) .002 .64
Friends 4.0 (.64) 3.5 (.86) <0.001 .66 4.0 (.66) 3.5 (.97) .011 .60
School 3.6 (.69) 3.2 (.65) <0.001 .60 3.6 (.69) 3.1 (.66) <0.001 .74

N = 878. *Bullied vs. Non-bullied

Students who report not having been bullied reported better overall QoL than
those who reported bullying. This is also significant on all constructs in Table 5.
The construct with the largest effect size is “TQoL” (0.91–0.96) and “Emotional”
(0.72–0.79), while “Self-esteem” has the lowest (0.43–0.45), except for cyberbullying
where “Physical” has a slightly lower effect. Most of the effects are between medium
(0.5) and large (0.8) (King et al., 2011: 267).
We also wished to find out whether the same tendencies were found when
analysing QoL in relation to the group who are only exposed to cyberbullying or
cyber harassment. We first excluded “traditional” bullying victims from the data, and
then compiled the statistics based on the subset of non-cyberbullied vs. cyberbullied
groups. We did the same for cyber harassment, as shown in the right hand part
of Table 6. The table reveals the same tendencies for bullying as for harassment,
namely that those reporting that they had been be solely cyber victimized, also
report poorer QoL. This is significant (p < 0.05) for four out of 14 constructs, and
only one of which points in the opposite direction (“Friends”). These results are less
certain since the samples are small. The total construct TQoL is also shown. In the
second half of the table the Non-harassed and solely cyber-harassed groups are also
compared. The effect size (Cohen’s d) is also shown.

174
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 6. Quality of life for the “pure” cyber-bullied domain versus the non-bullied domain

Cyberbullying only Cyber harassment

only
Non-bullied Bullied *p-value Effect Non- Harassed **p-value Effect
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) size harassed Mean size
Mean (SD) (SD)

TQoL 3.8 (.49) 3.6 (.54) .12 .39 3.9 (.48) 3.6 (.47) .035 .63
Physical 3.8 (.63) 3.5 (.95) .40 .37 3.8 (.61) 3.5 (.69) .030 .46
Emotional 4.0 (.60) 3.7 (.74) .07 .45 4.1 (.59) 3.9 (.39) .42 .40
Self-esteem 3.4 (.82) 3.3 (.91) .61 .12 3.5 (.82) 3.3 (.92) .24 .23
Family 4.1 (.62) 3.8 (.87) .21 .40 4.2 (.59) 4.0 (.78) .20 .29
Friends 4.0 (.64) 4.1 (.49) .51 –.18 4.1 (.62) 3.8 (.51) .038 .53
School 3.6 (.69) 3.2 (.78) .029 .54 3.7 (.68) 3.4 (.72) .14 .43

N = 800 *Bullied vs. Non-bullied N = 622 **Harassed vs. Non-harassed

We note that those who report being bullied tended to report lower satisfaction
than those who report not being bullied. Tables 5 and 6 both show that students are
most content with their family and friends, and somewhat less satisfied with school
and their self-esteem.

DISCUSSION

Arora (1994) viewed bullying as an abstract term, and states that in order to distract
attention from the bullying perspective, the questionnaire would benefit from neutral
items (some positive or neutral and some more unpleasant). In this study we study
both the abstract term and the operationalised term (harassment). Both terms tells
much the same story when compared.
As mentioned in the theoretical framework, many studies have attempted to find
out which gender is more likely to bully and be bullied. There seem to be general
agreement among researchers that boys engage in bullying more than girls (Kowalski
et al., 2012; Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Roland, 2014), but that there
may be an shift today in Norway (Wendelborg, 2014). This is consistent with the
results of this study, as we find that girls are bullied nearly as much as boys, both by
traditional and cyber methods.
The main aim of this study was to determine whether students who report being
and/or harassed also report poorer quality of life. Since research has focussed less
on bullying and quality of life, this is a relatively new field for research that also
takes up the QoL of adolescents. For this reason, there are few studies with which to
compare it in detail. Our main finding is that students who are bullied and/or harassed
reported themselves to be significantly less content. Cyber-harassed students also

175
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

report a lower QoL (Tables 5 and 6). However, students overall reported themselves
as being fairly content with life.
Compared to traditional bullying, cyberbullying is less widespread, i.e. 3.5%
versus 8.9% (Table 1). However, both forms of bullying and harassment resulted in
significantly lower (p < 0.05) scores on the quality of life scales (Table 6).

Quality of Life Aspects

Tables 5 and 6 showed that students generally reported good “total quality of
life” (score between 3 and 4). They claimed to be most satisfied with their family,
followed by friends and emotional well-being, while they reported less satisfaction
with school and self-esteem. The standard deviations indicate that there is greater
dispersion for some of the constructs, particularly self-esteem, which also yields the
lowest mean score. The lowest dispersion was found in the total construct “TQoL”.

Aspects of Bullying and Harassment

Some 10.4% of the participants reported being classically and/or cyberbullied

(Table 2). This is a high percentage compared to other studies; even 8.9 %
(those who reported having been “traditionally” bullied) is a relatively high rate for
Norway. Olweus and Roland estimate that 5% of children in Norway are bullied
(Olweus, 2013; Roland, 2014). In The Student Survey of 2013 found that 4.2%
reported being bullied at school; this is substantially lower than in previous years
(6.8% in 2012) (Wendelborg, 2014). The Student Survey was mainly performed in
autumn 2013, while earlier studies took place in spring. This could be one of several
possible reasons why they found a drop in bullying incidents, because many students
are new to each other when the schoolyear starts in autumn.
Our study was mainly conducted in the autumn, so this is similar to the 2013
student survey. Wendelborg (2014) states that approximately 400 000 students took
part in that study, while our data are based on the answers given by nearly 900
students. The fact that our study is solely an urban study cannot account for the
relatively high percentage of bullying reported. As mentioned in the theory section
above, Olweus showed that there is no reason to believe that bullying rates differ
between urban and rural districts (Olweus, 1993). While we found that 10.4% of our
students reported having been bullied, we also need to emphasize that this includes
both traditional and cyberbullying, both at and outside of school.
Another reason for our high percentage could be that there has been a focus on
bullying at school, at home or in the media, leading to a relatively high number of
reports of being bullied. Nevertheless, there can be other reasons, such as something
happening at school, such as a fight between pupils, a quarrel or something similar
which resulted in these responses. In order to find if these figures are stable over
time we will need to perform a longitudinal study.

176
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 1 shows that more students report having been harassed than bullied. This
may be because it is easier to report being for instance hit or kicked than bullied;
being bullied one might be regarded a victim, whereas occasional kicking might be
treated as isolated incidents.
There has been a debate amongst researchers regarding how to classify
cyberbullying. As mentioned above, some consider cyberbullying to be a type of
bullying, equivalent to social bullying (Ybarra et al., 2012). In our study we treat
it as a new type of bullying. Since this is a relatively fresh field, the debate is
understandable and necessary. It is not within the scope of this study to debate this,
as we think it calls for further investigation.
Our figures for cyberbullying show that 3.5% of all pupils reported that they
had been cyber-bullied, 1.3% reported such bullying took place at school, and 3.4%
outside of school. This shows that students report having been cyber-bullied more
in their spare-time than at school, and this is similar to reports by other studies
(Kowalski et al., 2012; Olweus, 2013). This might be because students know they
are not allowed to have mobile phones in the classroom, and therefore do not report
such events, or that they actually are more cyber-bullied outside of school hours.
In several studies the figures differ, as some studies report being cyber-bullied
when it takes place happened at least once in the previous month, while others use
the definition offered by Olweus. The figures of being a target of cyberbullying
range from 4% to 40% (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin,
2012; Kowalski et al., 2012; Olweus, 2013). Olweus found that 4.5 % of students, in
a study conducted in a large US sample, reported having been cyberbullied, and the
numbers were even lower in Norway (Olweus, 2013).
When we ask students how often they are cyberbullied, most of them answer
that they have never/only once or twice been bullied, and the definition of bullying
does not regard this rate as being bullied. The most frequent answers, from those
who report being cyber-bullied in one way or another are “teased or insulted me via
chat messages, etc.” followed by “teased or insulted me online” and “mean calls to
me on my mobile phone”, this is similar to what Kowalski et al. found (2012). As
mentioned above, the actual numbers of those who report having been cyberbullied
are for the time being low, but students in the classical bullying group are at a higher
risk of entering the domain of cyberbullying.

Aspects of Quality of Life, Bullying and Harassment

Table 5 shows that that both classical and cyber victims report a poorer overall QoL
than non-victims, and there are significant differences in all measures of QoL. We
find that victims of bullying are more likely to report lower scores than the group that
is not bullied. The study by Frisén and Bjarnelind (2010) reported similar findings
regarding QoL, although the authors used different measures. In a study from USA,
Patchin and Hinduja (2010) found that students who experienced cyberbullying,

177
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

both as a victim and an offender, had significantly lower self-esteem than those who
had little or no experience with cyberbullying. The standard deviations show that
there is wider variance within the group being bullied than those not bullied, except
for the construct “School”.
In Table 6 we examine the “pure” cyber domain. The effect sizes here are small to
medium on all constructs, except for “Friends”, which is opposite. Due to the effect
sizes there are reasons to assume that cyberbullying in itself does to some extent
affect QoL, while it might not affect friendships to the same extent. This could be
because whether or not one is being cyberbullied, one probably still have friends
who offer support.

Limitations

A number of choices have to be made in study design, and these choices are essential
to the quality of every study. In this study quantitative method is used to address the
main topic.
The questionnaire consisted of mutually exclusive questions with a given range of
responses, although it included a section in which the respondent could write his/her
thoughts and feelings concerning the questions asked. As the informants had a limited
range of answers at their disposal, processing these was not too complicated, and we
also made sure that the questions were answered at the same level of precision, as
advised by Kleven (2011). Students have to answer each question before they are
allowed to move on, which reduces the problem of missing responses. On the other
hand, this can increase the problem of validity due to the fact that respondents do not
necessarily answer truthfully and in line with the assumptions of the design of the
study. However, in discussions and interviews with teachers and respondents, done
in other parts in this project, there appear to have been few problems associated with
not providing correct information.
When we look at the questions that asked about cyber harassment in our
questionnaire, one can discuss whether or not they are up to date. The rapid changes
in digital devices present a challenge to keeping questions up to date. Many students
and teachers say that students do not use e-mails and SMS as much as they used
to, so these questions may need to be revised. When we ask students, they say that
they hardly use their mobile phones to make calls and send SMS, but use chat on
Facebook (Messenger), Instagram and Snap-chat to keep in touch, while new apps
keep popping up. The questions used in this study to measure cyber harassment are
still at an early stage of development, and will need further validation to become a
more consent and acceptable instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that, compared to classical bullying, cyberbullying is less common,

but it now affects some 3.5% of pupils, i.e. more than one third of the level of

178
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

classical bullying, and most of it takes place outside of school. Nearly half of the
cyberbullying (1.5%) comes in addition to traditional bullying. There are only small
gender- and age-related differences in incidence at both primary school (ages 10–13)
and secondary school (ages 14–16).
Both “traditional” and cyber forms of bullying and harassment show significantly
(p < 0.05) lower scores on their self-perceived quality of life factors, as shown in
Table 5. Non-victims reported a mean between 4.1–3.4 on a scale from 1 to 5, while
those who reported having been bullied reported a mean between 3.7–3.0. Cyber
harassment and cyberbullying share the same negative characteristics in relation to
quality of life as classical harassment and bullying.
This study was carried out in a city in northern Norway. Even though Norwegian
society and the educational system are both rather homogeneous in terms of socio-
economic status, a broader sampling strategy would have improved generalization.
In order to determine whether our results are stable over time, and to produce a
more detailed study of causalities between the variables, a longitudinal study
will be necessary. The publication of studies in the cyber domain may lead to the
development of much-needed theory, policy, education and methods of preventing
and intervening in cases of cyberbullying and cyber harassment.

NOTE
1
This paper is partly based on the master’s thesis of Anna-Maria Stenseth: “Being bullied, quality of
life and gender”. University of Tromsø, Department of Education, 2015.

REFERENCES
Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S59–S60. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003
Allison, S., Roeger, L., & Reinfeld-Kirkman, N. (2009). Does school bullying affect adult health?
Population survey of health-related quality of life and past victimization. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 43(12), 1163–1170.
Arora, T. (1994). Measuring bullying with the ‘Life in School’ checklist. Pastoral Care in Education,
12(3), 11–15. doi:10.1080/02643949409470880
Arora, T. (1999). Levels of bullying measured by British schools using the “Life in School” checklist:
A case for benchmarking? Pastoral Care in Education, 17–22.
Fangen, K. (2004). Deltagende observasjon. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand by
me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life.
Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636–649. doi:10.1002/pits.20404
Frisén, A., & Bjarnelind, S. (2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta
Pædiatrica, 99(4), 597–603. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01664.x
Heinemann, P.-P. (1973). Mobbing: gruppevold blant barn og voksne. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Jansen, D. E., Veenstra, R., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2011). Early risk factors
for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The
longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 440.

179
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

Jozefiak, T., Larsson, B., Wichstrom, L., Mattejat, F., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2008). Quality of life as
reported by school children and their parents: A cross-sectional survey. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 6. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-34
Jozefiak, T., Larsson, B., & Wichstrøm, L. (2009). Changes in quality of life among Norwegian school
children: A six-month follow-up study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7. doi:10.1186/1477-
7525-7-7
Kleven, T. A., Tveit, K., & Hjardemaal, F. (2011). Innføring i pedagogisk forskningsmetode: en hjelp til
kritisk tolking og vurdering. Oslo: Unipub.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22–S30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lødding, B., & Vibe, N. (2010). “Hvis noen forteller om mobbing…”: utdypende undersøkelse av funn i
Elevundersøkelsen om mobbing, urettferdig behandling og diskriminering Rapport (NIFU : online), 48.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying: Dimensional
structure and relative item severity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social
Networking, 14(5), 267–274. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0002
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-ruiz, R., Calmaestra, J.,
Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Blaya, C., Berthaud, J., & Smith, P. K.
(2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 455–463. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the
term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 801–821.
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale.
Aggressive Begaviour, 26, 169–178.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publication.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying an self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12),
614–621.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization
during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 20, 259–280.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., & Bullinger, M. (2000). KINDLR questionnaire for measuring health-related quality
of life in children and adolescents.
Roland, E. (2014). Mobbingens psykologi: hva kan skolen gjøre? Oslo: Universitetsforl.
Rønning, J. A., Handegaard, B. H., & Sourander, A. (2004). Self-perceived peer harassment in a
community sample of Norwegian school children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(10), 1067–1079.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.04.006
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying:
A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international
comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 1119–1133.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Caravalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbullying, its
forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. London:
Department for Education and skills.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its
nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4),
376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Staksrud, E. (2013). Digital mobbing: hvem, hvor, hvordan, hvorfor – og hva kan voksne gjøre? Oslo:
Kommuneforl.

180
 CYBER HARASSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on
cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic review and
content analysis of bullying and cyberbullying measurement strategies. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 19(4), 423–434. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008
Wallander, J., Schmitt, M., & Koot, H. (2001). Quality of life measurement in children and adolescents:
Issues, instruments, and applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 571–585.
Wendelborg, C. (2014). Mobbing, krenkelser og arbeidsro i skolen. Rapport NTNU.
Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O’Callaghan, M., Najman, J., Bor, W., Williams, G., & Anderson, M. (2003).
Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics Child
Health, 39(6), 436–441. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1754.2003.00184.x
Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and measuring
cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization (Report). Journal of Adolescent
Health, 51(1), 53.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Steinar Thorvaldsen is professor of information science,

Department of Education, UiT-The Arctic University of
Norway. He is Project leader for the research project “Well-
being in Tromsø”.

Anna-Maria Stenseth is PhD student, Department of

Education, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway

Gunstein Egeberg is PhD student, Department of Education,

UiT-The Arctic University of Norway. Among his research
interests are interactive technology, language education,
special education, and primary education.

181
S. THORVALDSEN et al.

Geir Olaf Pettersen is assistant professor, Department

of Education, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway. His
research interests are mathematics education and educational
technology.

John A. Rønning is professor at Department of Clinical

Medicine, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway. Rønning’s
expertise is clinical child and adolescent psychology. His
research interests are psychiatry and neonatology.

182
 GUNSTEIN EGEBERG, STEINAR THORVALDSEN
AND JOHN A. RØNNING

11. THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER

HARASSMENT ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

BACKGROUND

Bullying is often seen as a subcategory of peer aggression. Three criteria distinguish

bullying from other kinds of aggression: imbalance of power, repetition or duration
of negative actions and a deliberate will to hurt. Research was initially directed
towards physical and verbal forms of harassment (Olweus, 2001; Heinemann, 1973;
Olweus, 1978). Social, or indirect, forms of bullying were identified in the eighties
(Lagerspetz et al., 1988). In the 2000s, digital bullying, more usually expressed as
“cyberbullying”, was identified (Campbell, 2005; Smith et al., 2006).
Some researchers have addressed the impact of bullying on academic achievement,
but findings differ. Glew et al. (2005) found that victims and bully-victims (students
who are involved as both bullies and victims) scored lower on measures of academic
achievement. Their findings were significant even though the reported odds ratios
indicate rather low effects (OR=0.8–0.9). Woods and Wolke (2004) found no effect
of direct bullying, either as victim or bully, on academic achievement for students
in grades 2 and 4. In the case of indirect bullying, no effect was found for victims,
but they identified indirect (or relational) bullies as performing better academically.
As they did for other influences on academic achievement, they reported such
effects for well-known variables such as special educational needs, socioeconomic
status, rural schools and small classes. Strøm et al. (2013) found negative effects
of bullying on grades at both student and school level. Being subject to bullying is
associated with lower academic achievement, but even attending schools with high
levels of bullying has a negative impact on grades. Strøm et al. (2013) found that
being exposed to more than one type of violence (sexual abuse, violence inflicted
by other youths or adults, or bullying) increased the negative impact on academic
achievements. Kowalski and Limber (2013) found negative effects on academic
achievements for both traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying. The strongest
effect was found for bully-victims, especially in the context of cyberbullying. In
a meta-study of 25 reports, Tokunaga (2010) found that most researchers have
identified effects of bullying on academic achievements, but he drew some very
important conclusions: first, that definitional issues need to be dealt with further in
order to provide better a foundation for empirical research. He also pointed to the
lack of theory on cyberbullying and to the need for longitudinal data to deal with

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 183–204.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
G. EGEBERG et al.

causation. Finally, he claimed that more sophisticated relationships in the context of

cyberbullying need to be addressed. In other words, there is a lot to be done in the
context of cyberbullying research.
The impact of socio-economic status (SES) on educational achievement is well
known and has been studied for several decades. In one of the first large-scale studies
of SES in the US, Sewell and Shah (1967) investigated several aspects of the impact
of intelligence and SES on college plans, attendance and graduation. They found
that both SES and intelligence had effects on these, but while the effect of SES was
more dominant for females, the effect of intelligence was more dominant for males.
The direct impact of SES on academic achievements was one of several important
findings of the Coleman report on equality in education (Coleman et al., 1966).
As pointed out by White (1982), SES became a very strong predictor of all kinds
of effects in education. Even though there was consensus regarding the existence
of the influence of SES, White noted that the size of the effect or the strength of
relevant correlations varied a great deal. Importantly, the unit of analysis, either
the student or a group (e.g. school), proved to play a very important role. In his
meta-analysis, White concluded that utilizing SES to predict academic achievements
where the student is the unit is problematic, due to the low impact of SES in this
context (White, 1982). In more recent studies, Hattie found a moderately strong
effect of SES on student achievement, and furthermore that there are only minor
differences in the effect size of the three most frequently used SES measures:
parental occupation, level of parental education and parental income (Hattie, 2008,
p. 61). However, White (1982) identified more than 70 variables measuring SES,
and the effect of SES on academic achievement sometimes greatly differed among
these. In general, he found that the correlation of SES and academic achievement
was at the 0.3-level when the student was the unit of analysis. Marks, Cresswell and
Ainley (2006) found that cultural factors of SES, measured in terms of the number of
books and the presence of classical literature, poetry, and works of art in the home,
were important elements of SES. It would thus appear to be necessary to control
for SES when academic achievement is being measured, even though there are still
unresolved issues regarding the impact and measurement of SES.
In many countries, boys face more problems in school than girls do, at least where
overall academic performance is concerned (OECD, 2004; OECD, 2007; OECD,
2010; OECD, 2014; OECD/UNESCO, 2003) and involvement in bullying (Olweus,
1994; Smith & Gross, 2006; Juvonen et al., 2010; Wendelborg et al., 2014). However,
there are important variations. For instance, in the reading tests in PISA (Programme
for International Student Assessment of the OECD) boys perform consistently and
considerably worse than girls, and the difference is actually greatest among poorly
performing students. In mathematics, the picture is somewhat different. Boys tend
to perform better than girls do, although the difference is clearly smaller than in
reading. However, in mathematics the gender differences emerge among the highest
performing students. The proportions of low-performing students are not very
different between sexes, but more boys than girls perform at the highest level. PISA

