This study is part of a larger Nordic research project, including a series of substudies with a common research objective of examining teachers’ didactical design in one-to-one computing classrooms in Denmark, Sweden and Finland (Jahnke et al., 2017). In this research project, one didactical design represents one lesson, which is documented through classroom observations, written documentation, photographs, and audio recordings. In addition to this teacher interviews are conducted to corroborate discoveries from other data.

The findings presented in this paper is based on 14 teacher interviews in grades 7-9 in Finland. The analysis is a triangulation of findings (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) from one earlier analysis of the observational data from the same Finnish substudy. The main discoveries of the first analysis revealed two clusters related to power and control as described by Berstein (2000). The first cluster involved practices described as rather traditional where the teachers make the decisions, while the second cluster involved practices described as student active where students are involved in making decisions (Bergström, submitted 2018). Regarding this issue, Laurillard and Derntl (2014) argue that one aspect of design concerns the extent to which students are allowed to take some control in the teaching and learning process. Otherwise, they warn that the use of ICTs can simply replicate previous traditions for teaching and learning. Further, in Klein and Kleinman’s (2002) perspective on the social construction of technology the enacted didactical design in the one-to-one computing classroom should be considered as a design process. In this process, power indicates the interaction between teachers and students, the rules that order the interactions, and how other factors contribute to differences in theirrelationship.

The concept of didactical design is used based on the European tradition of Didaktik regarding the teacher–student–content triad (Klafki, 2000). These are all relays of symbolic power and control. Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) concepts of classification and framing were found to be helpful for analysing such relations. The concept of classification refers to power relations that emerge between objects (e.g. desks) or contexts, as either strong or weak. Strong classification, can be found in classrooms with desks organised in straight lines, whereas weak classification indicates distribution of power based on increased “disorder” (e.g. desks in groups). The concept of framing refers to the locus of control in the teachers’ narratives with regard to the selection and sequence of content, pacing, evaluation and hierarchical between teacher-student and student-student. If framing is strong, teachers are in control, for example how fast the content shall be acquired, while weak framing indicates increased possibilities for students to affect the pace.

This project was conducted during the transition from the 2004 Finnish national curriculum to the 2016 national curriculum that emphasised, among other things, digital competence. However, implementing digital devices, and in this case at a 1:1 ratio, is in many ways a challenge for the ecology of the classroom (Håkansson Lindqvist, 2015). It is known from earlier research that ICT-implementation needs to be pedagogically integrated in order to be of use for learning (Genlott & Grönlund, 2016). It is the teachers’ didactical design and orchestration of the classroom activities that determine the success of the 1:1 implementation in the classroom (Jahnke, Norqvist & Olsson, 2014).

The aim is to contribute to a deeper understanding of Finnish teachers’ didactical design in one-to-one computing classrooms. More specifically: How do the two clusters, pertaining to power and control, relate to how teachers reflect on their motives and intentions in their planning, their ideas about learning and assessment, as well as perceived changes from introducing one-to-one computing?

Fourteen semi-structured teacher interviews were conducted at two schools. These teachers (9 female; 5 male) were selected based on suggestions from the principals, because of their frequent use of one-to-one computing in their teaching. The work experience of the sample ranged between 2 and 40 years. The interview themes covered: teacher background, planning, learning, assessment, and perceptions of change. The teachers were given the opportunity to explain their motives and intentions for the iPad integration during the observed lecture, and the researchers were able to ask questions related to these classroom practices. Thus, the interviews were similar to a retrospective ethnographic interview with elements of stimulated recall, as teachers often went back to the digital devices to show content and apps (Dempsey, 2010). Each interview were conducted by either two or three researchers, lasting approximately 60 minutes. They were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The purpose for conducting the teacher interviews was to be able to triangulate these data with the prior observational data. Data triangulation is used to cross-validate sources of data against each other during analysis. This is a verification against error in the research process, as multiple methods provide stronger evidence, decrease potential weaknesses of any single method (Brannen, 2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) and prevent biased perspectives due to methodological distortion (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2007). A true triangulation is done by integrating multiple types of data during analysis, in contrast to merely comparing findings (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A qualitative content analysis was made on all interview transcripts using the QSR NVivo software. In the first phase, each meaning unit was coded separately in accordance to the themes: planning, learning, assessment, and perceptions of change. These were, furthermore, divided into a number of subcategories. During the second phase of coding, meaning condensations were made for each coded meaning unit, in order to further reduce the material (Flick, 1998/2002). The third phase consisted of an integrated data analysis, using both interview and observational data. Each of the 14 teachers were given attribute values (Bazeley, 2007) of their designated power-cluster, resulting in seven teachers in each cluster. This dichotomised classification of teachers was then correlated to the coded subcategories.

