Student number: 18000361 (Francesca Goth)
SOCG 2112
A critical report on issues relating to the role of digital technologies in the field of education.
Part A
Introduction
Today digital technology is one of the central ways relationships are formed and ideas are
communicated. For example, ‘more than nine in ten (92%) of children aged 5-15 go online’ (Ofcom,
2018), with experiences and understandings governed by technology use. The Cambridge Primary
Review Report states that ‘children’s out of school learning is electronic and beyond the reach of
either parents or teachers’ (Alexander, 2010, p. 269). Thus, from a critical perspective the digital age
may create implications for the school curriculum, and requires schools to adopt a wider role in
supporting children’s emotional and social life which will be addressed in this paper. On the
contrary, digital technology can promote inclusion and social mobility, which is favoured by
functionalists. This paper will take a broader macro sociological and a more specific microsociological
approach to understand the case of how young people use technology, particularly within the
context of education.
Changing roles and responsibilities
One of the concerns and implications of education and the digital age is the changing roles and
responsibilities. Young people are considered more familiar with technology and are referred to as
‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001, pp. 1-6), and may find themselves helping their elders, including
parents and teachers. Parents with lower educational attainment are more likely to turn to their
children for support, for example, ‘62% of those who did not graduate from high school do so,
compared with 45% of those with a university degree’ (Williams and Ullman, 2002). Which suggests
that lower class families are more likely to depend on their children to teach them about digital
technology, therefore, reversing the role of the educator. It can also be argued that the role and
responsibilities of the educator is no longer restricted to the traditional role of the teacher, with
young people taking a more pro-active approach in their own learning through digital technology.
Some argue technology in the classroom can effectively support teaching and learning as ‘96% of
teachers believe technology has had a positive impact in the way children participate and learn in
lessons’ (Rogers, 2020). Furthermore, an article uses the analogy of the educator as a sports coach;
providing motivation and encouraging teamwork, with the aim of students asking questions and
becoming more engaged (Burnett, 2016). A survey of teachers said ‘56% of pupils were noticeably
engaged when technology is used’ (Rogers, 2020). From a Marxist perspective, technology within
, work and education is negative. Booth argues technology could potentially replace workers including
the educator, leading to unemployment and increasing control of resources and knowledge by the
bourgeoise, in turn exploiting the proletariat (Booth, 2013). Some argue technology can not replace
the role of the teacher, as technology can not provide the emotional support or adequate
communication and social skills required for successful learning and development. Turkle argues
technology challenges students respect towards their elders including teachers because ‘people
invest themselves emotionally into technological objects and creations’ (Turkle, 2011, p. 513). To
some this does not diminish the role of the teacher but others may feel their relationship with
teachers may be threatened or less close as technology develops.
Digital education and inclusion
In many ways digital education can promote inclusion, however, it can also reinforce discrimination
and segregation in the classroom. From a post-modernist perspective technology in education is
positive as it is moving with the times. Digital technology educates people about contemporary
society and prepares young people for the expanding need for IT skills in jobs, for example, in the US
‘more than half of jobs’ in 2012 required IT skills with figures rising to ‘77%’ in 2020 (Mckay, 2019).
Despite this, areas with social and economic deprivation are more likely to have limited access to
technology. Applying the theory of Marxism, Nurkse developed the notion of the ‘poverty trap’.
Nurkse states ‘poverty leads to economic stagnation’.. ‘and poor countries find it very hard to escape
this self fulfilling vicious circle’ (Nurkse, 1953, p. 163). Not only is this linked to economic
circumstances but the different ways digital devices and resources are used in different family
households and cultures (Mayall, 2010, pp. 49-82).
An advantage of digital education is that it is universal, which allows people from outside the
classroom to access information. Jenkins et al (2006), called this ‘participatory practices’, by which
people join with others to ‘participate’ in collaborating ideas using digital media (Jenkins, 2006). An
example of this is the organisation Kiron Open Higher Education. Kiron is a non-profit organisation
who collaborate with universities and online education worldwide in order to give refugees access to
higher education (Kiron, 2020). In addition to this, they provide support services which give the
students a more personalised study experience and greater interaction. Online language learning is
also offered which creates a wider diversity of people who can communicate via the web, with 28
partner universities in Germany as well as 19 internationally (Kiron, 2020). This shows that higher
education does not have to be limited to the classroom, creating wider social mobility and allowing
refugees and vulnerable groups in society access to education.