184
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

point to the challenge of improving boys’ academic performance (OECD, 2014). In

Norway girls outperform boys in all subject, except from physical education (Bakken
et al., 2008). In the case of bullying, there is a general tendency for boys to be more
involved both as bullies and victims at all ages (Wendelborg et al., 2014, Seals &
Young, 2003; Erdur-Baker, 2010, Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). However, some
researchers have found that girls are more involved in indirect or social bullying
(Lagerspetz et al., 1988, Björkqvist et al., 1992), but this findings is not consistent
(Craig et al., 2009). In the case of cyberbullying, no clear effect of either gender
og age is found, although some findings suggest that that girls are more at risk of
being targeted (Tokunaga, 2010). As far as age is concerned, there may exist curve
linearity that shadows the effect.
Cyberbullying is defined by Olweus in terms similar to traditional bullying,
with the distinction that it takes place via electronic means (Olweus, 2013). The
application of the three crucial criteria of traditional bullying has been challenged by
some researchers, on a number of grounds (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Repetition
and duration are more difficult to assess online since, for instance, a picture might be
posted once, but then be shared further by others. Power imbalance is also difficult
as victims are often able to block people who are being mean. Anonymity also comes
into play here, and this influences power imbalance as the perpetrator might well be
in an inferior position physically or socially, but can remain unknown to the victim.
It is not clear whether researchers should view cyberbullying as being very similar to
traditional bullying, or if “cyber-aggression” (a broader term) would be a more suitable
term (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). Grigg (2010) argues that a broader definition of
bullying is needed in the case of cyberbullying. Kowalski et al. (2014) identified a
number of personal and situational factors that come into play when children are
involved in bullying. The interrelationships of these factors are rather complex.
Bullying is measured in different ways, the most common of which are probably
self-report questionnaires. Solberg and Olweus (2003) concluded that the single,
global item “Have you been bullied the past two or three months?” is the best
method. The item should be accompanied with a definition of bullying to guide
the student. Five response categories are given: (never, only once, two or three
times a month, about once a week and several times a week). Several studies have
utilised this method to estimate prevalence (Smith & Gross, 2006; Stevens et al.,
2000, Fekkes et al., 2004). There are however concerns about the validity of most
bullying measurement instruments (Vessey et al., 2014), and criticism has been
raised regarding the dominant method of self-report (Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014).
As pointed out by Kowlaski et al. (2014), some findings suggest that the use of
the word “bullying” might decrease effect sizes as children might be less willing
to admit to being bullied (as opposed to mere negative forms of behaviour). More
work is needed to develop more accurate and valid instruments to capture bullying.
It is worth mentioning the commonly used regression techniques in research
of prediction or causality in bullying research. Different regression techniques
build upon specific assumptions concerning data. No measurement error, linearity

185
G. EGEBERG et al.

between dependent and independent variables, multivariate normality, no outliers,

homoscedasticity and no multicollinearity are some of the assumption that might
apply to the various forms of regressions and ANOVAs. As many researchers have
pointed out, the understanding of the term “bullying” differs substantially between
various groups (e.g. age, country, etc) (Menesini et al., 2002; Smorti et al., 2003; Smith
et al., 2002; Arora, 1996). There are strong indicators that many of the most frequently
used approaches to capture bullying are fraught with measurement error. In order to
deal with measurement error, some caution is needed when regression analysis in its
various forms is employed (Siemsen et al., 2010; Cote & Buckley, 1987). As most
bullying items are not normally distributed and probably have considerable amounts
of measurement error, the choice of appropriate analysis is important.
Quality of life (QoL) is a measure of how persons experience their life at a given
point. The measure is widely used in medicine as a means of assessing the impact
of various diagnoses on patients’ lives (Smith et al., 1999). QoL is not universally
understood and defined, but Jozefiak (2009) defined QoL as “The subjective reported
well-being in regard to the child’s physical and mental health, self-esteem and
perception of own activities (playing/having hobbies when the child is alone), the
perceived relationship to friends and family as well to school and a global evaluation
of QoL”. An association between bullying and QoL has ben identified (Wilkins-
Shurmer et al., 2003; Frisén & Bjarnelind, 2010).

ASSUMPTIONS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Cyberbullying is a new field of research, and much remains to be done. So far,

empirical findings and theories derived from traditional bullying research have
been used to understand cyberbullying, but researchers disagree whether this
transference holds. It appears obvious that the impacts of cyberbullying need to
be further addressed, that measurement issues need to be investigated and that the
relationships between cyberbullying and typical background variables assessed.
Furthermore, many analytical approaches to assess bullying in general are sensitive
to measurement error. It is important to gain knowledge about the magnitude of
measurement error to be able to evaluate possible bias related to this problem. This
study aims to deal with these issues within the limits of the available data.
On the basis of presented theory, we set out some basic hypotheses and some
research questions. The basic hypotheses are derived from known relationships
between gender, SES and academic achievements. These hypotheses are included
to provide some evidence for construct validity, provided that they produce results
as expected.
Hypotheses:
• Girls perform better than boys academically
• SES is not correlated with gender (gender being random across SES), but with
academic achievement

186
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

Research questions

• Are there differences in impact on academic achievements between cyberbullying

and cyber harassment, and between cyber and traditional harassment (verbal,
physical and social)?
• Are there gender differences in terms of victimisation of cyberbullying and cyber
harassment?
• What degrees of error exist in the measures of cyber- harassment and
cyberbullying?
• How does SES influence cyber harassment and -bullying?

The many factors that influence academic achievement include motivation,

talent, teacher support and so on. Hattie (2008) assessed and ranked 138 factors,
but even that list is probably not exhaustive. The models used in our study are
simple and straightforward. This makes them easy to interpret, but it is important
to bear in mind that any variable included in or omitted from a model will have
an impact on the parameters, sometimes to such a degree that its conclusions may
have to be changed.

METHODS

As we pointed out in the Background section, it is not obvious whether one should
use global items as is often done in the assessment of traditional bullying, or take an
alternative approach to measuring the prevalence of specific instances of negative
online behaviour (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). The present study adopts the two
approaches to capturing cyberbullying. While one approach builds upon the use
of global items (Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Olweus, 2013), the other utilize items
of observable behaviour (Arora, 1996). Kowalski et al. (2014) provide a thorough
review of these approaches.

Participants

878 pupils (age 9–16) at five schools in the city of Tromsø in Northern Norway
participated. The response rate was 66.5 %. The gender mix was 50/50. Indicators
of age, socio-economic status, academic achievement and sex were collected. No
ethnic/race indicators were collected.

Procedure

Data were acquired in November-February 2013/-14 through an online questionnaire

administered by class teachers, and the students completed the questionnaire during
school hours. Feedback from teachers indicates that most students completed the
survey within 30 minutes, and that they appeared to be well-motivated.

187
G. EGEBERG et al.

Ethics

Ethics is a challenging issue for the “Well-being in Tromsø” project, of which this
study forms a part. Not only are many of the data of a sensitive nature, as they
cover topics like mental health, harassment, bullying and well-being (QoL), but
identification information is even included. Students and parents were informed
about the project in class meetings and by letter, and written parental consent to
participate was obtained. All respondents are anonymised and identification keys are
stored safely. The project was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (REK)
in 2012.

Measure

The student questionnaire consists of 33 items from the “Strengths and difficulties
Questionnaire” (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997), 24 items from the KINDL instrument
(Ravens-Sieberer & Bullinger, 1998), 15 items regarding traditional harassment
(Rønning et al., 2004), eight new cyber harassment items, ten bullying (global)
items, six items concerning perception of intervention in bullying incidents, items
on gender involvement, items regarding background variables such as number of
books at home and parental level of education. Only a few background variables
were included due to the length of the questionnaire, and in order to avoid stressing
the pupils. This part of the study does not make use of SDQ and only a part of
KINDL.
Academic skills were measured through a single question given to the teachers:
“The student is proficient in language, mathematics and foreign language”. The
teachers choose one of three response categories: “Completely true”, “partly true”
or “not true”.
Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured via a single item: “How many books
do you have at home?” (Marks et al., 2006). Five categories are available: “1–10”,
“11–25”, “26–100”, “101–250” “more than 250”.
The 15 items of traditional harassment (verbal, physical and social) and the 8
items of cyber harassment formed the basis for most of the analyses in the study. The
traditional harassment inventory consists of 15 items from the Arora “Life in School
Checklist” (Arora, 1994). These items were selected by Rønning, Handegaard and
Sourander (2004). In addition to these 15 items on traditional harassment, eight new
items on cyber harassment were included, based on constructs by Smith, Mahdavi,
Carvalho and Tippett (2006) and Menesini, Nocentini and Calussi (2011).
Measuring cyberbullying is not a straightforward process. Two global items
measure cyberbullying at school and at home during the last two or three months.
However, cyberbullying is part of a general bullying construct, of which traditional
bullying is also part. As two manifest items are not optimal in terms of achieving
model identification, the two global general bullying (bullied at school or at home)
items are included in the model. Parameter estimates of the model enabled us to

188
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

compare these two forms of bullying. The items are kept with full information (no
dichotomization or other transformation). Response categories are for all items
“Never”, “Only once or twice”, “Two or three times a month”, “About once a week”
and “Several times a week”.
Quality of life at school (QoLsch) was measured by the four items (“During
the last week in which I was at school…”): “…doing my schoolwork was easy”,
“…I enjoyed my lessons”, “…I worried about my future” and “…I worried about
bad marks or grades”. Response categories are “Never”, “Seldom”, “Sometimes”,
“Often” and “All the time”. The scores for the last two items are reversed in the
analysis.

Analysis

Measurement error was calculated as one minus the square of a manifest indicator’s
factor loading and is given by Mplus. A large measurement error would normally
mean that the indicator is not ideal in its ability to capture the latent trait. Measurement
error can create considerable bias if not taken into account, but this issue can largely
be resolved by the use of SEM models. Both the cyber harassment and cyberbullying
models were assessed for measurement error. In the case of cyberbullying, two
global cyberbullying items were supplemented by two global items of traditional
bullying in order to achieve model identification. Indicator error was correlated for
the two cyber items and likewise for the two traditional items.
The impact of cyber harassment, socio-economic status and gender on academic
skills is assessed through the use of structural equation modelling in the form of path
analysis. The eight indicators of cyber harassment load onto a single latent factor,
as do the indicators of verbal, social and physical harassment. Academic skills and
SES form single-item latent factors. QoLsch is measured by four items. Gender is
also included. Similarly, two global manifest indicators of cyberbullying load onto a
single latent factor, while keeping the other variables and factors.
In models that include single-item measures (e.g. models 1a-d and 2 in
Table 2) the errors of the items were estimated using the formula (1-reliability)*sample
variance (Wang & Wang, 2012, p. 130). Estimating the error and fixing the loading
at 1 enabled us to make the measure latent. The reliability of the two relevant items,
academic performance and socioeconomic status, was estimated by means of a test-
retest approach from two waves (years one and two).

RESULTS

All results concerning model fit are given in the technical appendix along with
methodological issues. Models for traditional harassment are also presented in the
technical appendix, but referred to in the following text.
The results are derived from eight models. Models 1a, b, c, d are recursive path
models in which the impact of harassment on academic achievement is assessed.

189
G. EGEBERG et al.

The models also include measures of SES, gender and quality of life at school
(QoLsch). Model 2 is similar to model 1a-d, but harassment factors is replaced by a
cyberbullying factor. Model 3 is a basic, single-factor confirmatory model, in which
eight items load onto a latent factor. The model is used to assess measurement error.
Model 4 is similar to model 3, but the model consists of four global bullying items,
which loads onto a latent factor. Models 3 and 4 are used to evaluate measurement
error in the bullying construct.

HYPOTHESES

The present study set out some hypotheses to help identifying possible problems
with the models. For the evaluation of these basic assumptions we refer to the cyber
harassment model. Model parameters are standardized (stdyx) and only significant
values are referred to throughout the text. First, it is assumed that girls perform better
at school than boys. In our sample and using our measures, girls do indeed perform
somewhat better than boys (r=–.21 where girls are coded “1”, boys “2”). Second, it
was assumed that SES is not logically associated with gender, and this assumption
holds with a correlation of .01 (not shown in the model). Third, as expected, SES
is positively related to academic achievement and the size of the relationship is
significant and moderate (r=.28). These basic assumptions are not related to whether
we choose a model based on the construct of cyberbullying or cyber harassment; the
figures are the about same for both approaches.
Model 1a shows the relationships between cyber harassment, quality of life at
school and academic achievements, but also impact of background variables.

Model 1a. Cyber harassment. Recursive path model. All parameters are standardized
(stdyx) and significant at the .05 level. Factors are: gender (Sex), cyber harassment
(CybHar), QoL at school (QoLsch), academic achievement (Acad) and SES (SES)

190
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

Model 2 is similar to model 1a, but the construct of cyber harassment is replaced
with cyberbullying.

Model 2. Cyberbullying. Recursive path model. All parameters are standardized

(stdyx) and significant at the .05 level. Factors are: gender (sex), cyberbullying
(CyBull), QoL at school (QoLsch), academic achievement (Acad) and SES (SES)

EFFECTS OF CYBERBULLYING AND THE FOUR KINDS OF HARASSMENT

Models 1a and 2 show parameter estimates for recursive models including four
latent factors (academic achievements, SES, QoLsch and cyber harassment (model
1a) or cyberbullying (model 2) and one manifest variable (gender). In a preliminary
model in which the QoLsch construct was omitted, differences were found in
the strength of the predictions of cyberbullying and harassment on academic
achievements. Bullying items produced a marginally larger effect (r=–.21) than
the harassment items (r=–.18). In the model that included the QoLsch construct,
cyberbullying and cyber harassment produce very low direct effects on academic
achievements (r=–.04 and –.09 for harassment and bullying respectively). However,
both models displayed a significant and substantial negative effect on QoLsch
(r=–.44 and r=–.49 for harassment and bullying respectively). QoLsch has a moderate
and positive impact on academic achievement, r=.33 for cyber harassment and .30
for cyberbullying. However, the effects of cyber harassment and cyberbullying on
academic achievements include both direct and indirect effects. The indirect effect
is mediated through QoLsch. There are not very large differences between the four
forms of harassment in terms of effect on academic achievements, but cyberbullying
seems to yield a somewhat stronger effect than what the four kinds of harassment
do (Table 1).

191
G. EGEBERG et al.

Table 1. Direct and indirect effects of harassment on academic achievements

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

M2: Cyberbullying –.090 –.147 –.237

M1a: Cyber harassment –.020 –.144 –.164
M1b: Verbal harassment .001 –.165 –.164
M1c: Social harassment –.055 –.130 –.185
M1d: Physical harassment –.115 –.090 –.205

Effects of cyberbullying and four forms of harassment on academic skills. Indirect

effects are mediated through quality of life at school (QoLsch). Total effect = direct
effect + indirect effect. SEM models 1b, c and d are presented in the technical
appendix.
There is an effect of cyberbullying and the four forms of harassment on academic
skills, total effects ranging from –.164 for verbal and cyber harassment to –.237
for cyberbullying. In most cases it is the indirect effect that dominates, except for
the case of physical harassment where the direct effect is somewhat larger than the
indirect.

SEX DIFFERENCES IN BULLYING VICTIMISATION

From theory it was unclear whether girls or boys are most involved in cyberbullying.
In our sample, and using our measures, girls are actually more likely to be victims
of cyber harassment than boys (r=–.12). For the model of cyberbullying, the effect is
the opposite r=.09. The differences, although significant, are small.

Measurement Error

Measurement error was estimated in the two basic factor models (models 3 and 4).
For the eight-item single latent factor model of cyber harassment, the items explain
60.8 % of the variance. The remaining 39.2 % of the combined variance of the
indicators is related to measurement error, either in the form of random or systematic
error. The four items in the single latent factor model of bullying explain 64.4 % of
the variance, leaving 35.6 % for the combined indicator error. However, the two
items of cyberbullying produce a much greater error than the two items that refer
to traditional bullying; 49.5 % error for cyberbullying compared to 21.1 % for the
two traditional items. All in all, there is a significant amount of measurement error
whether we use manifest instances of negative cyber behaviour or global items of
cyberbullying.

192
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

The Influence of SES on Cyberbullying and Cyber Harassment, Academic

Achievement and Relationship to Gender

SES does not predict either cyberbullying or cyber harassment (r=.05 and r=.06
for cyber harassment and cyberbullying respectively). SES predicted academic
achievement moderately (r=.28).

DISCUSSION

Both hypotheses are confirmed. Based on presented theory and logic, we expected to
find an impact of gender on academic achievement, an impact of SES on academic
achievement and no association between gender and SES. Girls do somewhat
better than boys academically, according to their teachers who rated their overall
performance in core subjects, but the difference is not large (r=–.21). The effect of
SES on academic achievement is moderate (r=.28) and of a similar size to that found
in the literature (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982). We found no relationship between sex
and SES, as one would logically expect (r=.01). As all these basic hypotheses are met,
some evidence for the validity of our constructs is found. The models seem to produce
results as expected for the variables where prior results are available. However, both
the SES variable and the academic skills variable (assessed by the teacher) consist of
only one indicator. Generally one is advised not to use single indicator approaches as
reliability normally is threatened. However, as the questionnaires consisted of about
100 items, there was little room to include background variables at all. Typically the
SES measures yield correlations to academic skills of about .30 (White, 1982). Our
models produce very similar results (.28). This finding gives some indication that
the variables are reliable.
Cyberbullying and cyber harassment have a negative influence on academic
achievement. In an initial model that did not include quality of life at school (QoLsch),
the effect was negative and of similar, small to moderate, size for both cyberbullying
and cyber harassment (r=–21 and r=–18, accordingly). When QoLsch is included in
both the models, the effect of cyberbullying and cyber harassment almost vanishes,
but a strong impact on QoLsch can be seen. This implies that QoLsch mediates the
effect of bullying or harassment onto academic achievement. Indeed, when mediation
is accounted for in the SEM model, indirect effects of cyberbullying and harassment
are seen in all models. Children reporting cyberbullying or cyber harassment are
likely to experience lower quality of life at school, resulting in lowered school
performance. Moreover, QoLsch moderately predicts academic achievements in all
models of cyberbullying and harassment (r=.30, r=.35, respectively). It is likely that
being harassed in any form has a negative impact on well-being at school, as a
result of which, academic performance decreases. There is little difference between
the four kinds of harassment, but physical harassment seems to have the strongest,

193
G. EGEBERG et al.

negative impact on academic achievements. However, alternative models with other

variables could produce a different result, so there is need to investigate this finding
further.
The prevalence estimates for cyberbullying is much lower than for cyber
harassment, 3.5 % compared to 6.6 %, probably indicating that the cyber harassment
items are capturing incidents that do not qualify as bullying. In other words, the
cyberbullying items are probably capturing more severe kinds of peer aggression.
Interestingly, the effect on academic achievement and quality of life at school do
not differ between the two approaches. Logically, one would expect more severe
kinds of aggression to have greater impact on school performance and well-being
than less severe kinds. This does not seem to be the case. As this study is cross-
sectional, it is not possible to assess issues like the long-term effects of bullying
on academic achievements. The effects of bullying on academic performance are
probably not immediate, but a result of long-term victimization. Researchers have
identified several mediating factors involved in the impact of bullying on academic
achievements, but much still remains to be studied in this field (Nakamoto &
Schwartz, 2010).
Typically in factor analysis the researcher loads a number of indicators onto one
or more factors. The factor loadings should be as high as possible. The amount of
variation not captured by the factor(s), often labelled indicator residual, uniqueness
or error, might cause problems in the analysis. Measurement error is substantial
for both our models of cyber harassment and cyberbullying. For the harassment
inventory, 39.2 % of the variance of the indicators is actually measurement error.
Where cyberbullying is concerned, the total error variance for the four bullying
items added up to 35.6 %, but the two cyberbullying items yielded about twice as
much error than the two traditional ones did. All in all, whether we use manifest
indicators that measure cyber harassment or global items measure cyberbullying,
the measurement error is substantial. Cote and Buckley (1987) found that abstract
constructs tend to produce greater measurement error than concrete ones. Bullying
is a rather abstract term, as it might be regarded as a subcategory of peer aggression
distinguished by the criteria of repetition/duration, intention to harm and an imbalance
of power. Obviously, assessments of these criteria are rather subjective. In contrast,
the cyber harassment items relate to concrete types of negative behaviour typically
encountered on computer, mobile phone or other digital platforms. As many reports
on bullying in fact rely on methods such as regressions analysis and ANOVA, which
do not readily control for measurement errors, there is always a possibility of bias.
It is sometimes difficult to assess whether researchers have taken measurement
error into account if they do not state this specifically, give information about which
estimator they used or if other error handling procedure has been employed. In the
present article models are run within the SEM framework. As SEM models have
measurement error estimated and taken out of the model, measurement error is no
longer affecting model parameter. However, measurement error indicates how well
the indicators capture the construct of interest. The lower the error the better. In our

194
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

case the amount of error is moderate to high, especially for the two global items of
cyberbullying.
SES does not appear to influence either cyberbullying or cyber harassment, with
effects of only r=.06 and .05 respectively. The measure of SES used in this study
(number of books at home) captured not merely the family’s economic status, but
rather a cultural aspect of the domestic environment (Marks et al., 2006). It seems
that socio-cultural effects are poor predictors of cyberbullying or cyber harassment.
In Norway, very few pupils live in poor homes, and 95% of Norwegian students
have access to technology, in most cases including social media (Medietilsynet,
2014). It has been found that the amount of time spent on the Internet predicts cyber
aggression (Kowalski et al., 2014). If this is true in the present study too, it might
indicate that there is little difference between children from different homes in
terms of online practise. The fact that SES seems not to predict whether children are
exposed to cyberbullying or not indicate less need to control for this factor. However,
more needs to be done in this respect, both in terms of traditional and cyber forms of
bullying and harassment.
Girls seem to be more cyber-harassed than boys, while boys seem to be more
cyber-bullied. But, the gender differences are indeed very small. The lack of
substantial gender differences in prevalence does not necessarily mean that there are
no differences in the concrete events girls and boys experience.
The measurement of cyberbullying is problematic (Kowalski et al., 2014,
Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Lack of robust theory and definitions, a mix of
different measurement approaches and the fact that cyberbullying consists of a
wide range of ever-changing types of negative behaviour are some of the issues that
researchers struggle with. Furthermore, from research on traditional bullying, we
have learned that students perceive bullying differently from teachers (Stockdale
et al., 2002, Naylor et al., 2006), and that younger children tend to include a wider
range of negative conduct than their older peers (Frisen et al., 2008). These issues are
probably not less substantial in the context of cyberbullying. Furthermore, there is an
obvious subjective factor involved when defining a specific act as bullying. What one
child clearly state as bullying another would not. And the range of negative conducts
involved in bullying are not equal in severity. For instance, Cheng et al. (2011)
ranked the following items as most severe using Rasch analysis: “one’s friendship
being ruined”, “being hit and kicked”, “belongings taken without permission”,
“being ostracised” and “having humiliating photos posted online”. Experience
harassing photos published online is exclusively cyber, but children being subject
to cyberbullying might often feel ostracised or have their friendship ruined. The
question of how to best capture these aspects remains unanswered. These issues, but
probably several more, indicate that instruments need to be developed further, and
methods of data collection need to be improved. Theory and definitions must also be
further developed. The precision of the two inventories included in the present study
is probably less than optimal. The cyber harassment inventory needs more work to
develop more precise items that better represent the construct of cyber harassment.

