Tablets in two Norwegian primary schools: is it time to consider young pupils’ framings of using tablets in education?

ABSTRACT

This article investigates how 9–13 years old pupils interpret activities involving the use of tablets in two Norwegian primary schools. The theoretical context draws on Goffman’s frame analysis and on research on young people’s digital literacy practices as socially situated meaning-making practices. Data was gathered through group interviews. The findings show that pupils framed activities involving tablets as engaging, enabling and playful, but also as teacher-directed and as challenging to their existing competences. Pupils’ framings were largely defined by what they expected to be of importance to their teachers but sometimes these also interrupted the teacher’s facilitation. The outcomes allow us to discuss the implications for pupils in developing digital competences, as a result of participation in a variety of digital practices. The article underscores the importance of considering the interplay between pupils’ framings of digital activities and the established conventions in the school context.

KEYWORDS:

• Tablets
• pupils
• frames
• digital activities
• digital competences

Introduction

In many Norwegian primary schools, as in several parts of the western world, tablets¹ have become a central part of young pupils’ digital literacy practices (Berrum et al. 2018; Clarke and Svanaes 2014). As an intrinsic part of pupil’s life in school, tablets have generated new digital literacy practices that include a range of activities, such as reading, listening, touching, adjusting and producing symbols and signs (Aarsand 2019, 2). Many scholars raise questions about how tablets, with their intuitive design, apps, touchscreens and internet access, can provide opportunities for personalised, collaborative and creative content production (Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi 2016, 83; Lynch and Redpath 2014). In order to gain a better understanding of how digital technology can contribute to teaching and learning, we need to investigate what pupils regard to be important in digital literacy activities (Burnett 2015, 200). We need to know more about how young pupils, as key users of tablets, experience tablets as pedagogical tools (Dunn et al. 2018, 820).

Framed by the previously mentioned issues and taking the school context as a point of departure, this article examines how pupils between 9 and 13 years (5–7th grade) in two Norwegian primary schools use and interpret activities involving the use of tablets. I start by considering the following important questions: what characterises the activities involving tablets in school, as the pupils see it? Furthermore, what do the pupils experience as important and relevant in these activities? I focus on how pupils talk about activities involving tablets, how their descriptions include interpretations of these activities, and what they find engaging as well as what they might learn. By being attentive to subjective framings it is possible to gain insight into how pupils create meaning in digital literacy activities involving technology, in the light of how they frame reading and writing at school (Burnett 2015, 200). The analysis is based on selected examples from qualitative interviews. These examples are by no means exceptional, rather they are commonly encountered in schools. The analysis draws on Goffman’s (1986) frame analysis to establish how individual interpretations, or frames, of digital activities are created, maintained and negotiated in interaction with fellow pupils and teachers at school, and the out-of-school context. I also draw on research on digital literacy as social practice, implying that meaning-making is closely related to the context in which they appear (Lankshear and Knobel 2006).

The primary aim of this article is to contribute to a growing field of research that is concerned with young people’s perspectives on learning experiences involving digital technology (Burnett 2015; Drotner 2008; Marsh 2010). The main thesis is that the school context is central in introducing pupils to a broad range of digital literacy practices to equip them to participate in contemporary societies (Buckingham 2006). The choice of topic is relevant since digital competence is a key term in Norwegian school curricula, as is the case in many countries in the Western world. The results allow us to discuss what characterises digital literacy practices involving tablets among 5–7th graders from their point of view, and any possible implications related to their potential to engage in a variety of digital practices and to develop digital competences.

Previous research

Digital literacy practices seen from young pupil’s perspectives

There is a growing body of research that addresses the way young pupils use, interpret and elicit meaning in digital literacy practices, thus generating useful insights (Aarsand 2019; Bjørgen and Erstad 2015; Drotner 2008; Erstad and Sefton-Green 2013; Ito et al. 2010; Marsh 2010). One of the fundamentally important aspects is that digital literacy practices involve reading and writing using a wide range of modes and media, and that these practices are seen as being rooted in young people’s everyday activities across contexts (Lankshear and Knobel 2006; Marsh 2010, 29). Insights from these research perspectives have taught us the significance of pupils finding meaning in, and identifying with, the learning activities and the technology supporting it. Another essential starting point is to consider the perspectives of children as participants in the various digital practices, in order to investigate the insider’s perspective (Maybin 2007, 5). This approach has been adopted by Maybin in the case of pupils ranging between 10 and 11 years of age and how their ‘unofficial literacy activities’ from outside of school coalesce in ‘official literacy activities’ in the classroom.

