digital technology making children's lives better essay

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Blog

Children and Technology: Positive and Negative Effects

January 18, 2022 

Tables of Contents

Evolution of Children’s Use of Technology

Positive and negative effects of technology on children, technology and children statistics, technology and social interaction in children, ensuring safe and nurturing digital environments for children.

Imagine spending a year or more of your childhood almost entirely at home: no time in a classroom, no chance to join friends on the playground, and very few opportunities to enjoy favorite pastimes and experience new places, people, and activities.

The worldwide lockdowns that helped limit the spread of the coronavirus created a kind of twilight zone for children that put much of their environment off-limits and kept them separated from everyone but their immediate families. However, not all was lost. What vestiges of their pre-COVID life children were able to maintain were made possible by a range of technologies that kept them learning, interacting with friends, and entertained.

The growing presence of technology in children’s lives, from their first year through their teens, is a double-edged sword. While technologies are neutral, how they are applied and how children are exposed to them can be either positive or negative.

The impact of children and technology becomes increasingly difficult to gauge as the pace of technological innovation speeds up. This guide presents a snapshot of the many roles that technology products and services play in the lives of children. It balances the pluses and minuses of the effects of technology use by children on their development, social interactions, and prospects for the future.

Learn how people develop physically, emotionally and socially within the context of family and society

The online BA in human development and family studies from Maryville University prepares you with knowledge and skills related to child development, family dynamics and interpersonal relationships. No SAT or ACT scores required.

• Benefit from a curriculum that follows the 10 content areas of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR).
• Engage in a range of relevant course topics, from interpersonal relationships to medical terminology.

From the earliest electric model trains in the early 20th century through the first home video game systems and remote-controlled toys, children’s introduction to technology has been through their toys. What were marvels of technology three, two, or even one generation ago seem almost quaint by today’s standards. However, the progress from Pong to Oculus virtual reality games occurred in a relatively brief period of time.

Early Examples of Children and Technology

Children have been interacting with digital technology since the earliest days of the PC revolution . One of the first electronic educational toys was Texas Instruments’ Speak & Spell, which was released in the late 1970s. This relatively simple device was a precursor to the first PCs designed for children in the 1980s. It also presaged the growth of computer-assisted instruction hardware and software in the pre-World Wide Web era.

• The first Speak & Spell toys debuted in 1978 to teach children ages 7 and older how to pronounce and spell 200 commonly misspelled words. It relied on electronic speech synthesis and bubble memory (a precursor to RAM) and was the first such product to use solid-state circuitry to replace all moving parts.
• While Magnavox’s Odyssey was the first gaming console upon its release in 1972, the device was soon eclipsed by the home version of Atari’s Pong arcade video game, which began shipping in 1975. This was followed by the Atari 2600 game console in 1977 and similar devices from Nintendo, Mattel, and Coleco, among other vendors. Sega and Nintendo came to dominate the home video market through the 1980s, along with Commodore, Atari, and Sony’s PlayStation, which was released in 1994.

Evolution of Technology Designed to Educate and Entertain Children

The arrival of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s changed that nature of tech toys and education hardware and software. Smart Toy Lab , an Intel and Mattel joint venture launched in 1998, developed the first web-connected interactive toys, or “smart toys.” Among the first toys the lab developed were the QX3 Microscope, which featured a built-in video camera that sent images to a PC via a USB link, and the Me2Cam, which let children play interactive games using gestures to move “objects” on the screen.

Some early internet-connected toys and educational devices were criticized for violating children’s privacy by collecting personal information without parental consent. For example, Hello Barbie was released in 2015 and featured a built-in microphone and voice recognition software, as well as a Wi-Fi connection. The doll’s call-and-response function was a precursor to Amazon’s Alexa/Echo and Apple’s Siri voice assistants. However, hackers soon figured out how to break into the toy’s system and access users’ private information.

Today many children — from toddlers to teenagers — regularly use tablets, smartphones, and virtual environments for entertainment and educational purposes. Pandemic-related restrictions have increased children’s reliance on these and other technologies to connect with the outside world. With increased use of these products comes heightened prospects of damage and abuse:

• A recent study published in Children and Youth Services Review identified problematic smartphone use (present in 16.4% of high school students surveyed), daytime sleepiness (20.2%), and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (6.9%) as spiking during pandemic lockdowns.
• A study published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics found that 66.3% of the children and adolescents surveyed used their smartphone for more than four hours a day during the pandemic, compared with 16.3% who did so before the pandemic. In addition, 56% of the children and adolescents surveyed used their smartphone after midnight at least three times each week, compared with 30.4% before the pandemic.

Back To Top

The shutdown of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic brought the damaging effect of the digital divide between rich and poor families into sharp focus. Pew Research Center data shows that the “homework gap” created by remote learning affected low-income families more than middle- and upper-income families. K-12 students who ever had to do schoolwork on a cellphone: lower income: 37%; middle income: 24%; upper income: 16%. K-12 students who ever lacked access to a home computer to complete schoolwork: lower income: 25%; middle income: 15%; upper income: 2%. K-12 students who ever relied on public Wi-Fi to complete schoolwork: lower income: 23%; middle income: 11%; upper income: 4%.

Children can benefit from technology by gaining new learning opportunities; it’s especially important for children who are physically or developmentally challenged. However, technology use has also been found to contribute to poor self-esteem and isolation in some children. As digital technologies become more ubiquitous, parents struggle to find the optimum amount of technology for their children’s lives.

Positive Effects of Technology on Children

All the “rules” about children’s access to computers and the internet were rewritten by the COVID-19 pandemic , according to parenting expert Anya Kamenetz. Technology provides children with easy access to information and boosts their creativity. Tech hardware and software helps children develop social skills and introduces them to various arts and sciences.

These are among the less obvious positive effects of technology on children:

• Technology allows children to connect with their family, friends, and others in ways that enrich their relationships, especially when using video chat and other real-time interactions.
• Parents and caregivers are learning to slow down and tone down the applications, games, and other content children use to avoid overloading their senses. This teaches children how to moderate their own use of technology.
• Rather than trying to eliminate all risk to children when using technology, the goal should be reducing the risk and adapting when problems arise, such as preventing children from accessing devices at specific times of the day.

Many parents hesitate to allow their preschool-age children to use technology products and services due to concerns about how it’ll impact their well-being and development. However, the children are surrounded by technology, much of which offers them significant benefits , as BSD Education explains:

• Technology helps children become independent learners more quickly. Once they learn how to access digital information sources safely, they’re able to explore the topics that interest them on their own.
• Children learn the importance of building communities and how to interact with people in social situations. When circumstances prevent children from establishing physical bonds with family members, friends, and others, they’re able to use technology to create “virtual bonds.”
• Early access to technology teaches the digital literacy skills that children will need for their future success in school and as adults.
• Many technology products promote hand-eye coordination in young children, while others focus on developing their language and problem-solving skills.

Negative Effects of Technology on Children

Children are especially susceptible to technology overuse. The American Psychological Association (APA) recommends limiting the use of technology to one hour per day of high-quality programming for children ages 2 to 5. For children ages 6 and up, it’s most important to set consistent limits on various types of media, such as gaming devices and smartphones.

APA suggests that parents focus on the content on children’s screens and how the children are interacting with it. A survey of research on the possible negative effects of technology on children establishes a connection between the level of a child’s use of technology and various developmental and behavior problems.

• Lack of attention, aggressive behaviors, obesity, physical inactivity, sleep problems
• Musculoskeletal problems related to a sedentary lifestyle
• Greater risk of lifetime obesity and cardiovascular disease
• Sleep disturbances and poor-quality sleep for children who overuse social media or keep mobile devices in their bedroom

These are among the negative effects of technology on children:

• Exposure to harmful online content and sexual exploitation: A study by Irish researchers found that children of all ages are able to bypass the age verification systems of social media apps, such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. This can bring children into direct contact with potential predators and other dangers.
• Cyber bullying: The Cyberbullying Research Center reports that incidents of cyber bullying are most prevalent at ages 12 to 15. A recent survey by the center of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 23.7% of girls, 21.9% of boys, and 35.4% of transgender teens had experienced being bullied.
• Low self-esteem and increased anxiety: CNN reports that teens and adolescents are using image filters on Instagram to enhance their appearance even though the result looks nothing like them. “Self-esteem addiction” can make young people feel inadequate. As children spend more time on social media, they may become withdrawn or find themselves obsessively checking their social media feeds.

Resources on Ways Children Are Affected by Technology

• The Register, “Technology Does Widen the Education Divide. But Not Always in the Way You Expect” — One educator found that upon returning from online education during lockdown, children had turned away from technology, preferring real books and nontech activities because tech is no longer seen as “fun.”
• Edutopia, “Helping Parents Feel More Comfortable with Tech” — Advice for teachers about how to convince parents to support technology in the classroom.
• UNICEF, “Harnessing the Power of Technology and Digital Innovation for Children” — A report describing the initiatives and successes of the Digital UNICEF 2020 program, which is intended to extend the reach of UNICEF’s aid efforts.

When it comes to children’s access to technology, the digital divide between rich and poor persists. The increased reliance of children on technology for remote schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic adds a new and dangerous dimension to the problem, which some analysts refer to as the “ homework gap .”

• A survey by Common Sense Media found that 49% of 8- to 18-year-olds in the U.S. had attended classes fully or partially online since the start of the pandemic.
• Hispanic/Latinx students (48%) and Black students (39%) were much more likely than their white counterparts (20%) to attend school fully online.
• Similarly, students from low-income families (42%) were more likely to rely completely on online instruction than those from middle-income and high-income families (31% and 27%, respectively).
• While 92% of white students had a computer at home, only 87% of Hispanic/Latinx students and 78% of Black students did.
• Broadband access at home was available to 90% of students from families with high incomes, compared with 80% for middle-income families and 61% for lower-income families.
• In addition, 88% of white families had broadband access at home, while 76% of Black families and 68% of Hispanic/Latinx families had broadband access at home.

Common Sense Media estimates that closing the digital divide for K-12 public school students will cost between $6 billion and $11 billion in the first year, and between $4 billion and $8 billion annually in subsequent years. An additional $1 billion will be required to upgrade the remote access technologies that teachers use.

In 2020, TikTok surpassed YouTube to become the most frequently used app by teens and preteens in the U.S., according to MMGuardian. 1. TikTok: average daily usage, 105.1 minutes; % of children who use it, 32%. 2. YouTube: average daily usage, 102.6 minutes; % of children who use it, 69.7%. 3. Roblox: average daily usage, 90 minutes; % of children who use it, 24%. 4. Amino: average daily usage, 89.5 minutes; % of children who use it, 1.18%. 5. Avakin Life: average daily usage, 86.6 minutes; % of children who use it, 1.32%. 6. YouTube Kids: average daily usage, 85.8 minutes; % of children who use it, 6.9%. 7. Wattpad: average daily usage, 80.6 minutes; % of children who use it, 2.9%. 8. Netflix: average daily usage, 80.6 minutes; % of children who use it, 27.4%. 9. IMVU: average daily usage, 72.8 minutes; % of children who use it, 1.3%. 10. Hulu: average daily usage, 71 minutes; % of children who use it, 9.2%.

Statistics on Children’s Online Activities

The most common activity for children online is accessing software, audio, and video content (44% of children had done so between March 2020 and April 2021). The next most popular activities are using internet-based communications (22%); playing video games (14%); accessing online stores, banks, or payment systems (13%); and reading news media (4%).

A study by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children’s learning and development determined that children lost learning opportunities at home and in preschool programs. This resulted in “unusually high” rates of socio-emotional and mental health problems in children as reported by their parents.

• Twenty-two percent of 4- to 7-year-olds had high levels of conduct problems in the fall of 2020, compared with 11% who did so in a survey conducted before the pandemic.
• Higher levels of hyperactivity (15% vs. 10%), peer problems (17% vs. 9%), lack of prosocial behavior (20% vs. 8%), and total difficulties (15% vs. 8%) were also recorded among 4- to 7-year-olds during the pandemic.

How Children’s Screen Time Correlates to Their Mental and Physical Health

A primary concern among parents about their children’s use of technology is the amount of time children spend in front of a television, computer, smartphone, or another screen. Researchers have established a link between the amount of time adolescents spend in front of a screen , their level of moderate or vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and the amount of sleep they get.

• Screen time involves sedentary activities that detract from MVPA and delay bedtime and that interrupt sleep with digital notifications.
• The result is an increased risk of children becoming overweight or obese, as well as more sleepiness during the day and lower academic achievement.
• While most of the 13- and 14-year-olds in the study met the recommendations for total screen time (less than two hours per day) and MVPA (at least one hour per day), only half met the recommendation for sleep (8.5 hours per night). Meeting the recommendation for screen time and one of the other two factors led to better academic outcomes.

Some research into the connection between children’s screen time and their psychological well-being has been brought into question because of discrepancies between actual and reported use of digital media by children. A recent meta-analysis of research on the impact of screen time on children found either no significant impact or only a moderate impact. More indicative of potential psychological or developmental problems in children than overall screen time is the type of content that children view and interact with.

However, studies have established a link between excessive screen time and children’s levels of attention deficit symptoms; impaired emotional and social intelligence; social isolation; phantom vibration syndrome; and diagnosable mental illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, and technology addiction.

Finding the Right Amount of Time Online for Children

Many activities that benefit children can become dangerous if used too much. During the pandemic, the time that adolescents spent in front of a screen nearly doubled, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics . Adolescents were spending an average of 7.7 hours a day in front of a screen early in the pandemic, compared with 3.8 hours per day before the pandemic. Indications are that the elevated level of screen time will persist.

Determining the optimal amount of screen time for children has become challenging for parents because of the potential problems arising related to children’s vision, posture, and other physical development concerns. While the standard recommendation of experts remains that children under the age of 8 spend less than two hours per day in front of a screen, many factors must be considered when setting a limit for children:

• Allow more screen time for positive educational activities.
• Encourage children to take breaks from the screen that involve outdoor activities.
• Avoid using screens as “babysitters” that keep children occupied. Find other nonscreen activities, such as creative toys, coloring books, and storybooks.
• Don’t let children’s use of electronics cut into their sleep time.
• Make sure that children take short breaks from the screen every 20 minutes or so to protect their vision.
• Check the area of the screen activity to ensure that the lighting is neither too dark nor too bright.

Tech Companies’ Growing Impact on Children

After pressure from government regulators, Facebook shelved its plans to develop a version of Instagram called Instagram Kids that targeted children under the age of 13, as The New York Times reports. In 2019, YouTube paid $170 million to settle claims that it targeted children under the age of 13 in its advertising and collected personal information about them.

These are just two of the many examples of giant tech companies targeting children to meet their need for continuous growth. In the absence of federal privacy laws, companies such as Google (which owns YouTube), Facebook (now known as Meta), Amazon, and TikTok are left to self-regulate their privacy and other policies.

• The Verge reports that Facebook is exploring the use of playdates to spur children to use its Messenger Kids application.
• According to Reuters, attorneys general of several states are investigating Instagram for its attempts to attract young children in violation of consumer protection laws.
• YouTube is being sued in the U.K. over alleged violations of children’s privacy and data rights, according to Tech Monitor.
• A recent survey by Accountable Tech found that 74% of parents believe that Facebook cares more about profits than about keeping their children safe on the site.