195
G. EGEBERG et al.

Olweus (2013) suggests using a general global item to capture the concept of bullying.
Researcher could then include concrete forms of negative behaviour to distinguish
between the different types of bullying. Our approach employed two global items to
capture cyberbullying, but as these items are liable to a substantial amount of error
that is even greater than the items concerning concrete forms of harassment, this
approach can be questioned. Further investigation is needed to validate the global
item approach to capturing cyberbullying.

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Cyberbullying and online harassment are among the activities that children are
involved in that negatively impact on well-being at school and academic achievement.
In the present study, most cyberbullying take place at home (1.2 % report being
cyberbullied at school compared to 3.4 % at home), but problems are seen at school
as well. It is important that schools are able to effectively prevent cyberbullying,
but also that they are able to take actions when such events occur. It is challenging
to intervene in bullying cases where the actions are taking place outside of school,
indicating that cooperation between parents and teachers is crucial.
The basic hypotheses formulated in the present report were confirmed.
Socioeconomic status is not related to gender, as one obviously would expect, but
is significantly and substantially related to academic achievement. There is no
correlation between SES and cyberbullying or cyber harassment. Girls perform
better academically, a finding that was as expected. We found very little evidence for
gender differences in either bullying or harassment. Substantial measurement error
was found in both cyberbullying and cyber harassment domains. Cyberbullying
items seem to include more error than cyber harassment items. The expected impact
of cyberbullying or harassment on academic achievement was not clearly identified.
The effect was small to moderate in models where quality of life at school was
omitted. In the models that included QoLsch, much of the effects of cyberbullying
and cyber harassment on academic achievements were mediated through QoLsch.
There was no substantial difference between the cyberbullying and cyber harassment
constructs in terms of predicting academic achievement.
The two constructs used here are probably not ideal, as they produce much
error and struggle to pass the X2 test of absolute fit (see technical appendix).
Further development should be made to produce ever more reliably items and
scales. Researchers should consider measurement error when choosing analytical
approach. Structural equation modelling would arguably solve many of the problems
researchers face in this regard when working in the field of bullying research.
All in all, it appears that as far as predicting academic achievement is
concerned, the cyber harassment model is superior to the cyberbullying model, as
its measurement error is less than that of cyberbullying. However, even the cyber
harassment approach needs to be improved, and the obvious problems of capturing
the criteria that distinguish bullying from other forms of aggression also need to be

196
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

dealt with in the context of cyberbullying. It is also necessary to study further why
and to what extent victims of cyber-aggression perform worse at school.

LIMITATIONS

This study utilized cross-sectional data. This limits the possibility to make
causal inferences, and long-term effects and relationships could not be assessed.
Furthermore, the sample was drawn from five schools in a single city in Norway.
A more representative sample would be needed to make robust generalizations.
However, the Norwegian school is rather homogenous when it comes to academic
standard (Nusche, 2011), making the selection of schools somewhat less important.
It is also important to acknowledge that SEM models are sensitive to which variables
are included or omitted. Parameter estimates might change when the model changes.
Finally, the X2 values for most models are significant, indicating an unacceptable
poorness of fit. However, as we point out in the technical appendix, the X2 test
of absolute fit is sensitive to sample size. We argue that our models, although not
perfect, are interpretable as other fit indices are acceptable or good. Nevertheless,
more work need to be done to improve both the harassment and the bullying items.

REFERENCES
Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understanding and more effective
intervention strategies. School Psychology International, 17, 317–329.
Arora, T. (1994). Measuring bullying with the “Life in School” checklist. Pastoral Care in Education,
12, 11–15.
Bakken, A., Borg, E., Hegna, K., & Backe-Hansen, E. (2008). Er det skolens skyld? En kunnskapsoversikt
om skolens bidrag til kjønnsforskjeller i skoleprestasjoner. Oslo: Norsk Institutt for forskning om
oppvekst, velferd og aldring.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight?
Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for
Applied Research, xiii.
Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Journal of Psychologists and
Counsellors in Schools, 15, 68–76.
Cheng, Y.-Y., Chen, L.-M., Liu, K.-S., & Chen, Y.-L. (2011). Development and psychometric evaluation
of the school bullying scales: A rasch measurement approach. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 71, 200–216.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., Mcpartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., &
York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70
construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., Molcho, M.,
De Mato, M. G., Overpeck, M., Due, P., & Pickett, W. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying
and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54,
216–224.
Erdur-Baker, O. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and
risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12, 109–125.

197
G. EGEBERG et al.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2004). Bullying behavior and associations with
psychosomatic complaints and depression in victims. The Journal of Pediatrics, 144, 17–22.
Frisén, A., & Bjarnelind, S. (2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta
Pædiatrica, 99, 597–603.
Frisen, A., Holmqvist, K., & Oscarsson, D. (2008). 13-year-olds’ perception of bullying: Definitions,
reasons for victimisation and experience of adults’ response. Educational Studies, 34, 105–117.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment,
and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159,
1026–1031.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.
Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists
and Counsellors in Schools, 20, 143–156.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London: Routledge.
Heinemann, P.-P. (1973). Mobbing: Gruppevold Blant Barn Og Voksne. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6, 1–55.
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98.
Jozefiak, T. (2009). Quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents: Child and parent
perspectives (Phd Doctoral Thesis). Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU),
Norway.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2010). Bullying experiences and compromised academic
performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152–173.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13–S20.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital
age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 1073.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females?
Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14,
403–414.
Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of
online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive
risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 635–654.
Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student
achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12,
105–128.
Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U.
(2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating Cfa and Efa: Application to students’
evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16,
439–476.
Medietilsynet. (2014). Barn og medier. Oslo: Medietilsynet.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical
considerations. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 230–232.
Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related to bullying:
A comparison between teacher’s and pupil’s perspectives in Italy. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 17, 393–406.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying: Dimensional
structure and relative item severity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14, 267–274.

198
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

Millsap, R. E. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences,
42, 875–881.
Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement?
A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221–242.
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions
of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 553–576.
Nusche, D. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Norway: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2004). Pisa 2003 learning for tomorrow’s world. Norway: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2007). Pisa 2006. Norway: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2010). Pisa 2009 results: What students know and can do. Norway: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). Pisa 2012 results: What students know and can do (Volume I, Revised Edition, February
2014). Norway: OECD Publishing.
OECD/UNESCO. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Norway: OECD Publishing.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention
program. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190.
Olweus, D. (2001). Mobbing i skolen: Hva vet vi og hva kan vi gjøre? Oslo: Gyldendal.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., & Bullinger, M. (1998). Assessing health-related quality of life in chronically ill
children with the German KINDL: First psychometric and content analytical results. Quality of Life
Research, 7, 399–407.
Rønning, J. A., Handegaard, B. H., & Sourander, A. (2004). Self-perceived peer harassment in a
community sample of Norwegian school children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1067–1079.
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims,
and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade
level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735–747.
Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1967). Socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the attainment of higher
education. Sociology Of Education, 40, 1–23.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research.
Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
Smith, K., Avis, N., & Assmann, S. (1999). Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in
quality of life research: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 8, 447–459.
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms,
awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying (Research
Brief No. Rbx03-06). London: DFES.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying:
A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international
comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133.
Smith, R. G., & Gross, A. M. (2006). Bullying: Prevalence and the effect of age and gender. Child &
Family Behavior Therapy, 28, 13–37.
Smorti, A., Menesini, E., & Smith, P. K. (2003). Parents’ definitions of children’s bullying in a five-
country comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 417–432.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the olweus bully/
victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in flemish schools: An evaluation
of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 195–210.

199
G. EGEBERG et al.

Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural elementary
students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26,
266–277.
Strøm, I. F., Thoresen, S., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Dyb, G. (2013). Violence, bullying and academic
achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 37, 243–251.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on
cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287.
Vessey, J., Strout, T. D., Difazio, R. L., & Walker, A. (2014). Measuring the youth bullying experience:
A systematic review of the psychometric properties of available instruments. Journal of School
Health, 84, 819–843.
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic review and
content analysis of bullying and cyberbullying measurement strategies. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 19, 423–434.
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus. Chichester, West
Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Wendelborg, C., Røe, M., & Federici, R. A. (2014). Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen 2013. Trondheim:
NTNU Samfunnsforskning.
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 461.
Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O’callaghan, M., Najman, J., Bor, W., Williams, G., & Anderson, M. (2003).
Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics and
Child Health, 39, 436–441.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and
academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 135–155.
Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and
continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

Model Fit

We follow Brown (2006, p. 82) and report a variety of fit indices covering types of
“absolute fit”, “parsimony correction” and “comparative fit”. Model fit is assessed
through the use of the chi-square test of absolute fit (X2), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI) and the weighted root-mean-square residual (WRMR). The X2 should be non-
significant, but due to sensitivity to sample size this is often difficult (Iacobucci,
2010; Millsap, 2007). In the case of significant X2, one should look for reasons
for poor fit, evaluate other indices and provide a rationale if the model is used. For
the other fit indices there are ongoing discussions about which cut-off should be
used under the different conditions, such as small or large sample size, nominal or
categorical data and the degree of normality of data (Marsh et al., 2009; Wang &
Wang, 2012; Yu, 2002; Hu & Bentler, 1999). We used the following guideline cut-
offs. RMSEA (good: <.06, acceptable: .08), CFI (good: >.96, acceptable: >.90) TLI
(good: >.95, acceptable: .90), WRMR (acceptable: <.95).

200
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

Table 2. Results of model fit. Models 1a, b, c, d and 2 are recursive path models.
Models 3 and 4 are single-factor confirmatory models (CFA)

Model X2 RMSEA CFI TLI WRMR

Model 1a 172.519 .035 .972 .965 .990

Impact on academic achievement (df=84, (.027–.042,
(QoLsch, SES, gender and cyber p<.001) p=1.00)
harassment)
Model 1b 118.898 .042 .985 .980 .880
Impact on academic achievement (df=47, (.033–.051,
(QoLsch, SES, gender and verbal p<.001) p=.924)
harassment)
Model 1c 188.957 .051 .973 .964 1.076
Impact on academic (df=58, (.43–.059,
achievement(QoLsch, SES, gender and p<001) p=428)
social harassment)
Model 1d Impact on academic 51.221 .021 .995 .992 .637
achievement (QoLsch, SES, gender and (df=37, (.000–.0034,
physical harassment) p=.060) p=1.00)
Model 2 57.686 .046 .976 .956 .816
Impact on academic achievement (df=20, (.033–.061,
(QoLsch, SES, gender and p<.001) p=.644)
cyberbullying)
Model 3 57.021 .046 .978 .969 .765
Cyber harassment (8 items on 1 factor) (df=20, (.032–.060,
p<.001) p=.661)
Model 4 6.667 .080 .996 .978 .290
Bullying (4 bullying items on 1 factor) (df=1, (.032–.143,
p=.001) p=.136)

Model Fit Results

Table 1 shows information regarding model fit for four SEM models. Two items
regarding QoLsch are correlated as they both deal with future worries and are
indicated in the model output to be correlated. Academic achievement was measured
with a fixed error of .113, and SES with a fixed error of .300, based on estimated
reliability. Most models struggle with the X2 test. Model 1d passes and Model 4 is
close to the .01-significance level. However, X2 is sensitive to sample size (Millsap,
2012; Millsap, 2007; Marsh et al., 2009), and for this reason it is useful to assess the
other indices of goodness, and then try to identify the misfit that might cause X2 to

201
G. EGEBERG et al.

become significant. For all four models the indices of fit were acceptable or good.
The RMSEA for Model 4 is on the borderline (and with a large confidence interval)
of what is often regarded as acceptable, while the other indices of fit were good. For
Model 1a and 1c, the WRMR are just outside the .95-level (.99/1.08), but the other
fit indices are good. The modification indices either point at the cyber harassment
items, or the bullying items are sources of poor fit. Item residuals are correlated
for several items, indicating that some items share common variance that is not
accounted for by the common factor. A model with more than one factor might have

Model 1b. SEM path model for verbal harassment

Model 1c. SEM path model for social harassment

202
 THE IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER HARASSMENT

Model 1d. SEM path model for physical harassment

improved the model, but for both models principal component analysis indicates
a one-factor model. In theoretical terms the single-factor model is best defensible.
With acceptable to good values for all the other fit indices we conclude that the
models are interpretable, but the items should probably be developed further.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Gunstein Egeberg is PhD student, Department of Education,

UiT-The Arctic University of Norway. Among his research
interests are interactive technology, language education,
special education, and primary education.

Steinar Thorvaldsen is professor of information science,

Department of Education, UiT-The Arctic University of
Norway. He is Project leader for the research project “Well-
being in Tromsø”.

203
G. EGEBERG et al.

John A. Rønning is professor at Department of Clinical

Medicine, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway. Rønning’s
expertise is clinical child and adolescent psychology. His
research interests are psychiatry and neonatology.

204
 OVE EDVARD HATLEVIK

12. NINTH GRADERS’ USE OF AND TRUST

IN WIKIPEDIA, TEXTBOOKS, AND DIGITAL
RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

INTRODUCTION

Recent research has examined the role of information and communication

technology (ICT) in learning and teaching (Balanskat & Gertsch, 2010; Binkley
et al., 2012; Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2014; Law, 2009).
Both commercial and non-profit actors have developed specific learning resources
for school, teachers, and students. But recent research has shown that students also
use more general types of digital resources, such as Wikipedia, as part of their
learning activities (Blikstad-Balas, 2015). Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia
based on the principle that everyone can be part of creating content. This can
create uncertainty in terms of who is behind the information, whether the content is
relevant to the learner’s curriculum, and whether students refer to the information
in an appropriate way.
In 2006, the ability to use ICT was defined as one of the five basic skills in the
Norwegian curriculum, together with the ability to read, to do arithmetic, and to
express oneself in writing and orally. Students’ ability to use ICT is described in the
general part of the national curriculum and is operationalized in more detail in the
competence aims in school subjects. The curriculum outlines explicit expectations
that students should consider the digital sources they use, refer to sources correctly,
and ensure that they follow the rules of copyright (Norwegian Directorate for
Education and Training, 2012).
This chapter examines students’ experiences with digital resources and textbooks
in addition to how they trust in some of these resources.

BACKGROUND

Digital Competence

Many countries are examining if and how students are capable of using ICT
(Ferrari, 2013), including Australia (Ainley, Fraillon, & Freeman, 2007), Chile
(Claro et al., 2012), Italy (Calvani, Fini, Ranieri, & Picci, 2012), and Korea (Kim,
Kil, & Shin, 2014). In addition to national studies, there have also been international
studies of students’ proficiency in using ICT (Binkley et al., 2012; Educational

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 205–219.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
O. E. HATLEVIK

Testing Service, 2001; Fraillon et al., 2014). Overall it seems that different concepts,
for example, digital competence (Calvani et al., 2012; Krumsvik, 2011), ICT literacy
(Fraillon et al., 2014), digital skills (Zhong, 2011; Matzat & Sadowski, 2012), and
Internet skills (Kuhlmeier & Hemker, 2007), are used to describe students’ ICT
capabilities.
A common feature of these concepts (i.e., digital competence or ICT literacy) is that
they consist of a description of the technology context (i.e., digital, ICT, Internet) in
conjunction with a description of learning domains (i.e., skills, competence, literacy;
Ferrari, 2012). When scrutinizing the learning domains, it seems that competence is
a broader concept compared with skills (Ferrari, 2012). It seems that skills emphasise
the more technical aspects; whereas, competence can be defined as covering skills,
knowledge, and attitudes (Ferrari, 2013; Søby, 2013; Krumsvik, 2011).
Recent research has shown that descriptions of students’ technology capabilities
are emphasizing students’ reflections and understanding when using technology
(Calvani et al., 2012; Ferrari, 2012). Digital competence can be defined as being
able to “use digital tools, media and resources efficiently and responsibly, to
solve practical tasks, find and process information, design digital products and
communicate content” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2012,
p. 12). In this respect, digital competence includes a wider perspective on what
students are capable of achieving with ICT. The definition covers a continuum that
includes instrumental skills, strategic personal competence, and content creation
(Calvani et al., 2012). In addition, digital competence includes being able to
communicate and collaborate with others in a responsible way (Ferrari, 2013).

Digital Divide

Digital divide can be defined as the differentiated access and capability to use digital
technology (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1999,
2000) between groups, countries, or continents (Gudmundsdottir, 2011).
According to Pedró (2007), there are two types of digital divide. First, digital
divide can be understood as differences in access to digital technologies such as
computers, tablets, or phones. Second, digital divide can be related with differences
in use of digital technologies (Pedró, 2007, p. 7). However, digital divide is not only
about access to digital technology and lack of digital use or connectivity (Warschauer,
2002). It has to be understood from a wider perspective (Boyd, 2014; Frønes, 2002)
because adolescents’ “technical skills, media literacy, and even basic English literacy
all shape how teens experience new technologies” (Boyd, 2014, p. 37).
Recent research on digital divide has indicated that students’ home environment,
socio-economic status, and academic aspirations can explain variation in their
access to digital technology (Compaine, 2001; European Commission, 2002)
and their capability to perform using digital technology (Fraillon et al., 2014;
Hatlevik & Gudmundsdottir, 2013).

206
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

As mentioned, students’ home background can be a key factor in understanding

digital divide (Boyd, 2014; Gudmundsdottir, 2011; Zhang, Wang, & Kolodinsky,
2010). Different indicators for home background; for example, parental background
(e.g., education, occupation, and salary; Ministerial Council for Education, 2010)
and cultural goods (e.g., the number of books at home and using the test language at
home; Fraillon et al., 2014; Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013) can explain variation
in digital competence.
The role of gender is also interesting. From a school perspective, gender is an
unchangeable variable (Kuhlemeier & Hemker, 2007), but gender has been used in
order to examine the digital divide between groups of students. However, results
are not consistent when it comes to the role of gender on students’ capability to
benefit from using ICT—some recent studies have shown that boys outperform girls
(Calvani et al., 2012; Gui & Argentin, 2011; Van Deursen, 2012), while others have
shown that girls outperform boys (Claro et al., 2012; Fraillon et al., 2014; Hatlevik,
Ottestad, & Throndsen, 2015). Nevertheless, additional studies have not revealed any
differences between girls and boys’ ability to benefit from using ICT (Hargittai &
Shafer 2006; Hatlevik & Christophersen 2013; Van Deursen, Van Dijk, & Peters,
2011).