A number of studies have been completed along similar lines of thought. Björkvall and Engblom (2010, 290) investigate how pupils between the ages of 7 and 8 years interpret semiotic resources (photo editing applications) when interacting with computers to create multimodal texts. The authors suggest that in keeping with the interests of the pupils, such unofficial and self-chosen computer activities offer alternative ways of exploring the semiotic potential in the resources. Aarsand (2010) shows how boys between 7 and 8 years of age talk about, understand and share knowledge about computer gaming. Aarsand suggests that the boys position themselves inside and outside of the classroom by negotiating digital game competences. Burnett (2015) documents how pupils between 6 and 10 years of age experience technology, tasks and classroom contexts, and how this regulates and gives direction to how they engage in digital activities. By drawing on Goffman and Maybin, Burnett finds that children are inspired by the potential of new technologies in different ways that both interact (‘a job to be done’) and provide a break from the teachers’ intentions (playful framings versus learning). According to Burnett (2015, 205), ‘we need to consider how far frames flex and contract to include and exclude different identities and the meaning-making possibilities with which they are associated’. Dunn et al. (2018, 824) have established that pupils aged 4–7 years consider the following aspects to be important when using tablets: technological continuity between school and home, playful learning/playing games, using apps that foster a sense of choice and creativity, and challenging each other/competition. The authors conclude that children’s voices emphasise playful possibilities in using tablets in learning.

The use of tablets in classrooms

Norwegian studies from primary and lower secondary schools document how pupils experience increased involvement and desire to learn, whether they have the opportunity to produce creative content and to write more easily and with greater speed (Berrum et al. 2018; Wollscheid, Sjaastad, and Tømte 2016). International studies also indicate that using tablets can increase engagement, empowerment and digital competences (Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi 2016; Clarke and Svanaes 2014; Sofkova-Hashemi and Cederlund 2017; Jahnke et al. 2017; Lynch and Redpath 2014). However, several prerequisites must be in place, for instance, that school’s digital practices should be based on children’s prior knowledge from using digital technology outside of school, and that teachers should recognise and challenge what the children do (Buckingham 2006; Drotner 2008; Lankshear and Knobel 2006; Lynch and Redpath 2014). Other studies underscore varied learning activities, including multimodal elements, in order to encourage production and reflection (Jahnke et al. 2017, 2; Mulet, van de Leemput, and Amadieu 2019).

Despite intentions enabling pupils to explore ways of working and forms of expression involving tablets, several studies emphasise possible tensions when tablets come up against established pedagogical practice (Bjørgen, Fritze, and Haugsbakk 2018; Furberg and Rasmussen 2012; Jahnke et al. 2017; Lynch and Redpath 2014, 159). Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi (2016) and Sofkova-Hashemi and Cederlund (2017) document how Swedish school pupils choose forms of expression that are in keeping with established, text-based genres. Norwegian studies show that the textbook is still a central starting point for technology-supported activities (Gilje et al. 2016). The most typical digital practice is to encourage pupils to search for and reproduce content from written sources (Fjørtoft, Thun, and Buvik Pettersen 2019, 34; Furberg and Rasmussen 2012, 24). These studies resonate with Lankshear and Knobel (2006, 31), who argue that the school context provides a frame for digital practices with a traditional mindset focusing on text production initiated by the teacher – a frame that inhibits the integration of pupils’ everyday experiences with technology.