Not only do the teachers have to be content experts, but they also have to configure and orchestrate artefacts, environment, and people (Goodyear & Dimitriadis, 2013). Prior findings based on observational data (Bergström et al. 2017) illustrate how teachers’ arrangements of the classroom space create different privileging teaching practices. Such practices indicate how teachers’ design in practice constrained by the precondition of the classroom space. But why do they choose certain practices? This phase of the larger Nordic study focused on triangulating interview data with observational data from the Finnish substudy. It targeted how teachers talked about their own perceptions, expectations, and attitudes towards the change the one-to-one tablet introduction had brought to their classrooms. But most importantly, it presented the opportunity to further explain differences in perceptions and motives for planning, learning, and assessment between the power-and-control-based clusters of teachers (cf. Bernstein 1990; 2000) found in the prior analysis. It is expected that these two patterns of didactical design in relation to power and control will also be visible in teachers’ reflections during the retrospective interviews. The triangulation of data enables an examination of the subcategories of each theme. The first two phases of this second analysis of the Finnish substudy have resulted in a number of subcategories derived from the interview data. For instance, the theme Planning a lecture include the following subcategories: activating students, considering emotions, producing material, instructional design, iPad integration, learning goals, curriculum guidance, furnishing the room, collaboration, and providing teasers for engagement. The theme Learning includes the following subcategories: adjustment to learner needs, feedback, feed forward, focus on the learning process, peer learning, motivation, repetition, scaffolding, documentation, and students taking own initiative. The theme Assessment includes how teachers reflected on assessment criteria, students own interest, group work, holistic assessment, communicating assessment criteria to students, self-assessment, and assessing students’ class activity.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. Second Edition. Sage Publications. Bergström, P., Mårell-Olsson, E., & Jahnke, I. (2017). Variations of symbolic power and control in the one-to-one computing classroom: Swedish teachers’ enacted didactical design decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse (Vol. 4). London and New York: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (Revised Edition ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Brannen, J. 2005. Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methods, 8, 173-184. Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33(3), 349-367. Flick, U. (1998/2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Sage Publications. Genlott, A. A., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Closing the gaps: Improving literacy and mathematics by ict-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99, 68-80. Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-13. Håkansson Lindqvist, M. (2015). Conditions for Technology Enhanced Learning and Educational Change. A case study of a 1:1 initiative. (Doctoral Compilation), Umeå university, Umeå. Hodkinson, P., & Macleod, F. (2007). Contrasting concepts of learning and contrasting research methodologies. Paper presented at Educational Research and TLRP Annual Conference Cardiff, 26-27 November. Jahnke, I., Bergström, P., Mårell-Olsson, E., Häll, L., & Kumar, S. (2017). Digital Didactical Designs as research framework: iPad integration in Nordic schools. Computers & Education. 113 (1-15). Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.006 Jahnke, I., Norqvist, L., & Olsson, A. (2014). Digital Didactical Designs of Learning Expeditions. Lecture notes in Computer Science 8719. Rensing et al (Eds). Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities. Paper presented at the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning EC-TEL 2014, Graz, Austria. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Research. 33, 14-26. Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik Analysis as the Core of Preparing Instruction. In A. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice (pp. 139-156). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Klein, H.K., & Kleinman, D.L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology and Human Values. 27 (1), 28-52. Laurillard, D., & Derntl, M. (2014). Learner Centred Design - Overview. In Y. Mor, H. Mellar, Warburton, Steven, & N. Winters (Eds.), Practical design patterns for teaching and learning with technology (pp. 13-16). Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense.