Navigating the ‘grey zone’ : teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Navigating the ‘grey zone’ : teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions © 2024 the Authors Published version Mehtälä, Saana; Salo, Markus; Pirkkalainen, Henri Mehtälä, S., Salo, M., & Pirkkalainen, H. (2024). Navigating the ‘grey zone’ : teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions. Educational Research, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2024.2305824 2024 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rere20 Educational Research ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20 Navigating the ‘grey zone’: teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions Saana Mehtälä, Markus Salo & Henri Pirkkalainen To cite this article: Saana Mehtälä, Markus Salo & Henri Pirkkalainen (25 Jan 2024): Navigating the ‘grey zone’: teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions, Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2024.2305824 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2024.2305824 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 25 Jan 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 134 View related articles View Crossmark data Navigating the ‘grey zone’: teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions Saana Mehtälä a , Markus Salo a and Henri Pirkkalainen b a Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Unit of Information and Knowledge Management, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland ABSTRACT Background: A wide variety of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is increasingly embedded into numerous facets of everyday life. Young people, in particular, are often viewed as eager and skilful users of new ICTs who have various educational and leisure-related purposes for ICT use. Although school and home lives have traditionally been viewed as separate, ICT use has blurred the lines between these environments. This study focuses attention on the negotiation of this ‘grey zone’ within the school setting, in terms of teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions. Purpose: This study sought to gain insight into teachers’ perceptions of the challenges related to students’ online interactions and how these become visible in the school context. This included exploring strategies identified by teachers in efforts to surmount difficulties. Methods: Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with 15 teachers in Finland working in primary and/or lower secondary education. The transcribed data were analysed qualitatively, using a thematic approach. Findings: According to the teachers, there were significant challenges associated with young people’s online interactions that affected their students and the flow of school life, such as online conflicts and dysfunctional behaviour in messaging groups. Although teachers found that the boundaries and the obscurity of their roles made it difficult to address some situations, they nonetheless identified strategies to overcome challenges, often including collaboration with students and parents. Conclusions: The study highlights how students’ online interactions can affect the ways that teachers view themselves and their roles as educators. Given the pace with which ICT, and young people’s use of it evolves, the study suggests that there is a need for frequently reviewed guidelines or practices that help clarify the roles of different actors in relation to the realities of students’ ICT use. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 March 2023 Accepted 11 January 2024 KEYWORDS Students; Information and communication technology (ICT); online interaction; teachers; school; ICT policy CONTACT Saana Mehtälä [email protected] EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2024.2305824 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. Introduction Information and communication technology (ICT) use has become an integral part of modern life, including school life. Its use by teachers and students has been widely studied. This includes, for example, consideration of the barriers associated with teachers’ use of ICT (Mirzajani et al. 2016; Player-Koro 2012), and students’ ICT skills and preferences (Aesaert et al. 2015; Selwyn, Potter, and Cranmer 2009). ICT use has also been studied at the school and municipality levels, revealing that the processes and practices in place might hinder or support the use of ICT (Babaheidari and Svensson 2014; Mooij and Smeets 2001). In terms of leisure-related ICT use, a Finnish study indicated that more than 75% of respondents aged 10-19 played digital games on a weekly basis or even more often (Kinnunen, Tuomela, and Mäyrä 2022). Social media environments, in turn, seem to become increasingly important in adolescence (Gray 2018), and adolescents leverage social media for both school and leisure purposes (Luo, Liang, and Li 2020). Thus, the use of ICT among different individuals is connected to contextual factors and the online environments to which they are accustomed. A large amount of literature has explored how ICT can be used to support students’ learning (Fu 2013; Szymkowiak et al. 2021). Similarly, students’ leisure-related ICT use has been studied (Gray 2018; Hinostroza et al. 2015), including combining the perspectives of school- and leisurerelated ICT use (see Samuelsson 2010; Selwyn, Potter, and Cranmer 2009). Students’ online interactions are often a meaningful part of their everyday lives, and teachers who interact with young people daily can have the ability to make observations of class dynamics that might go unnoticed by other people. However, more research is needed focusing specifically on how the online interactions of young people shape their behaviour and are visible in school settings. In the digital age, social interactions can be layered and expanded across different contexts (see Kent and