No Phone, No Problem? A Hypercomplex Critical Realist Examination of Norway’s National Guidelines for Mobile-Free Classrooms PDF Free Download
1 / 19/19
100%
67
© 2025 Steffen Egge Frøyhov & Leigh Price. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/), allowing third parties
to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Citation: Frøyhov, S. E. & Price, L. (2025). No Phone, No Problem? A Hypercomplex Critical Realist Examination of
Norway’s National Guidelines for Mobile-Free Classrooms. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 11(3), 67–85.
http://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v11.6584
*Correspondence: Steffen Egge Frøyhov, e-mail: steffen.froyhov@inn.no
Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk
Volume 11 | No. 3 | 2025 | pp. 67–85
Peer-reviewed article
No Phone, No Problem?
A Hypercomplex Critical Realist
Examination of Norway’s National
Guidelines for Mobile-Free Classrooms
Steffen Egge Frøyhov* & Leigh Price
University of Inland Norway, Norway
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we examine Norway’s national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms. Utilising theoret-
ical approaches, specically Qvortrup’s societal hypercomplexity framework and Bhaskar’s critical
realist concepts of retroduction and judgemental rationalism as methods, we examine and discuss
the implications of these policies within the interplay of education, ICT and society. We conclude
that although the guidelines represent a considerable shift towards stricter ICT regulations, echoing
Scandinavian trends, they may not adequately address the underlying complexities of educational
and societal issues; that is, instrumentally reducing phone access may remove a bullying mecha-
nism but the underlying reasons for the bullying are likely to remain. Moreover, there are questions
over whether the legislation can be said to be democratic and there are indicators that it may have
unexpected negative consequences with regard to certain aspects of student well-being. Whilst an
outright ban might be benecial, it should nevertheless be viewed as part of a suite of interventions
addressing social issues within schools, such as systematic violence against certain societal members
and the comparatively lower achievement of boys relative to girls. Indeed, some evidence suggests
that a phone ban might worsen the boys’ situation in schools and increase the gender gap in which
girls out-perform boys. Thus, we advocate for policies that consider broader impacts, including the
potential unintended consequences of a phone ban and its long-term educational outcomes.
Keywords: ICT in education; societal hypercomplexity; critical realism; social inequality;
educational policymaking; mobile phones
Introduction
The integration of information and communication technology [ICT] in educational
environments has become a focal point in policy debates worldwide. Norway, like its
Scandinavian counterparts, is grappling with the challenges and benets of mobile
phone and screen use in schools. Norway’s recent national guidelines for mobile-free
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
68
classrooms across all educational levels (Regjeringen, 2024) have stirred both contro-
versy and widespread support within public discourse.
Alongside the establishment of the Screen Use Committee, these guidelines repre-
sent a pivotal, hypercomplex intersection in ICT integration and educational policy-
making. Here, the term hypercomplex refers to the deeply intricate and multifaceted
character of this topic, as conceptualised within Lars Qvortrup’s (2003) systems the-
ory framework. However, calls for ‘more complexity’ on their own give little in terms
of concrete direction. We attempt to provide this direction by introducing a degree
of pragmatism to the complexity in the form of critical realism, as conceptualised by
Roy Bhaskar (2016). Furthermore, we ask whether these national guidelines may
prioritise neoliberal objectives to the detriment of democratic values, whilst being
portrayed simply as strategies to improve learning outcomes.
In this paper, we therefore aim to critically examine the national guidelines, con-
sidering relevant scientic literature and policy documents in the light of Qvortrup’s
(2003) societal hypercomplexity, supported ontologically by Bhaskar’s (2016) criti-
cal realism. We aim to address the following questions:
1. How do Norway’s national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms and broader
trends in Scandinavian educational reform and policymaking related to ICT
account for societal hypercomplexity?
2. Do the national guidelines foreground neoliberal objectives at the expense of
democratic values?
3. How can acknowledging Qvortrup’s societal hypercomplexity theory and
Bhaskar’s transcendental ontology guide future policymaking decisions on
this topic?
Initially, we will provide the background to this discussion in the form of an overview
of the recent national guidelines and the establishment of the Screen Use Committee.
Next, we will explore Qvortrup’s societal hypercomplexity framework and Bhaskar’s
critical realist approach, providing insights that are crucial to the subsequent discus-
sion and retroductive analysis. We will then engage in a critical discussion, assessing
how Norway’s national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms take into consideration
hypercomplexity and correspond with broader trends in Scandinavian educational
reform. As noted by Abrahamsson, whose work will be introduced shortly and furt-
her discussed in this paper, the impact of smartphone usage on the well-being and
learning of children and adolescents has become a signicant concern for schools,
parents and policymakers (Abrahamsson, 2024, p. 1). Consequently, we will speci-
cally examine how these guidelines address critical issues affecting well-being
and learning, such as the prevalence of bullying and gender difference in schools.
Furthermore, we will reect on the potential social implications and educational
impacts of these guidelines. Utilising critical realist approaches, we aim to provide
insight that could guide future directions in policymaking.
No Phone, No Problem?
69
Overview of the recent national guidelines and the establishment of the
Screen Use Committee
The discourses concerning screen use in Norwegian schools has been the subject
of intense debate for an extended period. Notably, the discussion paper Smartphone
Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health (Abrahamsson, 2024) ignited the debate.
It is purported that Abrahamsson’s research indicated that mobile phone bans in
schools resulted in improved grades and led to less bullying (Folkestad, 2024). From
there, the public debate was further propelled by calls from politicians and policy-
makers for changes in ICT usage within the education system. Kari Nessa Nordtun,
the Norwegian Minister of Education, proposed a potential long-term mobile phone
ban in schools (Kallelid, 2023). As an initial step, the government, in collaboration
with the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, issued national guide-
lines on this matter (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2024).
In public debates, inuential public personalities such as author Maja Lunde
(Ertesvåg, 2023), actress Ane Dahl Torp (Dagsavisen, 2023) and radio host Live
Nelvik (Tjoot, 2023) have expressed substantial support for the national guidelines
on mobile-free classrooms. In the days following the announcement, they contended
that the implementation of stricter regulations on screen use in schools has been a
long-standing necessity. Conversely, the School Student Union of Norway has nota-
bly voiced dissatisfaction with the enactment of these guidelines, criticising the lack
of student involvement in the process (Breidablikk, 2024).