A Norwegian context

The media environment of Norwegian children between 9 and 13 years of age is comparable with international studies which suggest that activities like listening to music, playing online games or producing and/or watching videos on YouTube, are connected to, and driven by, interests and activities (Ito et al. 2010; Smahel et al. 2020; The Norwegian Media Authority 2018). At school, pupils generally make extensive use of digital tools, mostly in the subjects of Norwegian, English and mathematics. Scope and activity vary between subjects, levels and schools. Typical digital activities comprise writing, searching for information and preparing presentations (Berrum et al. 2018; Fjørtoft, Thun, and Buvik Pettersen 2019, 34). According to Fjørtoft et al., most pupils work largely on an individual basis with computers, and few are engaged in extracurricular activities. Pupils report a decrease in perceived benefit compared to previous years, which can perhaps be attributed to a more established practice involving technology (149).

The Norwegian national curriculum in primary and secondary education emphasises the concept of digital competence, in the sense of a broader conceptualisation including technical skills, knowledge and a suitable attitude towards to reading, interpreting and producing media content in a critical and considered manner. The curriculum aims to bridge the perceived gap between children’s use of digital technology inside and outside of school, by committing both teachers and pupils to the use of digital media as part of learning activities at school (Erstad 2012; The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training). How one can study what has emerged as meaningful to pupils in digital activities involving tablets is addressed in the next section.

Investigating digital practices involving tablets in schools adopting a framing approach

According to Goffman (1986, 8), all situations contain embedded expectations or orders of interaction which help us identify ‘what is going on here’. Frames prompt us to interpret activities and act in specific ways. One of the key aspects of the frame analysis is how we reformulate and translate previous experiences from activities and resources into new activities and resources. Frame analysis makes it possible to examine how subjective interpretations are created, structured, maintained and then become resources, based on how pupils engage in and identify with digital practices at school. This approach enables us to see how activities, resources and routines in the classroom prompt children to consider literacy in specific ways, and consequently how they engage in digital activities (Burnett 2015, 200).

The school context, organised in certain ways and with specific requirements, will cue pupils and teachers to interpret and use tablets in accordance with a mutual understanding about conventions related to the school context (Burnett 2015). Pupils will bring their experiences involving the use of technology into school and this shapes their understanding and use of technology within the classroom (Lankshear and Knobel 2006). This implies that using tablets in literacy activities means different things inside and outside of school.

My approach on literacy builds on socio-cultural perspectives defining learning as situated, complex and contextual social practice (Lankshear and Knobel 2006, 64; Marsh 2010). Learning is seen as mediated through the use of cultural tools (Wertsch 1998), such as spoken language or writing, and in relation to how we participate in social and routine activities, for instance, classrooms. The term practice refers both to activities that involve, or are shaped by, digital technology, as well as to more abstract conceptions of reading and writing, that is, the meaning that participants bring to bear upon the activities (Maybin 2007, 4). Integrating technology into teaching not only changes the activities within which technology is used – it also contributes to the transformation of our expectations of what we should master, how we think about and describe learning (Säljö 2010, 56). Literacy, and what is considered relevant knowledge can be seen as dynamic, fluid and changing (Aarsand 2019, 2; Erstad 2012, 60). In line with this approach, I understand learning as changing participation, which involves being conscious of, and understanding how to work with tools and resources, and how to participate and collaborate according to social conventions in the given context (Aarsand 2019).

I examine how tablets mediate pupil’s framings, or perceptions, of what is important to them in learning activities involving tablets. I discuss how they frame tablets and activities while operating within different frames, that is, ‘playful’/‘schooled’ and ‘official’/‘unofficial’ (Maybin 2007). By studying their framings, it is possible to gain insight into any possible gaps and links between the use made by pupils and teachers of technology and how they experience it. The way pupils interpret what experiences, activities and competences are valued in schools becomes evident (Bjørgen and Erstad 2015). I analyse how pupils frame specific activities and resources as being available or not for exploration and how pupils include or exclude different identities and associated meanings thus allowing possibilities to emerge (Burnett 2015, 205).