Facer 2004). Whilst school and home lives have traditionally been viewed as separate, ICT use has blurred the lines between these environments. This study focuses attention on the negotiation of the ‘grey zone’ within the school setting, in terms of teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions when challenges arise. In our study, online interactions refer to communications between students and other people that occur primarily through ICT-enabled platforms, such as social networking and instant messaging services, and online games. Before presenting more details about our research, however, we seek to situate our work with reference to the literature on ICT and the educational context. Background In recent decades, ICT has been used in different ways to support teaching and learning in schools. ICT equipment, and teachers’ and students’ skills have evolved over time, changing the landscape in which educational ICT use occurs. Despite these developments, teacher, school and system barriers remain, hindering ICT use (Bingimlas 2009; Fu 2013). For example, there might be a gap between the ICT equipment available for schools and the practices to make their use pedagogically justified (e.g. Rikala, Vesisenaho, and Mylläri 2013). The lack of time can be viewed as a barrier (Lawrence and Tar 2018), making it difficult for teachers to learn and become confident in the use of ICTs. Thus, ICT use can be viewed as a dynamic phenomenon that is under the influence of the specific processes and actors present in the school environment. 2S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL. Due to the crucial role of ICTs in organisations in increasing productivity and developing operations, ICT use has long been studied in different organisational contexts. However, as ICT has become an integral part of the lives of modern people (Auxier and Anderson 2021), understanding leisure-related contexts has become progressively more important (see Eklund 2012; Torres 2022). Young people, in particular, have traditionally been viewed as active users of new ICTs (see Pedersen 2005; Szymkowiak et al. 2021). Nevertheless, the role and significance of online environments in the social lives of young people might differ between individuals and age groups (see Livingstone 2008). Past research has noted differences in how new communication mediums are perceived and embraced by young people as opposed to older generations, calling for support and understanding from adults (Boyd 2008). However, although young ICT users have sometimes been regarded as having inherent abilities to adopt ICT skills (e.g. Palfrey and Gasser 2011), differences in the skills of individuals when it comes to using ICT have been recognised, too (Bennett, Maton, and Kervin 2008; C. Brown and Czerniewicz 2010). Thus, it seems essential that the skills of young ICT users are viewed within the context of the technological environment in which they have grown up, including consideration of the dimensions of ICT use in which they engage. Teachers can hold different perceptions of the connections between their students’ ICT use and specific learning and/or wellbeing outcomes. For example, teachers with a higher level of social media usage are more likely to express some level of responsibility for the social media use of their students (Thunman, Persson, and Lovén 2018). In the higher education context, the use of mobile devices can be connected with difficulties in students’ concentration and viewed as a distraction for teaching-learning activities (Shrivastava and Shrivastava 2014). Mobile devices can be regarded as beneficial in secondary education (e.g. through fostering motivation and enjoyability), but also include challenges such as the lack of proper equipment or issues around the control of students’ ICT use behaviour (Nikolopoulou 2020). Additionally, school personnel can perceive the connection between adolescents’ social media use and their mental health as negative and having disadvantageous effects on academic performance (Hjetland et al. 2021). Although it is important to place ICT use in the context in which it occurs, the continuity between different environments should be borne in mind, as well. ICT users can adopt different roles in the social contexts in which they operate (Lamb and Kling 2003), and the lines between work and leisure might become blurred (Reichenberger 2018). While studying ICT use solely in one context or another might understandably leave some aspects of this dynamic process unnoticed, it seems that, historically, the social perspective has not tended to be as prominent in studies on educational technology as it could be (Selwyn 2012). Thus, there is a need to understand ICT use as a socially constructed process that has the potential to cross different contexts (see Kent and Facer 2004) and entails dimensions that go beyond technical functionality and pedagogical meaningfulness (Selwyn 2010). For example, social networking services (SNSs) can be used to foster interaction with other students but often relate to existing offline relationships (Selwyn 2009). Given the complex interplay between school and home life and the challenges involved in navigating this space in the context of education, it is essential to build an understanding of the negotiation of this ‘grey zone’ within the school setting, in terms of teachers’ practices around students’ online interactions. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3 Purpose This study aimed to gain insight into teachers’ perceptions of the challenges related to students’ online interactions, and how these become visible in the school context. It formed part of a larger piece of research (Mehtälä 2023) investigating the role of information technology in relation to the wellbeing of young people. The study reported below sought to better understand, from teachers’ perspectives, the different ways in which the online lives of students can be visible in the school context and how this affects students and teachers. Our research questions were as follows: 1) What kinds of challenges in students’ online interaction can teachers identify in the school context? and 2) How can the challenges be addressed to support students’ social interaction and daily life at school? Methods Ethical considerations The university’s ethics committee did not require an ethical review for this study. Teachers’ participation in the study was voluntary, and information regarding the study (including the data privacy statement) was sent to the participants beforehand. Each teacher gave permission to record the interview. Those taking part had the opportunity to withdraw their consent at any point in the study and discontinue their participation. Participants were informed that the final data set would not contain names or any other precise identity information. Methodological approach While qualitative research approaches are often employed as a means by which to gain insight into phenomena of emerging nature, they are well suited to the study of continuously evolving information technologies and the ways in which they are used (Monteiro et al. 2022). In the study reported in this paper, the semi-structured interview was selected as an appropriate method through which to explore teachers’ perceptions of the challenges related to students’ online interactions. The method supports the purpose of the current research due to its flexibility and the opportunities it provides to yield rich data (Kallio et al. 2016). In addition, semi-structured interviews make it possible to move at the interviewee’s pace and focus on questions that seem relevant to them. As existing knowledge is a valuable starting point for semi-structured interviews (Rabionett 2011), prior research was used as a basis from which to build themes and formulate specific questions for the interview protocol. The development of the interview protocol focused on ICT use-related behaviour among young people. The topic was approached from the perspective of teachers and included themes that would characterise the school as an ICT use context. Data collection The data consisted of 15 interviews with Finnish primary and lower secondary school teachers, which took place over a five-month period during 2022. Participants were recruited through existing collaboration networks and by approaching specific 4S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL. municipalities, schools and principals. It was viewed as necessary that the participants had noteworthy experience of ICT use for educational purposes, a criterion that was easily met after the COVID-19 pandemic. The interview participants were between the ages of 25–30 (3), 31–40 (2), 41–50 (5) or 51–60 (5), with an average age of 44 years. Most of the interviewed teachers (80%) were female. This was expected, as the majority of the teachers within the Finnish comprehensive school system are female (European Commission 2019). The interviewees predominantly identified as class teachers (8), subject teachers (4) or special education teachers (3). Most had a master’s degree, and more than half of them had over 15 years of education experience. Nine of the participants taught students who were no older than 11 years, whilst four participants taught students in the 10–16 age group. The two remaining participants taught a wider range of ages, with their students being within the 6–13 age group. Although it was not viewed as beneficial for this study to distinguish between different age groups in discussing the findings, it must be recognised that ICT use, and school practices can differ substantially depending on the age group in question. For example, the ICT-use environment is likely to be different for older students. Interviews were conducted in Finnish. All interviews were recorded, and interview length ranged from 46 to 93 minutes (average 63 min). The interviews were conducted online, using a one-to-one interview setting. In the interviews, each theme (e.g. the role of technology in school relationships, online interaction between the students) was discussed and developed through the introduction of more specific questions, such as: Do you think that the notifications arriving to the teacher’s own devices, or the devices used for teaching, could ever disturb the lesson? What about during other times? Do you feel that the students feel pressure related to participating in (online) discussions or their publications in social media (e.g. through comparing oneself to others)? How can you tell? How do the students react to online conflicts? How do these kinds of situations make you feel? It is important to note that, as semi-structured interviews do not follow a strictly constructed format, the questions used to support the discussions may vary depending on the interviewee. For example, some participants might have more experiences related to a given topic, and their narratives could prompt the interviewer to ask specific questions linked to this. Thus, the set of data collected consisted of 15 narratives that described the teachers’ individual experiences related to students’ online interactions in the school environment. Data analysis Interview transcription was followed by the coding phase, which was carried out using qualitative analysis software. A thematic approach was employed throughout the coding and analysis processes (see Clarke, Braun, and Hayfield 2015), with these being viewed as interlinked phases of thematic meaning construction (Williams and Moser 2019). In terms of procedure, the coding process included going through the data line-by-line and assigning codes to all entities that related to the overall object of enquiry. Labels that described the entities were assigned to specific codes. The coding was an iterative process in which the first coded