Concurrently, the Screen Use Committee was established to enhance the empirical
understanding of screen use implications among children and adolescents in educa-
tional and domestic settings. These include effects on health, well-being, educational
outcomes and developmental processes. The committee, consisting of members from
various higher education institutions, aimed to contribute to policy development
and advice on public initiatives. The committee presented its report to the public on
11 November 2024 (Skjermbrukutvalget, n.d.).
The trend towards stricter ICT regulations is mirrored in other Scandinavian
countries. Danish experts have proposed raising the minimum age for creating
social media accounts from 13 to 16 (Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and
Financial Affairs, 2023), and the Danish Minister of Children and Education advo-
cates for removing screens in kindergarten settings completely (Nielsen, 2023). The
trend is also prevalent in Sweden, where the Swedish Minister for Employment and
Integration announced the plan to ban all mobile phone use for Grades 1–9 on 9
December 2023 (SVT, 2023).
Introducing the works of Qvortrup and Bhaskar
In this section, we elaborate on the works of Qvortrup and Bhaskar and include a
brief justication for why we use both in this paper.
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
70
Societal hypercomplexity
Societal hypercomplexity, a concept introduced by Danish scholar Lars Qvortrup,
articulates the increasing complexity facing contemporary society, positioning such
complexity as a fundamental challenge of our time (Qvortrup, 2003, p. 3). Drawing
on Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, Qvortrup presents an innovative per-
spective, arguing that society has intrinsic mechanisms for cohesion within a func-
tionally differentiated framework:
Society can be characterised as a hypercomplex social system, that is, as a social
system in which a large number of complex systems (the political, the economic, the
educational, the ethical, the scientic, the religious, the intimate, the artistic, etc.)
each with its own set of observational criteria, observe each other individually and
as a whole. (Qvortrup, 2002, p. 41; our translation)
The situation can be described as a network of complex systems observing other
complex systems, while simultaneously evaluating their own observational criteria.
This forms the basis of Qvortrup’s argument that society can be characterised as
hypercomplex (2002, pp. 41–42). Take the state school system as an example. It con-
sists of several interdependent subsystems like administrative staff, teachers, students,
parents, curriculum developers and the wider community, each with its own observa-
tional criteria. The administrative staff may oversee the individual school’s nances,
teachers observe student progress and overall well-being, students reect on their
own learning and the role of teachers, parents gauge the children’s well-being and
academic growth, curriculum developers and policy makers look for relevant updates
to incorporate into the syllabus, and the community observes the school’s impact on
and role in society.
Moreover, each subsystem is subject to observation. The community scrutinises
staff resource management, teachers are evaluated on teaching impact, students
are assessed on academic achievement and social behaviour, parents are observed
in relation to their involvement in their children’s education and policy developers
are checked for curriculum relevance. Each subsystem, while observing and being
observed, evaluates and adjusts its observational criteria based on the ndings. For
instance, if the administrative staff notice a decrease in student performance, they
may reconsider their resource allocation towards academic support. Similarly, if
teachers notice students struggling with the new curriculum, they can provide feed-
back to the curriculum developers, who may then adjust the syllabus accordingly.
This continuous and recursive process of observing, evaluating and adjusting across
multiple complex subsystems suggests that society has evolved from a state of com-
plexity to a state of hypercomplexity (Qvortrup, 2002, p. 42).
Qvortrup’s approach promotes a holistic and systemic understanding of
societal cohesion that accommodates social structures’ interdependent and
multifaceted nature. As a theoretical framework, societal hypercomplexity pro-
vides a nuanced perspective for examining the intricate realities of our increasingly
complex world.
No Phone, No Problem?
71
A critical realist approach
Critical realism focuses on understanding underlying structures and mechanisms
that generate observable events, which makes it suitable for revealing deeper systemic
issues in society (Bhaskar, 2016). It is able to achieve this understanding by using
the logic of retroduction,1 dened as the development of theories about ‘what must
have been’ for situations to be as they are (Price, 2016). It can, therefore, assist
in formulating theories that clarify why various stakeholders, such as researchers,
policy makers or teachers, respond to the question of phone usage amongst youth
in specic ways. Furthermore, it can contribute to formulating theories about how
certain responses inuence different practices.
Judgemental rationalism, another concept within critical realism, can offer insights
into how stakeholders interpret and navigate these guidelines amidst conicting nar-
ratives. It can reveal the rationality behind their decisions and actions, informed by
their understanding of the situation and judgement of the most suitable course of
action (Bhaskar, 2016). Importantly, judgemental rationalism can help to discern
between formulated theories based on the depth of explanatory power and their
alignment with our observations and understanding. The example that Bhaskar uses
to illustrate judgemental rationality is the way that we choose between the theories of
Einstein and Newton. He writes:
We can say that Einsteinian theory is superior to Newtonian theory because
Einsteinian theory can explain some phenomena that Newtonian theory cannot
explain [...] There are very few phenomena that we actually know, only about eight
or nine test situations, in which Newtonian theory comes unstuck in its terms. But
Einsteinian theory can explain them in its terms. So, we have a purely quantitative
criterion for preferring Einsteinian to Newtonian theory. (Bhaskar, 2012, pp. 12–13)
Nevertheless, judgemental rationalism provides fallible knowledge, not absolute
knowledge. This is because, in the event of relevant new information, knowledge
obtained by judgemental rationalism is subject to change.
Justication for the use of insights from both Qvortrup and Bhaskar
For both Qvortrup and Bhaskar,2 the way to deal with complexity and the open sys-
tem that constitutes the social world is to focus on the structures and dynamics/mech-
anisms of the emerging social system (Bhaskar, 2016, p. 79; Qvortrup, 2003, p. 7).
1
The logic of retroduction was rst described by the American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce
(1938, p. 755).
2
Note that whilst both Bhaskar’s (2016) and Qvortrup’s (2003) positions deal with systems theory
(Price, 2023), they can be said to be theoretically incommensurable given that Bhaskar’s position
embraces the reality of the transcendent whilst Qvortrup’s position denies that the transcendent is real.
Instead, for Qvortrup, following Kant, the transcendent is ‘ideal.’ However, it is worth remembering
that theoretical positions without a transcendent ontology must somehow smuggle in the transcen-
dent in order to function (Bhaskar, 2016, p. 133). In Qvortrup’s case, the smuggled-in transcendent
is, inter alia, the hypercomplex society itself, and this means that, whilst the two positions are theoreti-
cally incommensurable, this does not preclude the possibility that they are practically commensurable.
