Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20
Imagine the Person in Front of You: How Teachers
Promote Responsible Online Communication in
Swedish Leisure-Time Centers
Carolina Martinez
To cite this article: Carolina Martinez (2020): Imagine the Person in Front of You: How Teachers
Promote Responsible Online Communication in Swedish Leisure-Time Centers, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2020.1788140
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788140
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 07 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 438
View related articles
Imagine the Person in Front of You: How Teachers Promote
Responsible Online Communication in Swedish Leisure-Time
Centers
Carolina Martinez
Department of Childhood, Education and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Digital competence and its different dimensions – among them responsible online communication – are competencies that children need to develop for their present and future lives. This article analyzes how teachers promote responsible online communication in Swedish leisure-time centers (LTCs). Based on 20 in-depth interviews, the results show how teachers promote responsible communication mainly in spontaneous situations using mediation strategies such as active mediation, co-use, and participatory learning. The study also identifies educational simulation as mediation strategy. The participants focused primarily on teaching children how not to hurt other people online, as well as issues concerning online safety and privacy. One conclusion is that children’s self-selected media use in the LTC provided extended opportunities for promoting responsible online communication.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 13 December 2018 Accepted 27 May 2020
KEYWORDS
Digital competence; digital literacy; responsible use; responsible online communication; leisure-time center; after-school program; teacher mediation; mediation strategies
Digital competence has become a central concern in an increasingly digitized society and has been identified as a key competence for lifelong learning, social inclusion, and well-being (EUR-Lex, 2018). Digital competence is a broad boundary concept that is closely associated with the notion of digital literacy (Ilomäki et al.,2016), and involves a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to the use of digital media (Ala-Mutka,2011; Ilomäki et al.,2016). One dimension of digital com-petence, which connects with the “attitude aspect,” regards responsible use of digital technology (e.g., Ala-Mutka,2011, p. 10; Hobbs,2011, p. 17; Ilomäki et al.,2016, p. 671). Responsible use largely concerns communication in digital environments (Hobbs,2011, p. 17) and involves normative ideals of how one should and should not behave when communicating online. This may concern not offending other people, how to share personal information online, and issues related to safety (Ala-Mutka,2011, p. 10; Hobbs,2011, p. 17).
This aspect of digital competence– responsible online communication – has been implemented in the Swedish curriculum for the compulsory school, the pre-school class, and the leisure-time center (LTC), which was revised in line with European Union policy in 2016 and 2017 (Swedish National Agency for Education,2018).1 It is primarily raised in connection with teaching in the LTC, the pre-school class, and the subject Swedish. Regarding the LTC, which is an integrated part of the Swedish edu-cation system that provides eduedu-cation and care for children between 6 and 12 years of age, the curriculum
© 2020 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-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Carolina Martinez carolina.martinez@mau.se 1
A concept related toresponsible online communication is that of netiquette, which commonly refers to conventions of politeness on the Internet (Scheuermann & Taylor,1997). However, this concept is not used in Swedish educational policy and was therefore not considered appropriate in the context of this study.
identifies “safe and responsible communication, including in digital environments” as one central area of content to focus on (Swedish National Agency for Education,2018, p. 24, author’s translation).
The education system is thus given a central role when it comes to promoting responsible online communication among children. To be able to make responsible choices when communicating in digital media is particularly important for children when they start to use social media and send messages using digital media. In Sweden, the use of social media increases when children pass through elementary school. For instance, at the age of eight 18% of children visit social networking sites and 45% send messages with digital technology, while at the age of ten 52% visit social networks and 90% send messages using digital technology (Davidsson et al.,2018, p. 67).
Despite the important role given to the education system concerning this aspect of digital com-petence, there are few studies on how teachers actually promote responsible online communication. When it comes to the LTC, previous research on digital competence has mostly focused on children’s engagement with technology. These studies analyze how children learn to handle digital technology, how they learn to use digital media for learning purposes and entertainment, and how they learn to use digital technology in creative and esthetic activities (see Barkhuus & Lecusay,2012; Davis & Full-erton,2016; Klerfelt,2006; Lecusay,2014; Vakil,2014). One study, Micheli (2013), centers on the issue of promoting responsible communication in an after-school setting. The article analyzes a workshop– “Performing Facebook” – in an American after-school program where high school stu-dents role-played afictional situation on Facebook to reflect on possible consequences of oversharing personal information online. This workshop was designed by the research team, and hence, did not investigate teachers’ actual work, which is the focus of the present study.
In this article, I direct attention to the LTC as an arena for promoting children’s digital compe-tence. The aim of the article is to contribute to the understanding about how teachers promote responsible online communication among children in the LTC. The following three research ques-tions guide the study. RQ 1: How do teachers mediate children’s digital media use to promote responsible online communication in Swedish LTCs? RQ 2: What aspects of responsible online com-munication do teachers promote? RQ 3: In what situations (e.g., planned or spontaneous learning situations) do teachers promote responsible online communication?
The LTC is, I argue, particularly interesting in this context. First, teachers have the opportunity to closely observe children’s self-selected media usage – such as playing digital games – as shown inprevious research (Saar et al.,2012). Second, children’s social relations, social competence, and values education have traditionally been central aspects of teachers’ work in LTCs (Hansen Orwehag & Mårdsjö Olsson, 2011; Hjalmarsson & Löfdahl, 2014; Lager et al.,2016). These factors together may provide special opportunities for promoting responsible online communication in this institutional setting. However, what actually takes place in LTCs in this regard has not received attention in previous research.
Before progressing to the theoretical framework, a few more words will be said about the Swedish LTC. This institution is, as also stated above, an integrated part of the education system. LTCs are commonly located in school buildings and provide education and care for children before and after school. It has the mission to complement education in school, and in the national curriculum it says that the LTC should stimulate children’s learning and provide a meaningful leisure-time, by empha-sizing learning that is group-oriented, situation-based, and experiential. The curriculum also states that teaching should take its point of departure in children’s interests, initiatives, and needs, but also stimulate children to engage in new experiences (Swedish National Agency for Education,2018). As can be seen here, a child-centered approach and learning in authentic situations are central elements of leisure-time pedagogy (Klerfelt,2017).