Use of ICT

When it comes to students’ use of ICT, it is possible to distinguish between different

kinds of use. In several studies, the frequency of using the computer has been a
measure of how widely schools have adopted ICT (Fraillon et al., 2014; OECD,
2006). The PISA 2006, 2009, and 2012 studies contained questions about how
frequently students used ICT for different purposes, including e-mail, the Internet,
or programming. But analyses of the PISA data indicate that students’ PISA test
scores do not increase as students’ use of computers for school-related activities
increase (i.e., Biagi & Loi, 2013; OECD, 2010). Frequency of general ICT use does
not seem to be a valid indicator of what the student is learning as they use ICT. One
explanation could be that time, that is, the frequency of use of the Internet, does not
reveal the quality of use.
Today, students in Norwegian schools have different kinds of knowledge
sources available. Recent studies have indicated that students in their school-based
information practices start out with a search on Google, and then use Wikipedia to
gather information about a subject topic or theme (Blikstad-Balas, 2015; Hatlevik,
Tømte, Skaug, & Ottestad, 2011).
Students seem to use Wikipedia in various ways. For some students, it is the
only resource they use. Other students, however, report using Wikipedia to compare
the information to other digital encyclopaedias (i.e., Store norske leksikon) or to
scrutinize the subject’s content sources (i.e., webpages from textbook publishers;
Hatlevik et al., 2011).

207
O. E. HATLEVIK

Mastery Orientation

Goal orientation is a theoretical perspective emphasizing students’ goals and

motives for learning and development (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). There
is a distinction between mastery orientation and achievement orientation. Mastery
orientation is characterised with a will for self-development and learning according
to personal standards (Darnon, Harackiewicz, & Butera, 2007). Achievement
orientation means that students are comparing their performances with other students
and that achievement-oriented students are more concerned with performing better
than others. Research has indicated that students’ mastery orientation is important for
understanding their willingness to learn and develop their own competence. Mastery
orientation is positively related to students’ willingness to put effort into their own
work and apply learning strategies (Schunk et al., 2008). When it comes to the use of
technology and developing digital competence, recent research has shown a positive
relationship between mastery orientation and digital competence (Hatlevik, 2012;
Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013; Hatlevik et al., 2015).

Research Questions

The purpose of this article is to answer the following three research questions. Recent
research has shown that students have a large variety of digital resources available
to them, but it seems that their use is narrowed down to Wikipedia (Blikstad-Balas,
2015). The first research question is therefore: What kind of digital resources
are students using to gather information, and what kind of resources are students
trusting?
Traditionally, there has been an assumption that boys are more active computer
users compared with girls, but recent studies question if these gender differences
exist (Fraillon et al., 2014). However, few studies have looked into the use of digital
resources. The second research question is: Are there any differences between boys
and girls in the digital resources they use and trust?
As Blikstad-Balas (2015) has pointed out, upper secondary school students seem
to have a preference for using Wikipedia in school. But we have to learn more about
the characteristics of students’ use and trust when it comes to Wikipedia. The third
research question is: What are the characteristics of students using and trusting
information from Wikipedia when it comes to the their home background, school
achievements, mastery orientation, and digital competence?
In order to identify characteristics of Wikipedia use, it could be valuable to
have a comparative approach, that is, looking at characteristics of students using
other types of resources. In order to achieve this, the fourth research question is:
What characteristics of students’ backgrounds, including home background, school
achievements, mastery orientation, and digital competence, influence their use of
and trust in information from textbooks and websites from textbook publishers?

208
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

RESEARCH METHODS

Procedures and Participants

The study used a cross-sectional design with a two-step selection of schools and
students nationwide. First, a total of 145 schools with ninth graders between 14
to 15 years old were randomly selected. The following three strata were used:
geographical location, school size, and school type. Second, each school leader was
asked to randomly select one class of students to participate in the study. The school
leaders were also asked to appoint a person to coordinate the study at their school.
The process of recruiting schools was demanding. We used letter, mail, and
phone to contact the schools. At the end, 919 students from 53 schools answered the
questionnaire and completed the assessment. The response rate was approximately
37% at school level.

Instruments

The students who participated in the study answered a questionnaire with a self-
report section and an assessment section. One main difference between these two
sections is that there were no correct answers to the self-report questions; whereas,
the assessment tasks were scored.

Using digital resources to find information. The students were asked how often
they used the following resources to find information at school or at home (with
homework). These resources derived from analyses of focus-group interviews
with students (Hatlevik et al., 2011). The selected digital resources were Google,
Wikipedia, online newspapers, and digital resources from textbook publishers. The
following categories were used in our analysis: (1) never; (2) monthly and less often;
(3) weekly, not daily; and (4) daily. Students who answered “not relevant” were
removed from the analysis.

Trust in information from digital resources. The students were asked if they trusted
information from these selected digital resources: Wikipedia, online newspapers, and
digital resources from textbook publishers. The following categories were used in
our analysis: (1) never; (2) rarely; (3) often; and (4) always. Students who answered
“do not know” were removed from the analysis.

Textbooks. The students were also asked about how often they used textbooks and
if they trusted in the content of the textbooks. The categories regarding textbook
use were: (1) never; (2) monthly and less often; (3) weekly, not daily; and (4) daily.
Regarding trusting information from textbooks, these four categories were used: (1)
never; (2) rarely; (3) often; and (4) always.

209
O. E. HATLEVIK

Mastery orientation. The students got three statements about their mastery
orientation (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The students answered on a Likert-type
agree-disagree scale, coded from “strongly agree” = 4 and “strongly disagree” = 1.

Home background. In order to identify students’ home background, their access

to cultural goods was included in the study. The number of books in a student’s
home has been used as a proxy of students’ cultural capital in studies such as the
PISA 2009 (Frønes & Narvhus, 2011) and the ICILS 2013 study (Fraillon & Ainley,
2011). The students were asked about the number of books at home. In the coding
of students’ responses, 1 corresponded to “0–10 books,” 2 to “11–100 books,” 3 to
“101–250 books,” and 4 to “more than 500 books.”

Marks. The students were asked about what marks (from 1 as the lowest to 6
as the highest) they earned the previous semester in the following five subjects:
Norwegian, English, social science, mathematics, and science.

Assessment of digital competence. The students had to complete a multiple-choice

test. Each of the questions had four response options, but only one option was correct.
The items were scored with one point for a correct answer and zero points for an
incorrect answer. The items in the test were developed from competence aims in the
national curriculum. However, it was not the intention to assess the total content of
national framework. Our aim was to have authentic items covering the four domains
in the national framework for digital skills.
The items were analysed using classical test theory. Based on these analyses 17
items were collapsed into an index of digital competence. The digital competence
index has a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The 17 items had a Cronbachs
alpha = 0.66, and this is slightly lower than the recommended level of 0.70 (Frisbie,
1988). However, lower levels can be accepted given the purpose of the research
(Kerlinger & Lee, 2000) or based on the factor loadings of the items (Sitsjma, 2009).
First, these 17 items are measuring different aspects of digital competence as digital
production, digital responsibility and information processing. Second, all the items
had factor loadings above 0.30, and this is an acceptable level for categorical items
(McAlphine, 2002).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 50.9% girls and 49.1% boys from 53 schools.

Students Use of and Trust in Resources

This section contains results about the two first research questions. Students were
asked how often they use different resources to find information at school or for
homework and if they trust the information from those resources.

210
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

Results show that 60% of the students use textbooks daily to find information at
school or for homework (see Table 1). A higher percentage of students use textbooks
daily compared with digital resources. When comparing the use of digital resources,
the results show that students use Google and Wikipedia more than newspapers or
publishers’ websites. A share of 33% of the students’ never use publishers’ websites,
and 19% of the students never use online newspapers to find information.

Table 1. Percentage of students using resources to find

information at school or homework

How often do you use the following resources Never Monthly Weekly, Daily
to find information at school or for homework? or rarely not daily

Textbooks (N=907) 5% 14 % 21 % 60 %
Google (ikke 100%) (N=912) 1% 18 % 44 % 38 %
Wikipedia (ikke 100%) (N=908) 1% 28 % 50 % 20 %
Online newspapers (N=884) 19 % 52 % 22 % 7%
Websites from textbook publishers (N=872) 33 % 52 % 12 % 3%

Further, results show that 16% of students surveyed trust information from
Wikipedia and online newspapers. Whereas 65% of students surveyed reported that
they trust information from textbooks and 39% of the students (N=694) reported that
they trust information from websites made by textbook publishers.

Table 2. Percentage of students trusting information from resources

Do you trust information from … Often Always

Textbooks (N=903) 31 % 65 %
Websites from textbook publishers (N=694) 41 % 39 %
Online newspapers (N=843) 60 % 16 %
Wikipedia (N=906) 55 % 16 %

The second research question addresses if there are any differences between boys
and girls in the digital resources they use and trust. Table 3 and 4 contain information
about average and standard deviation for each item about the use of and trust in
resources.
As shown in Table 3, girls use textbooks more frequently compared with boys;
whereas, boys seem to be more frequent users of online newspapers than girls.
No gender differences were noted in the use of Wikipedia, Google, or publishers
websites.

211
O. E. HATLEVIK

Table 3. Average and standard deviation for items measuring the use
of resources to find information at school or homework

How often do you use the following Total Females Males

resources to find information at school or
for homework?

Textbooks (N=907) 3.37 (.89) 3.47** (.77) 3.27** (.87)

Google (ikke 100%) (N=912) 3.18 (.74) 3.18 (.71) 3.19 (.77)
Wikipedia (ikke 100%) (N=908) 2.91 (.72) 2.90 (.71) 2.91 (.73)
Online newspapers (N=884) 2.17 (.82) 2.12* (.77) 2.23* (.87)
Websites from textbook publishers (N=872) 1.85 (.74) 1.84 (.72) 1.85 (.75)
* p < .01

Data presented in Table 4 shows that girls reported more frequent trust in
textbooks and websites from textbook publishers compared with what boys
reported. However, boys reported higher levels of trust in Wikipedia.

Table 4. Average and standard deviation for items about trusting information

Do you trust information from … Total Females Males

Textbooks (N=903) 3.59 (.62) 3.66** (.71) 3.51** (.70)

Websites from textbook publishers (N=694) 3.14 (.87) 3.24** (.83) 3.03** (.89)
Online newspapers (N=843) 2.88 (.70) 2.91(.70) 2.85 (.71)
Wikipedia (N=906) 2.95 (.65) 2.88** (.67) 3.02** (.62)

* p < .01

Characteristics of Students using and Trusting Information from Wikipedia

This section is about the third research question; identifying characteristics of
students’ use of and trust in information from Wikipedia. The relationship between
using and trusting information from Wikipedia has a correlation of r = .24 (p < .01).
Correlation analyses show that using Wikipedia to find information is positively
correlated with digital competence (r = .10, p < .05), and that trusting information
from Wikipedia is negatively correlated with cultural capital (r = –.07, p < .05).
Otherwise, using Wikipedia to find information and trusting information from
Wikipedia does not have any linear relationship with students’ cultural capital, their
school achievements, mastery orientation, or digital competence.

212
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

Table 5. Correlation between students’ using Wikipedia, trusting Wikipedia,

cultural capital, their school achievements, mastery orientation, and digital competence

Use Trust CC MA Marks DC

Use Wikipedia 1
Trust Wikipedia   .24** 1
Cultural capital (CC) .01 –.07* 1
Mastery orientation (MO) .06 –.04   .09* 1
Marks .02 .02   .29**   .14** 1
Digital competence (DC)   .08** .03   .21**   .21**   .41** 1
* p < .01

Characteristics of Students using and Trusting Information from Textbooks

Finally, exploring some characteristics of students using and trusting information

from textbooks (Table 6) and websites from textbook publishers (Table 7).
Results presented in Table 6 show that using textbooks is positively correlated
with trusting information from textbooks (r = .32, p < .01), mastery orientation
(r = .25, p < .01), marks (r = .09, p < .01), and digital competence (r = .14, p < .01).
Further, trusting information from textbooks is positively correlated with students’
mastery orientation (r = .37, p < .01), marks (r = .18, p < .01), and digital competence
(r = .21, p < .01).

Table 6. Correlation between using textbooks, trusting textbooks, cultural capital,

students’ school achievements, mastery orientation, and digital competence

Use Trust CC MA Marks DC

Use textbooks 1
Trust textbooks   .32** 1
Cultural capital (CC) .06 .05 1
Mastery orientation (MO)   .25**   .37** .09* 1
Marks   .09**   .18**   .29**   .14** 1
Digital competence (DC)   .14**   .21**   .21**   .21**   .41** 1
* p < .01

213
O. E. HATLEVIK

Many textbooks also have websites with online resources provided by the
publishers. Table 7 shows that using information from websites made by textbook
publishers is positively correlated with trusting information from publishers’ websites
(r = .24, p < .01) and mastery orientation (r = .15, p < .01). Using information from
publishers’ websites is negatively correlated with marks (r = –0.10, p < .01).

Table 7. Using and trusting websites from textbook publishers correlated with cultural
capital, their school achievements, mastery orientation, and digital competence

Use Trust

Use websites from textbook publishers 1

Trust websites from textbook publishers .24** 1
Cultural capital (CC) –.07 .05
Mastery orientation (MO)     .15**   .34**
Marks    –.10**   .18**
Digital competence (DC) –.02   .29**
* p < .01

Finally, trusting information found on websites from textbook publishers is

positively correlated with mastery orientation (r = .34, p < .01), marks (r = .18,
p < .01), and digital competence (r = .29, p < .01) (see Table 7). Note that 694 students
answered the question about trusting information from publishers’ websites, and one
therefore has to be careful with generalizing to the whole sample.

DISCUSSION

This paper scrutinizes students’ use of and the trust in Wikipedia, textbooks, and
other resources.
First, textbooks are the most-used resource for finding information each day.
The digital resources, Wikipedia and online newspapers, are less used than books
in school. One explanation of this could be something international studies have
found: that the use of ICT and digital resources in Norwegian schools is rather
moderate compared with other countries (European Commission, 2013; Fraillon
et al., 2014).
When it comes to trusting information, many students report that they always
trust information from textbooks. The majority of the students seem to be less
confident in the information from Wikipedia. It seems that students report a
higher levels of trust in textbooks or in a website made by textbook publishers
compared with their levels of trust in Wikipedia. One explanation could be that
the students are told to trust textbooks and not to trust Wikipedia (Hatlevik et al.,
2011). Another explanation could be that it is easier to identify who is behind

214
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

the information from a textbook or from a website from textbook publishers,

compared with information on Wikipedia (Blikstad-Balas, 2015).
The second research question addresses gender differences. When it comes to
the use of resources, there are not any clear differences between how girls and boys
use resources. This is in line with recent research, which has shown that males and
females are rather consistent in their use of digital technology, maybe except for
gaming and communication (Fraillon et al., 2014). However, there are some gender
differences in the items about trusting resources. Girls report higher levels of trust in
textbooks and websites from textbook publishers compared with boys. Further, boys
report higher levels of trust in Wikipedia. It is interesting that gender differences in
trust are not reflected by differences in their use.
Regarding the third research question, it is hard to find any characteristics of
students using and trusting information from Wikipedia. One reason could be that
Wikipedia is very easy to access and use. Recent studies have also shown that
Wikipedia can be used in several ways to find information (Blistad-Balas, 2015).
Students can access Wikipedia and copy information, which they later paste into
their presentations or assignments. But Wikipedia can also be used as one of many
resources, and the information gathered from Wikipedia can be compared with other
types of information or it can be a starting point for exploring other online resources
(Hatlevik et al., 2011).
Regarding the fourth research question, it seems that mastery orientation has a
positive relationship with using and trusting information from both textbooks and
websites by textbook publishers. One explanation could be that higher levels of
mastery orientation are characterized by willingness to develop oneself, to learn as
much as possible, and to have a deeper-thinking approach towards understanding the
school topics (Schunk et al., 2008).
Additionally, students using and trusting information on websites from textbook
publishers earn higher levels of marks and obtain higher achievements in digital
competence.
Finally, there does not seem to be a digital divide in use and trust in textbooks
and digital resources. However, there are traces of a digital divide when it comes to
students’ levels of digital competence, as a positive relationship between cultural
capital and students’ digital competence was found. Similar relationships have also
been reported in the ICILS 2013 study (Fraillon et al., 2014) and in recent Norwegian
studies (Hatlevik et al., 2015).

Limitations

Some possible limitations of this paper have to be mentioned. It was challenging

recruiting schools for the study, and the response rate was rather low (37%).
However, secondary analyses have indicated that the distribution of participating
schools is in line with the strata. Another limitation could be a school bias with an
overrepresentation of technology-rich schools. But, the average pc ratio of schools in

215
O. E. HATLEVIK

the study matches the average national pc-ratio. Finally, students’ use of information
from Wikipedia, textbooks, and other resources have been measured with one single
item per resource. On one hand, it is impossible to consider the consistency of use
and identify any measurement error with one item. But on the other hand, one item
provides information (even if it is not perfect information), and the single items
could perhaps be a starting point for developing constructions on these topics.

Concluding Remarks and Further Research

Overall, textbooks seem to be the most used and trusted resource for schoolwork
and homework. When it comes to digital learning resources, students use Wikipedia
more often than websites from textbook publishers. But students hold more trust in
information found on websites from textbook publishers compared with information
found on Wikipedia. It does not appear to be a consistent relationship between use
and trust of information, for example found on Wikipedia or websites from textbook
publishers. It is necessary to have more research about why students are using and
trusting information from both digital resources and textbooks.
There are gender differences when it comes to students’ trust in Wikipedia,
textbooks, and digital resources from textbook publishers. This has to be scrutinized
further in order to understand these differences.
The study has not revealed any characteristics of students’ reporting in their use
of and trust in information from Wikipedia. However, nuancing between different
kinds of Wikipedia use could provide more information about how and for what
purposes students use Wikipedia.
Mastery orientation seems to be a relevant topic in order to describe students
using and trusting information found in textbooks and digital resources from
textbook publishers. However, it is not clear what kind of role mastery orientation
has or what kind of relationship exists between the variables. Further research could
provide more insight into this.
Finally, there seems to be a digital divide in students’ digital competence. Equity
is a central goal for the Norwegian school system. How can schools and teachers
take action to avoid a digital divide? What can be done to ensure and to obtain digital
equity?

REFERENCES
Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., & Freeman, C. (2007). National assessment program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10
report 2005. Australia: MCEETYA.
Balanskat, A., & Gerthsch, C. A. (2010). Digital skills working group. Review of national curricula
and assessing digital competence for students and teachers: Findings from 7 countries. Brussels:
European Schoolnet.
Binkley, M., Erstad, E., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012).
Defining 21st century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching
of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-
2324-5

216
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric
studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28–42.
Blikstad-Balas, M. (2015). “You get what you need”: A study of students’ attitudes towards using
Wikipedia when doing school assignments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., & Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally
competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58, 797–807.
Claro, M., Preiss, D. D., San Martín, E., Jara, I., Hinostroza, J. E., Valenzuela, S., & Nussbaum, M.
(2012). Assessment of 21st century ICT skills in Chile: Test design and results from high school level
students. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1042–1053. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.004
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., & Butera, F. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning
within a mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 61–70.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2001). Digital transformation. A framework for ICT literacy. A report
of the International ICT Literacy Panel. Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_
Communication _Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Erstad, O. (2008). Changing assessment practice and the role of IT. In I. J. Voogt & G. Knezek
(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education
(pp. 181–194). New York, NY: Springer.
European Commission. (2002). Towards a knowledge-based Europe. The European Union and the
information society. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education benchmarking access, use and
attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/node/51275
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks (Report EUR25351EN).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGICOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in
Europe (Report EUR26036EN). Luxembourg: JRC Scientific and Policy Reports.
Fraillon, J., & Ainley, J. (2011). The IEA International Study of Computer and Information Literacy
(ICILS) (Vol. 33). Hamburg: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement,
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age
– The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Amsterdam:
IEA.
Frisbie, D. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 7(1), 25–35.
Frønes, I. (2002). Digitale skiller: utfordringer og strategier. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Frønes, T. S., & Narvhus, E. K. (2011) Students on the internet: Digital reading in PISA 2009 (Elever på
nett – Digital lesing i PISA 2009). Oslo: University of Oslo.
Gui, M., & Argentin, G. (2011) Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of internet literacy in a
random sample of northern Italian high school students. New Media & Society, 13(6), 963–980.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2011). From digital divide to digital opportunities? A critical perspective on the
digital divide in South African schools (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Oslo.
Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender.
Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x
Hatlevik, O. E. (2012). Analyzing factors influencing students’ productive use of computers: A structural
equation model. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 7(4), 11–28.
Retrieved from http://ijt.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.42/prod.787
Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary
school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240–247.