Parents, educators, and regulators are also concerned about the safety of educational technology platforms that use machine learning and other artificial intelligence technologies to harvest massive amounts of data about children. Many fear that ubiquitous surveillance will lead to behavioral control and potentially a total loss of privacy for children. They’re calling for more accountability from such platforms, as well as legislation that guarantees children’s “right to future tense.”

Resources Providing Statistics on Children and Technology

• International Central Institute for Youth and Educational Television, International Data Youth and Media 2021 — Statistics on the types of technologies that children use in countries around the world, as well as daily use of media by children in various age groups.
• Family Online Safety Institute, “Healthy Screen Time: Mobile Technology’s Relationship with Children’s Exercise” — A study reporting a sharp decrease in the amount of time children spend playing outdoors and the growing reliance on applications that entail physical activity, such as Nintendo’s Wii console.

Half of children ages 10 to 12 and one-third ages 7 to 9 use social media, according to a recent Mott poll of parents with children ages 7 to 12. Parents identified the areas of children’s social media use that they struggle to control; for instance, one in six parents don’t use parental controls. Additionally, 39% of parents don’t have time to monitor their children’s social media use, 21% of parents can’t find information to set up monitoring, and 32% of children find ways to circumvent parental controls.

The lockdowns deprived young children of opportunities to develop social skills by interacting with other children. As a result, educators report that some children returning to school are struggling with classroom routine. However, the pandemic has disrupted the lives of many families of students and teachers.

• Some children are experiencing anxiety in the classroom that may relate to separation anxiety after spending a prolonged period with family.
• While most students readjust quickly to their school routine, those who’ve experienced trauma at home are most likely to struggle in school. This is especially true for children in kindergarten and first grade.
• Children are showing their resilience in adapting quickly to masking and social distancing requirements.

Research presented at a recent conference of the Society of Neuroscience indicates that isolation in adolescents can change the development of the brain systems related to fear, risk and reward, and social recognition. This may make it more difficult for them to distinguish friendly behavior from threatening behavior in their peers, for example.

A good way to break feelings of social isolation that developed as a result of the pandemic is to increase the amount of school time devoted to physical activities.

Child Development and Technology

Researchers are studying how the way young children play with technology compares with the way they play with real-world toys. They’ve found that all the types of play in the nondigital environment are present in the digital realm as well.

• Digital play develops a range of abilities in children, including subject knowledge and understanding; digital skills; and skills related to social, emotional, cognitive, and creative development.
• Because digital and physical play are intermixed in children’s lives, it’s more appropriate to look at play holistically.

Most research on children and technology relates to children ages 9 to 16, but interactions with technology may have a greater impact on the development of children ages 3 to 8. Digital education for young children increasingly takes the form of applications running on tablets and smartphones, language development applications, and physical coordination from manipulating game controls and videos that teach dancing and other activities.

Since the advent of Apple’s iPad in 2010, computer use by young children has skyrocketed , especially as teaching philosophies focus on play activities over traditional classes and formal teaching. Some schools now test each child’s digital skills and teach children digital competence, such as knowing when and why digital tools are used.

One approach to understanding the complexity of technology’s impact on children is the domestication theory that compares the introduction of digital tools into society to the process of taming a wild animal. The four phases of the domestication process render the tools nonthreatening and also make them useful, important, and meaningful.

• Appropriation is the reason for acquiring the digital tool.
• Objectification of the digital tool instills a personal meaning for the tool in the child using it.
• Incorporation describes how the digital tool becomes a part of the child’s life. It also explains appropriate and inappropriate uses of the tool.
• Conversion occurs when the digital tool has redefined the child’s worldview and relations with others.

Resources on the Impact of Technology on Children’s Development and Social Interactions

• Early Childhood Education Journal, “Investigating Young Children’s Interactions During Digital Play” — Research into children’s social behaviors within digital play environments found that adding a social dimension increased a child’s engagement in the activity.
• OECD iLibrary, “Children and Digital Technologies: Trends and Outcomes” — Topics include use of social robots to help treat children with chronic diseases and the impact of digital technologies on children’s physical health.

Technological advances happen so quickly that parents and educators don’t have much opportunity to consider how children’s growth and well-being may be improved or impaired by the types of technologies they interact with and the ways in which those interactions occur. However, technology continues to play a more important part of the lives of most children when they’re in school, at home, and at play. The judicious application of technology will enhance a child’s education and other aspects of life.

Infographic Sources

Associated Press, “TikTok Is Now the Most-Used App by Teens and Pre-teens in the U.S.”

Mott Poll Report, “Sharing too Soon? Children and Social Media Apps”

Pew Research Center, “The Internet and the Pandemic”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

• Expert Advisory Panel
• Our partners
• Become a partner
• Advice for parents and carers
• Advice for professionals
• Connecting Safely Online
• Fostering Digital Skills
• UKCIS Vulnerable Users Working Group
• Online hate
• Online grooming
• Fake news and misinformation
• Screen time
• Inappropriate content
• Cyberbullying
• Online reputation
• Online Pornography
• Radicalisation
• Privacy and identity theft
• Report issue
• Pre-school (0-5)
• Young Children (6-10)
• Pre-teen (11-13)
• Teens ( 14+)
• Social media privacy guides
• Gaming platforms and devices
• Smartphones and other devices
• Broadband & mobile networks
• Entertainment & search engines
• Get smart about smartphones
• My Family’s Digital Toolkit
• Navigating teens’ online relationships
• Online gaming advice hub
• Social media advice hub
• Press Start for PlayStation Safety
• Guide to apps
• Digital resilience toolkit
• Online money management guide
• The dangers of digital piracy
• Guide to buying tech
• UKCIS Digital Passport
• Online safety leaflets & resources
• Digital wellbeing research programme
• Parent Stories
• Expert opinion
• Press releases
• Our expert panel
• Back to school online safety guides
• Free digital stories and lessons
• Early years
• Primary school
• Secondary school
• Connect school to home
• Professional guidance
• Get personalised advice
• News & Opinion

The impact of technology on children’s digital wellbeing

Stuart was Research & Impact Manager at Internet Matters and was responsible for managing major research projects for the organisation.

In our Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World Index Report 2022, we assessed the impact of digital technology on the wellbeing of children and young people. Our research revealed interesting aspects of digital participation in the modern UK home.

What’s on the page

•    Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World 2022 Index Report
•    Key findings
•    Parental confidence in online safety
•    Parents see greater emotional impacts than children
•    Vulnerable children more significantly impacted
•    Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World 2023
•    Appendix

Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World 2022 Index Report

We learned that as children get older and spend more time with digital technology, they experience more of the positives as well as the negatives. The report also demonstrated the potential wellbeing outcomes of excessive social media usage and gaming.

Additionally, and fundamentally, it reinforced the point that vulnerable children experience greater impact from participation in the digital space .

Ahead of the launch of the 2023 Index, we conducted additional research with parents of children aged 4-16 and children (aged 9-16). We looked at subjects that impact children’s digital lives, including a focus on wellbeing . Here we examine how this further builds the picture of children’s wellbeing in a digital world.

Key findings in our additional research

Over the past two years, positivity towards children’s usage of the internet has increased, particularly from fathers. Positivity grows amongst dads and mums when they have greater understanding about how to keep their children safe online.

Children feel more positive about being online compared to their parents. As expected, parents have greater concerns about possible dangers. This was particularly true for parents of boys, who show greater concerns. However, they also recognise the benefits more than parents of girls.

Vulnerable children enjoy as many positives as those without vulnerabilities. However, those classed with a vulnerability were more likely to experience more of the negative aspects of being online. When speaking with parents of vulnerable children, those most affected were under 10s, and late teens (14-16).

Parental confidence in online safety

When asked about the overall impact of digital technology on their children’s wellbeing, parents were mostly supportive. When speaking directly to parents, we see growth in that positivity over time.

Table 1. Taking all things into consideration, do you think [child’s name]’s experience and use of technology and the internet has positive or negative impact on their overall wellbeing? c. N-2,000 parents per wave.

Differences in positivity levels between parents

Parents of younger children (4-8 years old) were less positive about digital technology (59% net positivity) than parents of older children (62%, 15-16 years old). This suggests the benefits of being online increase as children get older .

Fathers (67%) were significantly more positive than mothers (54%) about the impact of digital technology usage amongst their children. This may link to dads feeling more confident in knowing how to keep their children safe online. For instance, 80% of fathers felt confident about how to do this vs. 74% of mothers.

When we look at those ‘confident’ mums and dads, both were significantly more positive towards internet usage overall. The gap between them was also smaller – 84% of dads feel positive about the internet’s impact on their children’s wellbeing vs. 81% of mums.

We can conclude that with increased understanding and confidence, parents acknowledge and appreciate the benefits of digital technology for their children more so than parents lacking that confidence.

Helping parents learn how to keep their children safe online may support parents in understanding the aspects of the digital world, which enhance wellbeing. As such, the potential for children accessing these elements also increases.

Parents see greater emotional impacts than children

We asked parents to reflect on what being online does to children’s wellbeing, asking children the same for themselves. There was an interesting split in the interpretation about being online. As expected, parents were more likely to show concern about their children’s usage of the internet compared to children themselves.

The starkest difference was around ‘feeling sad’ – a complex emotion that around a third of parents (31%) link to their children’s online use. However, less than one in five children (18%) share this view.

Table 2 Thinking about how being online and access to digital technologies impacts your child/children’s/your own wellbeing, when your child/children goes online, does it do any of these things? Taken from June-22 wave; Parents N-2,001 (‘Yes, definitely’, ‘Yes, mostly’ excluding ‘a mix’ responses to make comparable with Children responses), Children N-1,000 (‘Yes, definitely’, ‘Yes, mostly’)

Positive versus negative impacts

The positive impact of the internet comes through more than negative impacts for both parents and children. ‘Feeling happy’ was the most selected option for both parents (80%) and children (89%). Also, ‘showing things they are proud of’ was widely agreed with (63% parents, 72% children).

Parents with greater confidence in online safety have greater positive responses to the internet as well. For example, 84% of confident parents acknowledge the internet makes their children ‘feel happy’ compared to 72% of parents who lack confidence.

This is also true of the more negative traits. For example, 38% of confident parents say the internet makes their children ‘feel sad’. However, just 18% of unconfident parents say the same.

Parents of boys versus parents of girls

Additionally, parents of boys were more likely to identify the positive impact of the internet when compared to parents of girls. This includes feelings of feeling happy, proud and confident. Also, parents of older teen boys (15-16) were significantly more positive that the internet made their sons more confident (48% vs. 42% overall).

Table 3. Thinking about how being online and access to digital technologies impacts your child/children’s wellbeing, when your child/children goes online, does it do any of these things? Taken from June-22 wave; Total – all parents N-2,000. Boy, 11 and under N-771, Boy, 12-14 N-340, Boy, 15-16 N-308, Girl, 11 and under N-627, Girl, 12-14 N-297, Girl, 15-16 N-286. Bold indicates significant difference against the Total score.

However, parents of boys were also more negative about the internet’s impact, counteracting this positivity. Parents of 12–14 year old boys in particular scored higher across all the negative issues (i.e., body shape, jealousy, worried about looks and feeling sad).

This correlates with the lower levels of confidence in staying safe online for this group. Just 35% of 12-14 year old boys feel ‘very’ or ‘totally’ confident in staying safe online, compared to 39% for girls aged 12-14 and 48% for 15-16 year old boys.

Parents of girls aged 12-14 had similar concerns to parents of boys of the same age. Parents of younger girls (<11) were generally less critical about the role of the internet on their children. For instance, they scored lower on the negative impacts of jealousy (23%, 27% total) and feeling sad (21% vs. 25%).

Children’s responses

Children were asked the same set of questions about the impact of the internet on their wellbeing, but the difference between genders was less obvious. The only significant differences between genders were seen in ‘makes you feel confident’ (71% amongst boys, 64% for girls) and in ‘makes you feel worried about how you look’ – this time lower for boys (22%) compared to girls (31%).

Similarly, when split by age, the only significant differences were in impacts more associated with older teens. These included ‘worried about how you look’ (24% for under 13s and 31% for 14–16-year-olds) and in ‘worried about body shape or size’ (22% for under 13s, 30% for 14-16).

Vulnerable children more significantly impacted

When looking at digital wellbeing of children more broadly, we can see a familiar pattern of those children with a vulnerability. Generally, they experience more of the negative aspects of being online. This results in some of the starkest differences seen between segments in the dataset.

Table 4. Digital Wellbeing index measures asked in June-22 children’s tracker. Bold figures show the significantly higher score compared to the total. Vulnerable N-202, Non-vulnerable N-805. Full descriptions for each dimension in the Appendix.

Impacts across developmental, emotional, physical and social wellbeing

When assessing the social aspect of children’s wellbeing, we used the statement ‘having upsetting experiences interacting with other people online (e.g., bullying)’.

We can see that nearly half of children (49%) with a vulnerability experienced this (‘all the time’, ‘quite a lot’). This is compared to just one in five of children without any vulnerabilities. Similarly large differences were seen between vulnerable and non-vulnerable in ‘unenjoyable repetitive digital behaviours’ (73% to 52%; Developmental) and ‘seeing upsetting things online’ (54% to 28%; Emotional).

However, the positive scores across the digital wellbeing areas were not significantly lower for those classed as vulnerable. In fact, in some cases the score was higher. For example, 83% of vulnerable children agreed with ‘[the internet] helps me to revise or learn things for school’ in developmental compared to 77% of non-vulnerable children. Again, this shows that this group of children had similar levels of positive experiences as their non-vulnerable peers.

Varying results in vulnerable children of different ages

When we looked at parent scores of vulnerable and non-vulnerable children, the results were even more noteworthy. Parents of vulnerable children scored significantly higher for all measures — both positive and negative ones — compared to parents of non-vulnerable children.

When looking at the breakdown of the ages of the vulnerable children , we can see interesting differences.

Table 5. Digital Wellbeing index measures asked in June-22 parent’s tracker. Bold figures show the significantly higher scores against the total. Parents of vulnerable children N-797; 4-10 n-394, 11-13 n-208, 14-16 n-195.

Generally, parents of vulnerable children aged 11-13 have the lowest scores amongst the age ranges. Although still significantly higher than non-vulnerable children, parents of this age group saw less of the positives and negatives of the internet for the children compared to parents of older and younger vulnerable children.

The other age groups have more varied responses. Some measures being more age specific than others may explain this. ‘Stopped physical activity as wanted to play on games / watch TV’ may be higher for those aged 14-16 (73%) compared to under 10s (69%) because media and internet consumption levels differ significantly between these age groups.

However, being bullied online may be a greater concern for parents of younger children (43%) compared to older children (39%) where maturity levels and greater support networks exist.

Vulnerable children and their parents recognise that their status puts them at greater risk of some of the negative aspects of being online. Due to the varied responses by parents of vulnerable children, tailored age-specific guidance is needed for this group. This will ensure that vulnerable children get the best out of digital and have the correct support in place when bad experiences occur.

Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World 2023

We will continue to measure and track the important factors that help us better understand the impact of digital on children’s wellbeing. You can also explore our second annual report on Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World .

Methodologies from research sources

• Parent tracker: N-2,000 UK parents of children aged 4-16 years old
• Children tracker – N-1,000 9–16-year-olds representative of the UK
• Both surveys are conducted twice per year

Guidance to empower vulnerable children in a digital world

More to explore

See related advice and practical tips to support children online.

• Advice for 0-5 years
• Advice for 11-13 years
• Advice for 14+ year olds
• Advice for 6-10 years
• Socialising online safely
• Support wellbeing with tech
• Vulnerable children

Support on site

• Inclusive Digital Safety hub
• Changing conversations: Empowering vulnerable children in a digital world
• Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World — Index Report 2022

Recent posts

Get all the latest news and opinion straight to your inbox with the Internet Matters newsletter

Read our privacy policy for more information on how we use your data.

Download Workbook

• To receive personalised online safety guidance in the future, we’d like to ask for your name and email. Simply fill your details below. You can choose to skip, if you prefer.
• First name *
• Last name *
• Email Address *
• I am a * Parent/Carer Teacher Professional
• Organisation name
• Skip and download
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Empowering children to make and shape our digital futures – from adults creating technologies to children transforming cultures

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

ISSN : 2056-4880

Article publication date: 3 November 2020

Issue publication date: 9 November 2020

Digital technology education of children needs to be reconsidered. The purpose of this paper is to focus on empowering the young generation as regards digital technology. Digital technology education should reap the benefits of recent developments brought in by extensive, ongoing digitalization and prepare the young generation to manage and master in their technology rich future. The recent COVID 19 pandemic has made this particularly relevant and visible in the society. The young generation should adopt a proactive and critical stance toward digital technology and consider how design and technology can be used for making the world a better place.

Design/methodology/approach

This commentary reviews literature on the complex concept of empowerment and suggests a model on the aspects to be considered when aiming at empowering the young generation as regards digital technology in the context of digital technology education.

A model is proposed that comprehensively addresses empowerment of children as regards digital technology both at individual and collective levels and in mainstream sense as a relational and motivational construct as well as in critical sense in terms of collective empowerment, social responsibility and liberation of the oppressed.

Research limitations/implications

Radical renewal in the children's education is needed in the digital age. This model outlines aspects to be considered in such a transformation. The insights should be valuable for research communities addressing the topic of children's education in the digital age in general or the topic of children's digital technology education in particular.

Practical implications

The model should also be of help for practitioners, i.e. teachers and facilitators working in informal learning spaces for developing children's digital education in practice.

Social implications

The commentary addresses significant societal issues. It is actually not only children who should be empowered to engage in making and shaping our digital futures, but people in general. The model provides novel and valuable insights on what aspects to consider in such a significant endeavor.

Originality/value

The model proposed is novel and clearly needed in the research addressing this topic.

• Empowerment
• Digital technology design

Iivari, N. (2020), "Empowering children to make and shape our digital futures – from adults creating technologies to children transforming cultures", International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0023

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Netta Iivari

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The extensive and continuous digitalization of our everyday life poses numerous challenges for the society, including education of the young generation. Indeed, digitalization in basic education is currently a hot topic among a number of disciplines and research communities. This commentary focuses particularly on the young generation and their basic education in the digital age. Children of today will for sure be living their adult life full of digital technology. Alarming is that even if today's children have been surrounded by digital technology from their birth, they have severe limitations in technology comprehension. Schools should prepare the young generation for the needs of the digital future; however, schools struggle in offering children up to date and high quality digital technology or STEM education: schools and teachers may lack, e.g. resources, skills, competencies or interest (e.g. Godhe et al. , 2019 ; Kinnula et al. , 2015 ; OECD, 2018 ; Smith et al. , 2018 ; Vainionpää et al. , 2019 ). Even if there is an extensive interest to improve digital technology or STEM education of children around the globe, accomplished for instance through integrating programming or digital fabrication into the basic education curricula (e.g. Balanskat and Engelhardt, 2014 ; Blikstein, 2013 ; Dindler et al. , 2020 ; Godhe et al. , 2019 ; NCBE, 2016 ) and even if children's digital technology and STEM education is increasingly offered also in nonformal learning settings such as in computer, programming, robotics or Maker clubs, museums or science centers (e.g. Tisza et al. , 2019 ), many countries and children are staying badly behind these recent developments. One problem is that nonformal learning settings do not comprehensively reach the young generation, but rather reproduce various kinds of digital divides, e.g. around gender or the socioeconomic status of the participants (e.g. OECD, 2018 ; Tisza et al. , 2019 ).

This commentary concentrates on the digital technology education of children, maintaining that the young generation needs to be empowered as regards digital technology. Such education should adapt to and take advantage of recent developments brought in by extensive and ongoing digitalization and prepare the young generation to manage and master in their technology rich future life. The recent COVID 19 pandemic has made this particularly relevant and visible in the society: in a flash, basic education of the young generation was transformed from a classroom practice to an online mode, requiring significant adjustments from teachers, children and their families. Entire generation of children had to start managing with digital means and tools to take part in their basic education. Parents had to support their children in many respects to make this happen. Teachers had to decide on the suitable means and tools and fit those with the pedagogical practice in meaningful ways. During this trajectory, it became visible that different kinds of digital divides prevail in the society: definitely not all children were in equal position to take advantage of their basic education online (see, e.g. Hilppö et al. , 2020 ; Horowitz, 2020 ; Iivari et al. , 2020 ; Larkins, 2020 ). Along these lines, it is pivotal to provide the young generation with equal opportunities to access, use and gain benefit from digital technology. Even access might be an issue for some children and families as well as ability to use different kinds of digital technologies (see, e.g. Hilppö et al. , 2020 ; Iivari et al. , 2020 ; Larkins, 2020 ). Furthermore, digital divide is not merely about access or use but about being able to integrate digital technology into meaningful social practices ( Livingstone and Helsper, 2007 ; Mariën and Prodnik, 2014 ; Warschauer, 2002 ). In the case of COVID 19, for example, ability to meaningfully integrate digital means and tools into one's learning practices may be limited among some children and their families (e.g. Iivari et al. , 2020 ; Larkins, 2020 ).

More generally, it is important that the young generation adopts a proactive stance toward digital technology. They should acknowledge that current digital technology has been created by adults for children, while children should be more proactively engaged and consider how technology could and should be, not merely accept how it is. Moreover, they should be prepared to make and shape the trajectories of digital technology in their adult life. Currently, quite a limited group of technology experts have specified the technology we use (see, e.g. Vainionpää et al. , 2019 ), while in the future today's children should bring more diversity into digital technology development, looking at digital technology critically and considering how it could be better and taking action. For this to happen, they need to gain skills and competences to innovate, design, program and build digital technology ( Blikstein, 2013 ; Godhe et al. , 2019 ; Iivari et al. , 2018 ; Heeley and Damodaran, 2009 ; Mariën and Prodnik, 2014 ). Hence, the focus is not only on programming or making of digital technology but also in creative design and innovation of it ( Blikstein et al. , 2013 ; Iivari and Kinnula, 2018 ; Iversen et al. , 2017 ). The existing research has argued children are the experts in “being kids,” and this expertise needs to be available for the development of digital technology aimed at them (e.g. Druin et al. , 1997 ; Ruland et al. , 2007 ). The literature has already shown children are capable of ideating, designing as well as making interesting and valuable (digital) solutions for their own use as well as for the use of others, which should be better acknowledged by adults as well as supported further (see, e.g. Druin et al. , 1997 ; Horelli and Kaaja, 2002 ; Kratzer and Lettl, 2008 ; Ruland et al. , 2007 ; Weibert et al. , 2015 ).

The need to empower the young generation as regards digital technology has been already acknowledged by several research communities. Children have for long been considered not only as learners and users of digital technology but as testers, informants and equal design participants to adults ( Druin, 2002 ), while currently there is arousing interest toward even more influential role for children as regards digital technology. The inspiration for this is derived from various sources: from educational philosophies such as critical pedagogy and constructionism ( Freire, 2000 ; Papert, 1993 ), from Scandinavian participatory design tradition and movements, philosophies and approaches aiming at democratizing of innovations, such as from the open source software and hardware, Do-It-Yourself and Maker movements, end user development and meta design (see, e.g. Björgvinsson et al. , 2010 ; Ehn, 2008 ; Fischer, 2002 ; Fischer, 2013 ; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991 ; Simonsen and Robertson, 2013 ; von Hippel, 2005 ) and as well as from research on children's empowerment and genuine participation produced within a variety of disciplines (e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002 ; Hart, 1992 ). The literature argues for empowerment of children as regards digital technology and for inviting children to adopt a role of protagonist, in which one is critically reflecting on digital technology and its trajectories as part of one's everyday life as well as taking lead in making and shaping it ( Dindler et al. , 2020 ; Iivari et al. , 2018 ; Iivari and Kuutti, 2018 ; Iversen et al. , 2017 ; Kinnula et al. , 2017 ). The literature maintains that a Maker and designer mindset or identity among children should be nurtured ( Chu et al. , 2015 , 2017 ; Fischer, 2002 ; Iivari and Kinnula, 2018 ). As for the digital technology education of the children, this implies a radical renewal: we should consider educating and raising future protagonists and activists, who try to make the world a better place through design and technology – i.e. acting as transformers of culture rather than mere passive consumers of digital technology (cf. Fischer, 2013 ). Along these lines, Fischer et al. (2020) argue that in the digital age learners should be invited to start acting as active contributors, rather than passive consumers and engage in solving contemporary ill-defined problems, acting as designers. Such a change in the mindset and practices of learners definitely needs support and facilitation. Fischer et al. (2020) argue that important is to equip the young generation with skills to alter, design and choose between possible futures, being also aware of and capable to reflect on ethical implications and power laden issues involved. As regards such education, we should also critically reflect on the schools' role in society and appreciate the potential of nonformal learning settings in making this change – offering settings in which the participants want to learn, rather than have to learn ( Fischer et al. , 2020 ).

Overall, even if there seems to be consensus on the importance of the topic of empowerment of children to start making and shaping digital technology in the literature, there are also many complexities involved. There are many practical challenges involved (see, e.g. Kinnula et al. , 2017 ), but problematic is also that there is no shared understanding what is meant by the concept: it has been addressed within a multitude of disciplines with a number of meanings associated with it (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ). As regards the topic of children and digital technology, one can find a number of studies mentioning empowerment of children, but very different meanings being attached to it, if defined at all ( Iivari and Kuutti, 2018 ; Kinnula et al. , 2017 ). Only one study can be found that offers a detailed discussion of the different meanings and forms of empowerment in the literature on children and digital technology ( Kinnula et al. , 2017 ); however, also this study can be criticized as lacking certain perspectives of empowerment, for example a motivational one discussed extensively in the literature on worker empowerment within different disciplines (see, e.g. Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ). Hence, this commentary builds upon a recent review on the concept of empowerment addressing adults ( Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ), while refines it to fit the context of empowerment of children as regards digital technology, inspired by the existing literature on the topic (for a review, see Kinnula et al. , 2017 ) and offers a discussion of the meanings that should be associated with the concept of empowerment in the context of children and their digital technology education. In this commentary, digital technology education is considered as taking place both in formal and nonformal settings (cf. Eshach, 2007 ), with both having particular strengths but also particular weaknesses in supporting empowerment of children.

The commentary is structured as follows. The next section reviews the literature on the concept of empowerment, clarifying different meanings and forms that can be considered in the context of children and their digital technology education. The following section summarizes the findings in a model, aiming at comprehensively capturing significant aspects to be considered in digital technology education, aiming at empowering children to make and shape digital technology. The last section discusses the implications of the model on research and practice, its limitations and interesting paths for future work implied by it.

2. Different meanings of empowerment

From the extensive literature on empowerment, one can identify different streams. For example, the literature has distinguished mainstream and critical views on empowerment (see Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 , see also Kinnula et al. , 2017 ; Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ) as well as empowerment as a relational and a motivational construct (see Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ). Conger and Kanungo (1988) discuss the latter distinction: empowerment as a relational construct views it from the perspective of increased, shared or delegated power over something or someone ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988 , see also Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ) with emphasis on decision-making: either on the mobilization of resources to affect it or on the control of access to it ( Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ). Empowerment as a motivational construct, then again, considers it from the viewpoint of self-determination or intrinsic task motivation ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ). Within this stream, empowerment is approached rather as enabling than as delegating; it is seen as something internal to an individual rather than something done by others to an individual ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ). Both approaches to empowerment can be associated with the mainstream and critical views to empowerment that will be discussed next.

The mainstream view of empowerment relies heavily on the discipline of psychology and addresses the topic in the context of the workplace and worker empowerment (see, e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ). Critics argue that empowerment in this literature is being approached as a managerial tool ( Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ) – indeed this literature views empowerment as valuable, as it increases worker motivation, self-efficacy and decision-making power that are seen to lead to increased effectiveness, productivity and innovation (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ), all this indicating strong association between management goals and worker empowerment.

Within this stream, Thomas and Velthouse's (1990) model on empowerment, viewing empowerment as a motivational construct, is a widely cited example. It operationalizes empowerment as increased intrinsic task motivation that “involves positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task” ( Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 , p. 668). Four aspects related to a task are introduced in the model as central: impact, which refers to “to the degree to which behavior is seen as ‘making a difference’ in terms of accomplishing the purpose of the task, that is, producing intended effects in one's task environment”; competence, which refers to “the degree to which a person can perform task activities skillfully when he or she tries”; meaningfulness, which refers to “the value of the task goal or purpose, judged in relation to the individual's own ideals or standards” and “ the individual's intrinsic caring about a given task” and choice, which refers to “whether a person's behavior is perceived as self-determined” ( Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 , pp. 672–673, discussed also, e.g. in Spreitzer, 1995 ; Deng et al. , 2016 ; Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ).

As for empowerment of children as regards digital technology, the mainstream view on empowerment identifies important aspects: it argues for children gaining increased decision-making power as regards digital technology as well as posits that children should perceive impact, competence, meaningfulness and choice when they engage in making and shaping of digital technology.

The critical view on empowerment, then again, attacks the mainstream view and proposes alternative understandings on it (see, e.g. Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ). However, one can identify a lot if diversity within this view (see, e.g. Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ). The work may be based on, for example, scholars such as Habermas, Foucault or Freire (see, e.g. Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Fulton, 1997 ). Generally, the critical view on empowerment maintains that there are oppressed groups and conditions in the world and empowerment entails that these oppressed groups critically scrutinize as well as contest the oppressing historical, social and political conditions of the status quo – within this view it is seen that empowerment entails that the marginalized, dominated or oppressed overcome or combat such marginalization, domination or oppression, which requires that they become aware of the oppressing conditions in the first place as well as take action to make a change (see, e.g. Fulton, 1997 ; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Jennings et al. , 2006 ; Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 ). Within the critical view on empowerment, collective concerns and social responsibility are also underscored. “In the broadest sense, empowerment refers to individuals, families, organizations, and communities gaining control and mastery, within the social, economic, and political contexts of their lives, in order to improve equity and quality of life” ( Jennings et al. , 2006 , p. 32, see Zimmerman, 1995 ). Empowerment thus necessitates community engagement as well as a critical examination of the sociopolitical contexts and processes involved ( Zimmerman, 1995 ).

“A welcoming and safe environment

Meaningful participation and engagement

Equitable power-sharing between youth and adults

Engagement in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes

Participation in sociopolitical processes to effect change; and

Integrated individual- and community-level empowerment”

In this model social responsibility is underscored; empowerment of oneself but also empowerment of others needs to be addressed ( Jennings et al. , 2006 , see also Rajanen and Iivari, 2019 )

As for empowerment of children as regards digital technology, one could say that the critical view brings in significant issues to be considered that have been neglected within the mainstream view. The critical view emphasizes that children should consider not only themselves when engaging with digital technology but they should always consider a broader community and social responsibility vis a vis a larger collective. Empowerment in this case should entail critically reflecting on the oppressing conditions of the status quo as well as action taking, involving in our case design and technology among other means, for liberating the oppressed and for improving their well-being and quality of life.

