Through the eyes of others: How teachers and students influence student’s sensemaking of in- class ICT use

(1)

Through the eyes of others: How teachers and

students influence student’s sensemaking of

in-class ICT use

Submitted by

Lieke Anna Knip

MSc Business Administration Change Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Supervisor: Dr. M.L. Hage & Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

Second Assessor: Dr. B. Müller

(2)

Abstract

This research addresses the question how students make sense of in-class ICT use and how onlookers influence this process, based on a qualitative study at a university in the Netherlands. Using a sociomaterial practice perspective and building on research about sensemaking, the different sensemaking processes: perceiving cues, interpretation and enactment are analysed. Also, the influence of the teacher and peer students, as different types of onlookers (i.e. actors for whom the use of ICT is visible, but who are not directly involved in the Person-ICT interactions) is explored. This research reveals that both users and onlookers make sense of in-class ICT use and influence each other in those sensemaking processes. This results in new norms about in-class ICT use. Altogether, this research provides an explanation of how users make sense of technology-in-use and the influence of onlookers on this process.

(3)

Introduction

Interactive information and communication technologies (ICT), such as smartphones, laptops and the Internet, are becoming increasingly important in our everyday lives and educational system. Nowadays, classrooms are full of screens, row upon row show students using their laptop, tablet and even smartphone (Sana, Weston & Capeda, 2013). Research shows that in Higher Education 79% of the students use a laptop, 18% a tablet and even 97% admit looking at their smartphone during class (Crompton & Burke, 2018; Furst, Evans & Roderick, 2017).

The introduction of ICT into the Higher Education classroom is an incremental change, that

changed the existing teaching and learning tools and the way teachers and students interact with each other (Kay & Lauricella, 2015). However, the teaching methods have not significantly changed, since teaching with an assessment system based on grades is still the predominant approach (Oluwatumbi, 2015; Zovko, 2016). With the increasing use of ICT arises the question how to effectively use ICT in-class (Patterson & Patterson, 2017). Hence, in-in-class ICT use received widespread attention in the literature over the last couple of years. According to Kay & Lauricella (2015), ICT is a useful tool in Higher Education due to the benefits it offers to both teachers and students, such as new methods of delivering education, easy access to educational content and collaborative and personalized learning. (Fitch, 2004; Oluwatumbi, 2015). However, there is also a potential dark side to in-class ICT use. A major challenge is that ICT can be easily distracting. Not only one’s own use, but also the ICT use of others can be distracting (Barak, Lipson & Lerman, 2006; Fried, 2008).

(5)

separation between the technology user and the onlooker. They plead for research in a setting without such clear-cut distinction, for example an educational setting: whereby students can be both users and onlookers at the same time (Sergeeva et al., 2017). Hence, the second aim of this research is to explore whether and how teachers and students, as different types of onlookers, influence the sensemaking process of students and their use of ICT in-class. This will likely reveal how different actors interact in sensemaking in the same context, a gap in the sensemaking literature acknowledged by Maitlis (2005). Additionally, prior research only investigated ICT use in classes where ICT use was obligatory and structured. Therefore, this research focuses on higher educational settings where ICT use is optional, which means that students are free to use ICT in their own way (Sana et al., 2013).

Altogether, this research aims to fill these gaps by taking on a sensemaking perspective to explore how students use ICT in a voluntary setting, how students make sense of their in-class ICT use and how onlookers influence this process. Thereby, this research does not only extend previous research on sensemaking of technology-in-use, but also has relevance for practice by providing insights in how to effectively use and manage ICT in-class (Gherardi, 2017; Patterson & Patterson, 2017; Tallvid, 2016). To achieve those contributions, data will be collected at a master program at a Dutch University. To address the literature gaps and achieve the contributions, this research is guided by the following research questions: “How do students make sense of in-class ICT use?” and “How do

onlookers influence this sensemaking process?”.

This paper starts with a review of the existing literature on the sociomaterial practice perspective, in-class ICT use, the role of teachers, students and onlookers and sensemaking. Next, the method section describes how and where the empirical data was collected and analysed. Thereafter, the research findings are presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results, including theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

A sociomaterial practice perspective on in-class ICT use

The last few decades, research into ICT has grown and evolved. However, Leonardi (2012) and Orlikowski & Scott (2008) point out that only 5% of the published articles in leading journals about organization studies and management take into account the role and influence of ICT. Previous research on technology can be categorized in three streams, based on the taken perspective: a techno-centric perspective, a human-centred perspective and a sociomaterial practice perspective.

The techno-centric perspective, focuses on how technology (the material) influences human

(6)

2000; Orlikowski, 2007). This perspective is more concentrated on the social part of technology use and minimizes the role of the technology itself, which is called social determinism (Leonardi, 2012; Orlikowksi & Scott, 2008). The sociomaterial practice perspective, focuses on both the social (e.g. individuals, norms) and material (e.g. technology) and assumes that the social and material are constitutively entangled in practice (Knorr Cetina, 1997; Orlikowksi, 2007). In other words, the social and material are not seen as distinct and independent phenomena, but as interrelated and interconnected by influencing and shaping each other. Meaning that not only the social nor the material determines what is done in practice, but the interaction and relation between the two does (Barad, 2003; Gherardi, 2000; Leonardi, 2011; Orlikowski, 2007; Schatzki, Knorr Cetina & Savigny, 2001).

Sociomaterial practice refers to the ongoing everyday situated activities that melt the social and material together and define their relationships in a locally defined social space. These activities are performed through interconnections and interactions between the social and material (Gherardi, 2009; Leonardi, 2012). Over time this results in temporary norms, values and habits of action, that structure future activities (Gherardi 2009; Schatzki et al., 2001). In other words, the social and material are not only shaping but also being shaped by practice (Leonardi, 2012).

This research assumes that the use of ICT in the classroom is sociomaterial, since it is about the entanglement between the student and the technology. This entanglement occurs in a sociomaterial practice, namely the teaching and learning practices that take place in the classroom. Whereby the classroom acts as the context for the sociomaterial practice. Hence, this research takes on a sociomaterial practice perspective on in-class ICT use.

In-class ICT use

Nowadays, ICT is disrupting all kinds of industries, including the educational sector (Wade, 2015). ICT can be described as any digital device used for informational and communicative purposes, such as laptops and smartphones (Abramova, Baumann, Krasnova & Lessmann, 2017). Since digital devices become more and more affordable, portable and accessible, more students and teachers take their devices to and use them in class (Elliott-Dorans, 2018). This changed the teaching and learning tools. Teaching methods, however, have not changed since teaching with an assessment system based on grades is still the predominant approach (Oluwatumbi, 2015; Zovko, 2016). Nevertheless, the use of digital devices in class differs among institutions, subject areas and even students taking the same class. Therefore, the use of ICT in higher education is uneven, sporadic and often ineffective (Selwyn, 2003) and comes with both benefits and challenges.