217
O. E. HATLEVIK

Hatlevik, O. E., & Gudmundsdottir G. B. (2013). An emerging digital divide in urban school children’s
information literacy: Challenging equity in the Norwegian school system. First Monday, 18(4).
doi:10.5210/fm.v18i4.4232
Hatlevik, O. E., Tømte, K., Skaug, J. H., & Ottestad, G. (2011). Monitor 2010 – Discussion about ICT at
school. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.
Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., & Ottestad, G. (2015). Predictors of digital comp. in 7th grade: Students’
motivation, family background, and culture for professional development in schools. Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning, 31(3), 220–231.
Kerlinger, J. M., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Survey research. Foundations of Behavioural Research, 599–619.
Kim, H. S., Kil, H. J., & Shin, A. (2014). An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of
Korean elementary school students. Computers & Education, 77, 29–38.
Krumsvik, R. (2011). Digital competence in Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre utbilding,
1, 39–51.
Kuhlmeier, H. A., & Hemker, B. (2007). The impact of computer use at home on students’ Internet skills.
Computers & Education, 49, 460–480.
Law, N. (2009). Curriculum and staff development for ICT in Education. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson,
N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology. Policies and
practices in education. Charlotte, NC: IEA.
Matzat, U., & Sadowski, B. (2012). Does the “do-it-yourself approach” reduce digital inequality?
Evidence of self-learning of digital skills. The Information Society, 28(1), 1–12.
McAlpine, H. (2002). A summary of methods of items analysis. Bluepaper Number 2. Glasgow: University
of Glasgow.
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA).
(2010). National assessment program. ICT literacy years 6 and 10 report 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/resources/NAP-ICTLreport2008.pdf
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (1999). Falling through the net:
Defining the digital divide (US Department of Commerce). Washington, DC: NTIA. Retrieved from
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2000). Falling through the net,
toward digital inclusion (US Department of Commerce). Washington, DC: NTIA. Retrieved from
http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2012). Framework for basic skills. Oslo: The
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.
OECD. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (2010). Are new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational
performance in PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pedró, F. (2007). The new millennium learners: Challenging our views on digital technologies and
learning. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy (Digital kompetanse), 4, 43–60.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Søby, M. (2013). Learning to be: Developing and understanding digital competence. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy, 3, 134–138.
Van Deursen, A. (2012). Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81(1), 61–72.
Van Deursen, A., Van Dijk, J., & Peters, O. (2011). Rethinking Internet skills. The contribution of gender,
age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills.
Poetics, 39, 125–144.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/article/view/967/888

218
 DIGITAL RESOURCES FROM TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS

Zhang, G., Wang, Q., & Kolodinsky, J. (2010). The digital divide in Internet information searching:
A double-hurdle model analysis of household data from Vermont. First Monday, 15(11). Retrieved
from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/325
Zhong, Z. J. (2011). From access to usage: The divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents.
Computers & Education, 56, 736–746.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ove Edvard Hatlevik is a researcher at University of

Oslo. His research interests are teaching methods, teacher
education, educational technology, digital competence,
multi-level analysis, structural equation modeling and school
motivation and work motivation.

219
 INGER THRONDSEN AND OVE EDVARD HATLEVIK

13. EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT

LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE
Norwegian Results from the ICILS 2013

INTRODUCTION

Today, information and communication technology (ICT) has become part of our
professional lives, our leisure activities, and students’ learning activities. It can
be seen as a transversal skill (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training,
2012), or it can be seen as a specific competence such as coding and programming
(European Schoolnet, 2014). The concept of ICT literacy has been discussed and
analyzed for the last decade in both national (Baek et al., 2009; Claro et al., 2012;
Katz & Macklin, 2007; Law, 2009) and cross-national initiatives (Binkley et al.,
2012; Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2014).
The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2013 is a
comparative study organized by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA). The study is a response to the increasing use of ICT
and the need for citizens to become independent and critical users of technology.
It uses a computer-based assessment to evaluate students’ ICT literacy. ICILS was
administered for the first time in 2013 with 21 participating countries/education
systems, including Norway.
Since 2006, students’ ability to use ICT has been one of five general skills
(together with reading, writing, oral expression and numeracy) in the Norwegian
curriculum. ICT is an integrated part of all subjects in primary and secondary school.
The curriculum contains specific competence aims involving ICT at 2nd, 4th, 7th
and 10th grade levels.
The role of gender has been examined in recent studies; for example, when it
comes to the use of ICT and achievements in ICT literacy. Gender is an unchangeable
variable from a school perspective, but it is an important variable to examine in order
to identify digital equity at school and to understand the appropriate approach for
instruction and tutoring of students (Kuhlemeier & Hemker, 2007).
This chapter addresses two aims: first, we explore the variation in Norwegian
students’ ICT literacy, interest, and use from a gender perspective. Second, we
examine a model of the relationship between gender, ICT literacy, interest and use.

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 221–240.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

PERSPECTIVES

ICT Literacy

The term literacy was initially used to describe the ability to read and write texts.
According to Kim, Kil, and Shin (2014), the emergence of a digital technology
language lead to an extension of the meaning of literacy to also cover the ability to
read and write language in a digital or multimedia context.
A review of recent research has shown that several concepts are used to describe
students’ ability to perform with digital technology. These concepts often include
descriptions of ability (i.e., competence or literacy) within the context of digital
technology (i.e., ICT or digital). According to Ferrari (2013), the term digital
competence is more used in Europe; whereas, the term ICT literacy is more used in
Asia and the US. Nevertheless, the concepts of digital competence and ICT literacy
are the same and the terms can be used as synonyms (Calvani, Fini, Ranieri, & Picci,
2012).
In the last decade, the term ICT literacy has been used in countries such as
Australia (Ainley, Fraillon, & Freeman, 2007), Chile (Claro et al., 2012), Hong
Kong (Law, 2009), Korea (Kim & Lee, 2013), and the US (Huggins, Ritzhaupt, &
Dawson, 2014) to identify what students are able to achieve with digital technology.
The concept has been a starting point for two international initiatives to examine
students’ achievements: the 21st century skill initiative (Binkley et al., 2012) and
the ICILS 2013 study (Fraillon et al., 2014). The objective of the latter study was
to examine students’ ability to effectively use computers, including tablets, to
“investigate, create, and communicate” (Fraillon, Schulz, & Ainley, 2013, p. 17).
In ICILS 2013 the ICT literacy construct was conceptualized in terms of two
main strands or categories, consisting of several aspects (Fraillon et al., 2013, p. 18).
While strand 1 focuses on the receptive and organizational elements of information
processing and management, strand 2 focuses on using computers as productive
tools for creating and communicating information (see Table 1). The items and tasks
included in the digital test covered the aspects described in Table 1.

Table 1. ICT literacy – strands and aspects

Strand 1 Strand 2
Collecting and managing information Producing and exchanging information

Knowing about and understanding computer use 2.1 Transforming information

1.2 Accessing and evaluating information 2.2 Creating information
1.3 Managing information 2.3 Sharing information
2.4 Using information safely and securely

In the Norwegian framework for digital skills the ICT literacy construct is
conceptualized in the following four domains: (1) acquire and process digital

222
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

information, (2) produce information, (3) digital communication, and (4) digital
responsibility (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2012). Although
the ICILS framework and the Norwegian framework for digital skills are structured in
different ways, a comparison has revealed a high degree of thematic overlapping. The
domain acquire and process digital information in the Norwegian framework overlaps
with aspects 1.2 and 1.3 in the “collecting and managing information” category in
the ICILS framework. Further, the domain produce information in the Norwegian
framework corresponds to aspects 2.1 and 2.2 in the ICILS framework, while digital
communication in the Norwegian framework overlaps with aspect 2.3 in the ICILS
framework. Finally, the domain digital responsibility in the Norwegian framework
overlaps with aspect 2.4 in the ICILS framework. The comparison between the national
and the international frameworks shows that the ICILS test covers competences that
are relevant for Norwegian school. In addition, the test items correspond to several
competence aims described in the curricula for the different school subjects.

ICT Literacy and Gender Differences

Recent research papers have examined the role of gender in ICT literacy and in
other synonymous concepts describing the ability to achieve with digital technology.
When asking students about their ICT literacy, boys seem to report higher levels
of ICT literacy than girls (Litt, 2013). But the results are less consistent when it
comes to students’ actual performances on a computer-based test. Some studies have
reported that boys perform better than girls on ICT-related assessments (Calvani
et al., 2012; Gui & Argentin, 2011; Van Deursen, 2012). On the other hand, results
from the international ICILS study (Fraillon et al., 2014) together with findings from
national studies in Australia (Ainley, Fraillon, & Freeman, 2007), Chile (Claro et al.,
2012), Korea (Kim, Kil, & Shin, 2014; Kim & Lee, 2013; Yang, 2012) and Norway
(Hatlevik et al., 2015) show that girls are performing better than boys on ICT-
related assessments. Nevertheless, numerous research studies have not found gender
differences in ICT literacy (Hargittai & Shafer, 2006; Hatlevik & Christophersen,
2013; Van Deursen, Van Dijk & Peters, 2011; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2009).

INTEREST AND ENJOYMENT

Recent research has emphasized that students’ successful use of computers “is
dependent on positive attitudes towards computers” (Knezek & Christensen, 2008,
p. 332). Computer attitude is a broad concept covering various aspects of students’
perceptions and beliefs about technology. Research literature has shown a large
variation in use of scales when it comes to measuring computer attitudes among
students. In general, the following three aspects are distinguished: (1) the affective
aspect, which refers to someone’s feelings about computers, and is often related to
the liking of computers and enjoyment in computer use; (2) the perceived relevance
of computers, which refers to someone’s perceptions and opinions about technology,

223
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

for example usefulness; and, (3) behaviour, which covers computer anxiety or self-
confidence in computer use (Meelissen, 2008).
Recent studies show how students’ attitudes to ICT use can influence what
students are able to do with computers. For example, computer anxiety is negatively
related to students’ computer performances (Cooper, 2006; Meelissen, 2008). On
the other hand, if students’ ICT use is associated with enjoyment, it influences their
engagement in a positive direction (Kranz et al., 2013) and has positive effects
on their learning of technological skills (Gibson, Bull, Kruger, & Knezek, 2011).
According to Gibson et al. (2011), teachers need to be aware that students can benefit
from experiencing enjoyment when they use computers.
In the research literature, computer interest and computer liking are synonymous
terms used to describe how much a user enjoys working with computers (Teo, 2008).
From a motivational perspective, an individual’s perceived interest can be reckoned
to provide the pleasure and satisfaction derived from a specific activity. The concept
covers the individual’s general liking of a specific activity and the perceptions of
personal enjoyment (Schunk et al., 2014). Research within various subject domains
has revealed fairly consistent results regarding how interest is related to students’
achievement outcomes. In general, findings show that interest affects students’
choice of activities and is positively related to deeper cognitive engagement and
attention, effort investment, help seeking when confronted with problems, and use
of effective strategies in learning situations (Schiefele, 2009).
The research literature on students’ attitudes towards computers has shown that a
high level of computer interest and enjoyment is associated with positive perceptions,
beliefs, and behaviour. For example, positive attitudes in terms of interest are related
to students’ intentions to use technology, which means that students are more likely
to engage in tasks and activities that they consider interesting (Vekiri, 2010; Yi &
Hwang, 2003). Students’ perceptions about computers have also been found to affect
the extent of computer use as a learning tool for study purposes (Teo, 2008). Finally,
interest is essential for students’ learning and achievement in relation to their their
future studies and career choices (Bandura, 1997; Shunk et al., 2014).

Gender Differences in ICT Interest and Enjoyment

Gender has been one of the most frequently reported sociodemographic parameters
regarding the discussion about computer attitudes (Meelissen & Drent, 2008; Vekiri &
Chronaki, 2008). Boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards computers have been a topic in
many studies for the last two decades, and have been regarded as one of the influencing
factors explaining gender differences in computer use and computer competencies.
Despite a high number of studies on students’ liking of computing, findings
have turned out to be inconclusive. However, the majority of studies have
shown less positive attitudes towards computers among girls compared to boys
(Meelissen & Drent, 2008). It is important to underline that girls’ attitudes towards
computers are rarely negative, but they are less positive compared to boys. Some

224
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

studies have, however, revealed rather small gender differences or no difference

at all (e.g., Teo, 2008). These inconsistent findings may be due to different
operationalizations of computer interest and enjoyment and how the concept has
been measured (Meelissen, 2008). The most common way to measure attitudes
is to present statements about computers to the students and ask them to what
degree they agree or disagree. According to Vekiri and Chronaki (2008), to date,
no studies at the elementary and lower secondary school level have reported more
positive beliefs for girls than boys.

USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Research on students’ ICT use is often initiated by concerns about differences in

attitudes towards technology. It is believed that computer attitudes not only play an
influential role in students’ acceptance of computers as a learning tool, but also in
determining the likelihood that computers will be used for the purpose of studies in
the future (Teo, 2008).
Research has revealed that students’ access to technology is positively related
to their confidence in computer use (Tondeour, Sinnaee, van Houtte, & van Braak,
2011), and students’ experience with computers (i.e., the number of years) is related
to their ICT literacy (Fraillon et al., 2014). In addition, students’ experience and
frequency of computer use out of school (e.g., at home) is significantly related to
their computer attitudes (i.e., enjoyment, utility perceptions) in elementary school
(Meelissen & Drent, 2008) and at the secondary school level (Selwyn, 2008).
However, in studies where students’ ICT literacy has been measured, research
questions the relationship between ICT literacy and the use of ICT at school. Results
from PISA 2009 did not reveal any significant relationship between ICT use at
school and achievements in digital reading (Frønes & Narvhus, 2011). Claro et al.
(2012) tested ICT literacy in Chile, and they did not find any significant relationship
between the use of ICT and ICT literacy. Hatlevik, Ottestad, and Throndsen (2015)
found a negative relationship between time spent on ICT activities in school and
students’ digital competence.

Gender Differences in ICT use

Prior studies have documented significant gender differences in students’ computer

activities outside school (e.g. Volman & van Eck, 2001). Two decades ago, boys
were recognized to be more frequent computer users compared to girls. Computers
were predominantly used for programming and playing games, and males spent
considerable more time with computers than females did (Meelissen, 2008).
Nowadays, computer use has become much more varied. A decade ago, playing
computer games was the favorite out of school activity for both boys and girls, but
more recent research has shown that boys’ and girls’ computer use at home has
changed, and that girls are as frequent users of ICT as boys (Vekiri & Chronaki,

225
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

2008). One reason may be that digital technology is the preferred platform for
communication between young people today. A closer look at students’ use of home
computers has revealed some gender differences when it comes to gaming and
chatting, but it seems that boys and girls are equally active in regard to total use.

STUDENTS’ BACKGROUND AND ASPIRATIONS

Studies combining students’ ICT skills, computer attitudes, and ICT use among
students with different socioeconomic backgrounds are still scarce. In the present
study, these factors have been included.

Home Background

In the search for factors that affect children’s school achievement, the family has
long been considered a crucial factor (Grolnick, Friendly, & Bella, 2009). Several
studies have investigated the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES)
and students’ ICT competence, with research in the area reporting mixed findings
(Aesart & van Braak, 2015). For example, Claro et al. (2012) found that the higher the
students’ socioeconomic goods at home, the better they scored on ICT competence
tests. However, other studies have provided evidence that the relationship between
socioeconomic status and ICT competence is too weak to determine whether lower
SES contributes to lower ICT skills (Tondeur et al., 2011). One possible explanation
for inconsistent findings may be that in most studies, students’ ICT skills are
measured through self-reporting (Aesart & van Braak, 2015) and are not based on
actual performance measured by a test.
Within the framework of social cognitive theory, it is assumed that students’
interactions with family members are central in their out of school experiences with
technology (Meelissen & Drent, 2008). A large number of young people are exposed
to computers at home from an early age. Children’s perceptions of support from
parents and others may therefore be crucial for their ICT perceptions and beliefs, and
their development of ICT skills. When parents are involved in their children’s school-
related activities, including when they provide encouragement and express positive
expectations and support learning, children are more likely to adopt positive beliefs
and attitudes about their ability to learn and improve (Grolnick et al., 2009). However,
parents with low SES do not always have the educational experiences and resources to
foster their children’s learning. According to Becker (2000), disadvantaged students
may have parents who are less knowledgeable about computers, and thus do not
receive support that can be essential for the development of their ICT skills.

Students’ Aspirations and Choice of Study Program

It is assumed that factors like students’ home background, interest, achievement

in school (e.g., previous school results), and their perceptions of academic success

226
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

influence their aspirations of undertaking further studies. Recent research on digital

competence shows associations between students’ achievement in digital competence
and their choices of schools (Calvani et al., 2012) and study programs (Hatlevik &
Christophersen, 2013). Students’ choices of study programs or schools indicate what
kind of aspirations and plans the students have for their future education. In ICILS
2013, this variable is labelled students’ aspirations (Fraillon et al., 2014).

THE PRESENT STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Given the perspectives mentioned, our chapter addresses two research questions.
First, are there from a gender perspective any variations in Norwegian students’
ICT literacy, interest, and use? Based on previous research on ICT and gender, one
could expect gender differences in ICT interest and ICT use. Research indicates
that boys are more frequent users and more interested in ICT compared with
girls. However, research on gender and ICT literacy has been less consistent. The
inconsistent research findings may be due to the various ways ICT literacy has been
operationalized and measured.
Second, what is the relationship between ICT literacy, interest, and use; home
background; academic aspirations; and gender among Norwegian students? A model
describing these relationships has been developed on the basis of recent research
within the framework of ICT literacy, interest, and use. The following hypotheses
were formulated (see Figure 1).
• Hypothesis 1: Gender predicts ICT interest.
• Hypothesis 2: ICT interest predicts use of ICT for study purposes.

Figure 1. A model with hypotheses about relationships between gender, ICT interest, ICT
use, academic aspirations, parents’ occupational status and ICT literacy.

227
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

• Hypothesis 3: ICT interest predicts use of specific ICT applications.

• Hypothesis 4: Use of ICT for study purposes predicts ICT literacy.
• Hypothesis 5: Use of specific ICT applications predicts ICT literacy.
• Hypothesis 6: Gender (female) predicts ICT literacy.
• Hypothesis 7: Students’ academic aspiration predicts ICT literacy.
• Hypothesis 8: Parents’ occupational status predicts ICT literacy.

METHODS

Participants and Context

The basis of these analyses is the Norwegian ICILS 2013 sample consisting of 2,436
ninth-grade students from 138 schools. Of the participants, 49.8% were boys and
50.2% were girls. Students’ average age was 14.8 years, similar to the average age
in the other participating countries.
The ICILS 2013 study focused on students’ capability to use and achieve with
ICT. The 2013 study was initiated and governed by the IEA, and 20 countries
participated in the study. In each country a two-step stratified sample procedure was
omitted. First, a representative sample of 150 schools was selected among schools
with a ninth grade. Second, a sample of 20 students was randomly selected from
each school.

MEASURES

ICT Literacy

ICILS 2013 consisted of a computer-based achievement test in ICT literacy. The test
had four modules and each student had to complete two 30-minute test modules.
The modules were randomly assigned to the students. Each module was developed
around a distinct theme; for example, planning a school trip or an after school
exercise. The tasks were developed based on the ICT literacy framework (Fraillon,
Schulz, & Ainley, 2013). The intension was to cover the framework with authentic
items, but not to assess equal proportions of aspects and domains. Factor analyses
indicated that the items measured a one-dimensional variable of ICT literacy. The
scale of the international test had a reliability of Cronbachs alpha = 0.89 (Fraillon
et al., 2015, p. 171).

Interest

To measure students’ ICT interest, they were presented a questionnaire containing

questions about their interest in using computers and computing; for example,
“Thinking about your experience with computers: To what extent do you agree or
disagree with the following statements?” The students were presented seven total

228
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

statements, including “I think using a computer is fun” and “I like learning how
to do new things using a computer.” The students rated their degree of agreement
with “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” The scale had a
reliability of Cronbachs alpha = 0.83 in Norway (Fraillon et al., 2015, p. 196).

Students’ Use of ICT for Study Purposes

In the questionnaire, there were eight questions about how often the students used
computers specifically for school-related purposes. The students could be involved
in these different activities both at school and outside of school; examples include
“Preparing reports or essay” and “Writing about your learning.” The students could
respond to these questions with “never,” “less than once a month,” “at least once a
month but not every week,” and “at least once a week.” The scale had a reliability of
Cronbachs alpha = 0.81 in Norway (Fraillon et al., 2015, p. 193).