interview created emerging categorisations for the identified topics. This was followed by coding of all the other interviews, where the categorisations were further developed and supplemented. For example, new codes could be created as EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5 needed (e.g. where existing codes did not have sufficient depth) or categorisations could be merged (e.g. in cases where there were similarities between codes and/or overlapping content). These codes were used hierarchically, with low-level codes presenting more specific information (e.g. at the level of single interviews), and high-level codes being used to describe and group overarching themes together. For example, online interaction in the school environment could include notions of specific online environments (e.g. challenges in the class messaging group) or school-level practices (e.g. insufficient tools for teachers to resolve different situations). Throughout, the interviews were viewed as independent entities with intrinsic value as elaborated narratives. Coding consistency was ensured by going through the codes assigned to specific entities and checking that the codes’ names and content matched the coded data. This was further improved by actively working with the codes and underlying data, which enabled closer reflection of the appropriate level of analysis for each situation. Findings The in-depth analysis of interview data, described above, allowed findings to emerge in relation to three main themes: (1) teachers’ ICT use-related practices that characterise the school's ICT use context; (2) challenges related to students’ online interaction; and (3) strategies for problem-solving. The theme of challenges related to students’ online interaction was further categorised into five sub-themes based on their characteristics, which included online conflicts, the role of the teacher, messaging behaviour, ICT use-related pressure and the characteristics of the ICT environments. Similarly, the problem-solving strategies included several sub-themes: situation-specific strategies, class communication, parent communication, students’ interaction skills, education and support, discussion moderation, meaningfulness for students and the potential for teaching and learning. Each theme and, where relevant, its related sub-themes is presented and discussed below. In places, translated and anonymised quotations from the data have been included to illuminate and illustrate key points. Theme 1: teachers’ ICT use-related practices that characterise the school ICT use context During the interviews, the teachers were asked about the ICT use–related practices and rules in the context of everyday school life. Although such practices do not directly relate to students’ online behaviour, they have an indirect relationship as they can create boundaries in terms of the extent to which ICT use is visible in the school environment. The practices and rules discussed by the teachers are presented in Table 1. It was evident that the teachers employed different ICT use-related practices in their classrooms. According to the data, it was common practice that primary school students were not allowed to use their devices at school, even during recess. As one teacher explained: 6S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL. I do not know a single primary school where you could use the phone in your leisure time during recess or in any free manner. If there is a teaching situation [where you can use your phone], then [yes], but otherwise, the phones are away. And it makes it easier when there is a rule for the whole school. Rules that bring structure to school activities can sometimes be more easily handled by students themselves (Thornberg 2008). In practice, the students’ devices were often placed in the backpack and muted during class. In some cases, the use of personal devices was permitted for school purposes or if a teacher allowed their use for something else, as observed here by another participant: A few years ago, a decision was made that we would try to appeal to homes and everyone so that when you come to school, it [the phone] would stay in the backpack. You can use it if you need to, with the permission of the teacher, but otherwise, you don’t keep it on display. Analysis made clear that it was usual for there to be some ground rules for ICT use during class and recess. However, very restrictive practices (e.g. collecting students’ personal devices) were discussed from various viewpoints, and some teachers noted that these kinds of practices might not be effective; for example, ‘They [the students] bring it [the phone] there, and it is just the phone case. And it is like this: “Haha, someone got to keep their phone”. This makes the lesson more fractured’. Thus, the interviewed teachers, on the whole, seemed to prefer low-level restrictive practices as long as their students generally followed these. This suggests trust between teachers and students; furthermore, previous research indicates that primary school-aged children can have relatively developed conceptions of what it means to be responsible (Such and Walker 2004). Theme 2: challenges related to students’ online interaction According to our analysis of interview data, challenges in relation to students’ online interaction could be generally categorised into teacher or student levels, depending on for whom the situation was problematic. However, as all the issues that were identified had somehow come to the teachers’ attention, all inherently included teacher involvement to some degree. The challenges that were identified, along with some examples of their manifestations, are presented in Table 2 and discussed in the following paragraphs. Teachers mentioned how students can face messages and/or content they find unpleasant or stressful when navigating online environments. They noted that online conflicts