Digitalization has advanced in leaps in Norwegian schools, and pupils’ and teachers’ personal digital devices have become standard pieces of equipment in the majority of classrooms, including primary education (Fjørtoft et al., 2019). This consequently sets new demands to effective classroom management (Bolick and Bartels, 2015; Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). Traditionally, the purpose of classroom management has been establishing a safe, supportive and orderly environment to optimize opportunities for learning and social, emotional and moral growth (Evertson and Weinstein, 2006; Wubbels, 2011). While the definition of classroom management itself is still valid, the rapid development in digitalization at all levels of schooling forces us to reconsider the means to reach its goals. Research shows that in general, teachers have expressed insufficient pedagogical digital competence and fear of losing control when digital technologies have been introduced and implemented (Krumsvik et al., 2013, 2016; Bolick and Bartels, 2015; Moltudal et al., 2019). However, a synthesis of Cho et al. (2020) finds some positive features and implications in both abovementioned areas, in using digital technologies to aid in classroom management, as well as in understanding the role of digital technologies in the overall flow of classroom practices (Cho et al., 2020). Schools have for example implemented applications that focus on pupil behavior and employed virtual platforms for a variety of classroom management tasks (Pas et al., 2016; Sanchez et al., 2017; Cho et al., 2020). Overall, there is still little research documenting how introducing digital resources actually influences classroom management in primary school level (Bolick and Bartels, 2015; Cho et al., 2020).

The aim of this article is to position the study toward the current state of knowledge, as well as to contribute toward increasing this knowledge base on how teachers perceive their role regarding classroom management in learning environments that are characterized by frequent access and use of digital technologies, and how they practice this role in their everyday classroom management. The context for the case study is particularly related to Norwegian primary schools, and the data was collected in a school that could be defined as a leading-edge school (Schofield, 1995) due to its notable investments in pioneering in ICT implementation. The article examines the following research question:

In Norway, primary school is divided between lower primary school (ages 6-9, grades 1-4) and upper primary school (ages 10-12, grades 5-7). Norwegian teachers enjoy a significant amount of autonomy compared to their colleagues in many other countries and as a rule, have a fair amount of influence regarding their pedagogical work. The national curriculum (known as LK20) allows a wide spectrum of methods and teaching strategies, while highlighting the importance of educating digitally competent citizens (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). Teachers and pupils in Norwegian schools have a good access to educational technology, such as one-on-one digital devices, projectors and digital whiteboards (Fjørtoft et al., 2019), and competence in classroom management in technology-rich learning environments has been named as one of the central aspects in the national digitalization strategy for Norwegian schools (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017).

For instance, Blikstad-Balas (2012), Krumsvik et al. (2013), Krumsvik (2014), Fjørtoft et al. (2019) have cast light on the impact of digital technologies to teachers’ role and classroom management practices in secondary education. Some of the main findings are that teachers and school leaders both fear and experience that use of technology causes distractions, and that a large body of pupils do not use technology as instructed. Teachers have expressed doubts regarding their pupils’ maturity to demonstrate an adequate amount of self-regulation and responsibility when the temptations of digital devices are constantly within the reach, but it has been argued that many of such issues could be resolved by better competence in classroom management (Krumsvik et al., 2013). Although several Norwegian studies have examined the relationship between digitalization and classroom disruptions, a recent systematic review shows that this topic has received little attention internationally (Meinokat and Wagner, 2021). Studies also show that while the access to and the use of digital technologies has increased significantly during the past years, there is still great variation in digital practices within and between Norwegian schools (Krumsvik et al., 2016; Fjørtoft et al., 2019). National studies and international comparison indicate that in spite of teachers’ positive attitudes and good access to digital technologies, the use of ICT in Norwegian schools has been generally rather mediocre (Ottestad et al., 2013; Throndsen and Hatlevik, 2015; Blikstad-Balas and Klette, 2020).

For a long time, classroom management has been considered as one of the teacher’s basic tasks, and in several studies classroom management has been found to be a key predictor of student success (Hattie, 2009; Marquez et al., 2016). While traditional classrooms tend to be rather teacher-centered, a technology-rich learning environment requires a paradigm shift toward a more constructivist approach where technology is no longer treated as a mere tool but viewed more holistically in regards to its potential and influence in classroom dynamics and culture (Säljö, 2010; Bolick and Bartels, 2015). What separates classroom management in elementary grades from classroom management in secondary level is that everything blends with everything: academic, social, emotional and behavioral aspects merge in such manner that individual achievements are often a result of all of the above, rather than a consequence from formal instruction (Carter and Doyle, 2006). Research has also found that quality classroom management has a stronger footing in primary education, and as pupils get older, teachers have a tendency to assume less need for classroom management or focus on subject-related curriculums and educational goals, at the expense of classroom management (Beijaard et al., 2000; Bru, 2013; Kalin et al., 2017).

