This article was downloaded by: [Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology]On: 30 October 2014, At: 19:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Oxford Review of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/core20

Introduction: Digital technologies in thelives of young peopleJohn Coleman aa University of Oxford , UKPublished online: 24 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: John Coleman (2012) Introduction: Digital technologies in the lives of youngpeople, Oxford Review of Education, 38:1, 1-8, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577937

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577937

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Oxford Review of Education

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/12/010001–08© 2012 Taylor & Francis

Introduction: Digital technologies in the lives of young peopleJohn Coleman*University of Oxford, UKTaylor and FrancisCORE_A_577937.sgm10.1080/03054985.2011.577937Oxford Review of Education0305-4985 (print)/1465-3915 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis00000000002011JohnColemanjohn.coleman@education.ox.ac.uk

Introduction

In 2007 a number of colleagues from Oxford University and the London School ofEconomics came together to share an interest in young people and digital technolo-gies. They discussed how those having a developmental perspective on adolescencecould collaborate with others having a knowledge of technological change in the fieldof ICTs to identify new research agendas and to demonstrate that a multi-disciplinaryapproach would be worthwhile. A group of four people, Chris Davies, SoniaLivingstone, Ingrid Lunt and myself, put forward an application to the ESRC for aseminar series entitled ‘The educational and social impact of new technologies on thelives of young people in Britain’. The application was successful, and this SpecialIssue is the outcome, following four seminars, a conference and four reports of theproceedings of the seminars.

In her Introduction to the first seminar Livingstone (2008) identified three ques-tions that she hoped the seminar series would address. First, she asked what benefitscould be expected for children and young people as a result of the development ofnew technologies. This question links closely with one of the paramount beliefs ofthose planning the seminar series, namely that it is important to focus on the positiveoutcomes of technological advance, since by and large the emphasis in public debatehas tended to concentrate more on the disadvantages and the threats posed by tech-nology, rather than on the advantages and opportunities offered to children andyoung people. In the context of this question it is also important to note a strong beliefamong the group that some knowledge of adolescent development could be helpfulin considering what might be called ‘the digital revolution’ of the first decade of the21st century. We took the view that, since the meaning of technology is very likely tobe located in the social and cultural milieu, one key aspect of that milieu has to be thedevelopmental stage of the individuals concerned. As Selwyn (this issue) puts it: ‘…technologies are subjected continually to a series of complex negotiations and inter-

*Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, UK.Email: John.coleman@education.ox.ac.uk

Vol. 38, No. 1, February 2012, pp. 1–8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577937

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

2 J. Coleman

actions with the social, economic, political and cultural contexts into which theyemerge’, and if this is so, one fundamental aspect of such negotiations has to do withthe psychological development of young people.

A second question asked by Livingstone (2008) was: ‘How can society ensurethat ICTs contribute to positive educational outcomes?’. Many of the papers inthis Special Issue concentrate on aspects of the learning environment, and tackle avariety of concerns about the role of the school, the link between learning informal and informal settings, the learning lives of young people, and the tensionsthat exist between the objectives of those endorsing technological advance and thereality of ‘conservative’ educational institutions and family settings. In framing thisseminar series the organisers recognised that more research on this topic has beencarried out within the educational context than in any other sphere, and thattherefore many of the questions we had about the links between adolescent devel-opment and digital technologies were likely to be considered as part of an ongoingdebate about schools and learning. Furthermore many of the papers here recognisethat one of the major affordances of ICTs is that learning is no longer limited toformal settings. Sefton-Green (2008) uses the word ‘unbundled’ to describe thisprocess of learning being freed from the boundaries of the educational institutionand, as Furlong and Davies (this issue) indicate, if this is the case then ‘we need tothink seriously about contexts such as the home, where learning increasingly takesplace’.