Teachers working in LTCs also often work in compulsory school, where they commonly teach a practical/esthetic subject. Since 2011, there is a three-year teacher education program oriented towards work in LTCs where students learn about leisure-time pedagogy and a school subject such as physical education or art (Klerfelt,2017). The LTC is an important learning environment for many children. In 2019, 84% of children aged 6–9, and 20% of 10–12-year-olds, were enrolled in LTCs (Swedish National Agency for Education,2019).
Mediating Children’s Digital Technology use
To analyze how teachers promote responsible online communication in LTCs, this article uses par-ental/teacher mediation theory. This theoretical perspective is presented below. In this section, I also review previous research on teachers’ work with responsible online communication in primary and secondary education, as this research is relevant to the present study.
Since television– and later, digital media – became an integrated part of many children’s everyday lives, scholars have sought to understand how different social agents manage and relate to children’s media use. Parents have received the most attention in this research, as children’s media use primar-ily has taken place within the home. However, the role of teachers– as well as peers – in mediating children’s use of the media has been given some research attention in recent years (Karaseva et al., 2015). Based on extensive empirical research, researchers have identified different mediation strat-egies that adults use to minimize risks and maximize opportunities with the media. The mediation strategies most commonly referred to are active mediation, restrictive mediation, and co-use/co-view-ing (Clark,2011; Livingstone et al.,2017).
When engaging in active mediation adults talk with children about their media use, which can take the form of discussions, explanations, and instructive remarks. Restrictive mediation refers to situations when adults restrict and control children’s media use, such as making rules about when, how long, on which devices, and what content children are allowed to watch or use. Co-use/co-viewing refers to adults sharing children’s media use, for instance, watching a movie or using the Internet together (Clark, 2011; Zaman et al., 2016). Mediation strategies are dynamic and highly contextual, and can take place before, during, or after media use (Zaman et al.,2016). Mediation that takes place after media use can be referred to as retroactive mediation, and in these occasions, the adult can take the role as consoler if the child has had a negative media experi-ence (Kalmus,2013, p. 143).
These three categories of mediation– active, restrictive, and co-use – are shown to be relevant in the digital media landscape, but have also been developed in later research. Livingstone and Helsper (2008) argued that active mediation and co-use are blurred in the online environment, as co-use of, for instance, computers commonly involves discussions. Regarding co-use, Zaman et al. (2016) developed two new subcategories, those of helper and buddy, where helper refers to parents who help their children use digital media, and buddy refers to parents who enjoy sharing digital media use with their children. Clark (2011) argued for a fourth mediation strategy– participatory learning – which can be seen as a mix between active mediation and co-use. What distinguishes this mediation strategy is the direction of the dialogue, where children have a more active role and parents have an explicit interest in learning from and with children about their online activities. The different mediation strategies presented here are used in the analysis to gain insights into how teachers promote responsible online communication. However, as this theoretical perspective is based mainly on studies in a domestic context, it is possible that other mediation strategies could be found in a school setting.
As stated above, adults’ mediation of children’s media use primarily aims to minimize risks and maximize opportunities with the media (Livingstone et al.,2017). Mediation can thus be seen as a part of the pedagogical relationship between adult and child where children’s well-being, growth, and learning is at the center (Van Manen,2015). In mediation, adults bring forth what they consider good and appropriate, and what they consider bad and inappropriate for children to come into con-tact with, do, and learn (Van Manen,2015). One question that is relevant to discuss in this context concerns how adults’ mediation relates to children’s learning. Researchers commonly argue that active mediation facilitates children’s learning and digital competence/digital literacy (Clark,2011, p. 326; Daneels & Vanwynsberghe,2017, p. 9; Livingstone et al.,2017, p. 85; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008, p. 584). Literature on digital literacy education also stresses the importance of conversation and mutual reflection for learning. Hobbs (2011), for instance, when speaking of“the social responsibility
dimension” of digital literacy, put forward that teachers when promoting responsible communi-cation can encourage multiperspectival thinking.
Co-use as a mediation strategy can also involve learning opportunities, when including instruc-tions as discussed by Zaman et al. (2016) concerning the helper. In contrast to co-use and active mediation, restrictive mediation is considered a threat to learning. Mascheroni and Ólafsson (2014) stated that restrictive mediation is effective in reducing risks, but “restrictive measures are also likely to undermine children’s digital literacy” (p. 87).
There are a few studies on teacher mediation related to responsible online communication in pri-mary and secondary education. Using a questionnaire, researchers in the multinational research net-work EU Kids Online asked children about their teachers’ mediation practices. Among 9–12-year-olds, 53% of children reported that teachers had“[s]uggested ways to use the internet safely,” and 45% of children reported that teachers“[s]uggested ways to behave towards other people online” (Livingstone et al.,2011, p. 121). Similarfindings were reported in a later follow-up study (Mascher-oni & Ólafsson, 2014, p. 103). In a survey study with teenagers and their perceptions of active mediation among teachers, parents, and peers, Shin and Lwin (2017, p. 1117) found that teachers mostly instructed teenagers on what information to disclose on the Internet (47.5%) and gave advice about safe Internet usage (48.2%).
There are also a few other studies centering on this topic that do not use teacher mediation theory. Chang and Chou (2015) focused on what they call“e-character education” and investigated Taiwa-nese teachers’ perspectives on core virtues in cyberspace that young people need to learn. Based pri-marily on a questionnaire and focus groups, they concluded that teachers thought that core virtues needed online were law abidance, respect, and self-discipline. Respect was considered important for getting along with other people online, as lack of face-to-face interaction can make users less empathic and lead to conflicts. Those who respect others online will not engage in bullying, accord-ing to teachers (Chang & Chou,2015). The theme of cyberbullying has received much societal and scholarly attention. Some studies on the topic of cyberbullying analyze teachers’ strategies for hand-ling and preventing bullying online. For instance, based on an online survey, DeSmet et al. (2015) showed that teachers most commonly gave supportive advice, involved others for support, involved parents, and talked to pupils (see also Giménez-Gualdo et al.,2018).