Carter and Doyle (2006) divide classroom management in elementary level in two main strands: firstly, classroom management has emphasis on procedures (methods, techniques, skills and cognitions) that contribute toward an orderly learning environment by capturing pupils’ attention, engagement and focus, in order to allow and execute curricular activities. Secondly, there are the consequences of how classrooms are being managed. This strand consists of the moral and emotional aspect of classroom management, and the outcomes of interacting with children in a school setting. Powell et al. (2001) call this the social curriculum of a classroom. This aspect has been considered to be particularly important in successful classroom management (Korpershoek et al., 2016). Researchers argue that authoritative teachers focusing on positive behavior support are more successful in the prevention of unwanted behavior than those employing reactive strategies and attributing problems to external factors (Alter and Haydon, 2017; Hepburn and Beamish, 2019). It is noteworthy that positive behavior support does not rule out negative consequences, as long as they are a logical fit for the rule, and it can be argued that teaching rules with clear positive and negative consequences can be an effective strategy when managing a primary school classroom (Alter and Haydon, 2017).

Teachers and researchers worldwide generally agree that the march of digital technologies has a major influence on teachers’ role in a classroom, and the rapid changes in digital technologies force teachers to adopt a dynamic role where they keep themselves up-to-date regarding new educational technologies (Albion et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2016). As the emphasis in the more contemporary way of viewing classroom management is more constructivist and less teacher-centered, it has a direct influence on teachers’ role in the classroom: teachers are urged to become facilitators of learning rather than just transmit knowledge, as well as initiate, guide and influence the way their pupils think about learning (Beijaard et al., 2000). In fact, in order to succeed with digital technologies, teachers themselves should be open to become learners themselves, take some risks, adopt a somewhat playful and curious attitude toward using educational technologies and continuously reflect on the learning and new practices in their professional community (Desimone, 2009). This type of cognitive playfulness, as defined by Webster and Martocchio (1992), Goodwin et al. (2015), is a set of personality traits, affective styles and motivational orientations, which often occur spontaneously in an inventive and imaginary way and has been found to have a positive influence in perceived importance of ICT and sense of competence.

There have been many attempts to create a framework that explains, defines or facilitates teacher’s pedagogical digital competence, such as TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006), SAMR (Puentedura, 2015), and DigCompEdu (Punie and Redecker, 2017); however, these models offer little concrete recommendations and guidelines for defining and developing teacher’s professional digital competence (PDC) and can therefore be seen as quite generic (Hjukse et al., 2020). Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers framework, developed by Kelentrić et al. (2017) for The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education, was launched by the Norwegian Directory of Education and Training and was chosen to frame this study due to its relevance to the context and design that has targeted primary and secondary education in particular. This PDC framework is divided into seven different categories: Subjects and basic skills, School in society, Ethics, Pedagogy and subject didactics, Leadership of learning processes, Interaction and communication, and Change and development. Particularly the category leadership of learning processes offers relevant outlines to classroom management in a technology rich classroom.

When discussing teachers’ pedagogical digital competence, it is noteworthy to point out that the term is more than a compilation of technical skills and knowledge. Krumsvik (2011) has defined teacher’s digital competence as their proficiency in using ICT in school with good pedagogical judgment and with their awareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of their pupils. Based on this definition, Krumsvik and colleagues found a significant correlation between teachers’ classroom management and their digital competence (Krumsvik et al., 2013). Recent trends in research indicate that in a broader context, teachers should view digital technologies not only as tools but artifacts, which act as cultural extensions and reflect how knowledge and social aspects of our lives are organized and presented in our society (Säljö, 2010; Lund et al., 2014). In other words, a teacher with pedagogical digital competence sees technology as a more comprehensive concept than just a collection of applications, software and devices, and understands how a digital culture in 21st century schools and society influences their role and everyday practices beyond the tool-value of technologies. It is not unusual that variety in teachers’ PDC – and their willingness to use technology to facilitate learning – has led to a variety of different classroom practices, which in a broader context could even widen the gap between practices (Moltudal et al., 2019). Therefore, to support a cohesive development of pedagogical competence and practices, school leaders should, through support and supervision, shift the teachers’ focus from their individual motives and preferences to a mutual goal, and create a supportive, motivating community (Phelps and Graham, 2014).