(7)

ways of teaching (Youssef & Dahmani, 2008). Also, the use of ICT stimulates interaction between students and teachers, for example by establishing closer connections (Driver, 2002; Fairchild et al., 2016).

On the other hand, one of the major challenges of in-class ICT use, is that ICT can easily distract students and disengage them from the course-content and class interaction (Barak et al., 2006, Fried, 2008). Digital devices are not only used for academic purposes, but also for messaging among peers, using social media, playing games, sending personal emails and watching movies (Barak, et al., 2006; Bugeja, 2007; Fried, 2008). This results in distractive multitasking, in which students engage 42% of the time during class (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010). When students distractively multitask, they need to switch their focus back and forth between the course-related and non-course related material, which increases the time needed to process, learn and apply information (Fried, 2008). On top of this, students are distracted by the ICT use of other students: such as pop-ups, movement of images and screen lighting (Bhave, 2002; Fried, 2008; Sana et al., 2013). These challenges negatively affect academic performance of students, since students who use their digital devices in class write down 60% less information and score lower on tests (Fried, 2008; Sana et al., 2013).

Expanding the benefits and overcoming the challenges is necessary to successfully integrate and effectively use ICT in-class. How this happens, depends on how teachers and students deal with in-class ICT use (Collins & Halverson, 2009). According to Weick (1990), the use of innovative technologies, such as ICT, is determined by its design and the interpretation and meanings users and other actors ascribe to it. In other words, how users make sense of a technology influences how they use it. Hence, it seems unlikely that ICT has a uniform effect on all users (Fairchild et al., 2016). Therefore, this research looks into the process of sensemaking. In order to understand how sense about in-class ICT use is made, it is necessary first to examine the different actors and their roles in the classroom.

The most important actors

Among the most important actors of in-class ICT use, are teachers and students (Fairchild, et al, 2016). Students do not use ICT in-class in isolation, but in the sociomaterial context of the classroom with teachers and peer students as other human actors. It is assumed that students are influenced by teachers and peer students when making sense of and using ICT in-class, because they draw on the opinions, views and actions of teachers and peer students when using technology (Sergeeva et al., 2017; Weick, 1995). Therefore, this part describes the role of teachers and students in the classroom, as well as their role as onlooker.

The teacher. When looking at factors that influence students’ in-class ICT use, the teacher is

(8)

integrate it in their lessons and thereby increase the effectiveness of using ICT in-class for students as well. In that sense, they act as a role-model for students (Sang, Valcke, Van Braak, Tondeur & Zhu, 2011; Selwyn, 2003).

The student. Students are the active consumers of teaching and learning processes and users of

ICT in-class (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Selwyn, 2003). They are called “digital natives”, as they grew up with technology (Hao, Liu, von Davier & Kyllonen, 2017; Prensky, 2001). Due to their constant exposure to and interaction with technology, they have different norms and values, think differently and process information differently than previous generations (Elliott-Dorans, 2018; Prensky, 2001). These differences are often not taken into account in the traditional teaching methods, which can lead to discrepancies between what students need and expect of education and what they actually get (Patterson & Patterson, 2017; Zovko, 2016). Since there are no rules and guidelines about how to use ICT in-class and ICT use at university is mostly optional, students are free to use ICT in their own way, leading to different ways in which ICT is used in-class (Sana et al., 2013).

The onlooker. In the classroom, teachers and students do not only have the role of a teacher or

student, but also of an onlooker. Onlookers are the actors for whom the use of technology is visible, but who are not directly involved in the Person-ICT interactions (Sergeeva et al., 2017). When people interact with technology, aspects of their use become visible to others, such as manner of use, duration of use and (non)verbal behaviour (Leonardi, 2015). Research showed that onlookers affect how users use technology, which is called “the onlooker effect” (Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Sergeeva et al., 2017). Since users and onlookers act in the same sociomaterial context, they develop and change social norms around appropriate ICT use together. For example, think of what happens to people who are texting during meetings; they try to hide their smartphone and change their behaviour in the presence of onlookers, because of the social norm of not texting during meetings. Thus, onlookers are able to exert influence on how others use technology (Sergeeva et al., 2017).

(9)

Sensemaking

Sensemaking refers to the process by which people seek to understand complex, uncertain, equivocal or ambiguous cues, such as events, concepts or situations (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). Sensemaking occurs most of the time when there is a perceived gap between the current and expected state of the world or when there is no obvious way to engage the world (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). The process of sensemaking is influenced by context, language, cognitive frames, identity, emotion, politics and technology (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).

This research uses the definition of Weick et al., (2005, p.409) that define the sensemaking process as: “a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances.”. In other words, sensemaking is about understanding situations and deciding what to do (Weick, 1995).

In this research three interweaving processes of sensemaking are highlighted: the perception of cues, interpretation and enactment (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick, 2012). This research focuses on all three processes, since most sensemaking studies only investigated one part of the processes or did not make a distinction between the different processes (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Therefore, more research about all three processes and how they interact and interweave is needed. Hence, this research examines the three processes from a sociomaterial practice perspective.

The first part of the sensemaking process, the perception of cues, is also known as noticing or extracting cues from the experienced situation (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). The perceived cues can stem from situations, actions, issues and events (Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995). They act as trigger for sensemaking, when one of the following triggering conditions is present: novelty, uncertainty, ambiguity, encountering difficulties and discrepancy between what is expected and what is observed (Fairchild, et al., 2016; Louis & Sutton, 1991; Maitlis, 2005; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). To trigger sensemaking, simply the presence of a triggering condition is not enough, but the situation or event must actually be perceived as such (Louis & Sutton, 1991). This research focuses on two types of triggers: the type of in-class ICT use and onlookers.

According to Weick (1990), ICT is equivocal: it can be interpreted in different ways among

individuals and can be subject to uncertainty, complexity and misunderstandings. This triggers a need for understanding how and when to use ICT (Griffith, 1999; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Therefore, it is assumed that novel, uncertain, ambiguous, difficult or discrepant in-class ICT use, acts as a trigger for sensemaking (Fried, 2008; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). However, when the ICT use is perceived as appropriate according to the norms and values held in the classroom, e.g. taking notes, then it might not trigger sensemaking.

(10)

Interpretation is about the extension of the initial generated sense, by developing a complete

and narrative organized sense of the situation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). This is influenced by peoples’ social identity, frame of reference and past experiences (Baez, García & Ibáñez, 2018, Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). When the perceived cues from the environment are interpreted, people start acting upon this, which is called enactment (Maitlis, 2005).