The third and final question asked by Livingstone (2008) in her Introduction was:‘What can a multi-disciplinary framework offer practitioners?’. This topic reflectsanother key belief of the organisers: that questions about the relation between humandevelopment and the benefits of technology are most likely to be answered by a multi-disciplinary approach. However, as most individuals working in an academic environ-ment will know, to pursue cross-disciplinary dialogue is not easy. It is hard work tobring together those from different backgrounds in order to create a genuinely openforum for discussion. The organisers were also keen to cross the divide betweenresearchers and those working directly with young people. A serious attempt wasmade to involve schools as well as those from the worlds of policy and industry, andit is our hope that the papers in this Special Issue are indicative of both our intentionsand of some of the outcomes.

In addition to the three questions outlined above, Livingstone (2008) indicatedthat there were three research topics which she and the organising group would liketo have considered as part of the background to the field of youth/technology studies.These three topics all reflect unresolved questions that could, and indeed should,form part of any research agenda that might stem from the seminar series. The threeresearch topics are as follows:

● The question of age. It is far from clear how to consider age in social, cognitive andcultural terms, so how do we meaningfully distinguish the needs and interests ofyoung people, and how do we recognise their unique contribution to the develop-ment of digital technologies?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Introduction 3

● Technological determinism. Technological determinism has been criticised byacademics, but it remains an underlying belief among some policy makers andindustrialists. Soft determinism appears to be favoured by some researchers andtheorists, but constructivism can also be recognised as being part of many debates.So, what are the key ways of thinking about the technological?

● Formal and informal learning. The relation between formal and informal learningremains unclear and contested. What are the links between home and school?What is the role of ICTs in learning, however this is defined, and what is at stakein considering this question?

As will be apparent from the papers in this issue the contributions made to the semi-nars did indeed address these questions. Furthermore many have identified futuredirections for research in this field. I will now consider each of the three researchquestions, and explore how the articles that make up this Special Issue advance ourthinking in relation to these topics.

Age

One of the premises of this Seminar Series is that a greater understanding of adoles-cent development will assist us in recognising the role that digital technologies playfor young people in both formal and informal settings. In order to set the scene forsuch a discussion it will be as well to rehearse briefly one theoretical approach whichhas clear benefits in the present context. This theoretical approach is that of lifespandevelopmental psychology, outlined by Coleman (2008) as a contribution to the firstseminar. Lifespan developmental theory is based on a number of key premises. Thefirst of these is that development is interactive, occurring across domains. In order tounderstand development, therefore, it is essential to include perspectives from differ-ent disciplines, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology and othersciences. The second principle is that development is determined by the context asmuch as by any other factor. The stress on the environment is a major step forwardin allowing us to explore the differences between individuals depending on thecircumstances in which they develop.

A third principle is that development is bi-directional, not uni-directional. Againthis is extremely important, since our understanding of all aspects of human growthand change has been enhanced by seeing that, while the adult and the environmentmay influence the young person, so does the young person influence the adult and theenvironment in which he or she grows up. Finally the fourth principle has to do withwhat is called active agency. This also has major significance, since it allows us to seethat the individual is an agent in his or her own development, rather than being apassive recipient reflecting biological or social forces. These principles, particularlythe latter two, can be linked directly to the discussions held during the seminar series,and can be shown to illuminate the research questions outlined above.

One means of indicating the links between theory and research questions will be toset out three arguments supporting the case that digital technologies have special

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

4 J. Coleman

salience for the adolescent period of development. In the first place it will be apparentthat friendship and the peer group are of central concern to young people during theadolescent stage. Young people are more likely to use peers rather than family associal support networks, in social decision-making and as a reference group forattitudes and opinions, culture, leisure and fashion. Alongside this change in socialrelationships research has shown that, for young people from the age of about 12upwards, there is rapid growth in the individual’s capacity to understand and processinformation relating to social situations. This area of functioning is known as socialcognition, and includes impression-formation, perspective-taking and behaviouraldecision-making. In view of this it is not surprising that the affordances provided bysocial software and by means of communication such as messaging and texting are ofespecial interest to this age group. Many authors in this Special Issue refer to theopportunities for networking provided by ICTs. As Erstad (this issue) notes: ‘Digitalmedia provide new spaces and resources for information, entertainment, communi-cation and networking. … We need to develop new ways of researching this culturalcomplexity to fully grasp the role of media among young people’.