The main findings regarding classroom management from each stage of data collection were organized in tables, as pictured below (Tables 3, 4). As visible in the tables, the same themes were often discussed in both, individual interviews and focus group interviews, and the participants in both types of interviews were the same teachers. In most cases, a topic was first brought up by the interviewer or the interviewee in one or more one-on-one interviews, and later, the topic was revisited in a focus group interview, in order to elaborate, gain more perspectives and find out about the informants’ collective views on it. The actual results from both types of interviews were very similar, with the focus group perspectives commonly offering more detail and exemplification, and that is why all interviews in the Section “Results” are simply referred to as “interviews,” without making a distinction between individual and focus group results.

The results of the coding and analysis introduce several interesting aspects of classroom management, such as changes in the traditional role and competence of a teacher. In what follows, these aspects will be further investigated in terms of the categories presented in Tables 1–4. All interviewees considered teacher’s role in a classroom somewhat different today than what it used to be, prior to the march of educational technologies. Teacher interviews indicated that one of the most notable changes regarding teacher’s role as a classroom manager is having to constantly keep up-to-date with the rapid developments of digital technologies and understanding how technology can be used – or abused – in a classroom.

Some interviewees pointed out that in their busy work days, it could be difficult to find time for keeping up with the rapid developments of educational technologies, finding out about new possibilities and taking full advantage of the existing technologies. They noted that the leadership in the school has a major role in securing enough time for teachers to get the time and training that they need to perform their job in a satisfactory manner. The interviewees found that professional development opportunities offered by the school and particularly sharing in their own professional community had been important sources of new competencies, but that one also has to take initiative oneself and want to learn more.

In the survey, teachers reported that they gain new competencies through formal professional development, such as attending higher education courses and programs, courses offered by the municipality or a commercial provider, and workshops within their own professional community. Informal professional development channels, such as social media and particularly impromptu collegial collaboration, also held a significant role. In the survey, 18 out of 20 informants reported that their employer offered them opportunities for professional development in regard to educational technologies to a great or very great extent, and 19 out of 20 informants felt that their leaders supported the development of their professional digital competence in other ways to a large or very large extent. 13 out of 20 informants had completed or were in the process of completing a formal PDC training program in higher education (30 ECTS points) and 13 out of 20 teachers reported that they use informal methods, for example social media and other web resources, for professional development to a great, or very great extent.

All interviewees found that while they are just as needed in the technology-rich classrooms than before, the way they view themselves as the classroom authority has changed. In the interviews the teachers described how the more traditional leader role, where a teacher should know and be able to do everything, has become obsolete in the 21st century.

During the observed lessons, teachers exercised this type of approach for example by allocating time for experimenting and exploring with their pupils, for example when learning about the basic principles of coding and using robotics to measure and define angles. The teachers had created a structure for these lessons and guided their pupils, but had chosen an approach similar to guided inquiry, where they helped their student to learn through exploration, investigation and active dialogue. While there were several examples where the teachers had adopted more of a facilitator role in their pupils’ learning process, more traditional use of technologies, such as to search information, create digital products that reproduce old knowledge or using an application targeting specific skills, were also used regularly.

All 20 survey informants agreed teachers are as much needed in the classrooms than before, but that it is necessary to gain new competencies in regard to classroom management, such as knowledge about digital technologies, solid basic skills with technology, student-active approaches to pedagogy, and ability to let go of some of the control in the classroom.

The purpose of this study was to find out how the use of digital technologies influences the way teachers perceive their role and classroom management practices in a technology-rich primary school. To sum up the informants’ perceptions of their role in technology-rich environment, they agreed in many aspects regarding the teacher’s role. They found that a teacher has become more of a facilitator, who creates structure and opportunities for learning and models learning processes, for example through experimenting and collaborating with their pupils. An authoritative teacher role in a classroom environment characterized by good relationships and clear routines and rules was considered foundational, and such appreciation was in line in many of the informants’ classroom management practices. The informants also agreed that due to the rapid developments of digital technologies, keeping up-to-date and gaining new competences, such as mastering basic technological skills and understanding the possibilities and pitfalls of digital technologies, has become increasingly important. They found that the leadership has a crucial role in not only offering professional development opportunities, but also expecting the teachers to take advantage of them. School leaders that facilitate for a school culture where experimenting with technologies was encouraged, and which builds on collegial collaboration, was found important for supporting teachers in their never-ending quest for those new competencies and skills. These components had helped the informants to “take the plunge” and elevate their PDC in regards to classroom management.