Students’ Use of Specific ICT Applications

The questionnaire had seven questions about how often students use computers
for work-oriented applications outside of school. However, the applications were
school related; for example, “Creating or editing documents” and “Using education
software that is designed to help with your school study.” The students reported their
use with the following alternatives: “never,” “less than once a month,” “at least once
a month but not every week,” “at least once a week but not every day,” and “every
day.” The scale had a reliability of Cronbachs alpha = 0.80 in Norway (Fraillon
et al., 2015, p. 190).
As shown in the two previous sections, there were differences in the number of
response alternatives used to measure students’ ICT use. Students’ use of specific
ICT applications had five response categories, including “every day” as a measure of
the most frequent use. But students’ use of ICT for study purposes had four response
categories, including “at least once a week” as measure of the most frequent use.

Academic Aspirations
The students were asked about their highest expected level of educational attainment.
The students’ answers were recoded into the labels “completing lower-secondary,”
“completing upper-secondary,” “completing post-secondary non-university
education,” and “completing university education” (Fraillon et al., 2014, p. 232).

Home Background

The students answered open-ended questions about their parents’ work, and the
national centers coded these answers “to the international socioeconomic index of

229
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

occupational status (ISEI)” (Fraillon et al., 2015, p. 179). Information about the
parents’ occupational status can be used as a proxy of students’ home background.

Gender

The students’ answered a question about being a boy or a girl.

DATA ANALYSIS

Path analysis was used to answer the two research questions for this chapter.
According to Geiser (2013), path analysis is a multivariate regression model
because it allows for the estimate of multiple dependent and independent variables
simultaneously. The path analysis provides information about the strength of the
relationship between the variables and if a specific relationship is significant. When
running the analyses, the nested structure of the study, as students are selected from
schools, was taken into consideration.
It is possible to test how well the empirical data fits the theoretical model. If the
empirical data does not match the theoretical model, this means that the theoretical
model has to be rejected. But if the data and the model match, this indicates that the
theoretical model is supported.
A chi-square test can be used to judge the model fit. But recent research shows
that the chi-square test is sample sensitive and can be difficult to use with large
samples (Guay et al., 2014). Nevertheless, there are other fit indexes that are not
sample sensitive; for example, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), The Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI), the Root Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standard
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). It is recommended that models with an
acceptable fit have CFI and TLI above 0.95, RMSEA below 0.08, and SRMR below
0.06 (Brown, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

RESULTS

The Variables

ICT literacy. The average of the ICT literacy test was standardized with a mean of
500 points and a standard deviation of 100 points given equally weighted samples
(Fraillon et al., 2014, p. 72). The ICT literacy mean test score for Norway was 537
points, which was significantly above the ICILS 2013 average score.

ICT interest and use. The results for ICT interest and use (i.e., use of ICT for study
purposes and use of ICT application) were scaled based on the international data
with an average of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The results for Norway show
that ICT interest had a mean of 50 (s.e. 0.2), the use of ICT for study purposes had
a mean of 53 (s.e. 0.2) and use of ICT application had a mean of 49 (s.e. 0.2). The

230
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

use of ICT for study purposes was significantly higher than the ICILS 2013 average,
while the use of ICT application was significantly below it.

Academic aspirations. The students were asked about their highest expected level
of educational attainment (Fraillon et al., 2014, p. 104). The Norwegian students’
responses show the following distribution: “not completing lower-secondary” –
0.3%, “completing lower-secondary” – 2%, “completing upper-secondary” – 17.3%,
“completing post-secondary non-university education” – 15.7%, and “completing
university education” – 64.1%.

Home background. The results for parents’ highest socioeconomic index of

occupational status (ISEI) were scaled based on the international data with an
average of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 (Fraillon et al., 2015, p. 179). The
results for Norway show that ISEI had a mean of 50.7 (s.e. 0.6).

Gender. The sample consisted of 50.2% girls and 49.8% boys.

GENDER DIFFERENCES

In order to examine the first research question about gender differences, three
different models were tested.
First, a model with gender as an independent variable and ICT literacy as a
dependent variable was run. The results showed that girls are performing better than
boys (ß = .16, p < .01) on the ICT literacy test. This model had a very good fit
(CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, and SRMR = .00).
Second, a model with gender as an independent variable and ICT interest as a
dependent variable was run. The results show that boys are reporting higher levels
of ICT interest compared with girls (ß = -.26, p < .01). This model had a very good
fit (CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, and SRMR = .00).
Third, a model with gender as an independent variable and two dependent
variables, use of ICT for study purposes and use of ICT applications outside
school, was run. The results did not reveal any gender differences for these two
variables. This model had a very good fit (CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00,
and SRMR = .00).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND ICT LITERACY, USE, AND INTEREST

A model (see Figure 1) was tested in order to examine the second research question.
In the model, ICT literacy was the dependent variable. Gender, academic aspirations,
and home background were independent variables. Use of ICT for study purposes
and use of ICT application outside of school were both dependent and independent
variables.

231
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

The results of the analyses are shown in Figure 2. According to Figure 2, a

significant positive relationship was found between gender and ICT literacy
(ß = .16, p < .01). As expected, gender had a significant, negative relationship with
ICT interest (ß = –.26, p < .01). Further, ICT interest had a significant, positive
relationship with both use of ICT for study purposes (ß = .25, p < .01) and use
of ICT application (ß = .20, p < .01). We did not find that use of ICT for study
purposes and use of ICT application outside school had any significant relationship
with students’ ICT literacy. Finally, as expected, the results showed that parents’
work status (ß = .23, p < .01) and students’ academic aspirations (ß = .19, p < .01)
had a significant and positive relationship with ICT literacy. The resulting model
had a very good fit (CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = .032, and SRMR = .023).

Figure 2. A model with measures of relationships between gender, ICT interest, ICT use,
academic aspirations, parents’ occupational status, and ICT literacy

DISCUSSION

This chapter addresses two research questions. First, gender differences in ICT
literacy, ICT interest, use of ICT for study purposes, and use of applications outside
school was explored. The two variables indicating ICT use were related to scholastic
use of ICT. Second, the relationship between students’ ICT literacy, their use of ICT
for study purposes and use of applications, ICT interest, and gender was examined.
The analyses are based on data from ICILS 2013 with a representative sample of
Norwegian ninth-grade students.

Gender Differences (Research Question 1)

Based on the results from ICILS 2013, it is not possible to draw a general conclusion
about gender differences among Norwegian students across the four variables

232
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

(i.e., ICT literacy, ICT interest, use of ICT for study purposes, and use of ICT
applications outside school). The results indicate that it is necessary to nuance and
specify the discussion about gender differences among students in the domain of
technology.
The results from the digital test showed that girls outperformed boys significantly,
and the gender difference in Norway was higher than differences registered in many
of the other participating countries. Gender differences in ICT literacy in favor of
girls have also been found in other studies (e.g., Aesaert & van Braak, 2015; Ainley
et al., 2007). One possible explanation for why girls outperformed boys on the
computer-based test could be differences in their specific ICT use and experience.
Item analyses in Aesaert and van Braak’s study (2015) showed that gender differences
were related to the topic of the items. In ICILS 2013, approximately 60% of the tasks
were related to producing and exchanging information, and these types of activities
may be stronger related to girls’ ICT use and experience.
With regard to the gender difference in ICT literacy, another possible explanation
may be related to students’ reading skills. Although the amount of text to be read
by the students was reduced to a minimum, the test still involved some reading.
Results from the national tests in reading in lower secondary school show that
Norwegian girls demonstrate better reading skills than boys (Norwegian Directorate
for Education and Training, 2015). Also, in PISA 2009, Norwegian girls performed
significantly better than boys in paper-based reading (Roe & Vagle, 2010) and in
digital reading (Frønes & Narvhus, 2011).
The results from the present study also showed that Norwegian boys are expressing
greater interest and enjoyment in computing than girls. This is in line with previous
research (e.g. Meelissen & Drent, 2008; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008), although some
studies have revealed rather small differences (e.g., Teo, 2008). In Norway, the
gender difference in students’ ICT interest was significant, and Norway was among
the countries with the largest gender difference in students’ liking of computing.
Earlier studies have shown that gender differences in computer attitudes can be
related to differences in the encouragement boys and girls receive from their families.
Research findings indicate that girls perceive less support and encouragement for
computer activities from their parents compared to boys (Meelissen & Drent, 2008;
Vekiri, 2010). For example, Vekiri and Chronaki (2008) found that parental support
was the factor most strongly associated with boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards ICT.
Motivational factors are important for students’ future studies and career choices.
Having lower interest in computing may lead female students to avoid technology
related studies, which in the next turn will limit their future careers. In most Western
countries, female participation in ICT professional careers is not only low, but also
still declining (Anderson, Lankhear, Timms, & Coutney, 2008). For example, in
Norway, statistics1 show that only one out of five students pursuing technology-
related studies are female.
The analyses revealed no gender differences in students’ use of ICT for study
purposes and use of ICT applications outside of school. Thus, it seems that boys

233
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

and girls are equally active users of technology for school-related activities. Earlier
studies have found gender differences in specific computer activities; for example,
girls being more active on social media (Volman et al., 2005), and boys report
higher frequency of using entertainment applications at home (Ainley, Fraillon, &
Freeman, 2007). Research on gender differences has often been based on females’
low participation rate in ICT-related study programs (Meelissen, 2008). It has been
argued that computer use usually is seen as a male domain. However, nowadays
computers are widely available and computer use has become much more varied.

Analyzing the Model (Research Question 2)

Parents’ occupational status, students’ academic aspirations, and being female were
positively related to ICT literacy. Parents’ occupational status turned out to be the
strongest predictor of ICT literacy. The higher the socioeconomic status, the better
students performed on the digital test. The importance of students’ home background
for their achievement has also been confirmed in earlier research within this field
(e.g., Claro et al., 2013). A possible explanation for the influence of socioeconomic
status could be related to specific types of out of school experiences with technology
in different socioeconomic groups (Aesaert & van Braak, 2015). For example,
it has been found that high socioeconomic status students search the Internet for
information more often than low socioeconomic status students (Vekiri, 2008).
It is also assumed that students’ interactions with family members are central in
their out of school experiences with technology. For example, children’s perceptions
of support from parents are crucial for their attitudes towards ICT and their
development of ICT skills. When parents are involved in their children’s schoolwork,
they provide encouragement, give feedback, and support their learning (Grolnick et
al., 2009; Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Students are also likely to adopt the positive
beliefs they are exposed to about their ability to learn and improve. In research,
parenting has been conceived as mediating the relationship between socioeconomic
background and children’s school-related outcomes. It has been claimed that parents
with low socioeconomic status in general have less knowledge about computers, and
thus are to a lesser extent able to support their children in the development of their
ICT skills.
With regard to the relationship between students’ academic aspirations and their
ICT literacy, a significant positive relationship was registered. We have not found
any studies examining the relationship between students’ ICT literacy and their
ambitions about future education. However, Calvani et al. (2012) found that students
attending a general study program demonstrated higher levels of ICT literacy
compared to students from technical schools.
Our model also revealed a significant relationship between gender (i.e. being
female) and ICT literacy. As mentioned in the discussion of Gender differences
(research question 1), see this section, there could be various possible explanations

234
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

for these differences. However, ICT literacy is a broad concept, consisting of many
different types of competences. For the digital test in ICILS 2013, only one single
general measure for ICT literacy has been reported. In the future, it will be important
to develop tests that make it possible to distinguish and specify different kind
of aspects of ICT literacy in order to examine what girls and boys master. More
detailed measures could provide us with knowledge that is essential for adapting the
instruction in schools for various groups.
According to our analyses, there was a significant negative relationship between
gender (i.e. being female) and ICT interest. This result was expected because
results from the majority of studies on this topic are rather consistent. According to
motivation theory, students’ development of interest in various domains depends to
a large degree on the support and encouragement they perceive in different contexts.
Therefore, one explanation could be that gender difference in interest is a result of
boys’ and girls’ different socialization experiences. The gender differences could be a
reflection of gendered social expectations expressed by parents, teachers, and others.
For example, parents may have gender-stereotyped views and may communicate
diverse expectations towards boys and girls. Thus, gender differences in interest
for computing may be related to differences in encouragement and feedback that
boys and girls experience in schools and at home. Research findings indicate that
girls perceive less support for computer learning compared to boys (see Meelissen &
Drent, 2008; Vekiri, 2010; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008). Thus, students’ interactions
with family members and teachers are central for their experiences with technology.
However, the support from family was not a part of this study, and we suggest that
this is examined in future studies.
In addition, ICT interest turned out to be important for students’ use of ICT
for study purposes and their use of specific ICT applications outside school. This
result is also confirmed by recent research based on motivation theory; that is, that
interest affects students’ choice of activities. In other words, ICT interest seems to
be important for the frequency of ICT use. This indicates that fostering students’
interest for ICT activities should be an important aspect of teachers’ instruction.
Finally, no significant relationship was registered between students’ ICT use and
their ICT literacy. This is surprising because one could assume that more frequent use
would lead to higher levels of proficiency. However, both national initiated studies
(Hatlevik, Egeberg, Gudmundsdottir, Loftsgarden, & Loi, 2013) and international
studies (Ottestad, Throndsen, Hatlevik, & Rohatgi, 2014) conducted in Norway
show that, on average, students are spending more time on leisure activities and
recreation compared to the frequency of ICT use for school purposes. One possible
explanation that no relationship between ICT use and ICT literacy was registered,
could be that students’ experiences with leisure activities are dominant compared
to their ICT use for scholastic purposes. In addition, measures of ICT use usually
emphasize how often ICT is used. In future studies it could be more relevant to
measure the quality of students’ ICT use in order to better understand students’ ICT

235
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

literacy. Kuiper, Volman, and Terwel (2009) underpin the importance of teachers;
that is, their instruction and scaffolding when it comes to use of ICT in school.
Unfortunately, the research design in ICILS 2013 does not allow for examining the
role of teachers in students’ ICT literacy.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

This paper provides new insight that can nuance the gender perspective when it
comes to ICT literacy, interest, and use. Several studies have examined students’
ICT literacy, but some of these studies have been based on students’ self-reported
measurement. As students can over or underestimate their own ICT literacy, these
studies have to cope with the problem of self-reported bias. We consider it a strength
of the ICILS 2013 that a performance-based measure of ICT literacy was used.
In ICILS 2013, students’ ICT literacy was measured by a test consisting of
items that, to a large extent, corresponded to the Norwegian curriculum in terms of
competence aims and framework for digital skills. The analyses have shown that
girls achieve higher levels of ICT literacy proficiency than boys. Further research is
required in order to examine these gender differences more thoroughly by making it
possible to nuance what boys and girls are able to perform with digital technology.
Thus, future research can benefit from using specific measures when investigating
students’ ICT literacy, rather than focusing on one single general measure. This will
make it possible to distinguish which aspects of digital competence differ between
girls and boys. Nevertheless, is seems important that teachers, parents, and others
do not take for granted that boys achieve higher levels of ICT literacy proficiency
than girls.
Boys are reporting higher interest in ICT compared with the girls. Parents may
have gender-stereotyped views and may communicate diverse expectations towards
their children. But gender differences in ICT interest can also reflect gendered
social expectations expressed by teachers. Thus, it seems that the role of parents’
and teachers’ attitudes and expectations has to be discussed and further examined,
especially with regard to girls’ interest in ICT.
To conclude, the analyses of the study have shown that students’ home
background, measured by parents occupational status, and students’ academic
aspirations influence students’ ICT literacy. These findings indicate traces of digital
inequality when it comes to students’ levels of ICT literacy. Nevertheless, it seems
important to take action in order to prevent the emergence of a digital divide. It
is necessary to continue the research on students’ ICT literacy in relation to home
environment, gender, and other variables in order to develop a knowledge base of
the current situation.

NOTE
1
http://www.samordnaopptak.no/info/om/sokertall/sluttstatistikker/sokerstatistikk-2013.pdf

236
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

REFERENCES
Aesart, K., & Van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based
on ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8–25.
Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., & Freeman, C. (2007). National assessment program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10
report 2005. Australia: MCEETYA.
Anderson, N., Lankhear, C., Timms, C., & Courtney, L. (2008). Because it’s boring, irrelevant I don’t
like computers: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Computers &
Education, 50, 1304–1318.
Baek, S. G., Kim, D. I., Kim, M. R., Kim, H. S., Yu, Y. L., Park, S. H., Kim, S.-W., & Kim, M.-R.
(2009). The development of standardized ICT literacy assessment for secondary school student. Asian
Journal of Education, 10(1), 175–198.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining 21st century
skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills
(pp. 17–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5
Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., & Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally
competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58, 797–807.
Claro, M., Preiss, D. D., San Martín, E., Jara, I., Hinostroza, J. E., Valenzuela, S., Cortes, F., &
Nussbaum, M. (2012). Assessment of 21st century ICT skills in Chile: Test design and results from
high school level students. Computers & Education, 59, 1042–1053.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
22, 320–334.
European Schoolnet. (2014). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding – Priorities,
school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in
Europe. Retrieved from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=6359
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). Assessment framework – International Computer and
Information Literacy Study (ICILS 2013). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age.
The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report. Amsterdam:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Ainley, J., & Gebhardt, E. (2015). ICILS 2013 – Technical report.
Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Frønes, T. S., & Narvhus, E. K. (2011). Elever på nett [Students on the Internet]. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Gibson, D., Bull, G., Kruger, C., & Knezek, G. (2011). What teachers need to know about technology-
enabled youth: Lessons from ITEST. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of society
for information technology & teacher education international conference 2011 (pp. 3216–3218).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/36812
Grolnick, W. S., Friendly, R. W., & Bellas, V. M. (2009). Parenting and children’s motivation in school.
In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 279–300). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Gui, M., & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of internet literacy in a
random sample of northern Italian high school students. New Media & Society, 13, 963–980.
Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender.
Social Science Quarterly, 87, 432–448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x
Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen. K. A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary
school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240–247.
Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftsgarden, M., & Loi, M. (2013). Norwegian
Centre for ICT in Education.
Hatlevik, O. E., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary
students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use
of information and digital competence. Computers & Education, 81, 345–353.

237
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital comp. in 7th grade: Students’
motivation, family background, and culture for professional development in schools. Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning.
Huggins, A. C., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Dawson, K. (2014). Measuring information and communication
technology literacy using a performance assessment: Validation of the student tool for technology
literacy (ST2L). Computers & Education, 77, 1–12. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2014.04.005
Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) literacy:
Integration and assessment in higher education. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 5, 50–55.
Kim, H. S., Kil, H. J., & Shin, A. (2014). An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of
Korean elementary school students. Computers & Education, 77, 29–38.
Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ICT literacy
competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64, 81–94. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.018
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008). IT competencies and attitudes. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek
(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education
(pp. 319–331). New York, NY: Springer.
Kranz, S. R., Amato, K. A., & Freudenthal, E. A. (2013). Coordinate an attack using the calculator.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18, 356–361. FOCUS ISSUE: Mathematics
in a STEM Context (February 2013). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/
mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0356
Kuhlmeier, H. A., & Hemker, B. (2007). The impact of computer use at home on students’ Internet skills.
Computer & Education, 49, 460–480.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities.
Computers and Education, 52, 668–680.
Law, N. (2009). Curriculum and staff development for ICT in education. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson,
N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology. Policies and
practices in education. Charlotte, NC: IEA.
Meelissen, M. (2008). Computer attitudes and competencies among primary and secondary school
students. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in
primary and secondary education, Part One (pp. 381–395). New York, NY: Springer.
Meelissen, M. R. M., & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school
matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1762–1776.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2012). Rammeverk for grunnleggende ferdigheter
[Framework for basic skills]. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2015). The education mirror. Oslo:
Utdanningsdirektoratet.
Ottestad, G., Throndsen, I., Hatlevik, O.E., & Rohatgi, A. (2014). Digitale ferdigheter for alle? Norske
resultater fra ICILS 2013 [Digital skills for all? Norwegian results from ICILS 2013]. Oslo: Senter
for IKT i utdanningen.
Roe, A., & Vagle, W. (2010). Resultater i lesing. In M. Kjærnsli & A. Roe (Eds.), På rett spor – Norske
elevers kompetanse i lesing, matematikk og naturfag (pp. 59–93) [Results in reading, The national
PISA 2009 report]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook
of motivation in school (pp. 197–222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Selwyn, N. (2008). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379.
Teo, T. (2008). Assessing the computer attitudes of students: An Asian perspective. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, 1634–1642.
Tondeur, J., Sinnaee, I., van Houtte, M., & van Braak, J. (2011). ICT as cultural capital: The relationship
between socioeconomic status and the computer-use profile of young people. New Media & Society,
13, 1–18.

238
 EXAMINING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ICT LITERACY, INTEREST, AND USE

Van Deursen, A. (2012). Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81, 61–72.
Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2009). Improving digital skills for the use of online public information
and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 333–340.
Van Deursen, A., Van Dijk, J., & Peters, O. (2011). Rethinking Internet skills. The contribution of gender,
age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills.
Poetics, 39, 125–144.
Vekiri, I. (2010). Boys’ and girls’ ICT beliefs: Do teachers matter? Computers & Education, 55, 16–23.
Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer
self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51,
1392–1404.
Volman, M., & Van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second
decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613–634.
Volman, M., Van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences.
Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers
& Education, 45, 35–55.
Yang, J. H. (2012). Effects of high school ICT activities on students’ digital literacy in Korea. Journal of
Educational Technology, 28(2), 347–369.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy,
enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431–449.