We can now turn to questions relating to mastery and autonomy, two essentialneeds of the young person as he or she moves towards maturity and establishes inde-pendence in the family context. One of the principles of lifespan developmentalpsychology is that of agency and active mastery, and this links directly with the ideathat the individual has the capacity to shape and influence his or her own develop-ment. Where digital technologies are concerned this is a significant concept, sinceICTs provide a golden opportunity for young people to experience agency as theybecome active consumers in this arena.

The third topic to be considered here is that of identity. As all writers on adoles-cence have made clear, this stage is one of identity exploration. It is during this periodthat individuals find themselves considering such questions as what sort of a personam I, what sort of job or future do I want, what values do I wish to uphold, and whatfriends suit me best. It is not difficult to see how the opportunities afforded by digitaltechnologies can allow this sort of exploration to take place within a relatively safeenvironment. There are of course risks involved, but these have to be weighed againstthe benefits, and systems put in place to reduce as far as possible the threats posed bythe freedom of the internet. One of the seminars in this series was dedicated to ques-tions of identity, and many of the articles here address aspects of this topic. One goodexample is the work of Furlong and Davies (this issue) who state that: ‘What we havelearned is … that young people’s engagement with new technologies is fundamentallybound up with their own identity. It is impossible fully to understand the role thatnew technologies play in [young people’s] lives without understanding their particularlife projects. … As ICTs become more ubiquitous then they are just as important asany other (commercially available) cultural resource—dress, music—in the construc-tion of a personal identity’.

Social cognition, agency and identity are three topics that illustrate the ways inwhich key themes of adolescent development are reflected in research on youngpeople and digital technologies. The findings make it clear that there are particular

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Introduction 5

reasons why the affordances of ICTs play such a special role in young people’s lives,and why it can be argued that the link between developmental psychology and thestudy of technological advance is a particularly fruitful one.

Technological determinism

As already noted, Livingstone (2008) asked questions about the key ways of thinkingabout digital technologies, and indicated that she considered it essential to pay someattention to this topic in order to provide a background to understanding the place ofICTs in the lives of young people. A number of papers in this Special Issue refer toquestions of theory. However it is clear that this is not an easy debate in which toengage, and as Selwyn (this issue) notes: ‘One of the most disappointing aspects ofwork in this area … is a general failure to think carefully about the technological. Thisis not altogether a surprising shortfall, as thinking critically about younger generationsand technology is, in many ways, a disconcerting thing to do’. Selwyn goes on to makethe point that academics may find it difficult to separate out their own experiences ofthe technological from those of young people or, to put it another way, those in theuniversity world find it hard to step into the shoes of another generation for whomtechnology perhaps has a different range of meanings in comparison to those whodepend on it day in and day out for their work. Selwyn (this issue) also makes thepoint that it is not just theory, but social theory, to which we need to turn if we are todevelop ‘rich understandings of structures, actions, processes and relations thatconstitute use of digital technologies in educational settings and contexts’.

One of the central themes in most debates about the place of technology in our liveshas to do with the degree of determinism involved. Most accept that the developmentof technologies takes place within social and cultural contexts, and that thereforethere can be no sense in which the technology itself absolutely controls or determinesthe way it is used. Nonetheless there are many ways in which some form of determin-ism remains as an underlying motif, or subtext, in discussions about the subject.Selwyn (this issue) points to the belief that texting negatively influences vocabularydevelopment, or that the Internet shrinks international boundaries, as good examplesof ways in which determinism underlies thinking about technologies.

Livingstone (this issue) puts the question slightly differently. She notes that thereis a debate between those who ask what is the internet doing to society, and thosewho, instead, ask why we have made the internet as we have, and what are we doingwith it. As she points out, this is a critical debate when we come to consider the roleof technology in the learning context. The question opens up consideration ofwhether digital technologies are seen as tools or whether they are seen as features ofthe environment having inherent qualities. If the former, then we should be concen-trating on developing skills in children and young people, but if the latter, then thetask is to recognise critically how our lives are mediated in specific ways by the tech-nologies.