The contemporary aspects of teacher’s role as a classroom manager in a technology-rich environment are reflected in many of the classroom management practices of the informants. It is important to emphasize that the data for this case study was collected in a school that can rather be viewed as a frontrunner than mainstream, as they had made significant investments in digital technologies, teacher training and generally building a school culture where digital technologies are a natural part of everyday practices. This can in part explain the generally positive and progressive perceptions the informants had toward classroom management in technology-rich learning environment, as well as explain some of the interesting deviation from previous research. One of such elements is the informants’ willingness to adopt practices that demonstrate experimenting and playfulness. The teachers in this study reported very little fear for risk-taking and failing when using digital technologies, in contrast to many previous studies (Blikstad-Balas, 2012; Krumsvik et al., 2013). The reasons can be many, but one could assume that the investment in teachers’ PDC has made the teachers more confident when implementing new technologies, and thus, they are also more willing to be more exploratory in their own practices. An indication that supports the abovementioned assumption is that in this case study, teachers with more formal PDC training were generally less concerned about control and more often found that digital technologies contribute toward better classroom management than their colleagues with less formal professional development. Such results imply that although collegial collaboration is often seen as one of the most significant ways of gaining more competence (Borko, 2004; Voogt et al., 2011; Fjørtoft et al., 2019), the role of more systematic, knowledge-based professional development should not be undervalued (Hughes, 2005). A good socio-emotional learning environment has also been found meaningful in technology-rich settings (Nordenbo et al., 2008), and the teachers in this study found good teacher-pupil relationships foundational for establishing an environment where also a teacher can experiment with new approaches, reflecting a somewhat playful attitude, which is in line with the concept of cognitive playfulness and its affordances (Webster and Martocchio, 1992; Goodwin et al., 2015). As mentioned earlier in this article, teacher’s ability to build good relationships and an encouraging learning environment can be viewed as one of the key classroom management competences (Powell et al., 2001; Evertson and Weinstein, 2006; Korpershoek et al., 2016) and teachers have a tendency to invest in quality classroom management more in primary level than in later years (Beijaard et al., 2000; Bru, 2013; Kalin et al., 2017). As much of the previous research has been executed in secondary and higher education settings, an intriguing question is how much of the fear and negative experiences teachers have experienced when using digital technologies derive from the lack of time or effort in developing good relationships and a safe social classroom environment.

Results from national mappins of digitalization of Norwegian schools also report about a trend where disruptions and inappropriate use of digital technologies are steadily decreasing in Norwegian schools (Hatlevik et al., 2013; Egeberg et al., 2016; Fjørtoft et al., 2019). While the informants in this study acknowledged that there had been single events where pupils had misused their devices, and that technology could potentially cause distractions, none of them found this to be a recurring issue. The informants in this study could name multiple factors that can contribute toward better engagement and less issues with non-instructional use of technology: teachers’ own competence in classroom management, meticulous planning, good relationships with their students and a school culture with mutual and clear rules and routines for technology use worked effectively in preventing such behavior (Erstad, 2012; Wang et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2016; Alter and Haydon, 2017; Tondeur et al., 2017; Moltudal et al., 2019). Bjørgen (2021) suggests that we should in a much larger extent invite pupils’ framings and priorities into school-related digital practices, to learn and understand how they engage in digital practices outside school. Building such a connection could assist in creating an engaging and supportive learning environment, which is essential for quality classroom management.

During the past decade, as teachers’ awareness and competence regarding digital technologies has increased (Fjørtoft et al., 2019), rules and routines framing how and when to use technology at school have also evolved substantially. While teachers and pupils reported less mutual rules for technology use in class a decade ago (Krumsvik and Jones, 2015), the teachers in this study found that practicing classroom management with clear and consistent rules and routines is foundational in technology-rich learning environments. It could be argued that while there was some variation between grade levels in this study, the mutual ground rules for technology use across the whole school can help pupils internalize the rules and routines and makes it more predictable and consistent for them, which in turn makes it easier for the pupils to follow them and easier for the teachers to reinforce them. A positive socio-emotional learning environment does not rule out negative consequences, should rules be violated (Alter and Haydon, 2017), and logical consequences that the pupils are aware of, such as having their device confiscated, can be effective in preventing disruptions (Baker et al., 2016; Bjørgen, 2021).