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
72
Bhaskar asserts that our knowledge of these real, non-empirical structures and
dynamics is acquired through epistemological theories, achieved by observers using
retroduction and judgemental rationalism to interpret observed reality. Qvortrup con-
tends that we discern structures and dynamics through observers’ descriptions of
other observers’ descriptions of complexity or through a complex observer’s descrip-
tion of its own complexity. Despite theoretical differences, both scholars therefore
divide reality into layers, with Qvortrup’s hypercomplex layer being closely akin to
Bhaskar’s transcendental, non-empirical, real layer. Although Qvortrup does not explic-
itly state this, it can be inferred that retroduction occurs when observers are articu-
lating their own or other’s descriptions of complexity. Thus, Qvortrup’s second order
of description probably incorporates retroduction in its attempts to comprehend the
rst order of description.
Setting theoretical differences and similarities aside, we nd it benecial to engage
with both Qvortrup and Bhaskar.3 Qvortrup’s emphasis on complexity aptly mirrors
our experience of contemporary times, marked by rapidly evolving technologies and
globalisation. Whilst complexity is less developed in Bhaskar’s work, his concept of
retroduction elucidates the implicit logical processes present in Qvortrup’s second
order descriptions. Furthermore, Bhaskar’s use of judgemental rationality to identify
fallible truth avoids the relativism inherent in Qvortrup’s concept of truth as consen-
sus (Qvortrup, 2003, p. 7).
To summarise: In this paper, hypercomplex denotes the intricate character of
integrating ICT into educational settings, as conceptualised by Qvortrup (2003).
Utilising a critical realist ontology, as conceptualised by Bhaskar (2016), facilitates
the application of retroduction and judgemental rationalism. This enables research-
ers and policymakers not only to navigate complexity, but also to make enlightened
decisions.
We will posit that the correlation of mobile phones with bullying and poorer aca-
demic outcomes for certain student groups (rst order description) is an emergent
outcome of hypercomplexity/society’s structures and mechanisms (second order
description). Rather than relying solely on rst order descriptions, such as correla-
tional statistics, for intervention strategies, both Qvortrup and Bhaskar advocate for
second order analyses of society’s structures and mechanisms that nevertheless con-
sider rst order descriptions. As Qvortrup explains, ‘Therefore, the rst and most
important challenge is to develop an analysis and an understanding of society that
matches the level of social complexity’ (Qvortrup, 2003, p. 11). Thus, we will exam-
ine the social structures and mechanisms in Norwegian schools to suggest caveats to
the Norwegian national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms.
3 Note that a comprehensive comparison of the works of Bhaskar and Qvortrup is not the intended
focus of this paper.
No Phone, No Problem?
73
Scandinavian trends in screen regulation and hypercomplex
educational policymaking
As Norway and Sweden contemplate a ban on mobile phones in schools, and Denmark
debates raising the social media age limit and removing screens from kindergartens, a
Scandinavian trend toward stricter screen regulation in education emerges. This can
be analysed through Qvortrup’s societal hypercomplexity theory, wherein the edu-
cational system attempts to adapt to the complex inuence of technology on young
minds. However, as Stephen Ball asserts, ‘We must never confuse the claims and
assertations of policymakers with the enactment and effects of policy on and through
practice’ (Ball, 2021, p. 7). Policymakers may formulate and execute regulations;
however, policy implementation requires careful consideration of hypercomplex edu-
cational settings. In Ball’s words, policymaking might merely become
a process of bricolage, a matter of borrowing and copying bits and pieces of ideas
from elsewhere, drawing on […] trends and fashions, responding to media ‘panics’
and not infrequently a ailing around for anything at all that looks as though it
might work. (Ball, 2021, p. 39)
This notion aligns with Qvortrup’s depiction of a hypercomplex system where
each part constantly observes and adjusts its actions based on its own complexity
(Qvortrup, 2002, p. 42). The Scandinavian countries’ initiatives reect growing con-
cerns about ICT’s impact. While the guidelines restrict phone usage, they do not
currently extend to a ban on all digital devices within educational settings. However,
they may signal an emerging trend of such potential impact.
The implementation of guidelines to restrict mobile phone usage is happening con-
currently with the establishment of the Screen Use Committee, tasked with develop-
ing an empirical understanding of screen usage effects on children and adolescents.
These actions might be perceived as the political system observing its own complex-
ity. However, these actions may also manifest certain concerns, further discussed in
the following subchapters.
Potential concerns about the pre-emptive policy
Concerns over democracy
One could argue that this dual-action strategy not only overlooks the situation’s hyper-
complexity but also sidesteps established democratic processes. From the perspec-
tive of hypercomplexity and democracy, implementation of the national guidelines
bypasses the referral of this signicant matter to the Storting [Norwegian parliament]
for comprehensive debate and scrutiny, potentially subverting the foundational prin-
ciples of legislative governance. As Petter Andreas Lona, head of the School Student
Union in Norway, points out, the national guidelines have been implemented without
student involvement (Gjøen, 2024, 30:43–31:42). Interpreted through the lens of
societal hypercomplexity, the political, educational and student bodies are distinct
complex systems observing and reacting to each other based on their own unique
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
74
criteria (Qvortrup, 2002, pp. 41–42). Lona’s criticism can be perceived as the voice
of one complex system expressing exclusion from the observation process.
Conversely, based on what we discern from public discourses, the Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research claims to act on behalf of concerned educators
with its proposed guidelines to restrict mobile phone usage. This reects another
layer of hypercomplex interaction within society and raises an important consider-
ation: should mobile phone use in schools genuinely be a concern for politicians and
students or should it primarily fall under the responsibility of educators?
Balancing policy and research
From the perspective of avoiding reductionism, it could be argued that this pre-emp-
tive policy enactment may overshadow the Screen Use Committee’s research, poten-
tially introducing implicit predispositions that could sway its direction and integrity.
This could be seen as the political system responding to its own complexity and
the educational system, pre-empting the scientic system’s opportunity for thorough
observation and analysis. It could potentially shape the research agenda, inuence the
interpretation of ndings or even predetermine the perceived necessity and direction
of subsequent policy recommendations. Nevertheless, employing Qvortrup’s societal
hypercomplexity theory (2003), one could also argue that the current reliance on
evidence-based education might not fully capture the situation’s complexity.