As stated in the introduction, previous research on responsible online communication related to the LTC is practically non-existent. This broader review of research on teachers’ work in primary and secondary education shows how previous research is scarce in this area as well. These studies have primarily used quantitative methods, while qualitative studies into teachers’ work are rare. Hence, the present study contributes not only to our understanding of teachers’ work with responsible online communication in LTCs but also more broadly to research on teachers’ mediation of chil-dren’s digital technology use.
Method
To gain insight into teachers’ experiences of promoting responsible online communication, this study draws on 20 qualitative in-depth interviews conducted in 2018. Interviews were considered relevant in this context as they can give access to peoples’ experiences from everyday life and the meanings they give to their practices (Kvale & Brinkmann,2009, p. 24; Miller & Glassner,2011). Interviews are also appropriate when certain processes in everyday life are difficult to observe (Lin-dlof & Taylor,2011, p. 173). However, interviews should not be seen as“transparent windows” into social worlds (Rapley, 2007, p. 20). Interview knowledge is socially co-constructed in the specific interview situation and not merely “found” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 54). To complement the interviews, observations of pedagogical planning and pedagogical material were made when it was relevant and when the interview participants gave access to this in connection with the interview. Twenty-one teachers working in 20 different LTCs in the south of Sweden participated in the study. Nineteen interviews were individual interviews, and one interview was a group interview
conducted with two participants working in the same LTC. The teachers were selected purposively to gain variation among participants in terms of gender, age, and the age of children they worked with. Among the participants, there were 12 women and 9 men, and most participants were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s (two participants were in their 20s and one was 60 years old). There were those working with the youngest children (pre-school class and grade 1), those working with mixed age groups (such as pre-school class to grade 5) and those working with the oldest children (grade 3, and grades 4–6). Their work experience ranged from 3 years to 40 years, with an average of 16 years. The majority of participants were educated “leisure-time teachers.” However, four participants had another educational background related to pedagogic work (pre-school, primary school, and upper secondary school).
The teachers were recruited primarily by contacting schools’ principals via e-mail and asking them to put me in contact with potential interviewees. Some participants were recruited through professional networks, such as a Facebook group and local networks. In the initial contact, they were informed that the study concentrated on teachers’ work with digital competence in the LTC and that their participation would be anonymous. As the concept of “digital competence” may lead people into thinking mainly about technology, I accentuated that no special experience was needed to participate in the study. In this way, I wanted to avoid recruiting only those who saw them-selves as knowledgeable about or working extensively with digital technology in the LTC.
Before the interviews, the participants were given an informed-consent sheet containing more information about the study, such as information about anonymity and data protection, and assur-ance that participation in the study could be interrupted at any point. Most interviews were con-ducted face-to-face in their workplaces. Three interviews were concon-ducted by telephone due to geographical distance. When comparing these interviews with the face-to-face interviews, it becomes evident that they provide the same depth (see also Stephens,2007; Sturges & Hanrahan,2004). In general, both face-to-face and telephone interviews contained rich descriptions of teachers’ experi-ences, which is an important aspect of quality in interview data (Kvale & Brinkmann,2009, p. 30). The interviews were semi-structured with mainly open-ended questions. After some initial back-ground questions, the participants were asked open-ended questions about their work with digital competence where they could talk freely about their experiences. Some participants started to talk about their work with responsible online communication even at the beginning of the interview, without being prompted directly. The interview guide also contained one specific question regarding this aspect of digital competence:“Have you worked with or talked to children about responsible communication in digital environments?” Those who did not bring up this theme spontaneously were hence encouraged to talk at this point of the interview.
The audio-recorded interviews– lasting between 50 min and one hour and 50 min – were tran-scribed verbatim, including laughter and significant tones of voice. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative coding to identify central categories (Bazeley, 2013) and a codebook containing descriptions and examples of the codes was developed during the coding process to systematize and deepen the analysis (see main codes and descriptions in Table 1) (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). Initially, all interview passages where participants spoke about their approaches to children’s online communication were extracted using NVivo software. The next step in the analysis was to code the mediation strategies used by teachers to promote responsible online communication, which corresponds to thefirst research question. This stage of the analysis was both theory- and data-driven (DeCuir-Gunby et al.,2011; Kvale & Brinkmann,2009, pp. 202–203). The mediation strategies identified in previous research guided the analysis, but I also searched for other ways of mediating children’s online communication. The coding process then centered on what aspects of responsible online communication the teachers focused on in their work, which relates to the second research question. Here, the analysis concentrated on what the teachers wanted to teach children, which included their normative ideals regarding how one should and should not think and behave when communicating online. Following this, and in relation to the third research question, I further analyzed the mediation strategies to understand in what situations mediation took place.
The central categories identified through qualitative coding were then analyzed to identify sub-categories, and comparisons were made to get insight into potential relationships between the di ffer-ent categories (Bazeley,2013). To contextualize thefindings, I also analyzed what importance the participants gave to this part of their work and which children (ages) they worked with concerning this issue. Furthermore, the interview data were analyzed in relation to participants’ gender and age, to see if there were any systematic patterns in this regard.
Results
Most teachers interviewed in this study engaged in promoting responsible online communication in the LTC. This included both female and male, as well as younger and older participants. Some stated that promoting responsible online communication was an integral part of their work with digital competence, or even the most important part, while others stated that they had only engaged in this on occasion. Hence, their experiences varied and some emphasized the importance of promoting responsible online communication more than others. The participants described how this work pri-marily concerned children in grade 3 and older, but also to some extent children in grade 2. They commonly expressed how they noticed that children started to use social media more frequently in grade 3 and that it became relevant to start to talk about their online communication at this point. A few participants stated that they did not promote responsible online communication, and it is relevant to say a few words here about the reasons they gave. Some teachers said that it was not rel-evant due to the children’s age (pre-school class and grade 1), or that it was not relevant in the par-ticular group of children, as they had not yet noticed any problematic situations concerning communication online. One participant said that she had only worked with this in class, as some of the children who were involved in a conflict did not participate in the LTC.2One participant acknowledged the need to work with this in his group of children but said that it was not possible, as children did not want to talk about their online experiences. This differed from the other inter-viewees, who rarely brought up hindering factors.