A somewhat contradictory finding in this case study is that while the teachers in the interviews and survey highlighted the importance of trust, good relationships and risk-taking, more than half of the teachers still found that a teacher should have control over pupils’ screens at all times. A similar perspective was visible in some of the other findings, as well; for instance, some teachers wanted the devices to be placed and held in a certain way in a classroom, to have a visual on the screens, and teachers used applications that allowed them access to pupils’ screens from a distance. This invites us to ponder why so many teachers still feel a need to have control over pupils’ screens at all times, when they self-report very little non-instructional and otherwise disruptive use of digital technologies. Active monitoring can be efficient to prevent disruptions (Storch and Juarez-Paz, 2019), but one can nevertheless speculate if the pupils still feel trusted – a perspective also discussed in the focus group interviews. It is natural that the teachers want to know what their pupils are doing, and not just to find out if they’re on-task but also to see how far along they’ve come, but this alone does not explain why so many teachers find it important to know about their pupils’ screen activity at all times.

The informants found also that digital technologies have many affordances in creating structure for their lessons. Also in this context, teachers had uniform approaches, in order to create consistency and to support their own professional development, and the findings in all data accentuate the high appreciation of collegial collaboration. In this school, much of the practices, awareness and competence in regards to PDC and digital technologies in general derive from mutual agreements and collaboration. Such approach addresses the risk of widening the gap between teachers’ PDC and classroom practices, and helps create a supportive and motivating community – for teachers and pupils (Phelps and Graham, 2014; Moltudal et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the teachers felt that they were allowed and even encouraged to experiment with alternative approaches, and such culture can be highly valuable to make sure that common practices can be questioned, re-evaluated and even criticized.

The results presented in this article confirm what previous research already has suggested: technology-rich learning environments require contemporary competencies and pedagogical approaches to classroom management. A somewhat playful attitude, meticulous planning, frequent opportunities for professional development, collegial collaboration and good teacher-pupil relationships all seem to make considerable contributions toward more effective classroom management in technology-rich classroom environment, while ethical and philosophical questions regarding the overall understanding of the use of ICT in classroom management seem to require further attention. Naturally, as an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995), these findings have their limitations regarding generalizability, but at the same time, they do provide us with important descriptions and examples regarding teacher’s role and classroom management practices in a technology-rich primary school. In this study, we have delved into teachers’ perceptions in order to cast light on how they perceive their role and classroom management practices in technology-rich environments, but the field certainly has more space for pupils’ voices, as well (Meinokat and Wagner, 2021). In the light of lack of uniform definitions and practices, as well as scarcity of relevant studies from primary education (Bolick and Bartels, 2015; Cho et al., 2020; Meinokat and Wagner, 2021) we find these results promising regarding implications toward succeeding in classroom management in technology-rich learning environments but acknowledge the need for gaining more knowledge and further research focusing particularly on classroom management in primary education.

In this case study certain limitations can be identified. One limitation is related to that the majority of the empirical data applied in this article is based on self-reported data (interviews, focus groups and survey) and might reflect the teachers’ intentions more than the actual situation in their daily practices. Another limitation might be that the selected school has a clear digital agenda, the majority of the sample consists of teachers participating in professional development within PDC and the study has been carried out among young pupils (grades 1 to 7) with less pronounced digital lifestyle and with less digital distractions in classrooms than among older pupils (Fjørtoft et al., 2019). In terms of coding, all coding was executed by a single person. While this eliminates discussion regarding intercoder reliability, it can raise questions about the reliability of the results and a researcher looking to confirm certain expectations or hypothesis. Potential bias related to one coder has been addressed in the design, which relies on triangulation of rich qualitative data, as well as mixed methods design. Executing an excessive cumulative data collection process and analysis during a long period of time allowed the researcher to confirm their interpretations along the way, as well as detect contrary evidence and reach saturation during the coding and analysis (Creswell and Guetterman, 2021).

The anonymized datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

MJ is the primary author of the manuscript. RJK, HEB, and NH have made significant contributions to article revisions. All authors have approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.