Enactment is about taking action in the ongoing sensemaking process. People start building

narratives and dialogues about their experiences, which helps them to understand what they think, reduce complexity and predict events to keep up with the world around them (Weick, 1995). Through enactment, people test whether their understanding of the perceived cue is sufficient. In other words, action provides people with feedback about their sensemaking and helps them to undertake the most appropriate action (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). When people undertake action, this may create new cues that again trigger sensemaking. This shows the iterative nature of the sensemaking process, that occurs through continuous cycles of perceiving cues, interpreting, taking action and receiving feedback (Weick, 1995; Weick, 2012).

Sensemaking in a sociomaterial context.Sensemaking is a social process, it does not happen

in isolation, but in and through interactions with social and material actors (Barad, 2003; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Yet, little is known about the influence of these actors on sensemaking (Maitlis, 2005). This research addresses this gap by looking at sensemaking from a sociomaterial practice perspective, to explain how students use and make sense of ICT in the classroom, in which users, onlookers and the devices used are actors.

This research assumes that the sensemaking process is triggered and takes place in the classroom as a sociomaterial context in which the teaching and learning practices take place. These practices are sociomaterial, since they emerge from the interactions and relations between teachers and students (i.e. social actors) and the ICT used in-class (i.e. material actors) (Fenwick & Edwards, 2013). Over time, these practices result in norms and values about appropriate in-class ICT use, which structure the interactions, ICT-use and sensemaking that take place in the classroom (Gherardi 2000; Kelchtermans, 2009; Maitlis; 2005). Therefore, it is assumed that the sociomaterial context influences how students use and make sense of ICT in-class (Leonardi, 2012).

The Conceptual Framework

(11)

Receiving cues Perceiving cues Perce iving cues Givin g off c ues

Weick, 1995). Second, onlookers may trigger sensemaking. The onlooker observes and receives cues about the in-class ICT use of students. Based on the received cues, the onlooker gives off cues to the student.

The type of in-class ICT use and the onlooker may trigger sensemaking when one or more triggering conditions are present. This emphasizes that sensemaking depends on the individual perception of cues: when an individual perceives the use of in-class ICT as novel, someone else can perceive the same use as uncertain, accordingly both individuals make sense in their own way.

When one of the triggering conditions is present the perceived cues about the in-class ICT use or cues given off by the onlooker, may trigger a need for understanding and explanation and thus the interpretation process (Weick, 1995; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). It is assumed that, the way students interpret those cues is based on the norms and values about appropriate in-class ICT use held in the classroom as the sociomaterial context. After the student has interpreted the perceived cues, the student may take action, which is enactment. Those actions can lead to adjustments to or continuation of the type of in-class ICT use, that can generate new cues and again trigger the sensemaking process.

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework

The Classroom as a Sociomaterial Context

Interpretation Triggers for

sensemaking Student’s (User) Sensemaking

(12)

Methods

To make the results of this research more controllable, this part explains in detail how the study is executed by describing the research design and methods for data collection and analysis (van Aken, Berend & Van der Bij, 2012).

Research Design

The aim of this empirical research is to explore how students make sense of in-class ICT use and how this is influenced by onlookers. Since these phenomena are not examined thoroughly in the literature yet, a theory development approach is used. First, literature was gathered about the phenomena which resulted in a conceptual framework, see Figure 1, that guided the data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989; van Aken et al., 2012). Thereafter, qualitative data was gathered by doing a case study to find empirical evidence for the relationships proposed in the conceptual framework with the aim of refining them, if necessary (van Aken et al., 2012).

The case study method involves investigating situations in which the phenomena of interest are present in a real-life setting (Yin, 2013). According to Yin (2013) this approach is suitable for exploring and understanding a phenomenon in depth, by posing a “how” question, as in this research. The case of this research, which is described in greater detail in Appendix 1, is the use of ICT in-class during lectures and tutorials of a master program consisting of five different tracks at a university in the Netherlands. The unit of analysis is both at individual and relational level: the student and their interactions with ICT and onlookers are analysed.

Data Collection

Data collection primarily relied on non-participant observations and focus group discussions (FGD). This triangulation approach was chosen to ensure data collection in a valid and reliable manner (Yin, 2013). A qualitative approach is useful for understanding social interactions and processes, such as how people make decisions, but also to understand people’s views, beliefs and behaviours (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Since the aim of this research is to understand how students make sense of in-class ICT use and the influence of onlookers on this process, it is necessary to understand their social interactions and behaviours. Therefore, a qualitative approach is most suitable. Observations. Observations were made by the researcher during a period of four weeks in

(13)

Before the observations started, the teacher(s) of the selected courses were contacted in order to ask for consent to observe. This way, the teacher acted as gatekeeper and gave the researcher access to the class and students (Hennink et al, 2011). At the start of each observation, participants were informed about the observations, the topic and purpose of the research - in general terms - and the confidentiality with which their data was treated (Hennink et al., 2011).

The observer had the role of non-participant, which means that she was present on the scene, but only observed and did not participate during the class nor interacted with the teacher and students. A detailed description of how the observations were made and the role of the observer can be found in Appendix 2.1.

The aim of the observations was to stay close to the actual observed behaviours. To accomplish this and to overcome a bias in the findings, an open observation scheme was used (Hennink et al., 2011), see Appendix 2. A printed version of this scheme was used to overcome distraction of participants by the observer using a device (Hennink et al, 2011).

At the start of each observation, a map of the classroom was drawn to show the position of the teacher(s), students, observer and devices used. All participants were given a participant code to ensure confidentiality. Individual participants were observed for five minutes, which was long enough to get insights in what they were actually doing and left enough time to observe other individuals as well. In total, 71 students were observed for five minutes and seven teachers for two times five minutes. How those individual participants were chosen, as well as the observation scheme used, is described in Appendix 2.2. Besides individual observations, the classroom as a whole and the break were observed for five minutes to get insights in the classroom dynamics. The observation schemes used for this can be found in Appendix 2.3 and 2.4 respectively.

During the first observation the researcher mainly focused on interactions between students in small groups. This did not reveal any information about how individual students used ICT in-class, therefore the observation scheme was adjusted and an individual observation scheme was included, see Appendix 2.2. This allowed the researcher to focus on the following aspects: actual behaviours, devices used (e.g. laptop or notebook), purposes of use (e.g. device showing Word to take notes or social media) and interactions between human and non-human actors (e.g. use, talking, eye contact). No specific attention was paid to the onlooker effect during the observations, since this effect emerged from the data when it was analysed and coded.

The insights from the observations were used as input for the FGD, to get a deeper understanding of what actually happened and to identify the discrepancies between what people say they do and what they actually do (Hennink et al, 2011). Examples of in-class ICT use and interactions that emerged from the data were used as illustrations for FGD questions. Furthermore, the observations were used to build rapport with the participants, which made it easier to recruit participants for the FGD (Hennink et al., 2011).

Focus Group Discussions. Additional to the observations, FGD were held to gain a deeper

(14)

of gathering explorative data (Krueger, 1988; Puchta & Potter, 2004). FGD were chosen over in-depth interviews, because they enable interaction and discussion between participants, whereas interviews focus on a conversation between the interviewer and participant (Morgan, 1997). These interactions and discussions stimulate participants to go beyond a single answer response and to elaborate on personal experiences with, feelings about and perspectives on the research topic. This provided a deeper understanding of the research topic, which was useful since this research looked for data about the relational level as well (Hennink, et al., 2011).

The FGD were held in November 2018. In total five FGD were done of 75-90 minutes with 4-7 participants, so all participants had the opportunity to share their views and different topics could be discussed (Hennink et al., 2011). The first two FGD were with only teachers (N=6, N=5), the third one was a mix of teachers (N=4) and students (N=3) and the fourth and fifth were with only students (N=6, N=6). Those groups were chosen to be able to examine differences and similarities between perceptions of teachers and students about in-class ICT use and how they interacted with each other. Two teachers participated in both the teacher and mixed FGD, so in total there were 28 participants, from which fourteen were female and fourteen male. Some of the participants were already observed, others were new to the research. This was done in order to be able to verify the observations and avoid tunnel vision (Yin, 2014). More information about how the participants were recruited, can be found in Appendix 3.1. The FGD were held at the university, whereby the participants sat around a table in order to be able to have eye contact. The discussion was moderated by the researcher and observed by an assistant using an observation scheme, see Appendix 3.2. Furthermore, the FGD were audio-taped to enable accurate transcribing and to make the coding process more reliable.

For each type of FGD (teachers, students and mix) a different discussion guide was used, see Appendix 3.3, to structure the FGD and ensure that all topics were covered (Hennink et al., 2011). In addition to these guides, participants were encouraged to ask each other questions. The guides were based on literature and findings from the observations. After a pilot-test, which was done with a group of students that had the same characteristics as the participants, the discussion guides were improved and assessed by an expert with theoretical knowledge about the concepts to enhance construct validity (Hennink et al., 2011). Initially, the FGD were designed to examine how students and teachers interacted in class and influenced each other’s sensemaking. However, since the onlooker effect emerged during the observations, the discussion guides were adjusted and questions about the onlooker effect were added. The first questions were about the participants own in-class ICT use. Regarding sensemaking, participants were asked about their experiences with, feelings about and reactions to in-class ICT use. In order to examine the onlooker effect, participants were asked about their experiences with, feelings about and reactions to the in-class ICT use of others. Additionally, students were asked how they felt about their use and how they felt when others looked at them. Each FGD the questions were refined inductively based on the findings of earlier FGD.

(15)

confidentiality of the data, build rapport and decrease the potential for a deference effect, which means that participants say what they think the moderator wants to hear, rather than expressing their own opinion (Hennink et al., 2011; Krueger, 1988). At the beginning of each FGD, written consent and the demographics of the participants were asked, those forms can be found in Appendix 4 and 5 respectively. Data Analysis

Data was analysed in two different analytical cycles. First the observations were analysed and used as input for the FGD, then the FGD were analysed, after which the researcher looked at all data again. Observations. Immediately after the observations, when everything was still fresh in mind, the

notes were transcribed on a laptop and additional observations were added. After four observations, the researcher started coding the data in Atlas.ti 8.3. The analysis started with open coding and was initially aimed at exploring how students used ICT in-class and how teachers and students interacted. This resulted in codes as: device used, (in)directly course-related use (e.g. taking notes), recreational use

(e.g. WhatsApp), talking to peer student, asking and looking at the teacher After the first round of coding

the onlooker effect was found, by codes as: looking at user, walking towards user and talking to user as reaction of the onlooker to ICT use and looking up from device, hiding device and adjusting use as reaction of the user to the onlooker. Therefore, the researcher decided to focus on the onlooker effect instead of interactions in general. After open coding, relationships among the codes were identified and clustered in axial codes, such as: type of use and moment of use, that referred to in-class ICT use of students, aspects of use and behaviour of students, which referred to what onlookers observed about the in-class ICT use and specific reactions, general reactions, continue use and adjusting use that showed the reactions of onlookers and users. Finally, links between the different concepts were identified through selective coding.

The entire coding process of both observations and FGD was recorded in the same codebook

that can be found in Appendix 6. Additional to the qualitative analysis, an excel sheet was used to quantify data about the devices used in class (Table 1).

Device or combination of devices Percentage of students

Laptop 29%

Smartphone 6%

Tablet 1%

Paper* 19%

No Device 5%

Laptop & Smartphone 16%

Laptop & Paper 7%

Smartphone & Paper 14%

Laptop, Smartphone & Paper 3%

*Paper refers to a notebook, article or book.

Table 1. Overview of devices – and combinations of devices - used in class.

Focus Group Discussions. The audiotapes and observational notes of the FGD were transcribed

(16)

coding. During open coding, the researcher focused on individual ICT-use, sensemaking and the onlooker effect, by looking at types of, experiences with, feelings about and reactions to in-class ICT use. It was found that not only students as users, but also teachers and students as onlookers made sense. Furthermore, the researcher counted how often the same kind of usage, experiences and feelings were expressed among the participants. Altogether, this resulted in the following themes: in-class ICT use,

triggering conditions, influence of the sociomaterial context, sensemaking of the onlooker and sensemaking of the user.

Next, a cross-case analysis was done, to examine the similarities and differences between how teachers and students, as users and onlookers, perceived, made sense of and reacted to in-class ICT use. After the FGD analysis, the observational data was analysed again to search for additional empirical evidence for FGD findings, especially for the onlooker effect.

Results

In this section, the research results are presented, starting with a description of how students are triggered by and make sense of their in-class ICT use. It was found that onlookers also make sense, namely of the in-class ICT use of others, therefore the sensemaking processes of teachers and peer students, as onlookers, is described next. Thereafter, the influence of onlookers on the student’s sensemaking is addressed. The presentation of the results is based on the core concepts of the conceptual framework (Figure 1): the type of in-class ICT use and the onlooker as triggers for sensemaking, the sensemaking process divided in perceived cues, interpretations and enactment and the sociomaterial context in which sensemaking takes place.