The study – data, methods and analysis

The interview data presented here draws from data generated from a larger research project involving interviews with pupils and teachers (Bjørgen, Fritze, and Haugsbakk 2018). This article focuses on data that relates to the pupil’s perspectives on using tablets. The data primarily consists of three qualitative group interviews at each school. Each group comprised of 3–6 pupils, accounting for a total of 32 pupils. The initial interviews were conducted in 2016 with one group of sixth graders at each participating school. The following year four groups took part: one group of fifth graders and one group of seventh graders at each school. These groups included those pupils who had already participated in 2016. The teachers selected pupils based on the criteria of even gender distribution. Where relevant, and to strengthen our understanding of how contextual factors influence the pupils’ framings, the analysis of interviews is supplemented with impressions from four classroom observations. All data collection took place in classrooms and in randomly selected typical weeks, and without the pupils being involved in any special projects with tablets.

The choice of schools was strategically based on their former experiences with tablets from participation in the municipality’s pilot project in 2015. Both schools were representative of Norwegian schools in terms of size, technical equipment, numbers of pupils and teachers and socio-economic status. The teachers had received training, both schools had drawn up rules for use, and parents were involved in the introduction. Tablets were used mostly in the subjects of Norwegian, English and maths, and in combination with textbooks. Pupils had access to apps like Notability, Bookwriter, iThoughts and Puppet Pals, as well as standard softwares like Keynote, Safari, PowerPoint and Excel.

All interviews ranged from 40 to 60 min in duration and were recorded and transcribed. According to Maybin (2007, 4), digital literacy activities and practices are constituted through, and need to be investigated through dialogue, and in relation to material resources. Hence, I paid close attention to how the pupils talked about their participation in diverse activities. Key topics were included in a semi-structured interview guide: reasons for using tablets, (Fjørtoft, Thun, and Buvik Pettersen 2019), experiences from using tablets in schools and at home, preferences for and attitudes towards activities including tablets, such as writing, information searching, reading, listening, sharing and collaborating on digital content, as described by Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi (2016), Burnett (2015) and Lynch and Redpath (2014). The pupils were also encouraged to talk about their views on rules and regulations concerning the use of tablets in schools (Berrum et al. 2018).

I conducted close readings of the interviews, and the coding was in line with the main categories stated in the interview guide. Based on a thematic analysis approach (Bernard and Ryan 2010, 56–62), the aim was to obtain descriptions that illuminated pupils’ understandings related to the key themes, for example, the way these appeared in comparisons of practices (previously we … /now we …). I used coloured labels to single out the most significant descriptions that expressed the essence, patterns and variations in the material. These main descriptions were then analysed based on central themes from the guide, as well as on possible new themes emerging, for instance, issues of play. The following main themes were identified: (a) content production, (b) changed learning activities, (c) fun and play versus rules and (d) tablets at school versus home. These themes provide invaluable insights concerning different ways of understanding digital practices in the interplay between individual experiences among 9 to 13-year-olds, the various activities and goals as well as the overarching school context. The main themes were discussed within a larger research group. In the presentation of the results, the pupils were given fictitious names, but they are connected to actual grades to indicate possible variation. Since comparing schools was not the aim of this study, school affiliation was not stated. Excerpts have been slightly reworded to facilitate readability. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical codes of the Norwegian Data Protection Services.

Since this is a small-scale study, it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions or to apply results to other schools. The aim has been rather to contribute to our understanding of the articulated perceptions of digital practices with tablets of a sample of young Norwegian pupils. The results are corroborated by findings in other studies of tablets used in teaching, as well as studies of the use of technology in schools more generally. Further, the results allow a more nuanced consideration of such studies.

Results – pupils framings of digital practices involving tablets

Results from the empirical study are grouped in accordance with the main themes mentioned. The excerpts are selected from the larger corpus of data because they are regarded as typical expressions of how pupils framed digital activities with tablets in schools.

Content production: ‘A more fun way to learn’

The pupils at both schools said that they were looking forward more to the lessons now than they had before they used the tablets: ‘I am looking forward to lessons more than before because it is a more fun way to learn’ (Christy, sixth grade). Many mentioned that they found it most enjoyable to create something, such as PowerPoint-presentations, videos, books, drawings and pictures. Christy said she enjoyed making movies; ‘(…) fabulous movies, for example in subjects like English and Christian and other religious and ethical education’. Simon in the fifth grade explained why creating something is so fun: ‘Because then you can be creative’. His fellow pupil Sigrid thought it was fun to make a book of one’s own and show it to others. This view was endorsed by his classmate Liv: ‘You can choose the layout and create the font and stuff, and that's cool’. The two girls confirmed that they sometimes had the opportunity to choose what they did and how exactly to implement their decision.