3. Empowerment of children to make and shape our digital futures

Based on the literature on worker empowerment (most notably Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ; Jennings et al. , 2006 ), Rajanen and Iivari (2019) propose a comprehensive model on empowerment to be used in the context of open source usability. In this commentary, this model is taken as a basis while it is developed, based on the literature on empowerment of children as regards digital technology ( Kinnula et al. , 2017 , see also Iversen et al. , 2017 ; Iivari and Kinnula, 2016 ; Iivari and Kinnula, 2018 ) as well as more general literature addressing children's empowerment (e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002 ; Hart, 1992 ; Jennings et al. , 2006 ), to fit the context of children and their digital technology education. The model (see Table 1 ) outlines what needs to be considered when we aim at empowering the young generation to start engaging in making and shaping our digital futures. The first four aspects in the model address empowerment in the mainstream sense, aiming at motivational empowerment of children in the context of digital technology making and shaping, while the last five aspects address empowerment in connection to digital technology making and shaping in the critical sense, addressing also collective aspects of empowerment. These aspects are concretized with examples inspired by the COVID 19 pandemic as well as with additional literature touching upon children's empowerment – this literature offers practical examples as well as potential challenges.

The model addresses empowerment very comprehensively: both at individual and collective levels and in mainstream sense as a relational and motivational construct ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988 ; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990 ; Deng et al. , 2016 ) as well as in critical sense in terms of a collective empowerment, social responsibility and liberation of the oppressed ( Fulton, 1997 ; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 ; Jennings et al. , 2006 ). Children's education should start addressing all these aspects of empowerment: in the case of digital technology education, it is pivotal to consider children's empowerment in the motivational sense to ensure their participation, but equally crucial is to show to children that engagement with digital technology enables them to address empowerment in a much broader sense: it is not only their own needs and use of digital technology that should be considered, but much more broadly communities' needs, well-being and quality in life. Children should feel social responsibility for those less privileged in the society and consider how design and technology could make a difference in their lives and well-being. Children should critically reflect on the problematic conditions of the status quo and take action to change it. They should also work in a participatory manner with the target group: they should invite the less privileged or marginalized groups or communities to participate in making a change through design and technology. Addressing these aspects of empowerment in the education of children enables raising future protagonists, activists and agents of change, who look at the world critically, take social responsibility seriously and take action with design and technology for making the world a better place. All this implies a radical change toward children starting to act as transformers of culture.

The model should be useful for people involved in children's formal as well as nonformal digital technology education. The nonformal setting in many respects aligns better with the empowerment ideals: within it, children want to learn, rather than have to learn. However, formal setting is equally significant as within compulsory basic education one comprehensively reaches entire age groups and prevents children from missing out due to prejudice or lack of pre-interest or information (cf. Iivari and Kinnula, 2016 ). With the model, educators in both contexts can make conscious choices on which aspects of empowerment they wish to address with children and to which extent. They can take the very important motivational aspects of empowerment into account: they should design the activities and topics so that children experience them as meaningful and interesting, that children have as much decision-making power as possible regarding their participation as well as regarding the activities and topics, that they get opportunities to see and experience the impact of their work and that they can develop self-efficacy building on their own interests and expertise when engaging in the activities. Moreover, with the model the educators can consider how they could address the highly significant critical aspects of empowerment with children. They can reflect on how to make visible for children that design and technology offer opportunities beyond the individual: design and technology can be used for making the world a better place and for improving equality and quality of life of those marginalized, oppressed or dominated. The critical aspects emphasize that among children social responsibility should be underscored, critical reflection on the current status quo aroused and action taking with design and technology initiated. Overall, with this model, educators can start practically planning their projects with children, considering if and how these different aspects of empowerment can and should be included and the extent it is possible to include them in practice.

There are many limitations and challenges to be considered. For example, in formal education the activities may not be voluntary for children to attend and full power sharing among teachers and pupils may be unrealistic. The activities need to fit with the curriculum, and the teachers need to exercise their authority and duty of care to decide upon many issues in children's digital technology education without consulting the children. There may be occasions in which the teacher decides to allow children to engage in decision-making to an unusual extent, but in many cases these aspects may limit in practice what kind of empowerment can be aimed at. However, this should not prevent from aiming at addressing other aspects of empowerment. Moreover, nonformal settings are not without limitations and challenges either. In both contexts there likely are situations in which self-determination and full decision-making power cannot and should not be allowed for children alone, but many issues remain adults' responsibility or are determined within collaboration with peers or by contextual affordances and restrictions. The educators may also deem certain topics so important to address with children that the perceived meaningfulness or self-determination among children are not top priorities. There are also many problems in the world related to solving of which the children's contribution can only be marginal. However, this should not be used as an excuse of not trying at all. The same goes for the challenging tasks of arousing social responsibility among children, inviting children to reflect on the problematic conditions of the status quo, inviting them on taking action to make the world a better place and supporting the participation and engagement of other participants. These definitely are not easy tasks to accomplish by children. One challenge is also that the educators need to feel confident and competent when addressing these topics with children. In addition, they need to be able to tailor their approach to address these topics in an age appropriate manner. Depending on the age of the children, the educators may need to simplify these tasks a lot. However, valuable projects can be ideated even with kindergarten children, addressing for example the digital divides, bullying or gender equality. Finally, one may even criticize that by inviting children into this type of adult led and specified way to question and combat the status quo, we are taking away one of their last resources for revolt, critique and change. Definitely this is not the aim. Instead, the hope is that through sensitizing children to this type of critical approach toward design and technology enables them to start acting as future protagonists, activists and agents of change.

4. Conclusions

This commentary concentrated on digital technology education of children, maintaining that the young generation needs to be empowered as regards digital technology. Such education should reap the benefits of recent developments brought in by extensive and on-going digitalization and prepare the young generation to manage and master in their technology rich future life. The recent COVID 19 pandemic has made this particularly relevant and visible in the society. This commentary pointed out that it is important that the young generation adopts a proactive stance toward digital technology. Children should start looking at digital technology critically and consider how it could be made better. However, empowerment is a complex concept with a variety of meanings attached to it. This commentary, inspired by recent reviews on the concept, offers a refined model of what empowerment may entail in the context of children's digital technology education. The model addresses empowerment comprehensively: both at individual and collective levels and in mainstream sense as a relational and motivational construct as well as in critical sense in terms of a collective empowerment, social responsibility and liberation of the oppressed.

Overall, radical renewal in the children's education is needed in the digital age. This commentary addresses some aspects to be considered in such a transformation. The insights discussed in this commentary should be valuable for research communities addressing the topic of children's education in the digital age in general as well as the topic of children's digital technology education in particular. The model presented in this commentary should be of help for researchers as well as for practitioners, i.e. teachers and facilitators working in formal and nonformal learning settings, for developing the education in practice. This model aims at providing food for thought and a tool for reflection. This model can be considered as meta-design; it aims at enabling those previously marginalized and excluded to take part in digital technology development as well as proposes a design for design after design, rather than merely advocating design before use (see, e.g. Björgvinaaon et al. , 2010 ; Ehn, 2008 ; Fischer, 2002 ; Fischer, 2013 ). Such a meta design actually considers not only children to be in need for empowerment to engage in making and shaping our digital futures but people in general. Currently, our digital futures are specified by quite a limited group of technology experts (see, e.g. Vainionpää et al. , 2019 ), while this model provides novel and valuable insights on what aspects to consider when empowering people as regards digital technology, particularly addressing children, but applicable with adults as well.

It is acknowledged that there are many challenges involved in this kind of transformation of education. There are many fundamental tensions between the model and the formal schooling culture, some of which have been touched upon by Godhe et al. (2019) in the context of making in education. For sure the model does not directly fit with formal schooling, but instead a lot of support for teachers and schools and modification of the approach to empowerment will be needed (see also Godhe et al. , 2019 ; Fischer et al. , 2020 ). Nonformal learning settings may encounter relatively similar problems, even if they tend to be more flexible and participation tends to be voluntary. In both settings, however, in terms of self-direction, impact, meaningfulness, power sharing and critical reflection and action taking, there are several social, cultural, political as well as technical consideration and hurdles to be overcome.

The model is based on insights gained during over ten years work on the topic of empowerment of children in and through digital technology design and making, while the model has not been empirically evaluated as such. This is future work to be done. However, related work on genuine or effective participation of children has empirically examined and shown the relevance of many of the aspects in the model: the model by Chawla and Heft (2002) on effective participation of children builds on empirical research carried out by an entire research community. Their conditions of genuine participation of children have been empirically explored in several studies in the context of children and digital technology (e.g. Iivari and Kinnula, 2016 ; Iivari et al. , 2015 ; Sharma et al. , 2020 ). One study has already empirically examined relational aspects of empowerment as regards children and digital technology as well as pointed out the value of critical aspects of empowerment in this context ( Kinnula et al. , 2017 ). Hence, even if lacking empirical evidence in this particular commentary, the model has strong grounding in empirical work with children.

This commentary ends up arguing that children of today should be empowered in and through their digital technology education to switch from mere users of digital technologies created by adults to makers and shapers of such technologies and, along these lines, to transformers of culture. Hence, the commentary extends the focus from creation of digital tools – by adults or children – to the transformation of our digital futures, into which children should be invited as active agents early on.

Aspects to consider in digital technology education aiming at empowering the young generation to make and shape our digital futures

Balanskat , A. and Engelhardt , K. ( 2014 ), Computing Our Future: Computer Programming and Coding-Priorities, School Curricula and Initiatives Across Europe , European Schoolnet , Brussels .

Björgvinsson , E. , Ehn , P. and Hillgren , P.A. ( 2010 ), “ Participatory design and democratizing innovation ”, Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference , pp. 41 - 50 .

Blikstein , P. ( 2013 ), “ Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention ”, in Walter-Herrmann , J. and Büching , C. (Eds), Fab Labs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors , Transcript Publishers , Bielefeld .

Chawla , L. and Heft , H. ( 2002 ), “ Children's competence and the ecology of communities: a functional approach to the evaluation of participation ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 22 Nos 1-2 , pp. 201 - 216 .

Chu , S.L. , Quek , F. , Bhangaonkar , S. , Ging , A.B. and Sridharamurthy , K. ( 2015 ), “ Making the maker: a means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the maker mindset in elementary-aged children ”, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , Vol. 5 , pp. 11 - 19 .

Chu , S.L. , Schlegel , R. , Quek , F. , Christy , A. and Chen , K. ( 2017 ), “ ‘I make, therefore I Am’: the effects of curriculum-aligned making on children's self-identity ”, Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'17) , Association for Computing Machinery , New York, NY , pp. 109 - 120 .

Conger , J.A. and Kanungo , R.N. ( 1988 ), “ The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 471 - 482 .

Cuevas-Parra , P. and Stephano , M. ( 2020 ), “ Children's voices in the time of COVID-19: continued child activism in the face of personal challenges ”, World Vision International 2020 , available at: https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/WV-Children%E2%80%99s%20voices%20in%20the%20time%20of%20COVID-19%20Final.pdf .

Deng , X. , Joshi , K.D. and Galliers , R.D. ( 2016 ), “ The duality of empowerment and marginalization in microtask crowdsourcing: giving voice to the less powerful through value sensitive design ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 40 No. 2 , pp. 279 - 302 .

Dindler , C. , Smith , R.C. and Iversen , O.S. ( 2020 ), “ Computational empowerment: participatory design in education ”, CoDesign , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 66 - 80 .

Druin , A. ( 2002 ), “ The role of children in the design of new technology ”, Behaviour and Information Technology , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 25 .

Druin , A. , Stewart , J. , Proft , D. , Bederson , B. and Hollan , J. ( 1997 ), “ KidPad: a design collaboration between children, technologists, and educators ”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems , pp. 463 - 470 .

Ehn , P. ( 2008 ), “ Participation in design things ”, Proceedings Participatory Design Conference 2008 , ACM .

Eshach , H. ( 2007 ), “ Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal, and informal education ”, Journal of Science Education and Technology , Vol. 16 No. 2 , pp. 171 - 190 .

Fischer , G. ( 2002 ), “ Beyond ‘couch potatoes’: from consumers to designers and active contributors ”, First Monday , Vol. 7 No. 12 , available at: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/1010/931 .

Fischer , G. ( 2013 ), “ End-user development: from creating technologies to transforming cultures ”, International Symposium on End User Development , Springer , Berlin, Heidelberg , pp. 217 - 222 .

Fischer , G. , Lundin , J. and Lindberg , J.O.J. ( 2020 ), “ Rethinking and reinventing learning, education and collaboration in the digital age—from creating technologies to transforming cultures ”, International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , doi: 10.1108/IJILT-04-2020-0051 .

Fox , E. , Parsons , S. , Todorovic , A. , Songco , A. and Lim , M. ( 2020 ), “ Achieving resilience during COVID-19 ”, Oxford ARC Study, Summary report 1, Oxford University , Oxford .

Freire , P. ( 2000 ), Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Vol. 35 , Continuum , New York, NY , 30th anniv .

Fulton , Y. ( 1997 ), “ Nurses' views on empowerment: a critical social theory perspective ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 529 - 536 .

Godhe , A.L. , Lilja , P. and Selwyn , N. ( 2019 ), “ Making sense of making: critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools ”, Technology, Pedagogy and Education , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 317 - 328 .

Greenbaum , J. and Kyng , M. ( 1991 ), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems , L. Erlbaum Associates , Hillsdale .

Hardy , C. and Leiba-O'Sullivan , S. ( 1998 ), “ The power behind empowerment: implications for research and practice ”, Human Relations , Vol. 51 No. 4 , pp. 451 - 483 .

Hart , R.A. ( 1992 ), “ Children's participation: from tokenism to citizenship ”, Papers inness92/6 , Innocenti Essay .

Heeley , M. and Damodaran , L. ( 2009 ), “ Digital inclusion: a review of international policy and practice ”, available at: http://projects.computing.dundee.ac.uk/iden/outcomes/LeelaMelanie-InternationalPolicyReview.doc Date ( accessed 8 December 2017 ).

Hilppö , J. , Rainio , A. , Rajala , A. and Lipponen , L. ( 2020 ), Children and the COVID-19 Lockdown: From Child Perspectives to Children's Perspectives , Cultural Praxis , available at: http://culturalpraxis.net/wordpress1/2020/04/26/children-and-the-covid-19-lockdown-from-child-perspectives-to-childrens-perspectives/ .

Horelli , L. and Kaaja , M. ( 2002 ), “ Opportunities and constraints of ‘internet-assisted urban planning’ with young people ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 22 Nos 1-2 , pp. 191 - 200 .

Horowitz , J. ( 2020 ), Lower-income Parents Most Concerned about Their Children Falling behind amid COVID-19 School Closures , Pew Research Center, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/15/lower-income-parents-most-concerned-about-their-children-falling-behind-amid-covid-19-school-closures/ .

Iivari , N. and Kinnula , M. ( 2016 ), “ Inclusive or inflexible: a critical analysis of the school context in supporting children's genuine participation ”, Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction , pp. 1 - 10 .