To ensure confidentiality, individual codes for the participants of the observations and FGD are used to indicate the source of the quotations. Teachers are indicated as T# and Students as S#. Dutch quotations have been translated to English, the original quotation is added in a footnote.

Student’s sensemaking of type of in-class ICT use Type of in-class ICT use

It was found that the type of in-class ICT use by students triggered their sensemaking, specifically the device used, type of use and moment of use.

Devices used. Students stated that they mainly used laptops and smartphones during class, which

was confirmed by the observations that showed that 55% of the students used a laptop and 39% a smartphone (Table 1). Additionally, 24% did not use a device, among them 19% used a notebook and 5% used nothing at all during class.

Reason of use. When students were asked why they used their devices in-class, 10/15 indicated

(17)

always lost my notes and if they are on your laptop, you always have them.1_{”. Although students}

acknowledged that using ICT in-class has a lot of potential, they were all aware of the drawbacks. In all FGD, being distracted was mentioned as a major disadvantage, as indicated by S6: “Yes, it can also be

distracting.2_{”. Contrarily, 4/15 students indicated that being able to do something else actually was a}

reason to bring their device: “If you are looking for something else to do, you just go on WhatsApp.3_” (S4) and “Actually, most of the time, I’m just doing other things4_{” (S9). For a minority of the students} (3/11), distraction was a reason to use a notebook during class. Also, because they felt that writing was better for their learning, as S8 explained: “I’m writing notes (…) because I am typing very fast, so I

remember more when I am writing.5_”.

Type of use. Students used their devices for two types of activities: course-related and

non-course related or recreational. Course-related activities were directly related to the non-course, such as making notes, searching additional information and reading articles or indirectly related to the course, like making assignments and checking schedules and grades. Besides these course-related activities, 13/15 students mentioned that they performed non-course related activities during class, such as: using social media, sending emails and playing games. This was confirmed by the observations, that showed that of the 60 students observed during class using a device, 38% used their device course-related and 62% recreationally. Especially smartphones were used recreationally: only one student of the 39% of the students that used a smartphone during class used the smartphone to take notes. This was also mentioned during the FGD: “When someone is using a smartphone, that is definitely not to take notes.6_” (S3).

Moments of use. It was observed and mentioned in all FGD with students, that students used

their device course-related when there was an incentive to pay attention, for example when the teacher asked a question, used an online quiz or mentioned the word “exam”. When this happened, students looked up from their devices and looked at the teacher instead. However, when this incentive lacked 12/15 students mentioned that they felt bored, which was observed by students yawing or sighing loudly, and started looking for distraction, as indicated by S5: “When you are bored, you think: “Oh, maybe

something happens here?” [Looking at smartphone].7_{”. This mainly happened because students thought} they could make better use of their time: “Reply to emails (…) or use Facebook, just doing something

else to make better use of my time.8_{” (S14). Furthermore, students used their device in a recreational}

way at the beginning or end of the class and before the break, shown by students only looking at and scrolling on their devices. However, it was not always due to the class itself that students started to use

1_{S4: “Ja voor mij is het dat ik gewoon veel sneller werk dan [op een laptop]. Dan kan ik veel meer opschrijven. Dus dat vind}

ik veel handiger. Ja en ik raakte ook altijd aantekeningen kwijt, en als het op je laptop staat, dan heb je het altijd. En als ik het had opgeschreven, dan raakte ik het kwijt. [Deelnemers knikken instemmend].”

2_{S6: “Ja het kan ook wel afleiden.”}

3_{S4: “En nu heb je, als je dan afleiding zoekt, ga je gewoon op WhatsApp zitten ofzo.”} 4_{S9: “Eigenlijk het meeste van de tijd (… ) ben ik met andere dingen bezig.”}

5_{S8: “Ja, ik schrijf juist wel (…) Want als ik typ, ja dat doe je heel snel. Je kunt wel veel meer typen, alleen met schrijven}

dan onthoud ik het beter.”

6_{S3: “Als iemand op zijn mobiel zit is het sowieso niet om notities te maken.”}

7_{S5: “Meer omdat jij je verveelt en dan denk je: oké, misschien gebeurt hier iets? Nee, oké.”}

8_{S14: “Maar ik denk als echt de lecture gewoon heel makkelijk is en iedereen verveelt zich, dan ga ik liever gewoon even mijn}

(18)

their device recreationally. Students (9/15) also mentioned that their mood influenced how they used their device: “How it influences me, also depends on how I feel. When I am very tired, I use my

smartphone already in the first minute (…). But when I’m not tired, I think: I need to pay attention.9_” (S14).

Student’s sensemaking of type of in-class ICT use

Perceived cues. Students perceived cues from the way they used ICT in-class, which triggered their

sensemaking in several ways. First, the use of ICT in-class was perceived as a new learning tool and therefore students did not always know how to use it effectively, which produced novelty and uncertainty. Second, the use of ICT in-class was perceived as beneficial, but also brought new kinds of distractions, which produced ambiguity and discrepancies between how students expected to use the device (e.g. taking notes) and how they actually used it (e.g. WhatsApp). Students knew that using ICT recreationally in-class was inappropriate and hampered their learning, but they encountered difficulties in changing their use and in using their device effectively, as illustrated by S3: “Nobody taught us how

to learn and how to deal with these programs and devices.10_{”. Hence, triggering conditions for student’s} sensemaking of their ICT use were novelty, uncertainty, ambiguity, discrepancy and encountering difficulties.

Those triggering conditions triggered students to interpret the perceived cues about their use both in-class, as described below, and during the FGD. Students shared their experience with, feeling about and perspectives on in-class ICT use through interactions with other participants during the FGD. This triggered them to reflect on the appropriateness of their use, on what they expected from others and to compare their use to the use of others. Generally, the FGD made students (12/15) more aware of their use, as indicated by S7: “I think I will ask myself more often: “Should you actually be on this site? Is

that a smart thing to do?” So, I will be more aware of my use.11_”.

The sociomaterial context. The classroom, as the sociomaterial context in which students used

their device, held several norms and values about appropriate in-class ICT use which influenced how students interpreted their use, as explained below. Additionally, the device (materiality) used, as part of the sociomateriality, not only influenced the type of in-class ICT use, but also how students made sense of their use, as explained below.

Interpretation. When students interpreted the appropriateness of their in-class ICT use, they

compared their use to the norms and values held in the sociomaterial context. All students indicated that they thought it was more appropriate to recreationally use ICT in a lecture, than in a tutorial or in an one-on-one. Students also had the feeling that teachers would expect more from them during tutorials, as illustrated by S5: “In a lecture, less is expected from you when it comes to participation. You have a

9_{S14: “Ik heb ook... het is meer hoe het mijn beïnvloedt, ligt ook heel erg aan hoe ik mij voel. Als ik heel moe ben, dan heb ik}

mijn mobiel de eerste minuut er al bij (…) Maar als ik (…) nog niet moe ben en naja, dan denk ik wel: ik moet echt even opletten. (…).”