can become heated between students, with one commenting, ‘Well, usually Table 1. The ICT-related practices and rules discussed by teachers in the interviews. ICT-related practice/rule Mentions (N) Students are not allowed to use their personal devices in class (unless permitted by the teacher) 14 Students’ devices should generally be muted and/or placed in their backpacks 13 Students are not allowed to use their own devices during recess 11 There are restrictions regarding handling of devices and other general practices 9 Students’ personal devices are collected in by the teacher 7 The teacher uses other restrictive practices 2 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7 degree of potential for supporting development and learning. The strategies suggested by teachers as ways of overcoming challenges with students’ online interaction have valuable practical relevance. Knowledge shared about challenges pertaining to students’ online interaction and strategies to address them can benefit teachers and other school personnel, parents and even the students themselves. For example, the uncertainty surrounding the capabilities and responsibilities of different actors regarding students’ online interactions was an issue that can be acknowledged and discussed by parents and teachers. Discussion of these areas can be beneficial at the school and/or municipality level, supporting the formation of practices that could address problematic aspects that teachers, parents and students might be encountering on a daily basis. Limitations and future research The study reported in this paper has focused on the experiences of a small number of Finnish teachers working within the Finnish school system in primary and lower secondary education. The analysis was based on the personal experiences of teachers who worked, collectively, with a relatively wide age group of students. Generalisation is therefore not intended, as the focus is on providing an in-depth, qualitative analysis of rich data. In the future, larger scale work could helpfully examine how experiences might differ between countries or school systems, or between students of different age groups. Finally, this study explored teachers’ experiences of the challenges associated with students’ online interactions. Although this perspective was crucial for the purposes of the study, it is important to note that the consideration of students’ perspectives, though equally important, was not within scope. Thus, future research should include the perspectives of the students themselves. Conclusion The study reported in this paper offers insight into teachers’ views of the challenges related to students’ online interaction and the strategies teachers use to address them. As ICT use increasingly blurs the lines between school and home environments, teachers are frequently in the position of having to negotiate this ‘grey zone’ to support their students’ wellbeing and maintain the flow of school life. Teachers in the study identified significant challenges associated with young people’s online interactions that affected their students and the pattern of school life, including online conflicts and dysfunctional behaviour in messaging groups. However, although teachers considered that the boundaries and the obscurity of their roles made it difficult to address some situations, they nonetheless identified constructive strategies to overcome challenges, often including student–teacher, teacher–parent or parent–parent collaboration. Overall, the study highlights the importance of building an understanding of ICT use as a socially constructed process. In practical terms, as ICT and the ways in which young people use it moves at pace, there is a need for regular review of educational guidance to clarify the roles of different actors in relation to students’ ICT use. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 14 S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL. Funding This research has been co-funded by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union [project ID: 2021-1-EL01-KA220-SCH-000027978, “POSITIVE LEARN: Distance learning positification: technostress relief and wellbeing”]. ORCID Saana Mehtälä http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1027-3099 Markus Salo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5229-0300 Henri Pirkkalainen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5389-7363 References Aesaert, K., D. Van Nijlen, R. Vanderlinde, J. Tondeur, I. Devlieger, and J. van Braak. 2015. “The Contribution of Pupil, Classroom and School Level Characteristics to Primary School Pupils’ ICT Competences: A Performance-Based Approach.” Computers and Education 87:55–69. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.014 . Anderson, T. 2008. “Towards a Theory of Online Learning.” In The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, edited by T. Anderson, 45–74. Edmonton, CA: Athabasca university press. Auxier, B., and M. Anderson. 2021. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/ 2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ . Babaheidari, S. M., and L. Svensson. 2014. “Managing the Digitalization of Schools: An Exploratory Study of School Principals’ and IT Managers’ Perceptions About ICT Adoption and Usefulness.” In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning, edited by T. Bastiaens, 106–113. New Orleans, LA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Bennett, S., K. Maton, and L. Kervin. 2008. “The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical Review of the Evidence.” British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5): 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8535.2007.00793.x . Bingimlas, K. A. 2009. “Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 5 (3): 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75275 . Boyd, D. 2008. “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” In Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, edited by D. Buckingham, D. The John and T. Catherine, 2007–2016. Cambridge, MA: MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, The MIT Press. Brown, C., and L. Czerniewicz. 