Iivari , N. and Kinnula , M. ( 2018 ), “ Empowering children through design and making: towards protagonist role adoption ”, Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers , Vol. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Iivari , N. and Kuutti , K. ( 2018 ), “ Critical design in interaction design and children: impossible, inappropriate or critical imperative? ”, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children , pp. 456 - 464 .

Iivari , N. , Kinnula , M. and Kuure , L. ( 2015 ), “ With best intentions ”, Information Technology and People , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 246 - 280 .

Iivari , N. , Kinnula , M. , Molin-Juustila , T. and Kuure , L. ( 2017 ), “ Multiple voices in the maker movement–a nexus analytic literature review on children, education and making ”, Proceeding ECIS2017 .

Iivari , N. , Kinnula , M. , Molin‐Juustila , T. and Kuure , L. ( 2018 ), “ Exclusions in social inclusion projects: struggles in involving children in digital technology development ”, Information Systems Journal , Vol. 2018 , pp. 1 - 29 .

Iivari , N. , Sharma , S. and Ventä-Olkkonen , L. ( 2020 ), “ Digital transformation of everyday life–how COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? ”, International Journal of Information Management , Vol. 55 , 102183 .

Iversen , O.S. , Smith , R.C. and Dindler , C. ( 2017 ), “ Child as protagonist: expanding the role of children in participatory design ”, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children , pp. 27 - 37 .

Jennings , L.B. , DeborahParra-Medina , M. , DeanneHilfinger-Messias , K. and McLoughlin , K. ( 2006 ), “ Toward a critical social theory of youth empowerment ”, Journal of Community Practice , Vol. 14 Nos 1-2 , pp. 31 - 55 .

Kinnula , M. , Laari-Salmela , S. and Iivari , N. ( 2015 ), “ Mundane or magical? Discourses on technology adoption in Finnish schools ”, Proceedings ECIS2015 .

Kinnula , M. , Iivari , N. , Molin-Juustila , T. , Keskitalo , E. , Leinonen , T. , Mansikkamäki , E. and Similä , M. ( 2017 ), “ Cooperation, combat, or competence building–what do we mean when we are ‘empowering children’ in and through digital technology design? ”, Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems , AIS .

Kratzer , J. and Lettl , C. ( 2008 ), “ A social network perspective of lead users and creativity: an empirical study among children ”, Creativity and Innovation Management , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 26 - 36 .

Larkins , C. ( 2020 ), Building on Rainbows: Supporting Children's Participation in Shaping Responses to COVID-19 , available at: https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/33087/ .

Livingstone , S. and Helsper , E. ( 2007 ), “ Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide ”, New Media and Society , Vol. 9 No. 4 , pp. 671 - 696 .

Mariën , I. and Prodnik , A.J. ( 2014 ), “ Digital inclusion and user (dis) empowerment: a critical perspective ”, Info , Vol. 16 No. 6 , pp. 35 - 47 .

National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (NCCBE) ( 2016 ), “ Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet; Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014:96 [national core curriculum for basic education; regulations and guidelines] ”, Opetushallitus: Next Print Oy , 4th ed. , available at: http://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf .

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ( 2018 ), Bridging the Digital Gender Divide: Include, Upskill, Innovate , OECD, Paris .

Papert , S. ( 1993 ), “ The children's machine ”, Technology Review-Manchester NH , Vol. 96 , p. 28 .

Rajanen , M. and Iivari , N. ( 2019 ), “ Empowered or disempowered? An analysis of usability practitioners' interventions in open source projects ”, in Leroux , J. (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Empowerment , Nova Science Publishers , Hauppauge , pp. 1 - 45 .

Ruland , C.M. , Slaughter , L. , Starren , J. , Vatne , T.M. and Moe , E.Y. ( 2007 ), “ Children's contributions to designing a communication tool for children with cancer ”, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics , Vol. 129 No. Pt 2 , pp. 977 - 982 .

Simonsen , J. and Robertson , T. (Eds) ( 2013 ), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design , Routledge , New York, NY .

Sharma , S. , Achary , K. , Kinnula , M. , Iivari , N. and Varkey , B. ( 2020 ), “ Gathering garbage or going green? shifting social perspectives to empower individuals with special needs ”, in Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference , pp. 311 - 322 .

Smith , R.C. , Iversen , O.S. and Veerasawmy , R. ( 2018 ), “ Impediments to digital fabrication in education: a study of teachers' role in digital fabrication ”, Information and Technology Literacy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications , IGI Global , Hershey , pp. 301 - 319 .

Spreitzer , G.M. ( 1995 ), “ Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 38 No. 5 , pp. 1442 - 1465 .

Thomas , K.W. and Velthouse , B.A. ( 1990 ), “ Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 15 No. 4 , pp. 666 - 681 .

Tisza , G. , Papavlasopoulou , S. , Christidou , D. , Voulgari , I. , Iivari , N. , Giannakos , M.N. , Kinnula , M. and Markopoulos , P. ( 2019 ), “ The role of age and gender on implementing informal and non-formal science learning activities for children ”, in Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference , pp. 1 - 9 .

Vainionpää , F. , Kinnula , M. , Iivari , N. and Molin-Juustila , T. ( 2019 ), “ Gendering and segregation in girls' perceptions of IT as a career choice–A nexus analytic inquiry ”, Proceedings ISD2019 .

von Hippel , E. ( 2005 ), Democratizing Innovation , MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Warschauer , M. ( 2002 ), “ Reconceptualizing the digital divide ”, First Monday , Vol. 7 No. 7 .

Weibert , A. , Aal , K. , von Rekowski , T. and Wulf , V. ( 2015 ), “ Hey, can we make that, please?: on craft as a means of cross-cultural community-building ”, The Journal of Community Informatics , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 9 .

Zimmerman , M.A. ( 1995 ), “ Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations ”, American Journal of Community Psychology , Vol. 23 No. 5 , pp. 581 - 599 .

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Academy of Finland (Grant #324685, Make-a-Difference project).

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Digital Childhoods

Technologies and Children’s Everyday Lives

• © 2018
• Susan J. Danby 0 ,
• Marilyn Fleer 1 ,
• Christina Davidson 2 ,
• Maria Hatzigianni 3

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Frankston, Australia

School of education, charles sturt university, wagga wagga, australia, faculty of human sciences, macquarie university, sydney, australia.

• Conceptualises how childhood is being constructed in the digital era
• Provides case studies on the ways that young children are currently experiencing their digital childhoods
• Presents a diversity of chapters where different theoretical approaches and a broad range of countries are represented, showing how children engage with a diverse range of digital technologies

Part of the book series: International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development (CHILD, volume 22)

47k Accesses

114 Citations

20 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

This book highlights the multiple ways that digital technologies are being used in everyday contexts at home and school, in communities, and across diverse activities, from play to web searching, to talking to family members who are far away. The book helps readers understand the diverse practices employed as children make connections with digital technologies in their everyday experiences.

In addition, the book employs a framework that helps readers easily access major themes at a glance, and also showcases the diversity of ideas and theorisations that underpin the respective chapters. In this way, each chapter stands alone in making a specific contribution and, at the same time, makes explicit its connections to the broader themes of digital technologies in children’s everyday lives. The concept of digital childhood presented here goes beyond a sociological reading of the everyday lives of children and their families, and reflects the various contexts in which children engage, such as preschools and childcare centres.

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital Experiences in Early Childhood

Singapore Parents’ Use of Digital Devices with Young Children: Motivations and Uses

An Ecological Exploration of the Internet of Toys in Early Childhood Everyday Life

• Digital education
• Computers in education
• Families and technology
• Technology in the home
• Technology in Early Childhood
• Skype in education
• Rural education
• International
• Social Media
• Video Games
• Longitudinal research
• Digital photography
• Digital literacy
• iPads in education
• Assessment and technology

Table of contents (17 chapters)

Front matter, digital childhoods across contexts and countries.

• Susan J. Danby, Marilyn Fleer, Christina Davidson, Maria Hatzigianni

Social Affordances Across Time and Space in Digital Contexts

How families use video communication technologies during intergenerational skype sessions.

• Gillian Busch

Digital Bridges Between Home and Preschool: Theorising Conceptually Inclusive Practice in Digital Environments

Marilyn Fleer

Digital Participation Among Children in Rural Areas

• Carin Roos, Christina Olin-Scheller

Producing Contexts for Young Children’s Digital Technology Use: Web Searching During Adult-Child Interactions at Home and Preschool

• Christina Davidson, Susan J. Danby, Lisa M. Given, Karen Thorpe

Emotionality, Play and Digital Engagement

Electronic gaming: associations with self-regulation, emotional difficulties and academic performance.

• Sue Walker, Maria Hatzigianni, Susan J. Danby

Children’s Collaborative Learning in Science Scaffolded by Tablets

• Marie Fridberg, Andreas Redfors

Digital Play and Learning in the Home: Families’ Perspective

• Lisa Kervin, Irina Verenikina, Clara Rivera

Rules of Engagement: Family Rules on Young Children’s Access to and Use of Technologies

• Stephane Chaudron, Jackie Marsh, Verònica Donoso Navarette, Wannes Ribbens, Giovanna Mascheroni, David Smahel et al.

Hacking Toys and Remixing Media: Integrating Maker Literacies into Early Childhood Teacher Education

• Karen E. Wohlwend, Jill A. Scott, Joanne H. Yi, Amanda Deliman, Tolga Kargin

Societal Tools for Thinking, Learning and Communicating Differently

Supporting whole child development in the digital age.

• Kate Highfield, Katie A. Paciga, Chip Donohue

Digital Narratives and Young Children

• Susanne Garvis

Teaching Visual Arts with Digital Technologies

• Maria Kalamatianou, Maria Hatzigianni

Learning Literacy: Engaging with Print and Digital Texts in the First Year of School

• Katherine Doyle, Annette Woods

Digital Tools to Support Children’s Speech and Language Skill

• Yvonne Wren, Jane McCormack, Sarah Masso, Sharynne McLeod, Elise Baker, Kathryn Crowe

Digital Games in the Early Childhood Classroom: Theoretical and Practical Considerations

• Zoi Nikiforidou

Editors and Affiliations

Susan J. Danby

Christina Davidson

Maria Hatzigianni

About the editors

Susan Danby is a Professor of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology, Australia. She researches social interaction and communication in institutional contexts that include educational and family settings, helplines and clinical contexts. Recent projects include investigating how young children engage with digital technologies in home and school.

Christina Davidson is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Education, Charles Sturt University. Her research focuses on the social aspects of young children’s activities at home, preschool and in the early years of formal schooling. DrDavidson employs ethnomethodology/conversation analysis and mostly works with other conversation analysts to investigate the social interactions that shape young children’s online activity.

Maria Hatzigianni is a Lecturer in Early Childhood and Primary Education at Macquarie University. She worked as a kindergarten teacher and director in Australia and Greece for more than 15 years (1996-2012). Her main research interests include: integrating technology in early childhood and primary education; training early childhood and primary teachers in new technologies; bilingual and multicultural education; and social justice in education. She is currently investigating the use of new technologies with very young children (under 3 years of age).

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Digital Childhoods

Book Subtitle : Technologies and Children’s Everyday Lives

Editors : Susan J. Danby, Marilyn Fleer, Christina Davidson, Maria Hatzigianni

Series Title : International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6484-5

Publisher : Springer Singapore

eBook Packages : Education , Education (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-10-6483-8 Published: 11 April 2018

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-13-3885-4 Published: 22 December 2018

eBook ISBN : 978-981-10-6484-5 Published: 03 April 2018

Series ISSN : 2468-8746

Series E-ISSN : 2468-8754

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XII, 287

Number of Illustrations : 39 b/w illustrations

Topics : Early Childhood Education , Educational Technology , Technology and Digital Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

• Educational Research and Innovation

Education in the Digital Age

Children and digital technologies: trends and outcomes, healthy and happy children.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a forceful reminder that education plays an important role in delivering not just academic learning, but also in supporting physical and emotional well-being. Balancing traditional “book learning” with broader social and personal development means new roles for schools and education more generally.

This volume is part of a series that examines the intersections between education, well-being and digital technologies. Complementing the first volume Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-Being in the Digital Age , this volume turns the spotlight on physical health and well-being. It explores the important role of play and risk-taking in learning. It examines the “pursuit of perfection” and the impact on children’s lives, whether it be physical, cognitive or academic. It highlights important efforts countries have made to tackle inequality and protect and empower students in both physical and digital environments. It ends with a look at the pending agenda, underscoring the role of partnerships, policy and protection.

• Educating 21st Century Children
• https://doi.org/10.1787/1209166a-en
• Click to access:
• Click to access in HTML WEB
• Click to download PDF - 3.97MB PDF
• Click to download EPUB - 2.25MB ePUB

Digital technologies are an integral part of children’s lives in the 21st century. Children spend more time in the digital environment than ever before and at younger ages. However, despite the increase in access and use, digital inequalities are still present and prevent the most vulnerable children from building the digital skills they need for education and life in general in the 21st century. Successful policies need to balance the potential opportunities with risks, while ensuring that all children have the knowledge and skills to fully navigate and participate in digital spheres. This chapter provides an overview of some recent trends in children’s digital technology access and use, and highlights some policy challenges faced by education systems.

• Click to download PDF - 813.80KB PDF

Cite this content as:

Author(s) OECD

15 Oct 2020

262-456-2384

9 Positive Effects of Technology on Child Development

Technology plays a significant part in our lives—and it will only become more prevalent as time goes on. While there is no denying that excessive use of technology can be detrimental to children, the right amount of technology can positively affect a child's development. Technological advances provide children with access to a wealth of information and opportunities that were simply not available before. Take a look at the positive effects of technology on child development.

Enhanced learning opportunities

Technology has revolutionized the way children learn. Children have access to a world of information at their fingertips with the internet. They easily find answers to their questions with just a few clicks of a mouse.They can explore different topics and learn at their own pace.

In addition, there are now many educational apps and games that can help children learn new skills and concepts. There are also a wealth of educational resources, such as online games, videos, and articles that can help aid in learning. And with parental guidance, it can be a safe and enriching environment for children to explore.

Improved communication skills

With technology, children can easily communicate with others . They can stay in touch with friends and family living far away. They can also reach out to new people from all over the world and make new friends.

This improved communication can help children develop critical social skills, such as empathy, cooperation, and compromise. It can also help children learn how to express themselves better. And with practice, children can become confident communicators—both online and offline.

Greater creativity and self-expression

Children can use technology to express their creative side. They can create digital art, music, videos, and more with the right tools. They can also share their creations with others online—whether with friends, family, or the world.

This self-expression can help children develop a stronger sense of identity. It can also boost their confidence and self-esteem. And it can give them a creative outlet to explore their feelings and emotions.

Enhanced problem-solving skills

With technology, children can learn how to solve problems in new and innovative ways. They can experiment with different solutions and find the best one for the task. They can also research problems and brainstorm ideas with others online.

This problem-solving practice can help children become independent thinkers. It can also teach them how to think outside the box—an important skill in today's ever-changing world.

Improved coordination and motor skills

Many technology-based activities require children to use their hands and fingers in new ways. This can help improve coordination and motor skills. For example, using a computer mouse or touch screen requires precise movements that can enhance hand-eye coordination. Playing video games also requires quick reflexes and hand-eye coordination.