APPENDIX 1. ITEMS USED TO ASSESS STUDENTS’ ICT INTEREST AND USE

Students’ ICT Interest and Enjoyment

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

• It is very important to me to work with a computer.
• I think using a computer is fun.
• It is more fun to do my work using a computer than without a computer.
• I use a computer because I am very interested in the technology.
• I like learning how to do new things using a computer.
• I often look for new ways to do things using a computer.
• I enjoy using the internet to find out information.
Response alternatives: “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree”, “Strongly
agree”.

Students’ Use of Specific ICT Applications Outside of School

How often do you use a computer outside of school for each of the following
activities?
• Creating or editing documents (e.g., to write stories or assignments)
• Using a spreadsheet to do calculations, store data or plot graphs (e.g., using
Microsoft EXCEL®)
• Creating a simple “slideshow” presentation (e.g., using Microsoft PowerPoint®)
• Creating a multimedia presentation (with sound, pictures, video)

239
I. THRONDSEN & O. E. HATLEVIK

• Using education software that is designed to help with your school study (e.g.,
mathematics or reading software)
• Writing computer programs, macros, or scripts (e.g., using Logo, Basic or HTML)
• Using drawing, painting, or graphics software
Response alternatives: “Never”, “Less than once a month”, “At least once a
month, but not every week”, “At least once a week, but not every day”, “Every day”.

Students’ Use of ICT for Study Purposes

How often do you use computers for the following school-related purposes?
• Preparing reports or essays
• Preparing presentations
• Working with other students from your own school
• Working with other students from other schools
• Completing assignments or exercises
• Organizing your time and work
• Writing about your learning
• Completing tests
Response alternatives: “Never”, “Less than once a month”, “At least once a
month, but not every week”, “At least once a week”.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Inger Skattebo Throndsen is researcher at Department of

Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Norway. Her research interests are mathematics education,
ICT literacy, large scale assessments, and self-regulated
learning.

Ove Edvard Hatlevik is a researcher at University of

Oslo. His research interests are teaching methods, teacher
education, educational technology, digital competence,
multi-level analysis, structural equation modeling and
school motivation and work motivation.

240
PART IV
CODA
 AVRIL LOVELESS1

14. BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

Reflections on Teaching in a Digital Age

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

(Kierkegaard)
In July 2015, Jo and Charlie graduated with Honours and Qualified Teacher
Status in the UK. They epitomized a cohort of student teachers taking their
enthusiasm, expertise and commitment to the young people of the next
generation in the 21st century. The sections in this volume each engage with
issues raised by learning in this century and we trust that they will be of some
help to Jo and Charlie in their professional lives. This chapter is written as
a letter to them and their cohort of student teachers, from me, their tutor
reflecting on her practice and thinking for nearly four decades. What are some
of the themes, questions, conundrums and communities that I might wish them
to consider as they begin their learning and working lives as teachers in the
so-called ‘digital age’?
Dear Jo and Charlie,
In an interview with a national newspaper, the American academic and writer,
Marilynne Robinson remarked that ‘there is a strange future orientation in
contemporary thinking. We don’t know anything about the future; we probably know
less than people have known at any given time, because everything is in flux’ (Clark,
2015). This letter is written with an awareness of a number of seeming contradictions.
Although we cannot know the future, we never cease to envisage it for ourselves and
for following generations. And although we create visions for our future, we know
that they are rooted in the biographies of our past. Generations speak to each other,
seeking wisdom through times of tumultuous change and valued continuity. The
letter is therefore an attempt to speak to your generation from mine. By telling you a
little of my own professional biography I hope to offer you some insights into how
we develop our thinking and practice as teachers in a digital age. Our visions of the
future are not mystical revelations, but imagined possibilities that reflect our values
and desires for education as a common good for future generations.
Times change, and the purposes of schooling, curriculum and pedagogy change
with them. My grandmother was taught sufficient skills of literacy, numeracy and

E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, 243–259.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
A. LOVELESS

general conformity to support her work as a carder in a cotton-mill in the north of

England during the First World War. Her education would not be appropriate for her
great-granddaughters as they consider their choices in society a hundred years later.
Notwithstanding the social changes of their being able to vote at the age of 18 and
benefit from the public provision of education and health, they and their teachers
would engage with a range of learning technologies beyond chalks, blackboards and
textbooks.
You and your colleagues in the ‘Class of 2015’ demonstrated high levels of
digital capability both in your personal use of digital tools for learning and in your
abilities to employ such tools in your teaching to support your students’ learning.
You undertook the academic study of curriculum, pedagogy and context with
practical placement experience demanded in a university graduate programme, and
also demonstrated your competence in meeting the requirements of the standards
for Qualified Teacher Status (DfE, 2011). You are equipped in many ways to start
your teaching careers in our times, often characterized as a digital age. I wish you
well as you develop in your professional lives. There are still, however, a number of
questions I will pose in this letter for you to consider as you begin to live, learn and
work as educators in the early years of the 21st century.
During my own life and work as a teacher, teacher educator and researcher
over nearly 40 years, I have had the opportunity to work within a number of
learned, collegial and international communities. This letter reflects on questions,
not through a comprehensive review, but through the selective focus on some of
the work of a group of colleagues, four British teacher educators and university
academics, who worked together in shared interest and friendship over many years.
We – Tim Denning, Tony Fisher, Chris Higgins and I – developed our visions of
learning and teaching in the 21st century through exploring such questions in our
own experiences.
We worked with others and together on projects addressing a range of issues,
including motivation, metacognition, evaluation of national projects for online
learning and school-wide adoption of technologies, creativity, teacher learning
with digital technologies, analyzing trends in research in technology, pedagogy
and education, and designing a tool to support teachers in recognizing their tacit
knowledge of learning and teaching with digital tools. Our friendship was focused,
fruitful and fun, and I would urge you to recognize and honour the different networks
and groupings of interests and enthusiasms that inspire and support you in future
years.
Visions for learning in the 21st century did not spring fully formed, as Botticelli’s
Venus, on the 1st January 2000. They emerged from earlier ideas, practices, policies,
discussions, challenges and contradictions about thinking, learning, pedagogy and
the underlying purposes of education in our societies and cultures. They were created
through people thinking and talking about how they were using digital technologies
in their familiar educational activities such as teaching, designing resources and
making policy. They also generated ideas about the potential the tools might offer to

244
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

push the boundaries a little and imagine different ways of doing things for different
purposes.
As teacher educators, we are tasked with supporting the professional formation
of teachers in mainstream schools. We find ways to describe, explain, contextualize
teacher knowledge, and mentor people who are becoming ready, willing and able to
teach. Such endeavours are located in particular times of education practice, policy,
systems and cultures. We are mindful of both the preparation of teachers for the
immediate and long-term future and the learning experiences of the pupils in their
care over a number of generations. Our vision of learning in the 21st century is
rooted in our own experiences and biographies. We began our teaching careers in
the last quarter of the 20th century. We were active in a particular moment of the
introduction of microcomputers in UK schools in the 1980s. Our expertise within
different subject domains in primary and secondary schools was the foundation for
the ‘spark’ we each recognized in the potential for these relatively novel digital tools
to support, mediate and shape learning environments and experiences. Although
initially parochial, our vision emerged against the backdrop of international policies
for global education in a digital age.
The development of students’ capability for learning with digital tools requires
us to have insights into two aspects of our practice: the underlying purposes of
learning experiences designed for students; and the depth, scope and reach of
our teacher knowledge. The development of teacher knowledge is always work
in progress. Teacher education seeks to examine and bear witness to the ideas,
practices, enquiries and wisdom that have gone before in order to nurture a vision for
learning and teaching. Our understanding of capability in our times has to be rooted
in purpose, knowledge and values of learning as well as facility with digital tools.
The reflections in this letter are focused on a conceptual framework for purposeful
learning activity with digital tools that we devised to support our work in teacher
education by being explicit in planning and drawing together an analysis of theory
in the field. The framework represents the culmination of a range of research activity
in the landscape of capability with digital tools over the years. It reflects the theories
of learning with tools in context that informed our thinking and offered a vocabulary
to describe and explain the activities that were generated in the 1980s and 1990s and
developed further in the 2000s and beyond. It bears witness to a vision of learning
and teaching in education systems that refracts and re-appropriates some of the
contradictions of contemporary policies for professional practice and educational
technology.
These ideas, activities and enquiries were tried out in a variety of curriculum areas
and communities of practice. Our disciplinary domains encompassed mathematics,
science, geography and the arts and we shared inter-disciplinary interests in critical,
higher-order thinking, creativity, pedagogy and the challenges of learning to be a
teacher. Our experiences in schools, local education authorities and universities were
developed in different places across the country, yet we were brought together in
strong national and international communities of practice within professional and

245
A. LOVELESS

research associations for the development of information technology in teacher

education. We would not claim to be ‘leading lights’ – and indeed, we recognize
that have much to be modest about! We were, however, witnesses to and actors in a
moment of innovation in responding to the affordances of digital tools in education
at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries.
So, Jo and Charlie, what then are the questions I would wish you to consider as
starting points for your own thinking and practice?
• How might learners be described in a digital age?
• What might ‘capability’ mean in our times?
• What is it about these technologies that might engage our interest and enthusiasm?
• What do we think we are doing?
• How might we recognize changes and continuities?
• What’s the point of teaching with digital tools?
• How might you be a teacher in your times?

HOW MIGHT LEARNERS BE DESCRIBED IN A DIGITAL AGE?

Visions of learning in the 21st century have been presented as both utopias and
dystopias, where digital technologies either bring about transformation to societies
and cultures, or perpetuate existing structures of power and inequality. Descriptions
of 21st century learners have been characterized by words and phrases such as
construction, interaction, connection, disposition for networking, being adaptable,
flexible and distributed (Loveless & Williamson, 2013). The recent World
Economic Forum (WEF) report ‘New Vision for Education: Unlocking the potential
of technology’ foregrounds the needs of learners in our times to demonstrate
three categories of skills: -foundational literacies in domains such as language,
mathematics, science, ICT, finance, culture and citizenship to approach everyday
tasks; competencies such as critical thinking, creativity, communication and
collaboration to approach complex challenges; and character qualities encompassing
curiosity, initiative, persistence, leadership and social awareness to approach their
changing environment. The report claims that the contribution of technologies in
supporting problem-based, adaptive learning is central to the argument for the need
to address the ‘gap’ within and across developed and developing countries (Luo, Li,
Subotić, & Woodward, 2015).
Visions of people developing literacies, competencies and qualities of character
cannot be presented out of the context of the values and purposes that underlie the
design of their educational experiences, environments and systems. These ways of
conceptualizing learners and learning draw upon a range of thinking and writing in
fields such as education, society and technology studies, cultural studies, economics
and politics. A document such as the WEF report presents a somewhat uncritical
call for education systems and classrooms to produce people who have developed
these characteristics in the service of global capitalism. Others offer critiques that

246
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

place these debates in wider contexts of politics, economics, power and culture, and
challenge assumptions of transformation of education and society through the very
presence of digital technologies (Fisher, 2006; Rudd, 2013; Selwyn, 2014; Selwyn &
Facer, 2013). The descriptions of learners in reports, commentary and research give
us clues about the kind of society in which we see them and ourselves participating.

WHAT MIGHT ‘CAPABILITY’ MEAN IN OUR TIMES?

There has been much discussion about concepts which help to capture what we
think we might be talking about: skills, competences, literacies, capabilities, for
example. The English National Curriculum in 1995 described IT capability as being
characterised by ‘an ability to use effectively IT tools and information sources
to analyse, process and present information and to model, measure and control
external events’ (DFE, 1995). The term ‘capability’ is helpful, in that it can hold
further meanings ‘of having power or fitness for a task, being qualified and able,
being open to or susceptible to development. [It implies] a knowledge or skill being
turned to use, an ability which is used actively, involving understanding and choice’
(Loveless, 1995, p. 11).
Sutherland also uses the concept of capabilities that provide opportunities to
achieve and freedom of choice to actively participate in society (Sutherland, 2014).
She draws upon Sen’s expression of this deeper engagement of capability being
closely linked to values in living and having alternative combinations of doing and
being:
The capability approach focuses on human life, and not just on some detached
objects of convenience, such as incomes or commodities that a person might
possess, which are often taken , especially in economic analysis, to be the
main criteria of human success. Indeed, it proposes a serious departure from
concentrating on the means of living to the actual opportunities of living. (Sen,
2010, p. 233)
Such capability with digital technologies has been enacted in contexts of change:
from early initiatives for microcomputers in classrooms and presence in international
curriculum guidance; through national and international policy linking educational
information and communication technologies with economic progress; and more
recent developments in a focus on digital literacy, computing, coding and making in
curriculum reform.
There are three reasons why it matters to talk of capabilities. Firstly capability
focuses on human agency, choice and potential in a meaningful context, rather than on
a technological determinism. It has ethical dimensions. Secondly, our understanding
of capability with digital tools makes a difference to the ways in which we use them in
our teaching, which in turn makes a difference to curriculum, learning environments
and experiences. Tools can shape activities, and the underlying purposes of our
educational activities must be understood. Thirdly, educators who are worth their

247
A. LOVELESS

salt demonstrate conceptual depth, contextual scope and pedagogic reach as they
develop growth in their own capability in teaching. Teachers in a digital age need
to be knowledgeable in their use of tools for learning. They need to understand how
such learning makes a contribution to wider social and cultural contexts, for good
and ill. They also need to accomplish the science and the art of pedagogic connection
and relationship that support learning.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THESE TECHNOLOGIES THAT MIGHT

ENGAGE OUR INTEREST AND ENTHUSIASM?

In the early 1980s, some of us greeted the arrival of microcomputers in British

classrooms with curiosity. This was not necessarily because we had much experience
or expertise with computers and programming, but because we recognized, not
always explicitly, that they offered tools for teaching concepts in interactive, dynamic
and engaging ways. These clunky machines with heavy monitors and tangles of
cables cluttering up the classroom were able to run ‘little programs’ loaded from
unreliable cassette tapes or large floppy discs. Most of the programs were a waste
of time, yet a few caught our attention. Some offered playful practice in literacy and
numeracy skills. Others enabled us to edit, revise and reformat text on the screen,
saving it over time in order to return to it for further discussion and development. We
could play games that allowed us to see what would happen if we varied different
aspects, exploring problems to be solved and rules to be inferred. We designed simple
texts for adventure games in which we could explore virtual landscapes and test
the consequences of our decisions. We devised databases to record and interrogate
data, from investigations into any correlations in our sports day results, to asking
questions of the census data of a London street in 1870. We composed procedures to
drive a little robotic ‘turtle’ around the classroom using simple commands to move
it forwards and backwards, turning left and right. These activities reflected the four
‘paradigms’ for using computers in education, devised in the 1970s: instructional,
emancipatory, revelatory and conjectural (Kemmis, Atkins, & Wright, 1977). We
were also engaged, and sometimes enchanted by the constructivist approaches
underpinning work with the programming language LOGO, particularly as espoused
by Seymour Papert in his influential book ‘Mindstorms’ (Papert, 1980).
This range of activities prefigured the development of the first English National
Curriculum for Information Technology (IT) in which the Programmes of Study
for children and young people were identified as ‘Communicating and handling
information’ and ‘Controlling, monitoring and modelling’ (National Curriculum
Council, 1990). These were elaborated upon in the National Curriculum in 2000
(DFEE/QCA, 2000).
• Finding things out: using the capacity, range, speed and interactivity of digital
tools to organize, store, retrieve, analyse and present information both for
themselves and for a range of wider audiences;

248
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

• Developing ideas and making things happen: using the provisionality, interactivity
and automatic functions of digital tools develop and refine ideas, solve problems,
create, test and refine instructions, discover patterns and relationships.
• Exchanging and sharing information: using the provisionality, speed and
interactivity of digital tools to represent and share ideas;
• Reviewing, modifying and evaluating work as it progresses: developing a critical
and analytical approach to their work in the wider social, political, economic,
legal, ethical and moral contexts of their activities;
• A breadth of study in which pupils are taught the required knowledge, skills and
understanding: recognizing that capability is developed within a range of subject
domains in the curriculum and the wider social and cultural context.
Teachers who were the early adopters of the technologies in their classrooms
would not necessarily have encountered these practices in their own initial teacher
education. Their continuing professional development helped them to learn how
to use word processors and database applications. Such training often focused
more on skills in using the software rather than pedagogical designs and was not
always explicit about the underlying purposes, (Cox, Rhodes, & Hall, 1988). An
interesting moment in the UK was the expansion of initial teacher education in
universities to accommodate the changes in curriculum, assessment and governance
brought about by the Education Reform Act 1988 (Lawton, 1989). Many teachers
and advisors engaged in early projects in educational technology were recruited by
the universities. As they designed new courses in Initial Teacher Education, they
began to make more explicit connections between practices, curriculum policies
and theoretical frameworks that had been used to underpin international research
in the initiatives for digital tools in learning and teaching (See for example Cox
et al., 1988; Fraser, 1997; Schofield, 1995; Scrimshaw, 1993; Watson, 1997). There
was therefore, a mutual appropriation and shaping between policy makers seeking
to develop curriculum and teacher knowledge, and enthusiasts developing their
pedagogic ideas in the practice of professional development.

WHAT DO WE THINK WE ARE DOING?

In the 1990s the focus of policy makers on the potential contribution of educational
technologies to society’s future competition and prosperity opened up a space for
trying things out and seeing how digital tools might extend and shape activities.
Teachers held different perceptions, often at the same time, of why these technologies
were being promoted for use in their classrooms: two were future focused, whilst
one was immediate. The first focused on a perceived need to prepare their pupils for
participation in a future of digital communications and robotics. The second reason,
closely related to the first, highlighted concerns to develop their pupils’ skills for
economic participation on leaving formal schooling. The third focused on more
immediate designs for learning and teaching ‘here and now’ (Loveless, 2003).

249
A. LOVELESS

Our own interests in the early days of the use of digital technologies were primarily
immediate and pedagogic, recognizing how the tools offered interactive, dynamic
and multi-modal ways to represent and construct concepts and content in a wide
range of subject areas. Capability was a delicate balance between technical skill and
conceptual understanding and it did not emerge independently of the context. The
rationale for using digital tools arose from the nature of the task in hand, a re-visioning,
not the isolated need to use information technology for its own sake. In mathematics,
for example, Selinger noted how software could be designed to challenge students’
mathematical thinking through visualization, multiple representations, construction
and programming. She also cautioned against using software, such as a spreadsheet,
which might have automated functionality in a work-place, yet which might mask
some students’ misconceptions about underlying concepts (Selinger, 2001). In
Science, Hawkey identified the ways in which ICT not only delivered conventional
public understandings of science messages to wider audiences more rapidly, but
particularly afforded new opportunities to reconsider some fundamental questions
about what scientific literacy might be in our times. For example, virtual tools for the
exploration of virtual objects enabled learners outside the institutions of museums,
zoos and botanic gardens to engage with and ask questions of objects requiring
interpretation, in the manner of curators, keepers and researchers, rather than
retrieving ‘correct answers’ (Hawkey, 2001). Musical literacy is also challenged,
as digital technologies enable manipulation, navigation and collective making of
music across formal and informal cultural boundaries. Kwami argued that ‘the
potency of the enculturation (or growing up) process which takes place in the wider
community, would support an argument for a new paradigm for music education,
one that includes the validity of virtual technological musical worlds’ (Kwami,
2001, p. 219). In the visual arts, graphics software packages might be used to merely
mimic other media and tools such as paints and paper. They might, however, be used
to manipulate and make meaning in novel ways: scanning, stretching, re-sizing and
combining images, modes and forms; establishing a dialogue between the maker and
the made; and sharing creative work across boundaries of time, place and authorship
(Loveless, 2007a). The development of location-aware and mobile devices afforded
opportunities to design and superimpose a variety of imaginative worlds upon the
physical environment which could then be explored interactively and collectively
(Loveless, Denning, Fisher, & Higgins, 2008). Capability with the digital tools
for making marks, manipulating images, sharing creative outcomes, composing
multimedia presentations, and designing interactive environments demanded the
learning of a wide range of skills with particular technologies. It also required the
development of concepts that underpinned the purposes of the new skills. The new
digital tools were playing a role in the development of new literacies for decoding
and encoding meaning, and multimodal representations of knowledge were being
called upon (see for example Kress, 2003; Snyder, 1997).
These studies and conversations about theory and practice drew upon concepts
that helped us to describe some aspects of what had been going on – namely social

250
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

constructivism, distributed cognition, Person-Plus, and socio-cultural theories of

learning in contexts. Encountering the concepts of communities of practice (Wenger,
1998), distributed cognition (Salomon, 1993), the role of tools (Wertsch, 1998),
and Person-Plus (Perkins, 1993), offered a vocabulary to describe what had been
happening as we played with early digital technologies in education settings. Perkins’
description of ‘Person-Plus’ helped us to understand how we are knowledgeable, not
as isolated individuals, but through other people, the use of symbolic media, and the
exploitation of the working environment, artefacts and tools. Such a concept was a
powerful lens that helped us to reconfigure how we ‘saw’ learning environments and
the mutual relationship between tools and actors within them. One could gaze upon
a classroom or learning environment as a ‘surround’ with the potential to offer the
tools for access to and retrieval of information, as well as the means for constructing
and representing knowledge. This influenced the design of learning experiences and
environments in ways that acknowledged both the distributed nature of thinking and
the choreography of the role of educators. The concept gave depth to the definition
of ‘capability’ that went beyond skills and techniques, and encompassed activity,
understanding and choice. We had found ways to help us to understand what we
were doing in terms of the complexity of using tools in context.