This scenario may underscore a tension between the political and the scientic
system’s hypercomplexity, highlighting the intricacies of operating within the dig-
ital sphere in educational settings where decisions must balance immediate socie-
tal concerns with comprehensive understandings of ICT’s impact on young minds.
Keeping Qvortrup’s (2003) societal hypercomplexity theory in mind, we propose a
more holistic approach that not only acknowledges empirical, quantitative data but
also incorporates existing qualitative studies and retroductively derived theories that
can provide more nuanced insights into the multifaceted aspects of screen use.
ICT integration and exclusion in education
Over the past decades, the integration of ICT in classrooms has been subject to
extensive critique worldwide, with concerns raised about policy decisions being dis-
proportionately inuenced by the persuasive tactics of big tech companies (Cuban,
2001). Furthermore, neoliberal ideals and new public management practices may
have inuenced the endorsement and promotion of ICT in education (Egea, 2014;
McGarr & Engen, 2022). These ideals encompass aspects such as market competi-
tion, privatisation and consumer choice. Often, it is argued, the adoption process has
neglected educators’ perspectives and disregarded the genuine need for educational
technologies in the classroom (Haugsbakk, 2011).
However, just as these policy decisions have been criticised for their susceptibil-
ity to big tech companies and neoliberal ideals, the national guidelines advocating
No Phone, No Problem?
75
mobile-free classrooms may also warrant thorough investigation concerning their
underlying motivations and potential inuences. This highlights the parallel require-
ment to understand and scrutinise the shifts towards reducing or excluding ICT
from classroom environments.
The Screen Use Committee summarises their understanding of screen use conse-
quences in school in a thematic note, consulting with an expert group of 14 students
aged 12–18. Most of them report already existing rules prohibiting mobile phone use
in classrooms (Skjermbrukutvalget, 2023, p. 48). Commentators in newspapers, such
as Therese Sollien, have also highlighted that mobile phones are already being turned
off and stored in backpacks during school hours (Sollien, 2023). This prompts the
crucial question: are the national guidelines merely a cost-effective strategy used by
politicians to demonstrate decisiveness and action in response to the growing media
panic? As Ball argues, it is important to be aware of the political rhetoric of reform,
as it might
exaggerate or misrepresent the effects or impact of change, that is, the extent of
‘real’ change in ‘real’ schools. Policy in practice is subject to complex institutional
recontextualisations and reinterpretations related to local circumstances. Rhetorical
claims are easy to make but the enactment of policy ‘at the chalk face’ is challenging
and difcult, especially when policies are incoherent or contradictory. (Ball, 2021,
p. 213)
These insights are particularly relevant in the realm of ICT in education, if under-
stood through Qvortrup’s (2003) societal hypercomplexity theory. For instance, while
support exists for integrating ICT to improve learning outcomes, this is frequently
opposed by concerns over screen time, data privacy and the commercialisation of
education. This reects the inherently contradictory nature of societal systems. A
critical issue arising from this situation is how improving learning outcomes is dened,
measured and, importantly, idealised. Improving learning outcomes is often assumed
to require instrumentalist perspectives and comprehensive quantitative research
(Lovat, 2020; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991). Establishing the Screen Use Committee
to investigate these effects can be viewed as a direct attempt to address such com-
plexities. However, these research endeavours require substantial time and resources.
Given the urgency of this issue, qualitative research exploring phone use in schools
also provides valuable insights.
A 2017 study by Fritze et al. was conducted in two Norwegian lower secondary
schools. The research suggests that stricter phone regulations reduced disruptions
and that schools were more successful at prioritising social inclusion (Fritze et al.,
2017). These ndings strongly echo concerns voiced by the Minister of Education
(Kallelid, 2023) and numerous teachers and parents.
Nevertheless, both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that mobile phone
usage in educational settings does not consistently or necessarily cause problems.
That is, the situation appears complex, with different groups of students and different
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
76
contexts producing different results. A recent literature review carried out by Campbell
et al. (2024) identied seven recent instances of relevant research, four of which
linked mobile use in schools to poorer academic outcomes, whilst the remaining
three found no such effect. In research conducted by Abrahamsson (2024), specic
demographics, such as male students or children from wealthy families, were shown
to exhibit no signicant academic improvement post the implementation of a smart-
phone ban, although other demographics, specically girls and children from poorer
families, did show an improvement post a phone ban. Abrahamsson (p. 36) also notes
that boys and girls experience the effect of phone bans differently in terms of their
mental health, with girls demonstrating an improvement in mental health and boys
demonstrating an inconclusive, possibly marginal decline in mental health (requir-
ing, we believe, further research to explore this empirically, noting that Abrahamsson
does not come to this conclusion about boys’ mental health possibly declining; this
is our interpretation of her data, p. 52). This corresponds with other research which
has mixed ndings with regard to boys’ mental health and screen time; for instance,
some research suggests that video games signicantly improve boys’ mental health,
especially boys who are more sedentary and do not play physical sports, speculating
that this might be the result of the social aspect of such games (Kandola et al., 2022).
Conceivably, if reduced screen time improves the mental health of some boys and
impairs it in others, the net effect in terms of visits to mental health specialists (used
as a measure of mental health) could be ‘no difference,’ masking important aspects
of the situation.
Interestingly, in certain academic areas, such as English language prociency, it
could also be the case that a phone ban may affect English skills, given the grow-
ing consensus that young non-native English speakers learn a signicant amount
of English through their use of social media (Alharthi et al., 2020). Again, although
Abrahamsson states that there are no negative effects of the phone bans on English
skills, we think that her data indicates a possible trend towards poorer English skills
post the phone ban, especially in girls (2024, p. 50). The trend, if it continues, could
become statistically signicant, and therefore we think that further research is also
warranted here before rm conclusions are drawn.
Consequently, despite Abrahamsson’s conclusion that prohibiting smartphones
from schools could be a low-cost policy tool to improve student outcomes without
negative side-effects, at least in terms of the variables that she measures (Abrahamsson,
2024, p. 27), we argue that her and others’ ndings imply that the effects of phone use
in schools are perhaps more complex than commonly portrayed in policy discourses,
necessitating a more nuanced approach that considers the intricacies of the issues at
hand. An outright ban on smartphones in education could inadvertently suppress
unrecognised potential benets for certain student groups and result in unforeseen
consequences, such as a reduction in language skills and well-being in some demo-
graphics. Whilst further research may be needed to fully explore these issues, the
discussion suggests – unsurprisingly given what we know of hypercomplexity – that a
No Phone, No Problem?