Enhanced memory and concentration

Some research suggests that certain types of technology can help improve memory and concentration. For instance, one study found that children who played action video games had better working memory than those who didn't play games. Other research has shown that educational apps can improve memory recall in young children.

Increased exposure to different cultures

With technology, children have the opportunity to learn about different cultures. They can connect with people from all over the world and learn about their traditions, customs, and beliefs. This exposure can help children develop a greater understanding and appreciation for other cultures.

Improved organizational skills

Many technology-based activities require children to organize and manage information. For instance, they may need to create files, folders, and documents on a computer. They may also need to keep track of passwords, usernames, and logins for different websites and apps. This practice can help children develop strong organizational skills that will be useful in school and the workplace.

Preparedness for the future

In today's increasingly digital world, children need to learn how to use technology. By understanding how to use different types of technology, children will be better prepared for the future. They'll be able to take advantage of new opportunities and meet the challenges of an ever-changing world.

It's no secret how technology can have a positive effect on child development given the right use and under parental supervision. Providing children with the right tools can develop important skills that will be useful in school and beyond!

Our innovative small group programs at Mrs. Myers' Learning Lab are framed around children's natural high energy and individual interests, technology, music, and games. Your child will engage in reading and learning activities that feel like play! Learning this way expedites results. Visit us to learn more!

Go back to Newsfeed

• Skip to page content

The Role of Technology in the Lives of Children

Oct 10, 2014

Photo by Chris Futcher/iStock

By Lindsay Daugherty and Rafiq Dossani

Technology has become an important part of daily life for young children. On a typical day, children ages 3–5 spend an average of four hours with technology, and technology use is increasing among children of all ages.

Still, not everyone agrees that technology should be in early childhood education. Debates about the role of technology in early childhood education are ongoing, with some providers, parents, and others yet to be convinced about the potential benefits of technology.

In a new policy brief , we identify several goals that can help guide technology use in early childhood education. We developed the findings during a one-day forum in Pittsburgh last May, convened by RAND and PNC Grow Up Great , about technology use in early childhood education.

Among the key findings:

• Add technology to the education toolbox. Research shows that technology can be useful in supporting learning, but only if providers and families use it in a thoughtful and intentional way. Children from low-income families face the greatest challenges in skills development due to disparities that appear at a young age, and they might experience the greatest benefits from these new opportunities for learning and engagement.
• Support school readiness in digital literacy. With increasingly higher standards for technology use in early elementary grades, all children, particularly low-income children, could benefit from acquiring basic technology literacy skills in early childhood education settings to ensure they are ready for the classroom.

The policy brief is the first of five to be released over the next two months examining key questions related to technology use in early childhood education.

The four subsequent policy briefs will examine how to best define developmentally appropriate technology use in early childhood education; how to support developmentally appropriate technology use through devices, software, connectivity, and other components of technology infrastructure; the best ways to prepare providers to integrate technology appropriately, intentionally, and productively into early childhood education settings; and how parents and other family members can play a role in the use of technology in early childhood education.

Lindsay Daugherty is a policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. Rafiq Dossani is a senior policy researcher and director of the Center for Asia Pacific Policy at RAND.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn

More About This Commentary

Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis.

Related Content

Getting on the Same Page: Identifying Goals for Technology Use in Early Childhood Education

Sep 22, 2014

Moving Beyond Screen Time: Redefining Developmentally Appropriate Technology Use in Early Childhood Education

Oct 8, 2014

"T" Is for Technology: Early Childhood Education and the Digital Divide

Mar 3, 2014

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Spin squeezing for all

Should kids play wordle.

How moms may be affecting STEM gender gap

Urs Gasser and John Palfrey discuss how parents can manage children and their use of technology.

Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

Helping your child make the best use of time online

Harvard Staff Writer

Experts offer advice on how to become a ‘connected parent’

Teenagers spend an average of nine hours a day online, and many parents worry about the impact of screen time on their children. There is no need to worry, said digital experts Urs Gasser and John Palfrey, authors of the newly released book “The Connected Parent: An Expert Guide to Parenting in a Digital World.” The Gazette spoke with Gasser, professor of practice at Harvard Law School and executive director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society , and Palfrey, president of the MacArthur Foundation and former faculty director of the center, on ways parents can embrace the philosophy of “connected parenting” and help children be safe online and make the most of new media and technology.

Urs Gasser and John Palfrey

GAZETTE: What changes have you seen in the landscape of the new media and technology over the past 12 years since you published your book “Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives” in 2008?

GASSER: A first change has to do with the types of technology young people are using to navigate the digital space. When we wrote “Born Digital,” smartphones were not a thing, and today they are the key device. Another change is the types of platforms young people are using and the issues that come up with these uses. Twelve years ago, for instance, there was a big challenge around music and entertainment; it was very hard for young people to find music online, and they got into trouble because they used file-sharing services to download their favorite tunes, which was illegal. Now that largely has been resolved by innovative business models, whether it’s Spotify or other platforms, where youth have music on the go, everywhere.

On the flip side, we’ve seen new issues emerging in the technology and business environments. One of the biggest concerns is around the use of [user behavioral] data, or what is called “surveillance capitalism.” Also, when we started our work, youth and technology was more like a niche topic, and that awareness has changed a lot. Parents are very concerned about issues such as screen time, and so are educators who are dealing with it in the face of COVID. It’s a general trend. Both policy- and lawmakers are thinking about youth and technology issues too — whether it’s about how we can mitigate some of the risks associated with it, but also how we can embrace the new opportunities that technologies offer to young people to engage in society and become participants in the digital economy.

5 keys to connected parenting

Keep an open conversation about digital issues. Embrace the positive about new technology, while building skills to mitigate risks. Seek a balance between offering support and independence. Keep an open mind rather than fear new technologies. Engage with the technology yourself so you can remain credible, model good behavior. Source: “The Connected Parent: An Expert Guide to Parenting in a Digital World,” Urs Gasser and John Palfrey

Illustration by Claudia Thomas

GAZETTE: Can you explain your philosophy of “connected parenting”?

PALFREY: One thing that is distinctive about this book is that it presents the data and the advice we have for parents with a consistent philosophy. Anyone can go online and look up parenting advice tips. We think this book is helpful insofar as you embrace the philosophy of connected parenting. The ideas are very simple, but quite important and grounded in the research.

One is the importance of parents keeping the lines of conversation open with the young people in your life. This seems like an obvious point, but it is not always done, and it involves making sure that kids know that they can ask questions of you, in general, not just about technology.

That leads to a second point: We urge parents to get their hands dirty with the technology. We suggest that they use it to build credibility with their children. You don’t have to be on Snapchat all day long, or whatever is the latest technology at that moment, but you need to be credible for your advice to resonate with young people.

We also think that you should be led in your parenting not by fear, but by the data. And that’s what we hope to do through this book: to introduce what the real facts are relative to the research in the context of the most common questions that parents ask of us. It’s also about being open to the positive sides of the technology and the ways in which young people are learning and connecting to one another through these technologies.

GASSER: The only thing I would perhaps add is that parents need to connect with their kids first, and then connect with the technology.

GAZETTE: How have new media and technology affected parenting?

PALFREY: Most of the research has been looking specifically at the experiences that young people have, and the approach we’ve taken for the last 15 years at the Berkman Klein Center’s Youth and Media Lab has really been to ask the questions from the viewpoint of the young person. That is very important because it grounds the research in the realities of the child. We urge parents to focus on the lived experience of young people because our job as parents is important, but it is secondary to what they are experiencing. That’s really the most important takeaway.

I’ll take one specific example, which is bullying. People often talk about cyberbullying. Our argument is that while there is cyberbullying that happens online, there’s regular bullying that happens in the schoolyard. It’s actually all just bullying. It just plays out in multiple dimensions and in different environments. What we’re urging parents to do is to see them as connected, so if somebody is bullying somebody in the cafeteria, they’re probably also bullying them online and vice versa. The strategies to deal with bullying are going to be pretty similar in most cases. The research shows that most of the strategies that have worked for us historically in good parenting are going to hold up in this new world too.

GASSER: My sense is that parenting at its core is still similar to what we experienced in the offline age. But the rate of change that technology introduces is just a game-changer in many ways. The connected parent has to learn new things all the time to keep track of technological developments and understand how their children are using technology, with its risks and possible benefits. The very rapid pace of change creates a challenge for us parents because we have to make parental decisions without having the benefit of years of experience or advice from grandparents or evidence from researchers. I’ve experienced this challenge myself. As a parent, I feel I have to constantly learn, readjust, and figure out how can I empower my children: Where do I need to step in to protect them or what tools do we use to have these conversations?

GAZETTE: Could you talk about the importance of being a connected parent in this age?

PALFREY:   If a parent abdicates in this area and doesn’t engage with young people on issues related to their technology use, then those parents are leaving their kids in a tough spot. Having hard conversations to help a young person navigate a world where they have a device connected to them 24/7 is literally necessary. Partly what we’re saying to parents is that they should jump on in because the water is fine, and it is going to be OK. You don’t get a manual for how to be a parent when a child is born; you just do some version of what you’ve learned from those who raised you, and you might adjust in one direction or another. But that doesn’t exist in this case because there is a generational turn, and what you don’t want to do is to leave kids on their own. We hope this book can serve as that “missing manual” for parents in this case.

GAZETTE: Most parents are scared and worried about the impact of technology in their children’s lives. What are the most common misconceptions about the influence of new media and technology?

GASSER:   Adults often underestimate how integrated digital technologies are in the lives of young people. As adults, we still tend to make a distinction between “online” and “offline,” and yet, for young people, these distinctions are no longer meaningful. Both the interconnectedness and the embeddedness of digital technology shape the lives of young people in profound ways.

At the same time, there is a notion among adults that young people are tech-savvy because it’s in their DNA or because they’re young and interact with technology all the time. We know from research, however, that there are serious participation gaps. Not all children have access to digital technologies in the same way. These gaps are persistent here in the U.S. We also see big differences in the distribution of the skills that are needed to use these technologies in a meaningful way. There are really big equity issues, and we, as adults, have a deep responsibility to ensure that we put policies in place that allow every young person to access technology and use it in a productive way.

PALFREY: One reason for writing this book and our previous book, “Born Digital,” before that, is the number of myths that pervade adult understanding of how young people are growing up. We consider our work to be myth-busting work because there are many myths that make parents underestimate the positives that young people can get from their experiences with new media as well as the actual contours of the dangers they face. One thing we always say is that for young people there is not an offline life and an online life; it’s just life.

Among the positive aspects of technology is the high levels of civic activism among young people in the United States and in different parts of the world. This is connected in many ways to the kinds of things that they are able to do through technology and new media and the sense of agency young people have relative to new technologies. They can start new organizations and are able to spread the word across geographic boundaries. I would highlight the Black Lives Matter protests, which have grown in part through a networked set of technologies.

Another example is climate activism, which has spread throughout the United States and other places globally in part because of the internet. Some people it’s just “clicktivism” because they’re just clicking “likes” on Facebook. That’s not seeing the fullness of the ways in which young people are using technology and how it does shift the way they engage with the world.

GAZETTE: Some people worry that the internet is making people dumber. Is that a myth?

PALFREY:  I don’t think there’s anything in the research that says that this is a dumber generation. It made for a clever book title (“The Dumbest Generation”) that sold a lot of copies, but I do not think there is merit in the data. There are certainly questions about the long-term effects of the extensive technology use on young people’s learning, but as with other things, I wouldn’t blame the technology itself. It’s the way in which we use it and choose to use it. I, for one, believe this is going to be the most educated generation in history, not the dumbest generation in history. We’ll see.

GAZETTE: Your book says that teenagers spend an average of nine hours per day online. What does the research say about the impact of so much screen time on young people? What is your advice to parents?

GASSER: The important point is that how much time young people spend online matters. When it comes to screen time, perhaps surprisingly, studies suggest that moderate use of technology can have actually a positive impact on the social and emotional well-being of young people. The problem appears with excessive time spent in front of screens. A particular area of concern is sleep, because often kids who use technology in excessive ways don’t sleep enough. The difficulty is to determine what the right amount of screen time is, and that depends on the age range. Our book offers some guidance based on research. However, the biggest insight from research is that what matters is not only how many hours someone spends in front of screens, but what type of activities is the young person engaging with. For instance, if a kid uses a cellphone, does she use it for gaming? If so, what kinds of games is she playing? Or does she use it to communicate with her friends, to engage in some types of activism, or does she use it to do her homework and learn online in the time of COVID? All these types of activities can have a different impact on the young person’s well-being and development, and future research will look into these qualitative questions.

PALFREY: The most important thing about screen time is quality versus quantity. It’s especially important when it comes to this moment of COVID-19 because with students being out of school, they are connected to other people through their devices almost exclusively. The debate over screen time has therefore changed enormously. It used to be adults being concerned that kids were spending too much time online, but there’s no choice during COVID. It fortunately lines up with the research that shows that the qualitative point is more important than the quantitative.

GAZETTE : What are the real effects of social media and screen time in the increase in depression and anxiety among young people?

PALFREY: The research is telling us that there is an increase for many young people in stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidality in general. We also know that kids are using technology more than before. We do not know that there is a causal link between those two. It’s important, as researchers, to say the things that we do know and the things we don’t know. A hypothesis is that the technology can exacerbate conditions that young people have. An example is an eating disorder, which can be an extreme form of anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and so forth, a young person might be prone to by genetics and by environment to have this disorder. When they go on Instagram and they see the most beautiful and skinny version of everybody else, they might internalize that as part of the anxiety they’re having. In cases like that, technology can exacerbate underlying situations, but they don’t cause it. The challenge is having to parse things out and respond appropriately given each person’s situation.

“Both young people and digital technology are better than their reputation.” Urs Gasser

More like this

On internet privacy, be very afraid

Raising successful kids

The do’s and don’ts of sharing about your children online

GASSER: Research also shows that kids with moderate anxieties can actually benefit and find support in social media, as a way to cope with their challenges. There is a positive role that social media can play in not only being part of a complex problem, but part of the solution.

GAZETTE: What can parents do to keep their children safe online?

GASSER: The easiest point is parents should start by respecting their children’s privacy. We see lots of parents posting baby pictures on Facebook, and as kids grew up, they continue to use social media to share cute pictures with their friends, which is understandable. But this raises privacy concerns as the young person grows older. There are conversations that need to happen over time between parents and young people about sharing of particularly sensitive data, so that kids develop an awareness about what happens if you post a selfie or a snapshot of your friends on social media that later may be part of your children’s digital dossier and may be seen by their school admission’s office. Perhaps that’s the hardest part for adults and parents, but we need to understand what is going on with all the data and the traces we leave online as we use these technologies. That goes back to the topic of surveillance capitalism mentioned earlier. Parents or young people are limited by what they can do to safeguard their privacy. That’s where legislators and governments have to step in and provide, particularly here in the U.S., more robust privacy and data protection and safeguards for young people and adults. The Europeans are ahead of us, and we need desperately to catch up.

PALFREY: A few additional words about safety. We’ve been led to believe that the rate of harm to young people has gone way up during the internet era. But it turns out that the data suggest quite the opposite, which is that children are less likely to be physically or sexually harmed by a stranger they meet outside the home over the last few decades, during the growth of these technologies. That’s not to say that young people can’t get in trouble online, whether that’s in a chat function of a game or in an edgy web community that is devoted to sex, for instance. These are areas where certainly young people can connect with people who wish to do them harm. Ensuring that parents are giving good advice to young people about the way they engage with others remains important.