The results section is structured around the different mediations strategies the teachers used in their work. In relation to each mediation strategy, except restrictive mediation (see below), I analyze what aspects of responsible online communication the participants promoted, and in what kind of learning situations. All interviewees quoted below are given pseudonyms.
Table 1.Codebook: Main codes and descriptions.
Code Description
Active mediation Discussions and advice related to children’s online communication in the LTC
Retroactive mediation Discussions and advice related to children’s online communication in the home
Co-use Communicating through digital media or using digital media together with children
Participatory learning Learning with children about their online communication and digital media use
Educational simulation An interactive learning activity reflecting a real-life situation Restrictive mediation Prohibiting or limiting children’s online communication in the LTC Promoting awareness of how not to hurt other
people online
Focusing on the importance of not hurting or offending other people online
Promoting awareness of online safety and privacy Focusing on how to communicate safely and how to share personal information online
Spontaneous learning situation Mediation emerging spontaneously based on children’s activities Planned learning situation Mediation in pre-planned learning activities
2Two other teachers mentioned that they worked with responsible online communication in class, in the subject“Life skills” (Livs-kunskap). However, these two participants also told how they worked with this in the LTC.
Restrictive Mediation
The participants described how they restricted and controlled children’s digital media use in the LTC, thus engaging in restrictive mediation. Children’s use of mobile phones was often banned or restricted to specific activities, such as contact with parents. Children’s possibilities to communi-cate through digital media was thus limited in most LTCs. In a few centers, children were allowed to use their mobile phones more freely and could then also access social media, but during a limited amount of time and under supervision. One reason for restricting mobile phone use was that this prevented cyberbullying. Marcus said“I believe it’s a good thing they are not allowed to use their own mobile phones, because in this way we get rid of cyberbullying, at least during school hours.” Children’s online communication was also restricted on devices normally used in the LTC, such as iPads and laptops. Most commonly, children were not allowed to access social media on these devices. However, in some LTCs children were allowed to play online games with a chat function, and could then communicate online.
Restrictive mediation is effective in reducing risks with the media. However, it is not useful for promoting various dimensions of digital competence (Mascheroni & Ólafsson,2014). As will be shown below, in the context of the LTC restrictive mediation did not prevent teachers from promot-ing responsible online communication. They promoted children’s learning by talking with children about their experiences from digital media use in the home. In addition to this, children’s use of digi-tal media in the LTC, primarily digidigi-tal games with a chat function, provided extended opportunities for promoting responsible online communication.
Active and Retroactive Mediation
The participants described how they discussed with children about their media use to promote responsible online communication. Active mediation of children’s online communication came in two main forms. On the one hand, teachers engaged in active mediation in relation to children’s online communication in the LTC. On the other hand, teachers engaged in active mediation related to children’s online communication in the home. Mediation related to children’s media use in the home took place after media use, and can thus be understood as retroactive mediation (Kalmus, 2013). Active and retroactive mediation took place in spontaneous and authentic learning situations through discussions, instructions, and advice. This way of promoting responsible online communi-cation thus clearly connects with central elements of leisure-time pedagogy, where learning in auth-entic and spontaneous situations is central (Klerfelt,2017).
Active and retroactive mediation focused on teaching children how not to hurt other people online, as well as the importance of considering issues of safety and privacy. This is described and analyzed more in detail below, starting with retroactive mediation.
Retroactive mediation was prompted by what the teachers described as problematic situations, which they got to know about as the children were upset and argued with each other in the LTC, or as children told them about their experiences. Retroactive mediation primarily concerned situ-ations where children had written or posted something in social media at home that had hurt or offended another child. One way of using retroactive mediation in these situations was to gather the children, discuss, and encourage multiperspectival thinking (Hobbs,2011). Julia said:
That’s how we talk about why you shouldn’t write certain things. How is it received? If you write one thing and how the other person… You mean something, and then you send it. And then … “How does that sound to you?” “No, what I wrote was … ” “Yeah, but it sounds as if … ” How the written word can sometimes mean different things … If you work with older kids, the topic comes up spontaneously, if they come to the LTC – that they talk.“So-and-so said this to so-and-so yesterday.” … And they don’t like each other, because that per-son said such-and-such.
In this quote, Julia describes how she tries to make children reflect on their communication – that a message can be interpreted differently by the receiver – by posing open questions. She wants children
to be able to take the other person’s perspective, and in this way make them understand why certain words may hurt.
Another way to make children reflect on their communication so that they will not hurt or offend other people online was to discuss computer-mediated communication versus communication face-to-face. Petra said that she discussed with the children and said things like“Why can you say some-thing like that when you’re sitting behind a computer screen? But I don’t think you would have said that face to face.” And, “Why do we feel it’s okay to say certain things?” Marcus said that when facing cyberbullying, they discussed with the children:
And then we’ve talked about it and tried to get everyone to understand: “Yeah, but what you write is the same as if you had stood up and said this to another person, and what you’ve written, you’ve … You mean that this kid in your class does this, and then it gets pretty weird when you see each other the next day– you look each other in the eyes and, yeah, you’ve written something mean.”
These quotes from Petra and Marcus reflect the commonplace belief that distance between humans in mediated communication makes people behave less responsibly (Silverstone,2007, p. 11). Imagin-ing the other person in front of you can guide you in how to communicate responsibly seems to be the underlying pedagogical idea here.
The participants also described how they engaged in active mediation when children used digital media in the LTC. In these situations, teachers focused on computer-mediated communication ver-sus communication face-to-face, hence the same as in retroactive mediation discussed above. Sebas-tian said that they talked about how to be a good winner and a good loser when playing online games such as Minecraft in the LTC:
And there are many kids whofind excuses for their loss, “Yeah, but he was cheating,” and then they write that to this person on the Internet.“You effing cheater … ” But, then we talk about it … “Can we know this person is cheating?” … “Is it okay to behave differently on the Internet from how you would behave in real life?” And I say to the kids– we talk about this pretty often – that you need to behave on the Internet the way you behave for real… You can just explain to them that it’s other human beings on the other end, human beings with real feelings, just as muchflesh and blood as you are.