The pupils associated enjoyable activities involving tablets with the permission to create something and to choose apps that offered different forms of expression, such as Sagaby, Bookwriter or Puppet Pals, or with computer programs like Keynote or PowerPoint. According to the pupils, the production of content was most frequent in the subjects of Norwegian and English. Some mentioned that they enjoyed being absorbed in computer games or watching movies as a reward for having completed their tasks. However, the reservation was evident in the final round of interviews in which some pupils claimed that tablets were no longer as fun as they had been during the first year.

Several pupils at both schools reported that there was insufficient time or space to create something themselves: ‘We don’t get the chance that often. The A-class hardly ever has the chance’, Howard in the sixth grade reported. According to many pupils, the most typical activity involving the use of tablets was ‘finding facts’ on the internet, related to information searching, writing and creating presentations in PowerPoint. The teacher usually decided which apps, tools and expressions the pupils were allowed to use:

It’s the teacher who usually decides, but sometimes we ask for permission to use the iPad, even if we weren’t really supposed to and we sometimes get a ‘yes’. Sometimes we are allowed to do something that wasn’t part of the set task. (Timothy, seventh grade)

One of the girls in the seventh grade said that they had asked the teacher for additional time on the tablet because they thought the use made of it was too limited. This resulted in pupils being allowed to use tablets a little more in the subject of Norwegian. The pupils explained that variations in the use of tablets fluctuated according to the teachers’ technical competences. At both schools, pupils reported that there were teachers who were disinclined to use tablets or lacked the relevant technical expertise.

Changed learning activities: ‘The faster you do things the more you get done’

Pupils at both schools described how activities like reading, writing and looking up material changed fundamentally after the implementation of tablets. Reading aloud gave both pupils and teachers the opportunity to listen to recordings and evaluate. Internet access allowed faster and easier exploration of images and text, compared to using the textbook alone. The Internet was used to supplement the textbook, especially for any fact finding exercise: ‘Without an iPad we would have to look for facts in a book, but with the iPad we could just look up what we needed, and we usually find what we were after’ (John, sixth grade). The pupils convey how the textbook and tablet complement each other, but that it is equally important to check information found on the internet with information gleaned from books. According to Jens and Alba in the sixth grade: ‘We still look things up in books (…) because not everything we find online is correct, so we tend to use a lot of books.’ We noted a similar approach in both schools during the visits to the classrooms.

Expressions like ‘faster’ and ‘easier’ were repeated in several descriptions of changed ways of working: ‘The faster you do things, the more you get done’, according to Nadia in the sixth grade. Many pupils remarked on the way tablets had made it possible to do a greater amount of work, such as Howard in the sixth grade:

Before, when we used to write in textbooks, it might have taken us ten minutes to complete a long writing assignment. Now it takes just a couple of minutes to finish and we move straight on to the next writing task, so we get more tasks done.

His fellow pupil John commented on how the increased pace could contribute to learning: ‘Everything goes much faster and you can learn more when things go faster’. Other pupils felt that tablets and access to a variety of ways of expression provided the chance to collaborate through sharing texts: ‘It may be easier to teach others, for example if you show a book to others and read it to them they can then watch the text and pictures and everything, so it’s pretty good’ (Dylan, sixth grade). Together with descriptions of opportunities for collaboration, several pupils at both schools noted that they usually worked individually on tablets, an opinion that was confirmed by classroom observations.

Fifth graders at both schools expressed thoughts about tablets versus handwriting, as well as about the temptation to copy text. In what follows they explain how they dealt with texts from the web and in books:

Sigrid:

Well, since you can’t copy and paste text from Safari. You have to write it yourself because there are bound to be some words you don’t understand, and so you have to change it.