GAZETTE: What do you think is the main takeaway from your book?

GASSER:   If I could say it in a tweet, I would say this: Both young people and digital technology are better than their reputation.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for length and clarity.

Share this article

You might like.

Physicists ease path to entanglement for quantum sensing

Early childhood development expert has news for parents who think the popular online game will turn their children into super readers

Research suggests encouragement toward humanities appears to be very influential for daughters

John Manning named next provost

His seven-year tenure as Law School dean noted for commitments to academic excellence, innovation, collaboration, and culture of free, open, and respectful discourse

Loving your pup may be a many splendored thing

New research suggests having connection to your dog may lower depression, anxiety  

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

Digital Technology is Making Children’s Lives Better

By Suraj Kant

In the ever-evolving landscape of the 21st century, digital technology has become an integral part of our daily lives, with a particularly profound impact on the younger generation. Contrary to the skepticism that sometimes surrounds the use of technology by children, there is a compelling narrative emerging — one that tells a story of how digital technology is making children’s lives better in more ways than we may realize.

• Education Revolution: One of the most significant ways digital technology has enriched the lives of children is through revolutionizing the education sector. Traditional classrooms are no longer confined to four walls; instead, interactive digital platforms bring the world into the hands of young learners. Educational apps, online resources, and interactive e-books make learning an engaging and personalized experience. Children can explore diverse subjects, grasp complex concepts through interactive simulations, and access information at their own pace.
• Enhancing Creativity and Imagination: Digital technology serves as a powerful catalyst for unleashing children’s creativity and imagination. From virtual art studios to music composition apps, technology provides a canvas for young minds to express themselves. Platforms like coding games and animation software not only teach valuable skills but also empower children to bring their imaginative ideas to life. This newfound ability to create fosters a sense of accomplishment and boosts confidence.
• Building Global Connections: The digital age has transformed the concept of friendship and connectivity. Social media platforms, designed with safety measures, allow children to connect with peers from around the world, fostering cultural understanding and global awareness. These connections enable the sharing of ideas, perspectives, and experiences, breaking down geographical barriers and broadening children’s horizons.
• Health and Wellness Apps: Digital technology isn’t just about screen time; it also plays a crucial role in promoting children’s health and wellness. Fitness apps, designed for children, encourage physical activity through gamification. These apps make exercise fun, incorporating challenges and rewards, contributing to a healthier lifestyle. Additionally, mindfulness and meditation apps tailored for children help manage stress and enhance mental well-being.
• Access to Information and Lifelong Learning: The internet, often referred to as a vast ocean of knowledge, provides children with unprecedented access to information. Search engines and educational websites empower them to quench their curiosity, explore new interests, and engage in lifelong learning. The ability to access a wealth of information at their fingertips equips children with the skills needed to adapt to an ever-changing world.
• Instilling Digital Literacy: In an era dominated by technology, digital literacy is a fundamental skill. Through age-appropriate games and educational software, children are learning how to navigate the digital landscape responsibly. They understand the importance of online etiquette, discerning reliable information sources, and protecting their digital identity.
• Adapting to Future Workforce Trends: As we move towards an increasingly digitized future, children immersed in digital technology are better prepared to meet the demands of tomorrow’s workforce. Coding classes and STEM-focused educational tools equip them with skills that are becoming essential in various industries. The early exposure to technology sets the stage for a future generation that is not just consumers but creators and innovators.

In conclusion, while concerns about the impact of digital technology on children persist, it is crucial to acknowledge the positive transformations it has brought into their lives. From revolutionizing education to fostering creativity and preparing them for the future, digital technology is undeniably making children’s lives better, opening up a world of opportunities that were once unimaginable. The key lies in promoting responsible use, ensuring a balance between screen time and other activities, and guiding children to navigate the digital landscape with confidence and resilience.

(The author is Suraj Kant, Founder & Director, IYRC, and the views expressed in this article are his own)

You Might Also Like

5 mobility startups revolutionizing electric vehicle supply in india, future trends in ai customer experience: predictable or uncertain.

Leveraging Facial Recognition to Secure Physical Banking Frontiers

Tech-driven benefits: boosting employee well-being and business performance.

Useful Links

Information

Copyright © 2024 Trivone. All Rights Reserved.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.

As a professor of education and a former public school teacher, I’ve seen digital tools change lives in schools.

I’ve documented the ways mobile technology like phones can transform student engagement in my own classroom.

I’ve explored how digital tools might network powerful civic learning and dialogue for classrooms across the country – elements of education that are crucial for sustaining our democracy today.

And, like everyone, I’ve witnessed digital technologies make schooling safer in the midst of a global pandemic. Zoom and Google Classroom, for instance, allowed many students to attend classrooms virtually during a period when it was not feasible to meet in person.

So I want to tell you that I think technologies are changing education for the better and that we need to invest more in them – but I just can’t.

Given the substantial amount of scholarly time I’ve invested in documenting the life-changing possibilities of digital technologies, it gives me no pleasure to suggest that these tools might be slowly poisoning us. Despite their purported and transformational value, I’ve been wondering if our investment in educational technology might in fact be making our schools worse.

Let me explain.

When I was a classroom teacher, I loved relying on the latest tools to create impressive and immersive experiences for my students. We would utilize technology to create class films, produce social media profiles for the Janie Crawfords, the Holden Caulfields, and other literary characters we studied, and find playful ways to digitally share our understanding of the ideas we studied in our classrooms.

As a teacher, technology was a way to build on students’ interests in pop culture and the world around them. This was exciting to me.

But I’ve continued to understand that the aspects of technology I loved weren’t actually about technology at all – they were about creating authentic learning experiences with young people. At the heart of these digital explorations were my relationships with students and the trust we built together.

“Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them.”

I do see promise in the suite of digital tools that are available in classrooms today. But my research focus on platforms – digital spaces like Amazon, Netflix, and Google that reshape how users interact in online environments – suggests that when we focus on the trees of individual tools, we ignore the larger forest of social and cognitive challenges.

Most people encounter platforms every day in their online social lives. From the few online retail stores where we buy groceries to the small handful of sites that stream our favorite shows and media content, platforms have narrowed how we use the internet today to a small collection of Silicon Valley behemoths. Our social media activities, too, are limited to one or two sites where we check on the updates, photos, and looped videos of friends and loved ones.

These platforms restrict our online and offline lives to a relatively small number of companies and spaces – we communicate with a finite set of tools and consume a set of media that is often algorithmically suggested. This centralization of internet – a trend decades in the making – makes me very uneasy.

From willfully hiding the negative effects of social media use for vulnerable populations to creating tools that reinforce racial bias, today’s platforms are causing harm and sowing disinformation for young people and adults alike. The deluge of difficult ethical and pedagogical questions around these tools are not being broached in any meaningful way in schools – even adults aren’t sure how to manage their online lives.

You might ask, “What does this have to do with education?” Platforms are also a large part of how modern schools operate. From classroom management software to attendance tracking to the online tools that allowed students to meet safely during the pandemic, platforms guide nearly every student interaction in schools today. But districts are utilizing these tools without considering the wider spectrum of changes that they have incurred alongside them.

Antero Garcia, associate professor of education (Image credit: Courtesy Antero Garcia)

For example, it might seem helpful for a school to use a management tool like Classroom Dojo (a digital platform that can offer parents ways to interact with and receive updates from their family’s teacher) or software that tracks student reading and development like Accelerated Reader for day-to-day needs. However, these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.

Another problem with platforms is that they, by necessity, amass large swaths of data. Myriad forms of educational technology exist – from virtual reality headsets to e-readers to the small sensors on student ID cards that can track when students enter schools. And all of this student data is being funneled out of schools and into the virtual black boxes of company databases.

Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them. Young people are not viewed as complete human beings but as boxes checked for attendance, for meeting academic progress metrics, or for confirming their location within a school building. Nearly every action that students perform in schools – whether it’s logging onto devices, accessing buildings, or sharing content through their private online lives – is noticed and recorded. Children in schools have become disembodied from their minds and their hearts. Thus, one of the greatest and implicit lessons that kids learn in schools today is that they must sacrifice their privacy in order to participate in conventional, civic society.

The pandemic has only made the situation worse. At its beginnings, some schools relied on software to track students’ eye movements, ostensibly ensuring that kids were paying attention to the tasks at hand. Similarly, many schools required students to keep their cameras on during class time for similar purposes. These might be seen as in the best interests of students and their academic growth, but such practices are part of a larger (and usually more invisible) process of normalizing surveillance in the lives of youth today.

I am not suggesting that we completely reject all of the tools at our disposal – but I am urging for more caution. Even the seemingly benign resources we might use in our classrooms today come with tradeoffs. Every Wi-Fi-connected, “smart” device utilized in schools is an investment in time, money, and expertise in technology over teachers and the teaching profession.

Our focus on fixing or saving schools via digital tools assumes that the benefits and convenience that these invisible platforms offer are worth it.

But my ongoing exploration of how platforms reduce students to quantifiable data suggests that we are removing the innovation and imagination of students and teachers in the process.

Antero Garcia is associate professor of education in the Graduate School of Education .

In Their Own Words is a collaboration between the Stanford Public Humanities Initiative  and Stanford University Communications.

If you’re a Stanford faculty member (in any discipline or school) who is interested in writing an essay for this series, please reach out to Natalie Jabbar at [email protected] .

• Readers’ Blog

Digital Technology is Making Children’s Lives Better

We live in an age of innovation, where digital technology is providing solutions to problems before we’ve even realized we needed them     -David Lidington

We live in a digital era where technology is at our beck and call., we have everything at our fingertips due to digital technology-“knowledge”, “information”, “research”  you can find everything and explore anything with just a push of a button.

Even though the toughest of times, when finding a solution seems impossible we find it and it’s all because of digital technology. The biggest example. Well, we are living it. Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing lockdown, we have been confined to the four walls of our house but we didn’t let that stop us from pursuing knowledge and continuing our education.

The concept of traditional education has changed radically, being tangibly present in a classroom isn’t the only learning option anymore, not with the rise of the internet and new technologies at least. Nowadays, you have access to a quality education whenever and wherever you want.

In an experiment, it was proven that a child was able to learn a topic better by using an interactive game rather than the teacher explaining it in class.Through engaging applications, children develop their hand-eye coordination further.Technology may provide basic skills in which children must have competency in order to be successful in school.Gaming and learning applications equip children to pay more attention to details in order to complete these activities.Let’s use Role Playing Games (RPGs) for example. In RPGs, the child uses a character. In order to play, he has to move the character around while planning his next move. These simultaneous activities train children to pay attention to every detail on the screen in order to achieve the goals of the game.Interactive media can be used to explore children’s talent. When children are exposed to music or writing exercises onscreen early on, parents may discover their children’s interests and inclinations. Technology presents opportunities to present different activities children may eventually engage in. For those who live in the city and far away from the zoo, seeing a giraffe up close may be impossible. What about that newly discovered animal in the Pacific Ocean? With technology, your child can access multimedia presentations of the different types of animals, or even see various places around the world. Technology exposes children to things they can’t see every day. Children then begin to understand that life is more than just the four walls of the home or classroom.

Digital technology has helped the. youth have a voice, in fact, it has helped me have a voice. It has helped many children express their opinions by publishing their articles or other forms of writing on various blogs and websites or making their own podcasts or even designing their own website the opportunities are endless and only your mind is your limit.

Many people have argued by saying during online classes many children disturb the decorum of the class and I would like to start by saying yes, I agree that it’s a problem for children during online classes to disturb the decorum of the class or sometimes not even going to the class, yes I agree its a problem, but to every problem there is a solution , and in this case the solution is again digital technology, nowadays in a lot of schools , it has been mandatory to turn on your mic and camera  so the teacher know’s that the student is not getting sidetracked or is losing attention from the topic going on, and then going on to how they might play music and make noise or do something to disturb the class, well the answer to this problem is just a phone call from the Childs parent’s away and then addressing the topic of how sometimes students do not attend classes or just login and go ,well there are 2 solutions for this problem the first is how, it is now mandatory to keep your camera on, so the teacher knows you are in the class and the second solution is again phone call , you can just call the parent of the chid to let them know whats going on.

Many people also argue by talking about social media and its negative effects on children, but again they are only telling us half of the story. There are also significant potential benefits social media can provide. It can create a sense of community and facilitate support from friends. It can encourage people to seek help and share information and resources. More frequent social media use has been associated with an improved ability to share and understand the feelings of others.

The reach, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility of social media mean information, support, or treatment can reach people who might not otherwise have easy access. Clinical services are beginning to harness the benefits of social media to augment the care they provide. For example, colleagues at Orygen developed an online platform for clients and their families to augment face-to-face treatment. It has been trialed with promising results.

Now, I would like for reading this article present here to visualize, a world where digital technology does not exist or digital technology is not accessible, but there is the coronavirus and there is that situation where we are all confined to our houses. Now what would happen if there was no digital technology, the answer is very simple, it would be total chaos. Can you imagine it, such a large period of our lives GONE, time which could have been used by exploring new things are we going to be wasting all this time, spend it doing nothing.

And what about the hypothetical, who knows how long will this pandemic last or when will it end but I do know one thing that without digital technology right now, mankind, globalization, and human interaction would be at a standstill, the opposition may say that because of digital technology and social media we are getting unsocial with our loved ones, but the matter of the fact is that the only reason we have been able to stay connected with family and friends intangibly and virtually worldwide right now is because of this privilege given to us by digital technology.

yes, as they are being well informed about all the things happening around the world

jai shree ram

thanks and your word\'s are as sweet as sugar i like it

All Comments ( ) +

@ A Voice From The Youth

My name is Anaisa Arora, I have taken part in many national and international competitions. I have a passion for debating and writing . i have a wish for a voice of a youth to share thier opinions as well , after all we are the generation that is going to take on the world now.....

• Why our forefathers were much happier than us
• Literature-A medium allowing us to understand the notion of marginalised communities
• Calmness in chaos

Oldest language of the world

whatsup University

8 Simple Steps to Protect the Environment

Sabyasachi Mondal

Today’s time is paramount!

Recently joined bloggers.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Experts Optimistic About the Next 50 Years of Digital Life
• 4. The internet will continue to make life better

Table of Contents

• 1. Themes about the next 50 years of life online
• 2. Internet pioneers imagine the next 50 years
• 3. Humanity is at a precipice; its future is at stake
• 5. Leading concerns about the future of digital life
• About this canvassing of experts
• Acknowledgments

A large share of respondents predict enormous potential for improved quality of life over the next 50 years for most individuals thanks to internet connectivity, although many said the benefits of a wired world are not likely to be evenly distributed.