Here, Sebastian describes how he poses open questions to make children reflect, but how he also instructs children to behave in the same way online as offline. He says how he explains to children that when communicating online they are communicating with real people. Accentuating the real-ness of other people online is a pedagogical tool employed here also, to foster in children not to offend or hurt others when playing online games.
Teachers’ active mediation in the LTC also focused on other aspects of responsible online com-munication, which were not mentioned in relation to retroactive mediation. The teachers described how they gave children advice concerning safety and privacy when communicating online. Nik sta-ted that he instrucsta-ted children using Snapchat not to communicate with unknown people, saying: “And like, do not reply to everyone who writes to you. You may not even know the person.” Petra did not prohibit children from communicating with strangers online, but gave instructions regarding what information to share when playing Animal Jam on their laptops:
Mm-hm, yes, we have talked about this. So what can I say to someone about myself?‘Cause I’m not supposed to say where I live and stuff. I’m not supposed to say my real name … For example, in this Animal Jam. In Animal Jam a whole lot of animals are running around and you’re sort of in the middle of it, and if you say something a little talk bubble appears… We have talked about what you can share, what you should not share, and why.
As seen in these quotes, advice concerning safety and privacy involved rule setting. Hence, active mediation in this case was intertwined with restrictive mediation. However, this form of restrictive mediation may involve learning opportunities, as the teachers highlighted aspects of responsible online communication they found important. Active mediation related to safety and privacy did not only come in the form of instructive advice but also included more open questions prompting critical reflections about online communication. Petra described how she asked the children: “What
are you allowed to tell about yourself? How do you really know if it’s a 14-year-old sitting on the other side? Is that player really who they say they are?”
Co-use as Mediation Strategy
Some participants described how they used digital media together with the children to promote responsible online communication, thus engaging in co-use as mediation strategy. In these situ-ations, the teachers acted as role models and showed through their own communication how to behave online. Co-use as mediation strategy occurred primarily in spontaneous learning situations and the overall goal was to instruct children how to behave properly so that no one gets hurt or offended.
Marianne described a situation where she played chess with a girl in the LTC, and the girl’s mobile phone started to make sounds, a situation resulting in co-use:
Then she [the girl] said:“Now I’ve received snaps [messages from Snapchat] the whole time. I’m sick of it” … “But let us look at the phone” I said. … “May I answer?” I asked, because I knew who it was who was sending messages. It was three boys, all the time. So I said,“Pick up and answer it,” and then they hung up. They did that three times. Then I wrote, in her place,“Why … when I pick up you don’t answer.” Then we sent a heart to one of them.
In the quote, Marianne describes how she instructs children how to establish contact through digital media, for instance, to not hang up when someone answers the phone. This can be seen as a way to show the children how not to hurt or offend each other in online communication. Marianne takes the role of the helper (Zaman et al.,2016), and rather than giving advice orally, she instructs by doing. Marianne also said in the interview that the LTC is an important place for children to talk about their experiences online, as parents often are too busy with their work.
Co-use could also take place in the virtual world. Tomas told how he promoted responsible online communication by interacting with children on social media. He talked about the Instagram account that he uses to interact with the children he has had in the LTC:
I have an account that I use just for that, and to the extent I feel I can stand it and have time for it. And some kids think it’s really funny: ‘Oh shit, Tomas wants to follow me on Instagram.’
He argued that participating in children’s digital worlds was the best way to promote digital compe-tence, in this case, responsible online communication:
I would say it’s the most important factor. At least for children who are older than ten, in any case, who are more active there. That is the single greatest factor in being able to be a successful role model who creates a sense of safety.
In this quote, Tomas states that by participating online he serves as a role model, and that his engagement creates a safe environment for children. Tomas said how he also talked with children about their posts when meeting in the schoolyard, but how he also saw limitations with this, as some children did not want to interact with him online. In this co-use the teacher takes the role of the buddy (Zaman et al.,2016), but at the same time, he takes the role of the pedagogue who instructs by doing, that is, demonstrating how to behave responsibly through his own communication.
As this shows, co-use as mediation strategy implies that teachers very actively participate in chil-dren’s digital worlds. The participants described this closeness as something positive which gave them the opportunity to influence children, and there were no reflections about possible problematic aspects of this engagement. Actively using children’s mobile phones or interacting with children in social media is a concrete step into children’s more private spheres. This raises important pedago-gical questions about how to promote digital competence based on authentic situations and at the same time protect children’s integrity.
Participatory Learning as Mediation Strategy
Some participants described how they had an interest in learning about children’s media use and that they actively sought these learning opportunities, which is one aspect of participatory learning as mediations strategy (Clark,2011). Participatory learning served as a base for active and retroactive mediation, as the teachers needed to know about children’s experiences and their media use in order to discuss it with them and to give advice.
Participatory learning could take place in spontaneous situations where children told about their experiences from communicating in digital media at home, that is, in relation to retroactive mediation. The teachers accentuated the importance of listening to the children in these situations and described how they encouraged children to talk about their experiences, in order to show their support and learn more. In the following quote, Julia puts focus on the importance of both listening and talking:“Then it’s important that we are able to listen to them and talk to them, too. Talk about the meaning of the things they write– what they see [online].” Anna described how she strived to be a good listener and how she encouraged children to talk about their online experiences, and in relation to this stressed the importance of learning about children’s media use: “[It’s] important that we keep up with what they actually see and can talk to them.”
Participatory learning could also take place in spontaneous situations when children used digital media in the LTC. This gave the teachers opportunities to ask children about their online activities. Carl said:
So I try to learn from them, too, and be curious about:“What are you doing now?” and “What are you looking at?” … So they have quite a lot of unfettered computer time … But also so that we, too, can keep up to date, … and we can get insight into what they choose to use the computer or the iPad for. Because otherwise we haven’t any way to influence them – if we don’t see what they’re doing, so to speak – if it’s always us who control the content… We also have conversations on how we should speak to one another on the Internet and how other people talk to us. If we’re on MovieStarPlanet, for example, or Minecraft, where many of them go now to chat … I usually ask them what they are talking about.