77
carefully considered, context-specic approach towards ICT integration or exclusion
in education may be optimal, rather than an instrumentalist, one-size-ts-all policy.
The preference for large-scale studies, demonstrated by establishing the Screen
Use Committee, tends to overshadow qualitative, context-specic research in educa-
tion policy formation, potentially reecting second order descriptions of complexity.
This preference for quantitative over qualitative data in education, as reported by
McKnight and Morgan (2020), manifests a common quandary within hypercomplex
societies: the conict between seeking broadly applicable results and understanding
nuanced, context-specic phenomena amidst the urgency of policy making and politi-
cal action. This tension emphasises the inherent contradictions within contemporary
systems, contradictions that are core aspects of Qvortrup’s (2003) hypercomplexity
theory.
Consequently, educators are left to navigate these contradictions autonomously,
making pragmatic decisions that balance policy mandates with the distinct peda-
gogical and ethical considerations inherent in their unique classrooms (Hammond,
2014). These decisions illustrate micro-level responses to education’s macro-level
complexities system, highlighting the continuous negotiation and adoption neces-
sary to address the multifaceted demands of integrating ICT in education (Somekh,
2008) within hypercomplex societies.
Theorising the social implications of the national guidelines
When discussing the national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms, it is crucial to
consider the broader social implications for student interactions and the school envi-
ronment, alongside direct impacts on educational practices. Critical realism’s focus
on open systems and its concepts of retroduction and judgemental rationalism can
help us to negotiate this complex territory by considering theories about underly-
ing structures and mechanisms leading to complexity and to select among compet-
ing theories (Bhaskar, 2016). Given the empirical evidence, one could argue that a
hypercomplexity-based theory – that includes the idea that mobile phones in schools
can be, but are not necessarily always, problematic – may better explain the evidence
than the reductive theory that phones cause issues such as poor academic outcomes
or bullying.
In the following discussion we will consider three socially relevant issues related to
mobile phone bans: that the correlations between phones and bullying and between
phones and student achievement are not unrelated (they are part of a complex of
causality) and they cannot be understood as separate, linear relationships; that identi-
fying the improvement in academic performance linked to phone bans solely with the
reduction of distractions risks making girls of lower socioeconomic status more vul-
nerable; and that an unmediated ban on phones may have some negative unintended
consequences, such as impaired mental health in certain boys or poorer English lang-
uage skills.
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
78
The correlation of phone bans to better grades and reduced bullying must
be understood together
Instead of seeing the correlation between phone bans and improved grades and phone
bans and reduced bullying as linear, stand-alone relationships, it could be theorised
that they are both proxy measurements of underlying, structural factors. That is, they
are all closely related because they are essentially the same ‘thing’, namely structural
inequality. It is well-established that bullying leads to poorer grades (Johansson et al.,
2018) and that bullying is enacted through social media platforms on mobile phones
(Aalen & Iversen, 2021, p. 126). This being the case, then removing a mechanism
of bullying (the phones) and not the bullying itself is only a partial – albeit perhaps
not insignicant – solution. Furthermore, phone bans in schools do not eradicate
the means for bullying, but merely limit the time that students have access to these
means.
Another consideration in this discussion is that Abrahamsson’s research notably
indicates a larger variation around the mean of student grades post the smartphone
ban (Abrahamsson, 2024, p. 49). Whilst this variation could be explained in part by
variations in the composition of the individual school, such as an increase in foreign-
born pupils – and there does seem to be a noticeable increase in variation around the
means in all the data collected after the phone ban – nevertheless, the variation could
also be explained by the presence of bullying. This is because individuals often adopt
specic strategies to cope in bullying-rife contexts and one such strategy is to avoid
standing out – either through excellence or through poorer grades – although one
assumes that it is easier to ‘dumb-down’ good grades than improve bad grades. It is
therefore conceivable that bullying could result in reduced grade variation, as well as
decreased overall grades. In other words, a common strategy to cope with bullying is
to strive to t in (Thornberg, 2018), and tting in might mean avoiding being seen as
a high achiever. As Sarzosa (2015) contends:
I nd that bullying is disproportionately suffered by students that lack socio-
emotional skills, and among those, the smart students are more likely to be
victimized. My ndings, in line with psychological studies, suggest that conditional
on the level of skills, kids with uncommon characteristics relative to those of their
classmates are more likely to be victimized. (Sarzosa, 2015, p. 36)
The idea that phone bans increase academic performance, mainly by
reducing distractions, could have unfortunate consequences
Abrahamsson (2024, p. 4) suggests that girls from low socioeconomic backgrounds
are most likely to be ‘distracted’ by smartphones, resulting in lower school attainment
and poor psychological health. Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of such
an interpretation of the results could be that it lends support to the questionable
discourse that people with a lower socioeconomic status are somehow less capable
of disciplined, hard work than those with a higher status (Tarkiainen, 2020). If the
No Phone, No Problem?
79
disadvantaged girls are distracted because, for example, they have not eaten enough
or because they are being bullied, then it could be argued that it would be important
to explore these reasons and respond to them (rather than to arrive at the conclusion
that phones should be banned). Without placing these girls in a hypercomplex con-
text that explains the link between poor school outcomes and phones, there is a risk
of adopting the conclusion that the phone ban could be avoided if the disadvantaged
girls could learn to self-regulate, and this assumption could conceivably fuel aggres-
sion towards these girls from individuals who blame them for the implementation of
phone bans.
Unmediated phone bans may have unintended consequences
One possible unintended consequence of blanket phone bans is that, conceivably,
they may affect certain boys’ mental health in that certain kinds of screen time may
protect these boys from mental health issues (Kandola et al., 2022). That boys are
increasingly struggling with mental health issues is well-established (Lindborg et al.,
2024). This trend has been attributed to, amongst other things, societal shortcom-
ings in providing boys with adequate opportunities for developing a healthy identity
(Kimmel, 2013). Social media and online interactions might offer one such avenue
for social identity development, as illustrated by the NRK documentary article about
Mats Steen (Schaubert, 2019). Steen was constrained to a wheelchair due to a mus-
cular disease and found great value in the digital communities he participated in,
particularly as his physical world was restricted by illness. However, it is important to
note that social media provides boys with both legitimate and illegitimate pathways to
identity development, where an identity based on being a bully would be illegitimate
(Frøyhov, 2020).