Robert:

It’s possible to copy text, but we are not really supposed to. Although you can copy text … 

Jason:

… you have to use your own words because on Safari there are always quite a few words you don’t understand (…) if you are going to write a text on Safari, you can ask the teacher what a word means.

Sigrid:

In any case the teacher understands whether you have used your own words or copied something.

Here the pupils mention excessive cutting and pasting from the web. They refer to the teacher's request (‘to use one’s own words’, ‘we are not really allowed to’). Sigrid mentions that the teacher finds out if you lift text from the web. Some pupils in the fifth grade highlighted the implications of changed ways of working from the teacher's perspective. According to Sigrid: ‘It’s easier for the teachers. Instead of handing out notes they can send everyone a weekly plan or things like that’. Her classmate John added: ‘And that saves paper’.

Fun and play versus rules: ‘You take care not to do anything stupid when you see the blue line coming’

With the implementation of tablets, the schools drew up their own rules. Many pupils felt that they were more engaged and focused. According to Howard, sixth grade: ‘There was more playing up in the lessons before’. Although many pupils believed that rules were important, opinions about the possible consequences of breaking the rules varied. Howard and Christy both in the sixth grade emphasised that it was unacceptable for the teacher to confiscate tablets: ‘It would have been really awful, since everyone else would be doing all tasks on the iPad, while you just sat there with a boring book’ (Howard). ‘I can’t stand the thought’ (Christy).

Robert in the fifth grade said that it was pretty easy to escape the teacher’s control by carrying the tablet out of the classroom: ‘Once when I went to the toilet, I went on Safari (…) and there were seven other pupils sitting next to me’. His fellow pupil Jason talked about similar opportunities like sneaking into the corridor during lessons: ‘When we were reading in Pupil Pals a lot of people went into the corridor to play.’ Several pupils thought that Bluetooth simplified the teacher’s task of monitoring. However, many were familiar with specific features and used these to deflect the teacher’s attention, such as turning off Bluetooth, or logging out of the network before the teacher arrived. By using airdrop combined with the silent function it was possible to share trivial digital content and images. Christopher in the seventh grade described how avoiding the Bluetooth zone allowed him to be free from the teacher’s monitoring:

There is a sort of blue line at the top and when you see it turning into a blue line then you know you are being monitored (…) It’s a bit like you make sure you don’t do anything stupid when you see the blue line coming: Whoops, I’d better not do what I know is wrong.

Several pupils thought that rules were acceptable since in any case, they spent limited time on social media at school. Christy in the sixth grade explained: ‘We don’t have enough time for that’. Her fellow pupil Howard added: ‘You don’t have time to use it [social media] at school anyway.’ According to Ingrid in the seventh grade: ‘We just do what we are supposed to, which is OK.’ A similar opinion about rules was expressed by pupils during the first round of interviews. They had also the impression that the teachers had become more relaxed about the rules.

Tablets at school versus at home: ‘At home I don’t have work apps’

When pupils talked about rules mention was made of differences and similarities between using tablets and other technological devices at school versus at home. Descriptions such as ‘big differences’ recurred as well as ‘transitions’. Pupils said they used tablets more often at home and for whatever purpose they wanted, for instance, to take pictures, to watch videos on YouTube or movies on Netflix. In the classroom, pupils were usually forbidden to use YouTube and social media, with the exception of watching videos on YouTube to see how to construct or do something. Pupils also said that they were not allowed to play, download or send anything, and that the teachers generally closed Messenger during school hours. Howard in the sixth grade gave an example of how they could use the app Paper both at home and at school. He also explains what he thinks teachers think about using this app as follows:

We are allowed to use an app called Paper. We can draw in it, and we’re allowed to draw in it when we’re at home. I don’t think teachers think it is the same as playing. (Howard, sixth grade)

Howard was just one of a number of pupils who was interested in how the app Showbie² enabled teachers to provide feedback more easily. Showbie and tablets contributed to a better overview and made it easier for pupils to deliver their homework:

I always forget to bring books home, but it’s not as though you forget your iPad at school (…) Sometimes, like if you didn’t finish something at school on the iPad you can finish it at home. And what’s really good is that if you do forget, you can bring it from home on the iPad. (Dylan, sixth grade)

Several frequently used terms include ‘private pad’, ‘work app’ and ‘school pad’: ‘At home I don’t have work apps’ (Jason, fifth grade). Homework is completed on the ‘school pad’, while the private pad is used for games, drawings, photographing, YouTube, and Netflix. Some pupils reflected on how technology use is governed by the intention and the context, such as Nadia in the sixth grade: ‘It’s not as though you are just sitting at home and kind of enjoying yourself on Showbie’.

