Background: The thesis is part of the research project Disruptive behavior in school, led by professor Liv Duesund at the Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo. Professor Duesund is the supervisor of the thesis. It is a cooperation project between University of Oslo and University of California, Berkeley and compares the educational cultures of Norway an the United States (Duesund, 2013). The focus is on disruptive behavior, and in what ways behavior can vary in the two national contexts, as well as teacher variation in identifying behaviors as disruptive (Duesund, 2013). The aim of the thesis is to discuss the relationship between disruptive behavior, interpreted as off-task behavior, and new technology. The objectives of this research are twofold. First, to observe and identify the types of off-task behavior that students display while using and interacting with new technology. Second, a thorough discussion on the relationship between the two concepts. Fischer s (1992) user heuristic framework is applied to contextualize the discussion in the thesis. Research questions: The research aims to examine and discuss the following research questions: What characterizes the relationship between technology and disruptive behavior during class? A second question is generated to serve as guideline when the collecting the data: What kind of off-task and on-task behavior does the student display while using and interacting with technological devices in the classroom? Methodology: The study undertakes a qualitative case study approach, observing one student in an American middle school classroom. The data is collected through one semi-structured interview with the student (referred to as NN). Structured observations were made on five separate occasions. During the first observation, the class as a whole was observed, whereas the next four observations were focused on NN, lasting 15 minutes each. Results and conclusions: The main focus in the thesis is disruptive behavior interpreted as off-task behavior; both passive and active (Hofer, 2007). Off-task behavior inhibits either learning or teaching. Passive off-task behavior does not necessarily disturb other than the students himself, such as, daydreaming or apathy (Charles, 2011; Hofer, 2007), whereas active off-task behavior might be disruptive to the learning and teaching of other students and teachers, such as through talking out of turn, out of seat behavior, or annoying others (Charles, 2011; Hofer, 2007; Wheldall & Merrett, 1988). Moreover, the thesis focuses on off-task behavior when using and interacting with new technology, such as, computers, smart phones, and LCD-projectors. Technology is defined as a device, an activity, and as a know-how, as well as fitting the purpose of the classroom subject matter (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Ren, 2014). Off-task behavior in relation to the use of, and interaction with, technology is, therefore, defined as students not completing the required task given by the teacher (Colvin & Horner, 2010), and/or use the assigned tool for other purposes than the specified or intended purpose (Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010). Of the categories generated from this research category 3 is definitely the most frequent category displayed by NN (active off task behavior in double interaction), and behavior that belongs in category 6 (on-task behavior in double interaction). The categories are theoretical in that they are not mutually exclusive. The main conclusions from the research are that technology does not make students displaying disruptive acts. It is through the use of, and interaction with, technology that disruptive behavior occurs. The relationship between off-task behavior and new technology is dynamic, in that NN would display on-task and off-task behavior interchangeably. The relationship is also characterized by inconsistency, which implies that NN displays on-task and off-task behavior at the same time. A key finding is that not necessarily all of the off-task behaviors displayed are equally destructive to NN s learning. In some situations NN seems off-task regarding the task he is assigned, but on-task regarding the learning potential (Colvin & Horner, 2010; Hofer, 2007). Additionally, the context surrounding NN is pointed out as an important factor when outlining the relationship between disruptive behavior and technology. In a dynamic environment, the individual will often be affected by the context and vice versa (Corrie, 2002; Duesund, 1995). Constraints, possibilities, and unintended consequences when using and interacting with technology are part of this contextual argument.