Another possible unintended consequence which warrants further research is that
phone bans may reduce English prociency in non-native English speakers, given
that it is generally assumed that social media and mobile phones play an increasingly
important role in the learning of English as a foreign language (Ababneh, 2017;
Shahrol et al., 2020).
Applying retroduction and judgemental rationalism
Critical realism’s focus on open systems and its concepts of retroduction and judge-
mental rationalism give us tools to navigate this hypercomplexity by considering
theories about underlying structures and mechanisms leading to complexity and
selecting among competing theories (Bhaskar, 2016).
Despite the signicant correlations between banning phones and improved well-be-
ing indicators (Abrahamsson, 2024), critical realism argues that we cannot use these
correlations to denitively attribute decreased well-being to the use of phones in
schools. This uncertainty arises because the available empirical research has been
conducted in an open system, where correlations cannot be reliably assumed to
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
80
demonstrate causation, unlike in closed systems. From a critical realist perspective
(Bhaskar, 2016), this problem can be overcome by using retroduction to theorise
about underlying causal mechanisms and structures, and by comparing and selecting
the theory that explains more of the evidence among competing theories. As inter-
preted in this paper, the competing retroductive theories are:
a) The banning of mobile phones in schools is likely to be benecial because it impro-
ves grades, most likely by reducing distractions, and reduces bullying.
b) The banning of mobile phones in schools is likely to be benecial in that it impro-
ves grades, but the reason for this may not be as simple as that it reduces distra-
ctions (although this may be part of the explanation). The lower grades associated
with phone use at school might also be a proxy measurement and symptom of
the increased bullying also associated with phones. Given that the students who
benet the least by curtailing mobile phone use are generally those not subject to
bullying – specically those who have relatively higher social status – it is concei-
vable that increasing distractions may explain only part of the relationship between
phones and poor achievement. It could also be that the increase in bullying associ-
ated with more phone time results in signicantly lower grades because, perhaps
amongst other factors, it motivates high-achieving students to avoid victimisation
by keeping their grades close to the average and because bullied students nd it
more challenging to focus on their studies. The larger variation around the mean
of school grades following the removal of phones from schools could be explained
as resulting from the removal of the need to t in to avoid victimisation when bully-
ing is prevalent. It seems likely that, when freed from the pressures associated with
a bullying context, students can access greater psychological resources and heigh-
tened motivation to realise their potential, which may explain why those students
who are unlikely to be experiencing bullying do not show a benet, and perhaps
even experience a disadvantage, when mobile phones are banned.
While theory a) may not be entirely incorrect as it considers and explains certain
empirical evidence, theory b) manages to embrace and explain more of the evidence.
For instance, b) incorporates both the evidence about the increased variation around
the means post the phone bans and the evidence about the potential negative effects
of banning phones. Therefore, according to critical realism, it is preferable to assume
that b) is correct, until such time that evidence emerges that either disproves the
theory or necessitates its further development. Assuming that b) is correct suggests
that a simple smartphone ban may miss a larger point – that many students expe-
rience bullying in Norwegian schools – and it could indicate that such a ban may
have unintended negative consequences, for example, with regard to language skills
development and the well-being of certain boys.
All things considered, it may be wise to implement a smartphone ban, but it is
crucial to recognise that a) this intervention does not address the deeper issues of
No Phone, No Problem?
81
social inequality, and b) the intervention needs additional measures to mitigate its
potential unintended consequences. These measures could include interventions to
address the potential learning decit around English language mastery and initia-
tives to support boys needing alternative ways to develop a healthy identity. Such
initiatives could possibly include increased sports opportunities or enhanced peer
socialising opportunities.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have critically examined the complexities and implications of
Norway’s recent national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms across all educa-
tional levels (Regjeringen, 2024), using societal hypercomplexity and critical realist
frameworks.
The national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms reect similar initiatives in
Sweden and Denmark, suggesting a Scandinavian trend towards stricter ICT regu-
lations in schools. These trends, however, seem to reveal an instrumentalist attitude
towards ICT in education, largely disregarding societal hypercomplexity.
The debate over integrating or banning mobile phones in classrooms transcends
a simple two-sided discussion. Rather, it constitutes a complex matrix of intercon-
nected perspectives and conicting interests among various stakeholders, including
educators, policymakers, researchers, big tech companies, students and parents. The
policies are not isolated from the rest of society; they are intertwined with societal anx-
iety and media panics over the growing inuence of ICT on young minds. The impli-
cations of mobile phone use in schools might be more complex than are often depicted
in public discourses, necessitating a more nuanced understanding and approach.
The guidelines also necessitate a thorough examination of how neoliberal objec-
tives may inuence educational policy. These policies, often presented as strategies to
improve learning outcomes, could be serving neoliberal ideals, possibly undermin-
ing democratic values. For example, the emphasis on mobile-free classrooms might
support a performance-driven educational approach, prioritising individualistic
achievements over the educators’ responsibility for student well-being and demo-
cratic participation. Therefore, it is imperative to critically scrutinise whether such
policies inadvertently advance a neoliberal agenda, potentially sidelining democratic
values in education.
The delay in obtaining robust research, exemplied by establishing the Screen Use
Committee, adds yet another layer of complexity to this discussion. Consequently,
the interrelationships among the educational, political and scientic systems of soci-
ety are revealed to be teeming with complexities. This policy debate highlights notice-
able gaps, with educators and students often overshadowed or overlooked entirely.
Utilising retroduction and judgemental rationalism in formulating advice for the
national guidelines for mobile-free classrooms enabled an in-depth analysis of these poli-
cies’ underlying causes and broader impacts. Retroduction helped identify key reasons
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
82
driving the push for mobile restrictions, such as classroom distractions and varying
academic outcomes. Judgemental rationality allowed for careful consideration of these
reasons within the complex tapestry of societal and educational expectations. The con-
clusion from our retroductive analysis is that while a mobile ban might address certain
symptoms, it does not tackle more systemic but underlying issues such as social and edu-
cational inequity. Furthermore, it may not account for the interests of all stakeholders,
and it could be argued that there has not been enough public discussion on the matter
to properly reect democratic values. An alternative would be to shift from instrumen-
talist solutions to more integrated, context-sensitive policies in education (Price, 2024).