10_{S3: “Niemand heeft ons geleerd hoe wij moeten leren ook. En hoe wij met programma’s en apparaten om moeten gaan.”} 11_{S7: “Ja, ik denk dat ik mezelf nu ook wel meer ga afvragen: Ja, weetje: dan zit je hier nu op deze site, moet je daar nu wel}

(19)

more passive role. But in a tutorial, it is expected that you have a discussion or at least an active attitude.12_{”. Moreover, students indicated that the physical and digital materiality of the device} influenced their sensemaking. Laptops and tablets were perceived as useful devices during class, because of their potential to takes notes and search for additional information. However, smartphones were only seen as distractive, due to the size of the screen and the accessibility to social media applications, explained by S7: “There is a difference between a smartphone and a laptop. (…)

Everything I do on my smartphone, is because I can’t do it on my laptop, like WhatsApp (…). So for the “wrong” things you use your smartphone and for the useful things, you use your laptop.13_”.

Furthermore, 10/15 students mentioned that using their device in a distractive way hampered their learning, illustrated by S5: “In general it has a negative influence on your learning, because you

can learn a lot from interesting discussions in class, except when you don’t pay attention.14_{”. This} realization made them feel disappointed about themselves when using their devices recreationally. However, students also mentioned that their grades were not lower compared to when they did not use a device, which made them feel less disappointed. Additionally, a large majority (12/15) saw the use of ICT in-class as their own responsibility: “I believe that it is my own responsibility. So I don’t feel guilty

when I am doing something else or nothing.15_{” (S9) and believed it was the teacher’s responsibility to} make the class more interesting, so they would not be distracted by their devices. Accordingly, students felt less guilty about their use and did not feel the urge to change their type of in-class ICT use.

Enactment. Students enacted their sensemaking in two ways: conscious and unconscious. Most

students (10/15) made a conscious decision about which device to use during class. As explained earlier, some students used a laptop to make notes more efficient, whereas others would use a notebook to be better focused. Furthermore, half of the students reported that they intentionally did not put their smartphones on the table, but left them in their jackets or bags to prevent themselves from being distracted, as illustrated by S4: “Intentionally, I try not to have my smartphone on my table, because

that very much distracts me.16_{”. Two students mentioned that they unconsciously chose their devices:} they would just put all their devices on the table, without having an idea of what to do with it. This was confirmed by the observations, that showed that students had an almost automatic habit to reach for their smartphone during class, especially when the teacher was talking for a long period of time.

Additionally, a minority of the students stated that doing something else during class was a conscious decision. For example, when a discussion took too long students chose to do something else, such as using social media, as explained by S6: “Sometimes, a teacher just talks for five minutes, while

12_{S5: “Ja, zeker weten, in een lecture wordt ook minder van jou verwacht dat je mee doet. Dus je hebt toch wel de passieve}

rol. En in een werkcollege wordt toch nog wel van je verwacht dat je discussieert of naja gewoon actief bent.”

13_{S7: “Ja, zegmaar er is wel een verschil tussen mobiel en gewoon mijn laptop. (…). Alles wat ik op mijn mobiel doe, dat doe}

ik zegmaar omdat ik het op mijn laptop niet kan doen. WhatsApp bijvoorbeeld, dan zulk soort dingen. Dus eigenlijk de foute dingen zit je op, heb je op je mobiel. En de goede dingen daar gebruik je je laptop voor.”

14_{S5: “Het heeft denk ik over het algemeen wel een slechtere invloed op het leerproces, want ja, als je dan wel hebt over}

discussies bijvoorbeeld, je kan wel hele interessante discussies hebben als iedereen oplet, daar leer je heel veel van. En andersom, ja, dus niet.”

(20)

the information is also on the slides. Then I don’t listen and do other things instead.17_{” (S6). On the} other hand, 12/15 students described their recreational use as “automatic” or “routinized” and explained that doing something else was most of the time an unconscious decision: “I think that it is an

unconscious decision, because sometimes I look at my smartphone and then two minutes later, I think: Huh, why do I look at this?18_{” (S5). This led to discrepancies between expectations of how students} would use their device, e.g. making notes, and how they actually used it, e.g. WhatsApp. This triggered students’ sensemaking and illustrates the iterative nature of the sensemaking process, as commented by S8: “I look at my smartphone very often. Then, I put it away, in my jacket or bag, but I take it out over

and over again.19_”.

The Onlookers’ Sensemaking Processes

Teachers’ sensemaking as onlookers

Perceived cues. Teachers, perceived cues from the in-class ICT use of students that triggered their

sensemaking. All teachers mentioned that the device was too small and that they only saw the back of laptops, causing they could not see what students were actually doing: “You are looking at a lot of black

computers and you have no idea what they are doing.” (T2). This made the situation uncertain and

ambiguous and triggered teachers’ sensemaking. Sense was made based on the aspects of use that were visible and provided teachers with information about the use. Such as the manner of use (e.g. looking, typing and scrolling), the length of use and the (non) verbal behaviour of students. Verbal behaviour led to cues given off by students talking or asking questions about their ICT use, whereas non-verbal behaviour resulted in cues given off by the body posture and facial expressions of students, for example by looking concentrated or sitting bend over the screen.

The sociomaterial context. How teachers interpreted the in-class ICT use of students and turned

their interpretations into actions, was influenced by the sociomaterial context in two ways. First, the norms and values held in the sociomaterial context determined what teachers would expect from students. In lectures teachers would expect different behaviours than in tutorials: “I found it more

difficult in smaller groups, because then you really want to have eye contact and have a conversation. And when someone is looking at their screen…” (T10). Second, the physical and digital materiality, the

design and variety of applications that students could have on their device influenced how teachers perceived, interpreted and judged the usefulness of the device: “I think that at a phone (…), it is too

small, you cannot see the whole story.” (T8) echoed by T6: “IT is built to be shallow right? So, Facebook, Twitter, all those apps.”.

17_{S6: “Soms heb je gewoon iemand die vijf minuten lang aan een stuk door loopt te lullen, terwijl alles ook gewoon op de}

slides staat. (…)Dan kan ik er ook niet echt naar luisteren. Dan denk ik van: nu kan ik ook even andere dingen doen.”

18_{S5: “Ik heb wel sneller dat het ook een onbewuste keuze is denk ik. Omdat ik wel vaak op mijn telefoon kijk en dan zijn er}

echt twee minuten voorbij en dan denk ik echt: huh, hoezo kijk ik hiernaar?”