HOW MIGHT WE RECOGNIZE CHANGES AND CONTINUITIES?

Education systems in the 21st century are having to adapt to the changes, aspirations
and anxieties about the role of digital technologies in our wider society, not only
in realising personal learning potential in an enriching curriculum, but also in
raising achievement, skill and talent for economic innovation and wealth creation.
‘Creativity’ and ‘the digital’ were often elided to represent the capitalization of
creativity (McGuigan, 2009; Osborne, 2003). Our endeavours were not just personal
and parochial, finding ways to use tools to represent and communicate meanings
about school and community projects through multimedia and social networks. They
were worked out against a backdrop of policies, politics and powers. At the turn
in the century in the UK, teachers, researchers, designers, creative practitioners,
entrepreneurs and corporations worked in a variety of partnerships to explore
digital creativity in classrooms. They were predominantly funded by government
departments, innovation agencies and arts councils enacting policies to become
world-leading in digital learning (Blair, 2001; NESTA, 2006; Sefton-Green & Sinker,
1999). Other projects such as ‘Enquiring Minds’ in the UK (Morgan & Williamson,
2008), or Connected Learning in the US (Ito et al., 2012), funded not by governments,
but by Microsoft and the MacArthur Foundation, focused on learning experiences
which were relevant to students’ lives in contemporary society. Focusing on the
needs for learners to develop higher-order skills for a changing future, the projects
aimed to connect learners’ interests with knowledgeable others through mentorship
and peer-support, rather than traditional models of schooling. Using terms such as
‘experimentation’, ‘hands-on’, ‘being active and entrepreneurial’, they echoed some

251
A. LOVELESS

of the earlier calls for progressive education in the 1970s, yet within assumptions
about success in work and life in a digital age.
And yet, capability with digital tools developed not just in response to imperatives
for competences to participate in the neoliberal project of the early 21st century, but
also emerged to answer back to some of the challenges being recognized in a variety
of contexts. Questions of ownership, audience, copyright, collaboration and sharing
collided with traditional models of knowledge exchange, and required new ways of
thinking and debating the variety of possible ways forward. The Creative Commons
movement, for example, offered clear explanations and advice on how to make
choices in making ideas and creative work available to others with different degrees
of attribution and permission (Lessig, 2004).2 Other movements, such as ‘Open’ and
‘Occupy’ embodied ways to use digital tools for communities and networks to meet
wider agendas.
Young people were demonstrating capabilities and literacies needed to
compose, represent and share stories through film, dance, music and social media in
spaces far away from conventional schools. There is a multitude of examples, from
a memorial to a brother killed in a car crash on a street corner in San Francisco,3
to documentary interviews to capture experiences of the 2011 riots in the UK.4
Organisations and collectives, such as SPARK in Brighton,5 brought together young
entrepreneurs setting up Maker Clubs and partnership experiences in the creative
industries. They identified ways in which the current school curriculum was not
offering the depth and range of digital expertise that will be needed in emerging
industries. Newly established creative and wired companies demonstrated the
‘superfusion’ of disciplinary knowledge within teams needing science, technology,
engineering, arts and mathematics to solve new media design problems (Sapsed et al.,
2014). However, the beautiful engineering of ‘STEAM-punk’6 in the margins of
mainstream education still emerges through communities of practice and expertise.
They need participants who are knowledgeable and capable of working together
with novices to learn and share new concepts and skills. Despite shifts in the roles
of teachers and learning environments, the pedagogical questions of ‘what?’, ‘how?’
and ‘why?’ still pertain.

What’s the Point of Teaching with Digital Tools?

Early evaluations of the impact of information technologies in pupils’ achievements

in schools found that they did make a contribution to learning, dependent upon a
range of factors. The most important was that of the role of the teacher, particularly
in their understanding of, and willingness to experiment with, the underlying
philosophy of the software being considered for use by the pupils (Watson, Cox, &
Johnson, 1993).
As a group of teacher educators we were getting on with the processes of
finding things out; developing ideas and making things happen; communicating
and collaborating; and evaluating work through a critical and analytical approach.

252
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

We were seeking active learning environments created by teachers who were

knowledgeable. We wanted our students to develop experience and expertise in the
conceptual depth of their disciplines and in the practical use of the tools that might
shape those concepts. Teachers and students worked in communities in which they
had both desire and expertise to share their knowledge with learners who were new
to the field, sometimes across generations and degrees of educational accreditation.
These experiences in the early days of using digital technologies in classrooms
generated other questions. The challenge was to understand how teachers might
come to know how to be ready, willing and able to be educators in their times.
Educators’ understandings of the purposes of schooling have changed over
historical periods that have been shaped by the technologies used to store and
enhance social memory – from training Sumerian scribes to record the affairs of
trade, laws and taxation, to producing space engineers to send planetary probes to
Pluto. Digital tools have also extended reading and writing beyond the production
and interpretation of written texts to design and control with multimodal tools and
representations. Saljo draws our attention to how
… the objectives of learning and knowing become more geared towards
producing competences that have to do with abilities of transforming
information so that it becomes relevant for specific purposes. Information is
stable and can be stored, knowledge is situated and a response to a question or
an issue […] Thus, learning in these cultural and technological environments
has more to do with performative action […] and with the ability to produce
insights that are consequential for further action. (Saljo, 2010, p. 60)
It is the focus on gaining insights for action that links understandings of ‘capability’
with approaching learning and teaching in the 21st century. The situated and
responsive nature of people’s knowledge is the key to understanding the role of
the educator as knowledgeable in an environment where learners are interacting
with resources, tools, and other people with purpose and relevance. The dangers of
focusing on the technologies alone are well-known, yet not always heeded. There
have been many projects which have claimed to transform education, pedagogy
and attainment through the use of specific technologies such as microcomputers,
laptops, interactive whiteboards, tablet devices and various social media. Unless
we are aware of the underlying purposes and contexts, and the place of wisdom
to give both space and direction in supporting and scaffolding learners, there is a
danger of the ‘finger-tip’ effect, where it is assumed that people will use the tools
and features of their surround to immediate effect, without cultivating the artful
distribution of thinking and learning as ‘Person-Plus’. This can lead to superficial
and perfunctory use of digital tools, rather than understanding the more substantial
potential. Salomon and Perkins remind us that the ‘ramp to expertise is a long one’
(Salomon & Perkins, 2005, p. 82). Those with expertise and knowledge play a role
in the wider surround to scaffold wisely, from explicit guidance to skilful neglect
(Labett, 1988).

253
A. LOVELESS

As a group, Tim, Tony, Chris and I had spent many hours discussing our work
and how to make sense of what we and many colleagues in the teacher education
communities were trying to develop to support our students at the beginning of
their professional teaching careers. Our interest in how people come to know
how to be teachers was informed by a number of ways of looking at teacher
knowledge. We were not convinced by models of teacher knowledge as being
subject knowledge ‘in the head’ of the individual teacher, manifest in individual
performance and ‘topped up’ or ‘retooled’ by specific ‘one-shot’ training courses.
We sought to be more explicit about the complex and problematic nature of what
teachers might know, and how they might come to know it (Fisher, Higgins, &
Loveless, 2006).
These encompassed Shulman’s early descriptions of teachers’ knowledge of
content, curriculum, pedagogy, learners, educational contexts, educational purposes,
and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) through to the implications
of Koehler and Mishra’s consideration of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Drawing on the work of Hoban (2002), we
also viewed teacher knowledge as constantly being reconstructed in the course of
experience and of interaction with others, changing practices and producing new
knowledge through the relationships between conceptions of teaching, conceptual
inputs, reflection, student feedback, community, long-term time-frames, action
and the purpose for learning. We adopted a socio-cultural perspective on the use of
digital technologies, viewing them as complex sets of cultural tools with particular
context-related affordances enabling teachers and students to engage in purposeful
activities related to learning (Engeström, 1999).
We discussed and used models which portrayed the complex, dynamic, situated,
individual and social nature of teacher knowledge and learning (Putnam & Borko,
2000). DECK was one project that helped us to bring together the different elements
of our discussions, the title being an acrostic for Distributed thinking and knowing,
Engagement, Community and communication, and Knowledge building. It arose
from our shared interest in how a critical knowledge of purpose with digital
technologies might be used to support teaching and learning. We wished to explore
not only what expert teachers were doing with digital tools, but what they thought
the deeper learning might be for the students. We were also interested in developing
our own practice as teacher educators through a better understanding of teachers’
knowledgeable use of these technologies. We wished to devise a conceptual
framework of ‘clusters of purposeful learning activity’ that would assist our students
and colleagues in thinking about the key questions of ‘What, how and why?’ in
their practice across different contexts of subject and age group. Asking the question
‘Why?’ connects a teacher’s practice not only to their immediate lesson plans and
teaching schemes, but also to the transformation, creation and sharing of knowledge
within wider communities, networks, contexts and cultures (Klafki, 2000; Loveless,

254
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

2007b). We wanted to see how we might help teachers to articulate and make explicit
some of their tacit knowledge about the underlying purposes for using digital tools
to support learning and develop students’ capability (Fisher, Denning, Higgins, &
Loveless, 2012).
We worked with experienced teachers who were knowledgeable in their subjects
and familiar with using information and communication technologies in their
practice. Using concept mapping and ‘talk aloud’ methods to elicit their planning
processes, they described the surface-level skills-based objectives of using digital
applications such as word processors, search-engines, simulations and spreadsheets,
before identifying the deeper, underlying learning purposes. This level of discussion
of their planning touched on the often tacit knowledge of the conceptual depth of the
purpose of the activity, touching on the ‘why?’ questions of pedagogy alongside the
‘what?’ and ‘how?’ questions. DECK described some generalisable ways of using,
thinking and talking about uses of technology in teaching. The general purpose
and value of the activities underpinned the teachers’ understanding of the subject
content, the needs of their students, and their own digital skills.
‘Distributed thinking and knowing’ drew heavily upon ideas of distributed
cognition, particularly the concept of ‘Person-Plus’. Engagement was informed
by Csikszentmihalyi’s discussion of the effects of ‘flow’, the highly focused yet
automatic and ‘effortless’ state of consciousness when fully engaged in certain
activities which involve an element of exploration and play, as well as stretching
our capabilities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The category of ‘Community and
communication’ included networks, communities of practice and social learning, in
which control of, and access to, information and the means of its creation, storage
and distribution, are the primary sources of power. The final category, ‘Knowledge
building’ was influenced by social and cognitive constructivist theories of learning
generated through active adaptation, representation, testing and evaluation. See
Table 1.
In the three decades of our practice as teachers and teacher educators many
contexts and tools have changed. We looked for ways to provide a vocabulary of
higher-level descriptors of learning that might enable our students and teachers
to ground their descriptions of activity in wider purposes, beyond the specifics of
particular technologies in specified subject contexts. The teachers in the project
reported that DECK worked for them in thinking about their planning, preparation
and the potential for deeper learning. ‘Alice’ remarked:
[In relation to planning] predominantly the knowledge building is what we’re
aiming for, but I can see these other things going on at the same time. To have
something like this when I’m planning I would find really useful… It helps
think about the deeper understanding and the deeper skills that are being used
that you might not necessarily think about.

255
A. LOVELESS

Table 1. The revised DECK conceptual framework of ‘clusters of purposeful learning

activity’ relating to teachers as users of technology (from Fisher et al., 2012)

A. Distributed thinking I. Searching for, accessing, selecting and retrieving

and knowing information and resources;
II. Writing, composing and presenting with tools which may
structure activities in particular ways;
III. Collaboration.
B. Engagement and I. Exploring and playing;
motivation II. Acknowledging risk, uncertainty and provisionality;
III. Working with different kinds and degrees of interactivity;
IV. Responding to immediacy.
C. Community and I. Exchanging and sharing communication;
communication II. Extending the context of learning;
III. Extending the participating community at local and global
levels.
D. Knowledge building I. Learning new techniques and procedures;
II. Representing understanding in multimodal ways;
III. Adapting and developing ideas;
IV. Testing and exploring hypotheses;
V. Evaluating ideas and understanding;
VI. Reflecting on ideas and understanding.

HOW MIGHT YOU BE A TEACHER IN YOUR TIMES?

DECK represented, for us as teacher educators, not ‘the last word’ but an offering
to our students who are the next generation of teachers. It was a way of starting
conversations about what they might think they are doing with the tools of their
trade. Many aspects of teaching which we perhaps took for granted as we began our
teaching careers in the 1970s have been challenged and some have changed: a selective
education based on measures of ‘fixed intelligence’; the supposed intractability of
some specific learning difficulties; and the inevitability of ‘post-code lotteries’ in
children’s aspirations, to name but a few. We now have more nuanced understandings
of concepts such as growth mindsets, strategies for magnifying abilities; the cultural
ecology of tools and activities; and the often corrosive implications of socioeconomic
capital for educational achievement and life trajectories. Our desire for capability
which had depth, scope and reach in our times is still framed, however, as possessing
agency in opportunities for participation, well-being and human flourishing.
We four were fortunate to be part of a community of educators at the interesting
‘moment’ of the introduction of digital technologies which acted as catalysts in our
teacher knowledge. We wonder, Jo and Charlie, how you might look back at the new
tools of this ‘moment’ in your professional life and work. How might you work with
others in collegiate and friendly ways to figure out the potential and the constraints

256
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

of the hidden curriculum that underpins the design of algorithms, the claims of
neuroscience, the politics of biotechnology, and the shaping effects of digital devices,
software and code? How might you play a role in a ‘superfusion’ of ways of knowing
to address and answer back to the global challenges of climate change, inequality,
ideology, war, migration, food production, hunger, waste management and pollution?
We have taken this opportunity to reflect upon a few themes in our shared
professional experiences with digital technologies. By looking back to help our
understanding, we encourage you to live forwards in a time of flux. In the coming
years, you will develop your own biographies, being capable of conceptual depth
in your digital literacy; contextual scope in your values and commitment to social
justice; and pedagogic reach in your relationships with learners. We wish you well
in your life and work after graduation.

NOTES
1
In conversation with Tim Denning, Tony Fisher and Chris Higgins.
2
See www.creativecommons.org
3
See ‘Turf Fienz RIP’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRRnAhmB58
4
See ‘Riot from Wrong’ http://www.fullyfocusedproductions.com/
5
See http://sparkbrighton.com/the-goal/
6
STEAM-punk is a play on words to represent energetic rebellion against the status quo. STEAM
represents curriculum initiatives for the development of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and
Mathematics. ‘Steampunk’ is a subgenre of science fiction and fantasy inspired by steam-powered
machinery of the 19th century. It offers alternative histories in a post-apocalyptic future. It has
also generated a ‘neo-Victorian’ visual aesthetic in subculture of artistic styles and clothing, often
combining the digital and the hand-made.

REFERENCES
Blair, T. (2001). Foreword by the Prime Minister in culture and creativity: The next ten years. London:
Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Clark, A. (2015, November 15). Marilynne Robinson: ‘We don’t know anything about the future, as
everything is in flux’. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/
nov/15/marilynne-robinson-interview-givenness-of-everything
Cox, M., Rhodes, V., & Hall, J. (1988). The use of computer assisted learning in primary schools: Some
factors affecting the uptake. Computers and Education, 12(1), 173–178.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.
DfE. (2011). Teachers’ standards: Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies.
London: Author.
DFEE/QCA. (2000). Information and communication technology. The national curriculum for England,
Key Stages 1–4. London: Stationery Office.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström,
R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, T. (2006). Educational transformation: Is it, like ‘beauty’, in the eye of the beholder, or will we
know it when we see it? Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4), 293–303.
Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of
research and projects. Bristol: FutureLab. Retrieved from http://futurelab.org.uk/research

257
A. LOVELESS

Fisher, T., Denning, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2012). Teachers’ knowing how to use technology:
Exploring a conceptual framework for purposeful learning activity. Curriculum Journal, 23(3),
307–325.
Fraser, H. (1997). Mathematics and ICT. In M. Leask & J. Meadows (Eds.), Teaching and learning with
ICT in the primary school. London: Routledge.
Hawkey, R. (2001). Science beyond school: Representation or re-presentation? In A. Loveless & V. Ellis
(Eds.), ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change. London: Routledge.
Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., &
Watkins, S. C. (2012). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital
Media and Learning Research Hub.
Kemmis, S., Atkins, R., & Wright, E. (1977). How do students learn? (Vol. Occasional Paper 5). Norwich:
Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann,
& K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition (pp. 197–206).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 22–152.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kwami, R. M. (2001). Music education in the new millenium. In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT,
Pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Labett, B. (1988). Skilful neglect. In J. Schostak (Ed.), Breaking into the curricuulum. London: Methuen
& Co. Ltd.
Lawton, D. (Ed.). (1989). The education reform act: Choice and control. London, Sydney, Auckland &
Toronto: Hodder & Stoughton.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York, NY: Penguin.
Loveless, A. (1995). The role of IT: Practical issues for primary teachers. London: Continuum.
Loveless, A. (2003). The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their pedagogy.
Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 313–326.
Loveless, A. (2007a). Creativity, technology and learning: A review of recent literature (Update). Bristol:
Futurelab. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/
literature-reviews/Literature-Review382
Loveless, A. (2007b). Preparing to teach with ICT: Subject knowledge, Didaktik and improvisation. The
Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 509–522.
Loveless, A., & Williamson, B. (2013). Learning identities in a digital age: Rethinking creativity,
education and technology. London & New York, NY: Routledge.
Loveless, A., Denning, T., Fisher, T., & Higgins, C. (2008). Create-A-Scape: Mediascapes and curriculum
integration. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 345–355.
Luo, M. A., Li, J., Subotić, S., & Woodward, L. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential
of technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
McGuigan, J. (2009). Cool capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
Morgan, J., & Williamson, B. (2008). Enquiring minds: Schools, knowledge and educational change.
Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www.enquiringminds.org.uk/
National Curriculum Council. (1990). Non-statutory guidance: Information technology capability. York:
National Curriculum Council.
NESTA. (2006). The innovation gap: Why policy needs to reflect the reality of innovation in the UK.
London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/innovation-gap
Osborne, T. (2003). Against ‘creativity’: A philistine rant. Economy and Society, 32(4), 507–525.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Brighton: Harvester.
Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

258
 BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about
research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Rudd, T. (2013). The buying and selling of the transformation fallacy. A critique of new labour’s
educational technology policies. In N. Selwyn & K. Facer (Eds.), The politics of educational
technology: Conflicts, controversies, and connections. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saljo, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social
memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1),
53–64.
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions – Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with,
of and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology
(pp. 71–86). Mahweh, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sapsed, J., Nightingale, P., Mateos-Garcia, J., Voss, G., Camerani, R., Coad, A., Byford, J., Miles, S.,
Docherty, D., & Wood, P. (2014). The brighton fuse. Sussex: University of Brighton. Retrieved from
http://www.brightonfuse.com
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrimshaw, P. (Ed.). (1993). Language, classrooms and computers. London: Routledge.
Sefton-Green, J., & Sinker, R. (1999). Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people.
London: Routledge.
Selinger, M. (2001). Information and communication technologies and representation of mathematics.
In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology. New York, NY & London: Routledge.
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies,
and connections. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sen, A. (2010). The idea of justice. London: Penguin.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Snyder, I. (1997). Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Sutherland, R. (2014). Education and social justice in a digital age. Bristol: Policy Press.
Watson, D. (1997). A dichotomy of purpose: The effect on teachers of government initiatives in
information technology. In D. Passey & B. Samways (Eds.), Information technology: Supporting
change through teacher education. London: Chapman and Hall.
Watson, D., Cox, M. J., & Johnson, D. C. (1993). The impact report: An evaluation of the impact of
information technology on children’s achievements in primary and secondary schools. London:
Department for Education and King’s College.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Avril Loveless is Professor of Education at Education Research

Centre, University of Brighton, England. Her research interests
are creativity and learning, pedagogy and professional knowledge,
and technology enhanced learning and professional development.
Her current research focuses on teachers’ purposeful use of digital
technologies in their pedagogical decision making, and narrative
approaches to the pedagogy of creative educators who work in
the ‘margins’ of the education mainstream.

259