A further interesting concern has to do with the ideologies which inform or shapetheories of change in the context of digital technology. Selwyn (this issue) refers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

6 J. Coleman

studies framed within the social construction of technology (SCOT) approach, whereresearchers start from the premise that the meaning of technology is shaped socially.This leads on to a consideration of technology from, say, a feminist viewpoint, or fromone that is concerned with left or right wing politics. Livingstone (this issue) notesthat this takes debate beyond ‘the identification and explanation of change, to askwhether such changes can be democratic, empowering, or on the contrary whetherthey reinforce the interests of … established power’. This is an extremely importantsubject, since it leads on to a consideration of topics such as equality in access to tech-nology, to autonomy and independence of the individual, and to control in educa-tional institutions and in educational policy-making.

To conclude this section, it is clear that there is no one ‘correct’ theoretical stancewhen it comes to considering the place of digital technologies in the lives of youngpeople. Most authors here appear sympathetic to an approach which recognises thatthis is not an either/or question. Neither extreme determinism nor an ‘anti-essentialist’ approach are going to take discussion forward. It seems likely that ICTsdo have some characteristics which influence the way they are used, but in turn userstoo shape the ways in which they approach and utilise the technologies available tothem. What is most important is that the theoretical underpinnings of both policy andresearch are overt and well-considered. Theoretical debate can drive both of thesethings forward, so long as they are approached in an open manner.

Formal and informal learning

Questions relating to formal and informal learning, or to learning in the school settingand in other settings such as the home, are perhaps the ones that are addressed mostwidely by authors in this Special Issue. In this Introduction I will consider three maintopics, although it should be noted that they are not necessarily distinct and separate,and there is considerable overlap between them. The first is whether there is evidencethat the introduction of ICTs into the school setting can be said to have enhancedlearning. How confident can we be that digital technologies show clear benefits in theeducational context? The second question has to do with formal and informal learn-ing. Does learning occur in the home, and is this learning the same or different fromthe learning that occurs in school? A subsidiary issue here is whether there are advan-tages or disadvantages associated with learning at home, and what part digital tech-nologies play in this debate. Thirdly there is a consideration of the learning lives ofyoung people. What is actually going on at home when digital technologies are in use,and how does leisure use link with learning? An associated topic relates to the balancebetween threats and opportunities afforded by technologies when they are providedin the home setting.

Looking first at the question of whether the introduction of digital technologies hasimproved learning outcomes, Livingstone (this issue) is the author who tackles thisissue most directly. She notes that schools have proved ‘… slower to integrate ICTsinto their lesson plans than they were to locate computers into the classroom’. Tosome extent this may be because, as her review indicates, there is not a huge amount

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Introduction 7

of evidence to support the view that pupils’ school achievement will improve with theintroduction of new technologies. However, it may also be because there is uncer-tainty among the teaching profession over the nature of the benefit that is expected toaccrue from the introduction of digital technologies. On the one hand there are somewho see these as a support or extension of the way the traditional curriculum is deliv-ered, whilst others believe that the introduction of ICTs opens up opportunities for adifferent curriculum based on a different set of skills.

Crook expands this argument by drawing on evidence from his research with youngpeople in which he asked about their experiences of using ICTs in the school setting.He states: ‘While often deeply immersed in the use of this technology and broadlypositive about it, these young people also identified a shared set of circumstancesassociated with its use in school that could be variously stressful, frustrating, threat-ening or devious’ (Crook, this issue). Livingstone makes it clear that there is a longway to go before new technologies will be embraced fully by schools and, as she says,this: ‘… raises fundamental questions over whether society really desires a trans-formed, technologically-mediated relation between teacher and learner’ (this issue).