19_{S8: “Maar ik kijk ook heel vaak op mijn mobiel. Dan leg ik hem wel weg, in mijn tas of in mijn jas. Maar ik pak hem elke}

(21)

Interpretation. A majority of the teachers (11/13) mentioned that they interpreted how students

used ICT in-class based on the manner of use and behaviour of students, explained by T10: “Even when

you cannot see the screens, you can see when students are actually taking notes of what you are telling or when they are doing other things.”. For example, when students were looking at and scrolling on

their smartphone, teachers thought they would be on Facebook: “But I am sure that they will check

Facebook, when they are checking the phone [Doing like s/he is scrolling].” (T6). However, when

students were typing very fast, teachers thought that they were paying attention: “And they try to keep

pace with what you are doing, you really see them typing all the time.” (T7).

Besides interpreting how students used ICT in-class, teachers also interpreted the reasons and appropriateness of the use. Teachers believed that students came to class to learn something and therefore would not always be distracted: “The question is why did they come to class if they want to

watch a movie? The couch is more comfortable.” (T5). According to the appropriateness of the use, a

large majority (11/13) explained that they found it disrespectful to use ICT in a distractive way during class, mainly because it hampered the learning activities in-class. Also, teachers mentioned that they assumed that students were poorly prepared and unwilling to participate when they were using their device in a certain manner, illustrated by T11: “Needing your phone to tell you something. Is a signal to

me (…) That you are ill prepared.”.

Enactment. Even though teachers perceived the in-class ICT use of students as inappropriate,

they rarely confronted students directly with their behaviours. From the eight cases observed in which the teacher, as onlooker, reacted to the student, only one time the teacher directly asked a student to stop using her device and to pay attention. This was also discussed in the FGD, only 4/13 teachers mentioned that they directly reprimanded a student in-class or during the break: “But if all the heads are looking to

the screen, I will notice and I will say something right (…) Or ask them if they want to share what they are looking at.” (T6). In other cases, the teacher indirectly draw a student’s attention, by stop talking,

staring, walking towards the student or asking questions.

Additionally, all teachers tried to influence the behaviour of students in general, because they saw it as their responsibility to teach students how to effectively use ICT in-class. First of all, 4/13 teachers mentioned that they conducted a frame of reference and incentivized appropriate in-class ICT use, as indicated by T9: “I think it is important for lecturers to set an appropriate, well like a frame of

reference, of how to use the technology in the classroom in a sense.”. Additionally, 8/13 teachers stated

that they structured the use of ICT in-class by setting boundaries and modelling appropriate in-class ICT use, to grab students’ attention: “I think initially, that if you structure it, then it will grab attention. But

if you don’t use it (…) then it can be distracting as well.” (T10). Moreover, even 2/13 teachers mentioned

that they banned all devices from their classrooms to overcome distraction: “And we also banned

smartphones and laptops (…) and the attention rate was pretty high, so not a lot of distraction.” (T5).

(22)

use of ICT in-class. Whereas negative attitudes made that teachers felt disturbed more easily and would respond negatively to in-class ICT use.

When teachers were asked why they reacted this why, teachers explained that they found it difficult to react for two reasons. First, teachers could not see what students were actually doing, as explained by T6: “We don't know, right? They can be on Facebook or something else.”. Second, there were no clear guidelines and rules at the university about the use of ICT in-class: “It is easier to say:

university has this rule, than to be the one with the own rule.” (T6). Therefore, most of the time teachers

tolerated the use, as long as it did not distract them or other students, nor interfered with the class, as illustrated by T11: “I won't really do anything with it, as long as it does not infer with the lecture, like

playing music out loud.” (T11). When this was discussed during the FGD, this produced three triggering

conditions: novelty, uncertainty and encountering difficulties, that triggered teacher’s sensemaking of in-class ICT use and how to react to it. Consequently, 4/13 teachers started thinking about making rules and explaining the expectations and consequences of using ICT in-class to students, to overcome the negative effects of using ICT in distractively.

Peer students’ sensemaking as onlookers

Perceived cues. Students perceived different cues from other students using ICT, which triggered their

sensemaking. A majority of the students mentioned that when they heard others typing or talking about social media or saw them looking at their screen for a long time, they felt uncertain and wanted to know what they were actually doing. Consequently, they needed to make interpretations about what others were doing, whereby uncertainty and ambiguity triggered their sensemaking. However, in most cases, students could see what others were doing, because they sat next to or behind them. When this was different than what they expected, this produced a discrepancy and triggered their sensemaking.

The sociomaterial context. How students interpreted and reacted to the perceived cues of the

in-class ICT use of others was influenced by the sociomaterial context. First, the prevailing norms and values in the sociomaterial context influenced how they perceived, interpreted and reacted to the use of others. A majority of the students (9/15) mentioned that they especially perceived the in-class ICT use of others as disturbing when they needed to discuss things in a tutorial. Regarding lectures, all students commented that they did not really care about the use of others. Furthermore, students indicated that watching movies on Netflix or YouTube was perceived as inappropriate, whereas using social media was perceived as normal, illustrated by S11: “I don’t find it surprising, like: “Hey, is somebody over

there using Facebook?!”20_”.

Additionally, the physical and digital materiality influenced how students made sense. Based on their own experience, they knew that when a smartphone was used this was probably recreational:

“With a smartphone, you immediately know: that is wrong, but with a laptop….21_{” (S15).}

20_{S11: “Ik kijk er niet van op, van: he, zit daar nou iemand op Facebook joh?”}

(23)

Interpretation. Based on the perceived cues and their own experience with using ICT in-class,

students made inferences and judgements about the use in order to determine how they would react. When students were typing and looking at their screen for a long time, this could mean two things: or they were making notes or they were doing something recreational. Also students (11/15) mentioned that the use of others distracted and annoyed them, especially when they wanted to focus or when a group member was the user: “I find it very annoying when people from my group, with whom I need to

make an assignment, do not pay attention, because they are using their smartphone.22_{” (S15).}

Enactment. Most students (12/15) indicated that they would not react to the in-class ICT use of

other students, because they thought it was the user’s own responsibility and they saw reprimanding students as the responsibility of the teacher. However, some students mentioned that they would react if they thought that the use was disturbing: “As long as you don’t distract others, then I don’t think it is

problem.23_{” (S6).}_{This was also observed: students did not directly react to others who were using ICT} inappropriately, but just gazed at them.