Discussion and concluding remarks

The examples above illustrate the characteristics of digital literacy practices involving tablets in schools from the perspectives of pupils between 9 and 13 years of age. The dominant theme is that they experienced tablets as enabling and engaging in many activities and subjects. Tablets provide new opportunities, such as the chance to produce content, explore and share resources in faster and easier ways. The pupils experienced a better overview of the school materials, appreciated greater flexibility in terms of homework, as well as prompt feedback from the teachers (Berrum et al. 2018). Their descriptions suggest important learning experiences related to handling complementary sources and different modalities, searching for and double-checking information. The way tablets mediated new requirements for competences was also reflected in contrasting descriptions of tablets versus textbooks, and of digital and analogue resources (Rasmussen and Lund 2015). It was clear that the pupils considered it important to be allowed to choose for themselves and to be creative on their own terms. These findings are consistent with results in other studies (Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi 2016; Dunn et al. 2018; Sofkova-Hashemi and Cederlund 2017; Lynch and Redpath 2014). Overall, it seems that both schools fulfilled to a certain extent the pupils wishes to use tablets for more creative and exploratory activities, such as content production and the critical use of sources. However, these activities did not appear to be sufficiently integrated as resources aiming to develop digital competences. Neither do they appear to have strengthened connections between pupils’ experiences of technology in the classroom versus outside. There is a great deal in the material to suggest that, in both schools, the pupils clearly experienced some activities and resources as less accessible to being explored than others (Burnett 2015, 204). ‘Finding facts’ related to text production and tasks set by the teacher was the dominant practice (Blikstad-Balas 2016; Furberg and Rasmussen 2012). Most activities seemed to be rather individually oriented and conventional (Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi 2016, 96; Sofkova-Hashemi and Cederlund 2017; Lynch and Redpath 2014). It seems that the pupils were engaged in a somewhat narrow range of teacher-directed digital literacy practices, focusing mostly on information retrieval, preparing presentations, and submitting assignments. These findings coincide with research indicating that the introduction of new technology in teaching often consolidates established pedagogical traces based on written texts (Bjørgen 2010; Drotner 2008; Jahnke et al. 2017; Lankshear and Knobel 2006). The findings can be seen in relation to the period of data collection where tablets still were a relatively new resource over which teachers might want to exert control. The latest interviews also revealed that for some pupils the tablets were not as exciting as when first implemented. Reasons to explain this may be found in the teachers’ facilitation of activities with technology (Jahnke et al. 2017), or in increased habitual use of tablets (Fjørtoft, Thun, and Buvik Pettersen 2019, 149). Both issues are beyond the scope of this study.

The pupils demonstrated considerable awareness of how the use of tablets was regulated and defined by the school context. Observations from classrooms support this impression. The material contains several examples that show clearly how pupils’ activities and intentions are framed by, and overlap with, the tasks set by the teacher (Burnett 2015). Priorities comprised the preservation of handwriting, the avoidance of plagiarism, finding facts, and the completion of tasks. The pupils’ interpretations were also framed by and relied on fellow pupils’ interpretations. Examining framings in light of pupils’ relationships can reveal a great deal about learning in terms of understanding how to work with technology and participate in acceptable ways with peers and teachers (Burnett 2015, 205). On the one hand, and based on the empirical findings, it is reasonable to question whether the pupils had simply learned to master the aspects of digital competences defined as important by the school (Bjørgen 2010). They had learned how to talk about, and work with, tablets based on what was defined as relevant competences in the classroom (Aarsand 2019, 2).