SOCG 2112
A critical report on issues relating to the role of digital technologies in the field of education.
Part A
Introduction
Today digital technology is one of the central ways relationships are formed and ideas are
communicated. For example, ‘more than nine in ten (92%) of children aged 5-15 go online’ (Ofcom,
2018), with experiences and understandings governed by technology use. The Cambridge Primary
Review Report states that ‘children’s out of school learning is electronic and beyond the reach of
either parents or teachers’ (Alexander, 2010, p. 269). Thus, from a critical perspective the digital age
may create implications for the school curriculum, and requires schools to adopt a wider role in
supporting children’s emotional and social life which will be addressed in this paper. On the
contrary, digital technology can promote inclusion and social mobility, which is favoured by
functionalists. This paper will take a broader macro sociological and a more specific microsociological
approach to understand the case of how young people use technology, particularly within the
context of education.
Changing roles and responsibilities
One of the concerns and implications of education and the digital age is the changing roles and
responsibilities. Young people are considered more familiar with technology and are referred to as
‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001, pp. 1-6), and may find themselves helping their elders, including
parents and teachers. Parents with lower educational attainment are more likely to turn to their
children for support, for example, ‘62% of those who did not graduate from high school do so,
compared with 45% of those with a university degree’ (Williams and Ullman, 2002). Which suggests
that lower class families are more likely to depend on their children to teach them about digital
technology, therefore, reversing the role of the educator. It can also be argued that the role and
responsibilities of the educator is no longer restricted to the traditional role of the teacher, with
young people taking a more pro-active approach in their own learning through digital technology.
Some argue technology in the classroom can effectively support teaching and learning as ‘96% of
teachers believe technology has had a positive impact in the way children participate and learn in
lessons’ (Rogers, 2020). Furthermore, an article uses the analogy of the educator as a sports coach;
providing motivation and encouraging teamwork, with the aim of students asking questions and
becoming more engaged (Burnett, 2016). A survey of teachers said ‘56% of pupils were noticeably
engaged when technology is used’ (Rogers, 2020). From a Marxist perspective, technology within
, work and education is negative. Booth argues technology could potentially replace workers including
the educator, leading to unemployment and increasing control of resources and knowledge by the
bourgeoise, in turn exploiting the proletariat (Booth, 2013). Some argue technology can not replace
the role of the teacher, as technology can not provide the emotional support or adequate
communication and social skills required for successful learning and development. Turkle argues
technology challenges students respect towards their elders including teachers because ‘people
invest themselves emotionally into technological objects and creations’ (Turkle, 2011, p. 513). To
some this does not diminish the role of the teacher but others may feel their relationship with
teachers may be threatened or less close as technology develops.
Digital education and inclusion
In many ways digital education can promote inclusion, however, it can also reinforce discrimination
and segregation in the classroom. From a post-modernist perspective technology in education is
positive as it is moving with the times. Digital technology educates people about contemporary
society and prepares young people for the expanding need for IT skills in jobs, for example, in the US
‘more than half of jobs’ in 2012 required IT skills with figures rising to ‘77%’ in 2020 (Mckay, 2019).
Despite this, areas with social and economic deprivation are more likely to have limited access to
technology. Applying the theory of Marxism, Nurkse developed the notion of the ‘poverty trap’.
Nurkse states ‘poverty leads to economic stagnation’.. ‘and poor countries find it very hard to escape
this self fulfilling vicious circle’ (Nurkse, 1953, p. 163). Not only is this linked to economic
circumstances but the different ways digital devices and resources are used in different family
households and cultures (Mayall, 2010, pp. 49-82).
An advantage of digital education is that it is universal, which allows people from outside the
classroom to access information. Jenkins et al (2006), called this ‘participatory practices’, by which
people join with others to ‘participate’ in collaborating ideas using digital media (Jenkins, 2006). An
example of this is the organisation Kiron Open Higher Education. Kiron is a non-profit organisation
who collaborate with universities and online education worldwide in order to give refugees access to
higher education (Kiron, 2020). In addition to this, they provide support services which give the
students a more personalised study experience and greater interaction. Online language learning is
also offered which creates a wider diversity of people who can communicate via the web, with 28
partner universities in Germany as well as 19 internationally (Kiron, 2020). This shows that higher
education does not have to be limited to the classroom, creating wider social mobility and allowing
refugees and vulnerable groups in society access to education.