Additionally, the in-class ICT use of peer students made onlookers think about and reflect on their own use. 12/15 students indicated that they changed their own ICT use, based on what they perceived of the use of others. When onlookers interpreted the use as course-related this triggered them to change their behaviour positively and pay attention, because they thought something interesting was explained. However, when onlookers inferred the use as recreational, this influenced their behaviour negatively and distracted them. In those cases, as observed and mentioned in the FGD, students started to read along with WhatsApp conversations or: “If someone next to you is watching cat movies, it is

impossible not to look. So it is distracting.24_{” (S11). This triggered students to do something recreational}

themselves as well.

Student’s sensemaking of the onlooker

Perceived cues. The cues given off by onlookers triggered students to reflect on the appropriateness of

their in-class ICT use. Students realized that they used ICT in a sociomaterial context, whereby their use was visible for others. Accordingly, 10/15 students mentioned that they felt they were looked at when using ICT in-class, especially in small groups. This made them feel insecure about their use and made them wondering whether their use was as expected, since they did not know what others actually saw and thought of their use. Hence, uncertainty, ambiguity and discrepancy acted as a triggering conditions for their sensemaking.

The sociomaterial context. As explained above, the norms and values held in the classroom

about appropriate ICT use, influenced how students interpreted cues. Furthermore, the device (materiality) used, influenced how students perceived and reacted to the cues given off by onlookers.

22_{S15: “Ik vind het wel heel vervelend als mensen uit mijn groep (…) waar je dan een uhm opdracht voor moet maken, en}

dan niet opletten. Omdat ze dan op hun mobiel zitten ofzo.”

23_{S6: “Ja, zolang je denk ik niemand afleidt (…) Dan denk ik niet, dan zou het voor mij niet heel erg zijn.”}

24_{S11: “Er zit direct iemand naast mij [Wijst naar tafel rechts], met een laptop kattenfilmpjes te kijken ofzo. Je kan niet, niet}

(24)

Observations showed that cues given off about smartphone use were noticed earlier than cues about laptop use.

Interpretation. All students indicated that the cues of onlookers made them more aware of their

influence on others. A majority of the students (12/15) commented that they could imagine that it was frustrating and unrewarding for teachers if students did not pay attention and only looked at their devices, which made them feel guilty. By being an onlooker themselves, students realised that they distracted others as well with their use. They mentioned that they would often compare their use to others, which influenced how they used their device, as well as how they felt about their use, as indicated by S15: “When I am using my smartphone and everybody else does that as well, then I feel less guilty

compared to when I am the only one.25_”.

Also, students realised that they influenced the social dynamics in class, by being more individualistic instead of having conservations with and asking questions to peer students and teachers:

“I would say, more individualistic. In the past you would talk to each other and now you just use WhatsApp.26_{” (S4). 3/15 students mentioned that they thought this hampered the collective learning} in-class, because students started searching information on Google instead of asking questions to the teacher.

Although students realised that their recreational ICT use was most of the time inappropriate, they did not feel bad about it because they found it their own responsibility. Also, they believed it was the teacher’s responsibility to do something about this distraction, by setting boundaries and expressing clear expectations about in-class ICT use. Additionally, students expressed the need for a system that would withhold them from using their devices recreational, as explained by S3: “Maybe it would be an

option, to have a function in Nestor that from the moment the lecture starts you can only make notes.27_”.

Enactment. Altogether, onlookers made students more aware of the consequences of their use

and in some cases even change their use. Particularly in tutorials students would use less ICT and adjusted their ICT use, because of the visibility. It was found that especially the feeling that teachers made inferences and judgements about their ICT use, made 11/15 students adjust their use. When using their devices recreationally, students (10/15) indicated that they thought that teachers would think they were not serious or that they would ask questions about the use. This made students feel embarrassed: “You were really paying attention, because otherwise he [the teacher] would ask questions.28_{” (S8).} This was also observed: in all cases where the teacher acted as onlooker, students reacted by looking up from their device, seeking eye-contact with the teacher and in most cases even put their devices away. However, when a student acted as onlooker, in only 29% of the cases users would stop using their device, in 53% of the cases they continued their use and in 18% of the cases users didn’t react to the

25_{S15: “Ik heb voor mijzelf, als ik uhm bijvoorbeeld op mijn mobiel zit en ik zie dat iedereen op z'n mobiel zit, dan voel ik mij}

minder schuldig. Dan wanneer ik de enige ben ofzo.”

26_{S4: “Dus, ik zou inderdaad ook zeggen: veel meer individualistisch (…) Vroeger ging je inderdaad praten (…) En nu (…)}

ga je gewoon op WhatsApp zitten ofzo.”

27_{S3: “Zou het, zou het kunnen (…) dat er bijvoorbeeld een functie in Nestor komt, dat op het moment dat iedereen binnenkomt}

bij een college. Dat ze gewoon in Nestor moeten inloggen en dan die functie aan moeten zetten. En dat je dan eigenlijk alleen nog maar of notities kunt maken (…) [T12 klapt enthousiast op de tafel]. [Deelnemers lachen en knikken instemmend].”

(25)

student at all. Students (10/15) explained that they hid their smartphones under the table or behind their laptops and lowered the screen brightness as reaction to onlookers, in order to be able to continue their use secretly. Also, all students mentioned that they did not use ICT in-class for personal purposes (e.g. looking at photos), because they realised it was inappropriate and had the feeling that others would see this, which would give off negative signals.

Although all students were more aware of the consequences of their ICT use and even the minority changed the way they used their devices, the type of use did not change. Overall it was found that students continued to use their devices to make notes, but mainly for recreational purposes such as social media. Reason for this was that teachers and peer students did not directly address this issue during class.

Additionally it was found that teachers and students together developed new norms about appropriate in-class ICT use. Both teachers and students, as onlookers, explained that they tolerated the use, as long as it was not distracting others nor disturbing the class. This new norm was both an outcome as well as a trigger for sensemaking, since users would compare the appropriateness of their use to the new norm.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to explore how students make sense of their own in-class ICT use and how onlookers influence this process. Hence, this research was guided by the following research questions:

“How do students make sense of in-class ICT use?” and “How do onlookers influence this sensemaking process?”. This research showed that both the type of in-class ICT use as well as onlookers trigger

student’s sensemaking processes.

First, the type of in-class ICT use, reflected in the purpose of use (e.g. taking notes or social media) and moment of use (e.g. boring moment), triggers student’s sensemaking. This research shows that the device (materiality) is an important part of the type of in-class ICT use. The physical materiality determines how the device can be used and how visible the use is, whereas the digital materiality determines which activities can be done with the device. As such, materiality influences users to use ICT in a certain way, which triggers their sensemaking. This confirms research of Griffith (1999) and Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) about technology as a trigger for sensemaking.

Through the eyes of others: How teachers and students influence student’s sensemaking of in- class ICT use