Turning now to the topic of formal and informal learning, a number of authors heremake reference to the subject, and indeed it could be said that this is not surprisingsince it lies at the heart of any debate over the role of ICTs in learning, and overhome-school links. A good place to start is with the work of Furlong and Davies, whoargue that the distinction often made between the two types of learning is an artificialone. They state: ‘Our evidence would support the view … that this simple distinction[between formal and informal] … is both crude and misleading. There are elementsof “informality” that can occur inside the classroom, just as there are strong elementsof “formality” that can occur in the home’ (Furlong & Davies, this issue). They go onto identify the degree of control teachers and learners have over the content of learn-ing as being a key component, with responsibility as a further criterion. Furlong andDavies use the term ‘framing’ to describe this feature of the situation, since the fram-ing can be strong, where it is defined by a teacher or other external person, or weak,where it is defined by the learner themselves. Thus placing learning within the homedoes not necessarily make it informal, since learning at home can still be stronglyframed by an external agent. Furlong and Davies go on to argue that we need toconsider resources for learning, skills to support learning and different ways of learn-ing if there is to be a better understanding of learning outside the classroom setting.

The final topic to be considered here is that of learning lives, again one touched onby some of the authors here. The suggestion that learning is taking place outside theclassroom now as a result of ICTs, and therefore it is necessary to concentrate on theway learning lives are enacted away from the school, is based on a false premise. Afterall, pupils have been doing homework for generations, and learning has occurred in awide range of settings, not simply in the educational institution. However, there areimportant ways in which digital technologies have altered opportunities for learning,or to use Facer’s words (this issue) they have provided ‘augmentation’. Crook’sresearch highlights such things as greater freedom for networking with peers, thereach across different media, a widening of the fields of enquiry and increased

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

8 J. Coleman

avenues for publication as examples of greater affordances for learning both withinand outside the educational setting. Erstad (this issue) makes reference to questionsof space as part of the learning lives approach. He says: ‘The term learning lives ismeant to grasp the longer trajectories of learning that young people are involved with,moving from one setting to another’. As he notes, there is the question of space as itapplies to learning settings, so in this sense we can compare home and school, butthere is also on-line and off-line space, another important extension afforded by digi-tal technologies for young people as learners. The topic of learning lives is an impor-tant one, since it moves the debate away from the affordances of digital technologies,and away from the constraints of educational institutions, and encourages us toconsider young people themselves and their experiences of ICTs as tools for learning.

Conclusion

In this article I have identified some key priorities which formed part of an ESRCseminar series on young people and new technologies. These priorities included acommitment to recognise a developmental perspective when considering the ways inwhich young people are engaging with digital technologies, and a belief that a cross-disciplinary approach would enhance any attempt at understanding the place of newtechnologies in the lives of young people. This article takes three central questions,identified by Livingstone in her Introduction to the seminar series, and explores howthese questions have been addressed both in the seminar series and in the articleswhich form part of this Special Issue. The three questions have to do with issues ofage, the theories which underpin academic studies of ICTs, and the challenges asso-ciated with understanding technology-driven learning in both the school and thehome. The article has highlighted some of the topics that are likely to remain high onthe agenda of researchers for some while to come, but it has also noted the significantgap that exists between the promise of new technologies and the ways they arecurrently being used in a variety of learning settings. It is to be hoped that this SpecialIssue, together with the reports from the seminar series (available at www.educa-tion.ox.ac.uk/esrcseries/) will encourage those with an interest in this field to pursueresearch and enquiry which combines the study of adolescence with investigations ofdigital technologies.

References

Coleman, J. (2008) Theories of youth development: controversies of age and stage, Theorising thebenefits of new technology for youth: Seminar 1. March (University of Oxford and the LondonSchool of Economics), 11–18.

Livingstone, S. (2008) Seminar introduction: setting the scene, Theorising the benefits of new technol-ogy for youth: Seminar 1. March (University of Oxford and the London School of Economics),5–9.

Sefton-Green, J. (2008) Implications for policy and practice, Digital literacies: tracing the implica-tions for learners and learning. Seminar 2. October (University of Oxford and the LondonSchool of Economics), 26–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Tai

wan

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sc

ienc

e an

d T

echn

olog

y] a

t 19:

27 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014