On the other hand, the material contains detailed descriptions of activities involving tablets, clearly at odds with tasks set by the teacher, school rules and views of what is considered established knowledge. The pupils found ways to work around official activities and to escape the teacher’s supervision, such as avoiding the Bluetooth zone or sneaking out of the classroom to engage in ‘unofficial literacy activities’ (Maybin 2007). In line with Maybin, these activities can be described as playful and collaborative: ‘(…) closely embedded in pupils’ local negotiations of relationships and identities’ (6). In these activities, the pupils were motivated more by immediate forms of communication and interactions where they shared self-styled content based on personal experiences and interests (Drotner 2008, 170–172; Ito et al. 2010). The pupil’s framings can be seen as a desire to renegotiate the conventional frames as to what counts and applies in the classroom (Bjørgen 2010). As in the study by Dunn et al. (2018, 824), the pupils saw their tablet use as both seamless (homework), yet different in terms of goals and intentions, something which is reflected in terms like ‘school pad’, ‘work pad’ and ‘private pad’. They clearly had a sense of tablets as a device that moved with them between school and home (Dunn et al. 2018). This might also explain their awareness of more ambivalent or liminal spaces at school, such as toilets or corridors. These spaces provided an escape from the teachers’ radar, and hence opportunities to explore and engage in self-initiated digital activities, like sharing content, ideas and expertise.

The issues presented above align with contemporary discussions about how schools can contribute to develop pupils’ digital competences (Erstad 2012). As has been frequently suggested, one valuable starting point for developing critical awareness of the use of technology could be to plan for pedagogical activities guided by the interests of pupils (Buckingham 2006). One way of bridging the gap between home- and school competences could be to, for example, let the pupils bring content in the form of pictures, videos, music, social postings/interactions and other expressions of creativity back to the classroom, and to let pupils use and reflect upon them and the choices they make in different subjects (Drotner 2008, 172). Such activities might offer alternative ways of working where they can share expertise and solve problems based on digital activities they are familiar with, as well as to explore the potentials of technologies and of different modes of expression, for instance, the written versus the visual mode. Teachers could play a key role in bringing child-initiated, as well as unofficial activities, into official classroom discussions (Björkvall and Engblom 2010, 291–292). Pupils could develop a deeper awareness and understanding of the importance of context, that is, the interplay between individual framings, participation in digital literacy practices, and what is possible to learn (Bjørgen and Erstad 2015). In this way, digital literacy practices in school can have the potential to strengthen connections to children’ everyday experiences and identities, and in ways that allow them to develop ‘voice’ (Andersson and Sofkova-Hashemi 2016; Drotner 2008; Lynch and Redpath 2014; Marsh 2010). This point out the pedagogical challenge of judging when and how to choose and connect digital activities motivated by the interests of any pupil into official learning activities (Björkvall and Engblom 2010, 292).

The results presented in this article, together with other relevant research, invite us to consider similar issues which have already received attention from many researchers: whether today’s school is ready for the experiences, expectations and competences that pupils bring with them into the classroom (Buckingham 2006; Lankshear and Knobel 2006). In line with Buckingham, I do not claim that schools ought to adopt pupils’ out-of-school digital practices in an uncritically or naïve manner. Central here is to explore how pupils’ framings can provide valuable knowledge about how they engage in a wide range of digital literacy practices inside and outside of school (Burnett 2015, 204). This is important if we are to integrate digital literacy activities across the curriculum and in ways that connect and develop children’s home- and school competences. If the school is to continue to be a common arena for children and young people to develop a critical and conscious relationship with digital technology, it is of crucial importance that teachers, school leaders and parents acquaint themselves with the perceived priorities of pupils (Drotner 2008, 167). We also need to develop a relevant theoretical and methodological basis for studying how exactly young people frame and create meaning in digital practices (Burnett 2015, 205; Erstad and Sefton-Green 2013).

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to the pupils and teachers involved in this study. She is also grateful for the collaboration and support from her colleagues at the Department of Pedagogy, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway. The author also wish to thank the proofreader Elizabeth Freeman and the anonymous referees for useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Rather than citing product names the generic term ‘tablet’ has been used, except where pupils referred to specific product names.

2 https://www.showbie.com/