The evidence discussed in the paper suggests that although smartphone bans may
yield some important benets, they may also lead to unintended consequences, such
as reduced English language skills and increased psychological issues amongst cer-
tain boys. Thus, it is crucial to recognise that such an intervention does not address
the deeper social inequalities and may require additional measures to mitigate its
unintended consequences. These measures could include actions to address English
language learning decits and initiatives to provide alternative ways to develop a
healthy identity, such as increased sports or enhanced peer socialising opportunities.
Perhaps the most crucial takeaway from applying retroduction and judgemental
rationalism in this research is that they draw attention to the unfortunate reality that
schools are places permeated by inequality, often manifested as bullying. Simply ban-
ning phones seems unlikely to remove this inequality, though it may instrumentally
mitigate certain of its effects. However, politicians and policymakers may opportu-
nistically amplify the already existing media panic around smartphones as a way to
appear proactive in addressing and overcoming the perceived issues. Meanwhile, the
phone ban may serve as a diversion, masking the real social challenges that persist.
If inequalities were absent, correlations between a phone ban and enhanced school
achievement might dissipate.
For future policymaking with impact, that avoids instrumentalism, policymakers
could initially employ retroduction to deeply explore reasons behind policy success or
failure, such as phone bans. Examining the reasons underlying the measurable impacts
on student psychology and learning environments is crucial. Subsequently, applying
judgemental rationality, policymakers can assess potential policy modications or
alternatives by weighing the outcomes of interventions against educational goals and
stakeholders’ feedback. This approach may ensure decisions are not only data-driven
but also mindful of educational complexities, leading to tailored and impactful educa-
tional policies that actively address and potentially mitigate social inequalities.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the use of Sikt KI-Chat (https://ki-chat.sikt.no/nb) to rene gram-
mar, translations and academic terminology. The content has been thoroughly
reviewed and edited by us.
No Phone, No Problem?
83
Author biographies
Steffen Egge Frøyhov is a PhD candidate in Educational Sciences at, University of
Inland Norway. He researches the societal, educational and interpersonal aspects of
ICT use in our complex society. Steffen teaches Media Education at the Institute for
Pedagogy and does editorial work for the journal Seminar.net. His master’s thesis focused
on digital communities and he has published an article about trust and commitment in
digital relations within digital communication and human-chatbot interactions.
Dr Leigh Price (University of Inland Norway) lectures in the philosophy of science,
education for sustainability and special pedagogy. Her educational research interests
are underpinned by the Bhaskarian philosophy of science. She has written extensively
on the concept of interdisciplinarity and co-authored Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing
(2018) with Roy Bhaskar and Berth Danemark. She heads the research group Critical
Realism, is Director of the Roy Bhaskar Centre and is the general editor of Journal of
Critical Realism.
References
Aalen, I., & Iversen, M. H. (2021). Sosiale medier (2nd ed.). Fagbokforlaget.
Ababneh, S. (2017). Using mobile phones in learning English: The case of Jordan. Journal of Education and
Human Development, 6(4), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v6n4a14
Abrahamsson, S. (2024). Smartphone bans, student outcomes and mental health. NHH Institutt for
Samfunnsøkonomi. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3119200
Alharthi, M., Bown, A., & Pullen, D. (2020). The use of social media platforms to enhance vocabulary
development in learning a new language: A review of the literature. Arab World English Journal, (6).
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call6.21
Ball, S. J. (2021). The education debate. Policy Press.
Bhaskar, R. (2012). From science to emancipation: Alienation and the actuality of enlightenment. Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Routledge.
Breidablikk, C. (2024, 9 February). Kritisk til mobilforbud [Ciritcal towards cell phone ban]. Journalen. https://
journalen.oslomet.no/2024/02/kritisk-til-mobilforbud
Campbell, M., Edwards, E. J., Pennell, D., Poed, S., Lister, V., Gillett-Swan, J., ... & Nguyen, T. A. (2024).
Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review. Journal of Psychologists and
Counsellors in Schools, 34(3), 242–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/20556365241270394
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
Dagsavisen. (2023, 6 November). Gi dem virkeligheten tilbake [Give them reality back]. Dagsavisen. https://
www.dagsavisen.no/debatt/leder/2023/11/06/gi-dem-virkeligheten-tilbake/
Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs. (2023). Demokratisk kontrol med tech-giganternes
f
orretningsmodeller: Delafrapportering fra regeringens ekspertgruppe om tech-giganter [Democratic control of tech-
giants’ business models]. https://em.dk/Media/638259804674509194/anbefalinger-fra-tech-ekspertgruppe.
pdf
Egea, O. M. (2014). Neoliberalism, education and the integration of ICT in schools. A critical reading.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.810168
Ertesvåg, F. (2023, 6 November). Roser ministeren for mobilfri-nyhet: – Helt strålende [Minister credited
for cell phone ban: – Excellent]. Verdens Gang. https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/zEBA8q/maja-lunde-roser-
ministeren-for-mobilfri-nyhet-helt-straalende
Folkestad, S. (2024, 7 February). Mobilen skal ut av klasserommene [Cell phones out of the classrooms]. NHH
Bulletin. https://www.nhh.no/nhh-bulletin/artikkelarkiv/2024/februar/mobilen-skal-ut-av-klasserommene/
S. E. Frøyhov & L. Price
84
Fritze, Y., Haugsbakk, G., & Nordkvelle, Y. T. (2017). Digitale forstyrrelser i skolen: Erfaringer med begrensninger
av elevers mobilbruk [Digital disruptions in the classroom: Experiences from limiting students’ cell phone
use]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 101(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2017-03-02
Frøyhov, S. (2020). Nærhet på avstand: Om menneskelige relasjoner i den digitale tidsalder [Proximity at a distance:
On human relations in the digital era] [Master’s thesis, University of Inland Norway]. Brage. https://hdl.
handle.net/11250/2715790
Gjøen, H. W. (2024, 8 February). Debatten: Ut med mobilen, inn med tekstroboter [Cell phones out, chat robots
in]. NRK.