2010. “Debunking the ‘Digital Native’: Beyond Digital Apartheid, Towards Digital Democracy.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (5): 357–369. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x . Brown, B. B., and J. Larson. 2009. “Peer Relationships in Adolescence.” In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Contextual Influences on Adolescent Development, edited by R. M. Lerner and L. Steinberg, 74–103. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Clarke, V., V. Braun, and N. Hayfield. 2015. “Thematic Analysis.” Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods 3:222–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 . Eklund, L. 2012. “The Sociality of Gaming: A Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Digital Gaming As a Social Leisure Activity.” PhD diss., Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. European Commission. 2019. “Education and Training Monitor 2019 - Finland. Publications Office of the European Union.” https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs /et-monitor-report-2019-finland_en.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2023. Fu, J. 2013. “Complexity of ICT in Education: A Critical Literature Review and Its Implications.” International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology 9 (1): 112–125. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15 Gibson, A. 2019. “Free Speech and Safe Spaces: How Moderation Policies Shape Online Discussion Spaces.” Social Media+ Society 5 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119832588 . Gray, L. 2018. “Exploring How and Why Young People Use Social Networking Sites.” Educational Psychology in Practice 34 (2): 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1425829 . Hakvoort, I. 2010. “The Conflict Pyramid: A Holistic Approach to Structuring Conflict Resolution in Schools.” Journal of Peace Education 7 (2): 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2010. 498997 . Harðarson, A., and K. Magos. 2022. “Emotional Demands and Moral Rewards: A Story Told by Fifteen Teachers.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 66 (7): 1194–1203. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00313831.2021.1982766 . Heath, D., R. Maghrabi, and N. Carr. 2015. “Implications of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for School-Home Communication.” Journal of Information Technology Education Research 14:363–396. https://doi.org/10.28945/2285 . Heydenberk, W., and R. Heydenberk. 2007. “More Than Manners: Conflict Resolution in Primary Level Classrooms.” Early Childhood Education Journal 35 (2): 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 007-0185-4 . Hinostroza, J. E., C. Matamala, C. Labbé, M. Claro, and T. Cabello. 2015. “Factors (Not) Affecting What Students Do with Computers and Internet at Home.” Learning, Media and Technology 40 (1): 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.883407 . Hjetland, G. J., V. Schønning, B. E. V. Aasan, R. T. Hella, and J. C. Skogen. 2021. “Pupils’ Use of Social Media and Its Relation to Mental Health from a School Personnel Perspective: A Preliminary Qualitative Study.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (17): 9163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179163 . Hornby, G., and R. Lafaele. 2011. “Barriers to Parental Involvement in Education: An Explanatory Model.” Educational Review 63 (1): 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049 . Kallio, H., A. M. Pietilä, M. Johnson, and M. Kangasniemi. 2016. “Systematic Methodological Review: Developing a Framework for a Qualitative Semi‐Structured Interview Guide.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 72 (12): 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 . Kent, N., and K. Facer. 2004. “Different Worlds? A Comparison of Young People’s Home and School ICT Use.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 (6): 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2004.00102.x . Kinnunen, J., M. Tuomela, and F. Mäyrä. 2022. Pelaajabarometri 2022: Kohti uutta normaalia. [The Finnish Player Barometer 2022: Towards the New Normal]. TRIM Research Reports 31. Tampere: Tampere University. Krutka, D. G., and J. P. Carpenter. 2016. “Why Social Media Must Have a Place in Schools.” Kappa Delta Pi Record 52 (1): 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2016.1123048 . Lamb, R., and R. Kling. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly 27 (2): 197–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036529 . Laursen, B., and R. Veenstra. 2021. “Toward Understanding the Functions of Peer Influence: A Summary and Synthesis of Recent Empirical Research.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 31 (4): 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606 . Lawrence, J. E., and U. A. Tar. 2018. “Factors That Influence Teachers’ Adoption and Integration of ICT in Teaching/Learning Process.” Educational Media International 55 (1): 79–105. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09523987.2018.1439712 . Livingstone, S. 2008. “Taking Risky Opportunities in Youthful Content Creation: Teenagers’ Use of Social Networking Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and Self-Expression.” New Media & Society 10 (3): 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415 . Luo, J., L. Liang, and H. Li. 2020. “The Divergent Roles of Social Media in Adolescents’ Academic Performance.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 34 (2): 167–182. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02568543.2019.1703124 . Mehtälä, S. 2023. The role of information technology in the well-being of young people in school and leisure contexts: perspectives from IT use and design [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Jyväskylä. JYU dissertations, 655. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-9633-8 . 16 S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL. Mirzajani, H., R. Mahmud, A. F. M. Ayub, and S. L. Wong. 2016. “Teachers’ Acceptance of ICT and Its Integration in the Classroom.” Quality Assurance in Education 24 (1): 26–40. https://doi.org/10. 1108/QAE-06-2014-0025 . Monteiro, E., P. Constantinides, S. Scott, M. Shaikh, and A. Burton-Jones. 2022. “Qualitative Research Methods in Information Systems: A Call for Phenomenon-Focused Problematization.” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 46 (4): i–xviii. Mooij, T., and E. Smeets. 2001. “Modelling and Supporting ICT Implementation in Secondary Schools.” Computers and Education 36 (3): 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00) 00068-3 . Nikolopoulou, K. 2020. “Secondary Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Tablet Use in Classrooms: Benefits, Constraints and Concerns.” Journal of Computers in Education 7 (2): 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00156-7 . Nouwen, M., and B. Zaman. 2018. “Redefining the Role of Parents in Young Children’s Online Interactions. A Value-Sensitive Design Case Study.” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 18:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.001 . Palfrey, J., and U. Gasser. 2011. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. ReadHowYouWant ed. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pedersen, P. E. 2005. “Adoption of Mobile Internet Services: An Exploratory Study of Mobile Commerce Early Adopters.” Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 15 (3): 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327744joce1503_2 . Player-Koro, C. 2012. “Factors Influencing Teachers’ Use of ICT in Education.” Education Inquiry 3 (1): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i1.22015 . Pressley, T. 2021. “Factors Contributing to Teacher Burnout During COVID-19.” Educational Researcher 50 (5): 325–327. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138 . Rabionett, S. E. 2011. “How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-Structured Interviews: An Ongoing and Continuous Journey.” Qualitative Report 16 (2): 563–566. Reichenberger, I. 2018. “Digital Nomads–A Quest for Holistic Freedom in Work and Leisure.” Annals of Leisure Research 21 (3): 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098 . Rikala, J., M. Vesisenaho, and J. Mylläri. 2013. “Actual and Potential Pedagogical Use of Tablets in Schools.” Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments 9 (2): 113–131. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201312042736 . Samuelsson, U. 2010. “ICT Use Among 13‐Year‐Old Swedish Children.” Learning, Media and Technology 35 (1): 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880903560936 . Selwyn, N. 2009. “Faceworking: Exploring students’ Education‐Related Use of Facebook.” Learning, Media and Technology 34 (2): 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923622 . Selwyn, N. 2010. “Looking Beyond Learning: Notes Towards the Critical Study of Educational Technology.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1): 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2729.2009.00338.x . Selwyn, N. 2012. “Making Sense of Young People, Education and Digital Technology: The Role of Sociological Theory.” Oxford Review of Education 38 (1): 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985. 2011.577949 . Selwyn, N., J. Potter, and S. Cranmer. 2009. “Primary Pupils’ Use of Information and Communication Technologies at School and Home.” British Journal of Educational Technology 40 (5): 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00876.x . Shrivastava, A., and M. Shrivastava. 2014. “Classroom Distraction Due to Mobile Phones Usage by Students: College Teachers’ Perceptions.” International Journal of Computer and Information Technology 3 (3): 638–642. Subrahmanyam, K., and P. Greenfield. 2008. “Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships.” The Future of Children 18 (1): 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006 . Such, E., and R. Walker. 2004. “Being Responsible and Responsible Beings: Children’s Understanding of Responsibility.” Children & Society 18 (3): 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.795 . Szymkowiak, A., B. Melović, M. Dabić, K. Jeganathan, and G. S. Kundi. 2021. “Information Technology and Gen Z: The Role of Teachers, the Internet, and Technology in the Education of Young People.” Technology in Society 65:101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565 . EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 17 Thornberg, R. 2008. “School Children’s Reasoning About School Rules.” Research Papers in Education 23 (1): 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701651029 . Thunman, E., M. Persson, and J. Lovén. 2018. “Teachers’ Perceptions About Their Responsibility for What Pupils Do on Social Media.” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 17 (6): 127–143. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.6.8 . Torres, E. N. 2022. “Online-To-Offline Interactions and Online Community Life Cycles: A Longitudinal Study of Shared Leisure Activities.” Leisure Sciences 42 (1): 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01490400.2017.1392913 . Valkenburg, P. M., and J. Peter. 2011. “Online Communication Among Adolescents: An Integrated Model of Its Attraction, Opportunities, and Risks.” Journal of Adolescent Health 48 (2): 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020 . Williams, M., and T. Moser. 2019. “The Art of Coding and Thematic Exploration in Qualitative Research.” International Management Review 15 (1): 45–55. 18 S. MEHTÄLÄ ET AL.