In participatory learning, rather than giving advice and moral judgment, the adult provides“prompts to continue conversations” (Clark,2011, p. 335). In the quote above, Carl says that he asks open questions to get insight into children’s activities. Carl expresses an open interest in children’s media use and explicitly states that he utilizes this knowledge to promote responsible online com-munication through active mediation: “We also have conversations on how we should speak to one another on the Internet and how other people talk to us.”
Another way to engage in participatory learning was to play the same games as children. Petra, who saw knowledge about children’s media use as part of her own digital competence, said that she plays the games children are interested in for the moment:
I make sure I play Animal Jam and go in and learn about the different features … “So what does this do? What are the things I can choose?” … And I do it very much so that I can talk with the kids, too … being able to talk with them about what they’re using.
In this quote, Petra tells how she plays Animal Jam to learn about it and to be able to talk with chil-dren. One theme she had discussed with the children concerned safety and privacy, as also men-tioned above in relation to active mediation:“In Animal Jam a whole lot of animals are running around… and if you say something a little talk bubble appears … We have talked about what you can share, what you should not share, and why.” By using participatory learning as mediation strat-egy Petra can judge what to focus on when promoting responsible online communication.
As shown here, these teachers demonstrated an interest in learning about children’s media use. This reflects a child-centered approach and an openness towards children’s interests, which contrasts to the negative attitudes and worries that often surround children and media use (Butsch,2008, p. 118). A child-centered approach and engagement in children’s interests are characteristic of both participatory learning (Clark, 2011) and leisure-time pedagogy (Klerfelt, 2017). It is part of these
teachers’ mission to base teaching in children’s interests, so participatory learning as mediation strat-egy is perhaps more likely to be found in an LTC setting than in compulsory school.
Educational Simulation as Mediation Strategy
As shown above, the participants most commonly described how promoting responsible online com-munication took place in spontaneous situations. Children’s online communication at home, or in the LTC, provided learning opportunities the teachers could utilize to promote responsible online com-munication. However, few teachers described how they worked with planned learning activities. Louise and Christian, working in the same LTC, was an exception to this as they had worked with a teacher-led learning activity for several months. They described a mediation strategy which can be conceptu-alized as educational simulation, that is, an interactive learning activity reflecting a real-life situation where individuals can develop competencies in a safe environment (Bauman,2013, xi).
Louise and Christian described how they worked with“Wallbook” – an analogue version of Face-book in the form of paper sheets on a piece of black cloth put up on the wall above a sofa– to teach children about responsible communication in social media. Wallbook was a way to visualize what can be difficult to talk about: “There’s also a bit of an idea there that we could show it, not just talk about it” (Christian). They stated that their work with Wallbook was done proactively, as they had noticed that the children were starting to use social media and that there had been some incidents of cyberbullying. During the interview, Christian showed some of the paper sheets used in Wallbook and said:
So this is one of the posts [shows one paper sheet], sort of like a post on Instagram or Facebook, and this is about the Melody Festival. And you can“like” using your initial, so one knows it was you who did something or wrote something, and you also can“dislike.” You can also comment on things … But the idea is that when someone writes something weird, you can go back to it:“But, you’re the one who wrote that, what do you actually think?” Or if someone has just written something weird and hasn’t put their initials on it, you can just cross it out.
Louise said that Wallbook primarily aimed at teaching children to stand up for what they write: “That they also realize they have a responsibility – that they are responsible for what they’ve written … that what I write here I can also say to your face.” In this quote, Louise expresses how communi-cation face-to-face serves as a model for how to behave online. The underlying thought here seems to be that by imagining interaction face-to-face, one can judge how to behave responsibly and not hurt other people.
Louise and Christian also used Wallbook to promote awareness about safety and privacy, in this case, to be careful when sharing photos in social media. Above Wallbook was a cloud with photos, illustrating that posted photos remain online. Christian commented on this cloud:“Just to show that photos don’t disappear. I can delete a picture, but someone might have done a screenshot, then it’s still there.” Christian argued that children do not think about the consequences when sharing photos online, however, by discussing these issues with children in relation to Wallbook he hoped that chil-dren will be more careful and thoughtful in the future.
It could be argued that Wallbook shares more similarities with classroom teaching compared to the other mediation strategies, as it involved pre-planned activities over a longer period of time. However, this learning activity was also clearly shaped by leisure-time pedagogy. Wallbook was an“offer” which children could engage with on their own terms (Saar et al.,2012), and it sought to involve children in learning by connecting to their everyday lives and personal interests. Addition-ally, children’s engagement in this activity was not mandatory and was not assessed.
Discussion
The aim of this study has been to contribute to the understanding about how teachers promote responsible online communication among children in the LTC. The first research question
concerned how teachers mediate children’s digital media use to promote this particular aspect of digital competence. The results show how the participants made use of a wide variety of mediation strategies. Using active and retroactive mediation, the teachers discussed with children, gave advice and instructions on how to communicate responsibly online. They employed multiperspectival thinking, which, according to Hobbs (2011), is productive when teaching digital literacy, and they focused on the differences and similarities between computer-mediated versus face-to-face inter-action to make children reflect on their communication.
The teachers also employed co-use as mediation strategy, and in these situations they acted as role models for how to communicate responsibly through digital media. Co-use took place in the LTC, and– somewhat surprisingly – also in social media, where the teacher took the role of the buddy. Furthermore, when using participatory learning as mediation strategy, the teachers showed an inter-est in learning about children’s digital media use. In previous research, participatory learning is described as moments in which adults “provide prompts to continue conversations, and aim to learn from as well as with their children” (Clark, 2011, pp. 334–335). The present study has shown that participatory learning not only is about sharing and learning about children’s experi-ences, but also an important prerequisite for being able to promote responsible online communi-cation. Through participatory learning, teachers get insights into children’s online activities and can judge what to focus on in their teaching.
In addition to these mediation strategies, which were used to promote children’s learning, the results show that restrictive mediation was common in the LTCs. Researchers argue that active mediation (including retroactive mediation) facilitates children’s learning and digital competence/ digital literacy (e.g., Clark,2011; Daneels & Vanwynsberghe,2017; Livingstone et al.,2017; Living-stone & Helsper,2008), while restrictive mediation is a threat to children’s learning and digital com-petence (Mascheroni & Ólafsson,2014). This study shows that restrictive mediation did not prevent teachers from promoting responsible online communication, as they discussed with children about their experiences from using digital media in the home. However, in some LTCs children could use digital media more freely, and this gave teachers additional opportunities for promoting responsible online communication. In relation to children’s media use in the LTC, they employed mediation strategies such as active mediation and co-use, and they promoted particular aspects of responsible communication such as online safety and privacy. The possibilities to observe what children do online also gave teachers extended opportunities to engage in participatory learning. Hence, less restrictive mediation provides better learning opportunities for children when it comes to respon-sible online communication, and from this follows that very strict restrictive mediation indeed limits children’s possibilities to develop digital competence.
These different mediation strategies have been discussed in previous research on how adults med-iate children’s media use. However, the present study identifies one mediation strategy not discussed in the literature, educational simulation. By using “Wallbook,” teachers wanted to teach children how to take responsibility for their communication in social media. One could argue that educational simulation is a form of co-use as children and teachers used this“platform” together, however, as this was a fictional version of social media this would be misleading. Hence, educational simulation should be considered a mediation strategy of its own and is thus afinding that furthers our under-standing of how adults mediate children’s digital technology use.
The second research question centered on what aspects of responsible online communication tea-chers promote. The results show that the participants primarily aimed at teaching children how not to hurt or offend other people when communicating online, and to consider issues of safety and priv-acy. These dimensions of responsible online communication have also been identified in previous research on teacher mediation, primarily in quantitative studies (Chang & Chou,2015; Livingstone et al.,2011; Mascheroni & Ólafsson,2014; Shin & Lwin,2017). However, the present study deepens our understanding by showing the details of this work. One central dimension of teachers’ work was to focus on computer-mediated versus face-to-face communication, and they expressed how offline face-to-face communication should serve as a model for how to communicate online. Encouraging
children to imagine the other person’s physical realness in the here now, was used as a pedagogical tool to make children aware of how distance to the known or unknown other in mediated communi-cation can affect communication. The underlying idea behind this way of teaching ethics resembles the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s idea that the appearance of the other, particularly the face, urges us to take responsibility and act ethically (Levinas,1969, pp. 199–200).
The third research question centered on in what situations (e.g., planned or spontaneous learning situations) teachers promote responsible online communication. The results show that the partici-pants primarily mediated children’s digital media use in spontaneous situations, prompted by pro-blematic situations occurring online in the home, or in relation to children’s digital media use in the LTC. This work, therefore, is similar to how teachers work with social relations, social competence, and children’s learning more generally in the LTC. To catch the moment and to take advantage of the learning opportunities in authentic situations are considered important in leisure-time pedagogy (Hansen Orwehag & Mårdsjö Olsson,2011; Hjalmarsson & Löfdahl,2014). The participants inter-viewed in this study rarely talked about planned learning situations, however, as discussed above, the pre-planned and teacher-led learning activity“Wallbook” (educational simulation) was an interest-ing exception to this. However, this mediation strategy was also clearly shaped by leisure-time pedagogy.
The implications for practice arising from this study is that teachers– as well as other agents in the school-institution – should reflect on the possible consequences for children’s learning when implementing very strict restrictive mediation, that is, when highly limiting or banning children’s “free” media usage. Children’s more self-selected media activities provide important learning oppor-tunities which teachers can utilize to promote various aspects of digital competence. The LTC has, compared to compulsory school, better possibilities to incorporate children’s self-selected media use, and has also, according to the curriculum, the mission to base teaching on children’s interests (Swed-ish National Agency for Education,2018). Hence, one could argue that the LTC has special oppor-tunities when it comes to promoting responsible online communication, and that this institution can play an important role in this work. To be able to do so, it is also important that teachers are inter-ested in learning about children’s media experiences, and that they have an open and non-judgmen-tal mindset. Children’s media use is often surrounded by controversies, worries, and even media panics (Butsch,2008, p. 118). Negative views on children and the media may effectively hinder adults from taking children’s perspectives and learning from them, which in turn limit their possibilities to promote digital competence. However, when engaging in this work that is closely related to chil-dren’s own digital worlds and private lives educators need to carefully reflect on boundaries and transgressions, and how to respect children’s integrity.
The present study has provided insights into teachers’ work with responsible online communi-cation in Swedish LTCs. Future research could explore how similar institutions in other countries work with this aspect of digital competence. It is relevant to further explore how spontaneous and planned learning situations are shaped and utilized. This study indicates that planned learning activi-ties are used to a lesser extent, however, further studies are needed to get an understanding of the different ways of working more systematically with responsible online communication. Action research projects could also be conducted where researchers, teachers, and children together develop new didactic approaches.
It is also relevant to further explore the ways in which teachers in LTCs– as well as other groups of teachers– mediate children’s media use through interacting with children in social media. There can be both positive and problematic aspects with engaging in co-use in this particular way, and future research could explore the consequences of this mediation strategy more in detail. Moreover, children’s perspectives on the ways in which teachers approach children’s digital media use also merit exploration.
This study has focused on the LTC. However, there is also limited research on how teachers work with promoting responsible online communication in compulsory school. Future research could explore how teachers in different subjects, and with children in different age groups, work with issues
related to responsible communication. All adults, including parents and teachers, play a role in developing children’s digital competence. By extending this research further, and by reflecting on this research in teacher education, adults can become better prepared to work with responsible online communication. This is highly relevant in a digitizing society, where digital media is an inte-grated part of most children’s everyday lives.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Carolina Martinez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9119-3666
References
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. Publications Office of the European Union.http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC67075_TN.pdf
Barkhuus, L., & Lecusay, R. (2012). Social infrastructures as barriers and foundation for informal learning: Technology integration in an urban after-school center. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 21(1), 81–103.https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9157-3
Bauman, E. B. (2013). Game-based teaching and simulation in nursing and health care. Springer. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage.