Hammond, M. (2014). Introducing ICT in schools in England: Rationale and consequences. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 45(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12033
Haugsbakk, G. (2011). How political ambitions replace teacher involvement: Some critical perspectives on the
introduction of ICT in Norwegian schools. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(4), 239–256. https://doi.
org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2011-04-04
Johansson, B., Flygare, E., & Hellfeldt, K. (2018). Pass or fail?: A study concerning how experiences of bullying,
truancy and social relations inuence pupils’ academic performance. Friends international center against
bullying & Örebro university, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-64640
Kandola, A., Owen, N., Dunstan, D. W., & Hallgren, M. (2022). Prospective relationships of adolescents’
screen-based sedentary behaviour with depressive symptoms: The Millennium Cohort Study. Psychological
Medicine, 52(15), 3531–3539. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003391721000258
Kallelid, M. (2023, 3 November). Kari Nessa Nordtun: Går inn for mobilfri skole [Kari Nessa Nordtun: In
favour of a cell phone free school]. Dagbladet. https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/gar-inn-for-mobilfri-
skole/80455187
Kimmel, M. S. (2013). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender
identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). Routledge.
Lindborg, T. H., Kristensson Hallström, I., Synnøve Litland, A., & Åvik Persson, H. (2024). Adolescent boys’
experiences of mental health and school health services – An interview study from Norway. BMC Public
Health, 24(1), 1464. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18952-6
Lovat, T. (2020). Holistic learning versus instrumentalism in teacher education: Lessons from values pedagogy
and related research. Education Sciences, 10(11), 341. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/10/11/341
McGarr, O., & Engen, B. K. (2022). By-passing teachers in the marketing of digital technologies: The synergy of
educational technology discourse and new public management practices. Learning, Media and Technology,
47(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.2010092
McKnight, L., & Morgan, A. (2020). A broken paradigm? What education needs to learn from evidence-based
medicine. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), 648–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1578902
Nielsen, S. B. (2023, 5 June). Minister vil have iPads væk fra børnehave og vuggestuer [Minister wants iPads
out of kindergarten]. DR. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/minister-vil-have-ipads-vaek-fra-boernehave-
og-vuggestuer
Peirce, C. S. (1938). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. Burks, Eds.).
Harvard University Press.
Price, L. (2016). Using retroduction to address wicked problems. In P. Næss & L. Price (Eds.), Crisis system
(pp. 109–129). Routledge.
Price, L. (2023). Bhaskar’s philosophy as third generation systems theory, with implications for ethics and
earth system stability. Journal of Critical Realism, 22(5), 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2023.
2272415
Price, L. (2024). Finding effective and humane ways to approach social care: An argument for interdisciplinarity.
In L. Nyhus, J. Avdem & E. Nesset Mælan (Eds.), Samarbeid om folkehelse og livsmestring – i skole- og
kommunesamfunnet (pp. 39–66). Oplandske Bokforlag.
Qvortrup, L. (2002). Det hyperkomplekse samfund: Om læring og dannelse. In Y. Fritze, G. Haugsbakk & R.
Rønning (Eds.), Fleksibilitet som utfordring: Noen erfaringer og reeksjoner (pp. 41–56). SOFF Rapport.
Qvortrup, L. (2003). The hypercomplex society. Peter Lang.
Regjeringen. (2024, 7 February). Ny nasjonal anbefaling: Mobilfrie klasserom på alle nivå [National
recommendation: Cell phone free classrooms on all levels]. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/
no/aktuelt/ny-nasjonal-anbefaling-mobilfrie-klasserom-pa-alle-niva/id3024645/
Sarzosa, M. A. (2015). The dynamic consequences of bullying on skill accumulation. Purdue University. https://
business.purdue.edu/faculty/msarzosa/Research/DynBullying.pdf
No Phone, No Problem?
85
Schaubert, V. (2019, 27 January). Først da Mats var død, forsto foreldrene verdien av gamingen hans [When Mats
passed away, his parents understood the value of his gaming]. NRK. https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/
forst-da-mats-var-dod_-forsto-foreldrene-verdien-av-gamingen-hans-1.14197198
Shahrol, S. J. M., Sulaiman, S., Samingan, M. R., & Mohamed, H. (2020). A systematic literature review on
teaching and learning English using mobile technology. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 10(9), 709–714. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.9.1447
Skjermbrukutvalget. (2023). Konsekvenser av skjerm i skolen: Et kunnskapsgrunnlag fra skjermbrukutvalget
[Temanotat] [Consequences of screen use in school]. Regjeringen. https://les.nettsteder.regjeringen.no/
wpuploads01/sites/546/2023/12/Konsekvenser-av-skjerm-i-skole-endelig.pdf
Skjermbrukutvalget. (n.d.). Information in English. Retrieved 12 February 2024 from https://skjermbrukutvalget.
no/information-in-english/
Sollien, T. (2023, 9 November). Mobilen ligger alt i sekken. Det er brettet som er problemet [The cell phone
is already in the bag. Tablets are the problem]. Aftenposten. https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/
kommentar/i/rl6O1A/mobilen-ligger-alt-i-sekken-det-er-brettet-som-er-problemet
Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.),
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_27
SVT. (2023, 9 December). Grundskolan ska bli helt mobilfri [Primary schools to be cell phone free]. SVT
Nyheter. SVT. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/grundskolan-ska-bli-helt-mobilfri--rnjsht
Tarkiainen, L. (2020). ‘Effortful’,‘needy’and ‘freeloader’: Constructions of unemployed people’s deservingness
in Finnish parliamentary discussions. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(2), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.
1075/jlp.19056.tar
Thornberg, R. (2018). School bullying and tting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory eld study. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(1), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1330680
Tjoot, E. (2023, 5 November). Hyllar kunnskapsministeren som vil ha mobilfri skule [Praises the minister of
education for wanting cell phone free schools]. NRK. https://www.nrk.no/norge/kari-nessa-nordtun-vil-
ha-mobilfri-skule-_-live-nelvik-jublar-1.16624530
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The inuence of learning context
and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251–266. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF00132290
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2024, 7 February). Anbefalinger om regulering av mobiler og smartklokker i skolen
[Recommendations on cell phone and smartwatch use in school]. Norwegian Directorate of Education
and Training. https://www.udir.no/regelverk-og-tilsyn/skole-og-opplaring/anbefalinger-for-mobilbruk-og-
smartklokker-i-skolen