Butsch, R. (2008). The citizen audience. Routledge.
Chang, C.-M., & Chou, C. (2015). An exploratory study of young students’ core virtues of e-character education: The Taiwanese teachers’ perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 44(4), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240. 2015.1048791
Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21(4), 323–343.https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x
Daneels, R., & Vanwynsberghe, H. (2017). Mediating social media use: Connecting parents’ mediation strategies and social media literacy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(3), 1–13.https://doi.org/ 10.5817/CP2017-3-5
Davidsson, P., Palm, M., & Melin Mandre, Å. (2018). Svenskarna och internet 2018 [The Swedes and the Internet 2018]. Internetstiftelsen.https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2018.pdf
Davis, K., & Fullerton, S. (2016). Connected learning in and after school: Exploring technology’s role in the learning experiences of diverse high school students. The Information Society, 32(2), 98–116.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01972243.2016.1130498
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468
DeSmet, A., Aelterman, N., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2015). Secondary school educators’ perceptions and practices in handling cyberbullying among adolescents: A cluster analysis. Computers & Education, 88, 192–201.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu. 2015.05.006
EUR-Lex. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2018.189.01.0001.01. ENG&toc=OJ:C:2018:189:TOC
Giménez-Gualdo, A.-M., Arnaiz-Sánchez, P., Cerezo-Ramírez, F., & Prodócimo, E. (2018). Teachers’ and students’ perception about cyberbullying: Intervention strategies in primary and secondary education. Comunicar, 26(56), 29–38.https://doi.org/10.3916/C56-2018-03
Hansen Orwehag, M., & Mårdsjö Olsson, A.-C. (2011). Lärande i fria miljöer [Learning in free spaces]. In A. Klerfelt & B. Haglund (Eds.), Fritidspedagogik– fritidshemmets teorier och praktiker [Leisure-time pedagogy – theories and practice of the leisure-time center] (pp. 115–136). Liber AB.
Hjalmarsson, M., & Löfdahl, A. (2014). Omsorg i svenska fritidshem: Fritidspedagogers etiska förmåga och konsek-venser för barn [Care in Swedish leisure-time centers: Leisure-time teachers’ ethical abilities and consequences for children]. Barn, 3, 91–105.https://doi.org/10.5324/barn.v33i3.3503
Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence– an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-014-9346-4
Kalmus, V. (2013). Making sense of the social mediation of children’s Internet use: Perspectives for interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research. In C. W. Wijnen, S. Trültzsch, & C. Ortner (Eds.), Medienwelten im Wandel [Changing media worlds] (pp. 137–149). Springer.
Karaseva, A., Siibak, A., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2015). Relationships between teachers` pedagogical beliefs, subject cultures, and mediation practices of students’ use of digital technology. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), 1–6.https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-6
Klerfelt, A. (2006). Cyberage narratives: Creative computing in after-school centres. Childhood, 13(2), 175–203.https:// doi.org/10.1177/0907568206062928
Klerfelt, A. (2017). To author yourself: Teachers in Swedish school-age educare centres describe their professional iden-tity. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 5(2), 133–149.https://doi.org/10.3224/ijree.v5i2.02 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
Lager, K., Sheridan, S., & Gustafsson, J. (2016). Systematic quality development in a Swedish leisure-time centre. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 694–708.https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066434 Lecusay, R. (2014). Building zones of proximal development with computer games in a U-C Links after-school
pro-gram. International Journal of Research in Extended Education, 2(2), 13–26.https://doi.org/10.3224/ijree.v2i2.19544 Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Duquesne University Press.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed). Sage.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ 33731/1/Risks%20and%20safety%20on%20the%20internet%28lsero%29.pdf
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599.https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396
Livingstone, S., Olafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupianez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277
Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net children go mobile: Risks and opportunities (2nd ed.). Educatt.http:// netchildrengomobile.eu/reports/
Micheli, M. (2013). New media literacies in after-school settings: Three curricula from the program“explore Locally, Excel Digitally” at Robert F. Kennedy Community schools in Los Angeles. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 331– 350.https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.14.4.331_7
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2011). The“inside” and the “outside”: finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 131–148). Sage.
Rapley, T. (2007). Interviews. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 15–33). Sage.
Saar, T., Löfdahl, A., & Hjalmarsson, M. (2012). Kunskapsmöjligheter i svenska fritidshem [Knowledge possibilities in Swedish leisure-time centers]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 5(3), 1–13.https://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.315
Scheuermann, L., & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet Research, 7(4), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10662249710187268
Shin, W., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). How does“talking about the Internet with others” affect teenagers’ experience of online risks? The role of active mediation by parents, peers, and school teachers. New Media and Society, 19(7), 1109–1126.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815626612
Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Polity Press.
Stephens, N. (2007). Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: Telephone and face-to-face interviews with macroe-conomists. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 203–216.https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107076020
Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118.https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104041110
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011 [Curriculum for elementary school, the pre-school class, and the leisure-time center] (Reviderad 2018).https:// www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d48d/1553968042333/pdf3975.pdf
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2019). Elever och personal i fritidshem läsåret 2018/19 [Pupils and staff in the LTC, year 2018/19]. https://www.skolverket.se/portletresource/4.6bfaca41169863e6a65d9f5/12. 6bfaca41169863e6a65d9fe?file=4085
Vakil, S. (2014). A critical pedagogy approach for engaging urban youth in mobile app development in an after-school program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 31–45.https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.866869 Van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact: Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do. Left Coast Press. Zaman, B., Nouwen, M., Vanattenhoven, J., de Ferrerre, E., & Looy, J. V. (2016). A qualitative inquiry into the
con-textualized parental mediation practices of young children’s digital media use at home. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 1–22.https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127240