Andrew Tutt , an expert in law and author of “An FDA for Algorithms,” said, “We are still only about to enter the era of complex automation. It will revolutionize the world and lead to groundbreaking changes in transportation, industry, communication, education, energy, health care, communication, entertainment, government, warfare and even basic research. Self-driving cars, trains, semi-trucks, ships and airplanes will mean that goods and people can be transported farther, faster and with less energy and with massively fewer vehicles. Automated mining and manufacturing will further reduce the need for human workers to engage in rote work. Machine language translation will finally close the language barrier, while digital tutors, teachers and personal assistants with human qualities will make everything from learning new subjects to booking salon appointments faster and easier. For businesses, automated secretaries, salespeople, waiters, waitress, baristas and customer support personnel will lead to cost savings, efficiency gains and improved customer experiences. Socially, individuals will be able to find AI pets, friends and even therapists who can provide the love and emotional support that many people so desperately want. Entertainment will become far more interactive, as immersive AI experiences come to supplement traditional passive forms of media. Energy generation and health care will vastly improve with the addition of powerful AI tools that can take a systems-level view of operations and locate opportunities to gain efficiencies in design and operation. AI-driven robotics (e.g., drones) will revolutionize warfare. Finally, intelligent AI will contribute immensely to basic research and likely begin to create scientific discoveries of its own.”

Arthur Bushkin , an IT pioneer who worked with the precursors to ARPANET and Verizon, wrote, “Of course, the impact of the internet has been dramatic and largely positive. The devil is in the details and the distribution of the benefits.”

Mícheál Ó Foghlú , engineering director and DevOps Code Pillar at Google, Munich, said, “Despite the negatives I firmly believe that the main benefits have been positive, allowing economies and people to move up the value chain, ideally to more rewarding levels of endeavor.”

Perry Hewitt , a marketing, content and technology executive, wrote, “On an individual basis, we will think about our digital assets as much as our physical ones. Ideally, we will have more transparent control over our data, and the ability to understand where it resides and exchange it for value – negotiating with the platform companies that are now in a winner-take-all position. Some children born today are named with search engine-optimization in mind; we’ll be thinking more comprehensively about a set of rights and responsibilities of personal data that children are born with. Governments will have a higher level of regulation and protection of individual data. On an individual level, there will be greater integration of technology with our physical selves. For example, I can see devices that augment hearing and vision, and that enable greater access to data through our physical selves. Hard for me to picture what that looks like, but 50 years is a lot of time to figure it out. On a societal level, AI will have affected many jobs. Not only the truck drivers and the factory workers, but professions that have been largely unassailable – law, medicine – will have gone through a painful transformation. Overall I am bullish in our ingenuity to find a higher and better use for those humans, but it seems inevitable that we’ll struggle through a murky dip before we get there. By 2069, we’ll likely be out the other end. My biggest concern about the world 50 years out is the physical condition of the planet. It seems entirely reasonable that a great deal of our digital lives will be focused on habitable environments: identifying them, improving them, expanding them.”

David Cake , an active leader with Electronic Frontiers Australia and vice chair of the ICANN GNSO Council, wrote, “Significant, often highly communication and computation technologically driven, advances in day-to-day areas like health care, safety and human services, will continue to have a significant measurable improvement in many lives, often ‘invisible’ as an unnoticed reduction in bad outcomes, will continue to reduce the incidence of human-scale disasters. Advances in opportunities for self-actualisation through education, community and creative work will continue (though monetisation will continue to be problematic).”

Eugene H. Spafford , internet pioneer and professor of computing sciences at Purdue University, founder and executive director emeritus of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security, commented, “New uses, information sources and paradigms will improve the lives of many. However, the abuses, dilution of privacy and crime will also make things worse.”

Jeff Jarvis, director of the Tow-Knight Center at City University of New York’s Craig Newmark School of Journalism, commented, “One need be fairly cynical about one’s fellow humans and somewhat hubristic about one’s own exceptional abilities to argue that most people will act against their own self-interest to adopt technologies that will be harmful to them. This is why I am driven nuts by the contentions that we have all become addicted to our devices against our will, that the internet has made us stupid in spite of our education, that social media has made us uncivil no matter our parenting, as if these technologies could, in a mere matter of a few years, change our very nature as human beings. Bull. This dystopian worldview gives people no credit for their agency, their good will, their common sense, their intelligence and their willingness to explore and experiment. We will figure out how to adopt technologies of benefit and reject technologies that harm. Of course, there will be exceptions to that rule – witness America’s inability to come to terms with an invention made a millennium ago: gunpowder. But much of the rest of the civilized world has figured that one out.”

Andrew Odlyzko , professor at the University of Minnesota and former head of its Digital Technology Center and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, said, “Assuming we avoid giant disasters, such as runaway climate change or huge pandemics, we should be able to overcome many of the problems that plague humanity, in health and freedom from physical wants, and from backbreaking or utterly boring jobs. This will bring in other problems, of course.”

Pedro U. Lima , an associate professor of computer science at Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, said, “Most of the focus on technology and particularly AI and machine learning developments these days is limited to virtual systems (e.g., apps for travel booking, social networks, search engines, games). I expect this to move, in the next 50 years, into networking people with machines, remotely operating in a myriad of environments, such as homes, hospitals, factories, sport arenas and so on. This will change work as we know it today, as it will change medicine (increasing remote surgery), travel (autonomous and remotely-guided cars, trains, planes), entertainment (games where real robots, instead of virtual agents, evolve in real scenarios). These are just a few ideas/scenarios. Many more, difficult to anticipate today, will appear. They will bring further challenges on privacy, security and safety, which everyone should be closely watching and monitoring. Beyond current discussions on privacy problems concerning ‘virtual world’ apps, we need to consider that ‘real world’ apps may enhance many of those problems, as they interact physically and/or in proximity with humans.”

Timothy Leffel , research scientist, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, predicted, “Future historians will observe that, in many ways, the rise of the internet over the next few decades will have improved the world, but it hasn’t been without its costs that were sometimes severe and disruptive to entire industries and nations.”

Dave Gusto , co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, commented, “Fifty years is a terrifically long time for forecasting. A lot might be riding on, for example, what happens with the current conflict around net neutrality and the way that public or private interests get to shape the net from now forward. But within either pathway – public-interest dominated or private-interest dominated – the ability of some actors to enjoy the highest-end benefits and many actors to use what they can access or can manage to learn is a likely contour to the overall system. I think that a vast diversity of uses will characterize the future system, focusing on experience, entertainment and education, enhanced by AR and VR.”

A representative for a Middle Eastern telecommunication directorate wrote that online life will continue to be a plus in most individuals’ lives, adding, “As far as technological history is concerned, there has been no single case that the advance of technology and innovation has worsened the lives of individuals. This is similarly valid for AI.”

Living longer and better lives is the shining promise of the digital age

Many respondents to this canvassing agreed that internet advancement is likely to lead to better human-health outcomes, although perhaps not for everyone. As the following comments show, experts foresee new cures for chronic illnesses, rapid advancement in biotechnology and expanded access to care thanks to the development of better telehealth systems.

Steve Crocker , CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro Inc., internet pioneer and Internet Hall of Fame member, responded, “Life will improve in multiple ways. One in particular I think worth mentioning will be improvements in health care in three distinct ways. One is significantly better medical technology related to cancer and other major diseases. The second is significantly reduced cost of health care. The third is much higher and broader availability of high-quality health care, thereby reducing the differences in outcomes between wealthy and poor citizens.”

Susan Etlinger , an industry analyst for Altimeter Group expert in data, analytics and digital strategy, commented, “Many of the technologies we see commercialized today began in government and university research labs. Fifty years ago, computers were the size of walk-in closets, and the notion of personal computers was laughable to most people. Today we’re facing another shift, from personal and mobile to ambient computing. We’re also seeing a huge amount of research in the areas of prosthetics, neuroscience and other technologies intended to translate brain activity into physical form. All discussion of transhumanism aside, there are very real current and future applications for technology ‘implants’ and prosthetics that will be able to aid mobility, memory, even intelligence, and other physical and neurological functions. And, as nearly always happens, the technology is far ahead of our understanding of the human implications. Will these technologies be available to all, or just to a privileged class? What happens to the data? Will it be protected during a person’s lifespan? What happens to it after death? Will it be ‘willed’ as a digital legacy to future generations? What are the ethical (and for some, religious and spiritual) implications of changing the human body with technology? In many ways, these are not new questions. We’ve used technology to augment the physical form since the first caveman picked up a walking stick. But the key here will be to focus as much (or more) on the way we use these technologies as we do on inventing them.”

Bernie Hogan , senior research fellow at Oxford Internet Institute, wrote, “Tech will make life better for individuals but not for societies. Life-saving drugs, genetic medicine, effective talk therapy, better recommender systems will all serve individuals in a satisfying way. I am concerned, however, that these will create increased dependency and passivity. We already have trends toward better-behaved, less-experimental and less-sexually-active youth. The increased sense that one’s entire life is marked from cradle to grave will create a safer and more productive life, but perhaps one that is a little less low-risk and constrained.”

Kenneth Grady , futurist and founding author of The Algorithmic Society blog, responded, “Fifty years from now today’s notions of privacy will feel as out of date as horse and buggy transportation feels to us. Our homes, transportation, appliances, communication devices and even our clothes will be constantly communicating as part of a digital network. We have enough pieces of this today that we can somewhat imagine what it will be like. Through our clothes, doctors can monitor in real time our vital signs, metabolic condition and markers relevant to specific diseases. Parents will have real-time information about young children. The difference in the future will be the constant sharing of information, data updates and responses of all these interconnected devices. The things we create will interact with us to protect us. Our notions of privacy and even liability will be redefined. Lowering the cost and increasing the effectiveness of health care will require sharing information about how our bodies are functioning. Those who opt out may have to accept palliative hospice care over active treatment. Not keeping track of children real-time may be considered a form of child neglect. Digital will do more than connect our things to each other – it will invade our bodies. Advances in prosthetics, replacement organs and implants will turn our bodies into digital devices. This will create a host of new issues, including defining ‘human’ and where the line exists between that human and the digital universe – if people are always connected, always on are humans now part of the internet?”

Martin Geddes , a consultant specializing in telecommunications strategies, said, “I am optimistic that we will find a new harmony with technology, having been in dissonance for a long time. This will not be due to newfound wisdom or virtue, but due to the collapse of longstanding cultures and structures that are psychopathic in nature, including today’s central banking systems and mass-surveillance systems. The digital and nano/biotech renaissance is only just beginning, and it will in particular transform health care. Our ‘satnav for live’ will help us navigate all daily choices that impact well-being.”

Danil Mikhailov , head of data and innovation for Wellcome Trust, responded, “My view is that the internet and related digital tech such as AI 50 years from now will have mostly positive effects, but only if we manage its development wisely. In health, the pervasiveness of powerful algorithms embedded in mobile tech doing things like monitoring our vitals and cross-referencing with our genetic information, will mean longer and healthier lives and the disappearance of many diseases. Similarly, AI embedded in devices or wearables can be applied to predict and ameliorate many mental health illnesses. However, there is potential for there to be huge inequalities in our societies in the ability of individuals to access such technologies, causing both social disruption and new causes for mental health diseases, such as depression and anxiety. On balance, I am an optimist about the ability of human beings to adjust and develop new ethical norms for dealing with such issues.”

Dan Robitzski , a reporter covering science and technology for Futurism.com, commented, “The powers that be are not the powers that should be. Surveillance technology, especially that powered by AI algorithms, is becoming more powerful and all-present than ever before. But to look at that and say that technology won’t help people is absurd. Medical technology, technology to help people with disabilities, technology that will increase our comfort and abilities as humans will continue to appear and develop.”

Emanuele Torti , a research professor in the computer science department at the University of Pavia, Italy, responded, “The digital revolution will bring benefits in particular for health, providing personalized monitoring through Internet of Things and wearable devices. The AI will analyze those data in order to provide personalized medicine solutions.”

João Pedro Taveira , embedded systems researcher and smart grids architect for INOV INESC Inovação, Portugal, wrote, “The most noticeable change for better in the next 50 years will be in health and average life expectancy. At this pace, and, taking into account the developments in digital technologies, I hope that several discoveries will reduce the risk of death, such as cancer or even death by road accident. New drugs could be developed, increasing the active work age and possibility maintaining the sustainability of countries’ social health care and retirement funds.”

José Estabil , director of entrepreneurship and innovation at MIT’s Skoltech Initiative, commented, “AI, like the electric engine, will affect society in ways that are not linearly forecastable. (For example, the unification of villages through electric engines in subways has created what we know as Paris, London, Moscow and Manhattan). Another area AI can have impact is in creating the framework within genomics, epigenomics and metabolomics can be used to keep people healthy and to intervene when we start to deviate from health. Indeed, with AI we may be able to hack the brain and other secreting cells so that we can auto-generate lifesaving medicines, block unwanted biological processes (e.g., cancer), and coupled to understanding the brain, be able to hack at neurological disorders.”

Jay Sanders , president and CEO of the Global Telemedicine Group, responded, “Haptics will afford the ability to touch/feel at a distance so that in the medical space a physician at one location will literally be able to examine a patient at a distance.”

A director of marketing for a major technology platform company commented, “I was an early user of ARPANET at Carnegie Mellon University, and even then we were able to utilize internet technology to solve human health problems to make citizens’ lives better and improve their access to care and services to improve their health outcomes. The benefits of the internet in the health care industry have continued to improve access to care and services, particularly for elderly, disabled or rural citizens. Digital tools will continue to be integrated into daily life to help the most vulnerable and isolated who need services, care and support. With laws supporting these groups, benefits in these areas will continue and expand to include behavioral health and resources for this group and for others. In the area of behavioral health in particular, digital tools will provide far-reaching benefits to citizens who need services but do not access them directly in person. Access to behavioral health will increase significantly in the next 50 years as a result of more enhanced and widely available digital tools made available to practitioners for delivering care to vulnerable populations, and by minimizing the stigma of accessing this type of care in person. It is a more affordable, personalized and continuous way of providing this type of care that is also more likely to attain adherence.”

The cyborg generation: Humans will partner more directly with technology

Many experts foresaw a future where the integration of technology and the human body would lead to a hybridization of humanity and technology.

Barry Chudakov , founder and principal of Sertain Research and author of “Metalifestream,” commented, “In 50 years the internet will not be a place to access through a device; it will be the all-surrounding ether of actions and intentions as machine intelligence and learning merge with human intelligence. This will be a natural evolution of adopting the logic of our tools and adjusting our lives accordingly. Pathways to digital life will be neural pathways inside our bodies and brains. We will eat our technology. What is now external mediated through devices will become neural, mediated through neural triggers along neural pathways. Having gone (and living) inside us, the merger with our tools and devices will continue to accelerate due to advances in machine learning. Human identity will morph into an open question, an ongoing discussion.”

Sam Lehman-Wilzig , associate professor and former chair of the School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, wrote, “Given the huge (and completely unpredicted) changes of the ‘internet’ over the past 50 years, this question demands out-of-the-box thinking, which I will do here. Literally. In my estimation, within the next 50 years the internet will mainly become the platform for brain-to-brain communication, i.e., no keyboard, no voice, no screen, no text or pictures – merely ‘neuronic’ communication (thought transmission) at the speed of light, with internet speeds reaching terabytes per second, if not more than that. This also means that the main ‘content’ will be various forms of full-experience VR, fed directly to our brains by professional content providers – and perhaps (a bit science-fictiony at this stage) from our brains to other brains as well. The consequences of such a ‘hive mind’ communication are difficult (if not impossible) to predict, but certainly it will constitute a radical break with past human society.”

Joaquin Vanschoren , assistant professor of machine learning at Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, responded, “We will be able to interact with each other and the world’s information more directly, without going through web interfaces, maybe using a brain-internet interface. A lot more content will be generated automatically, by AI systems that help us fill in the holes in our knowledge and make it more easily accessible.”

Frank Kaufmann , president of Filial Projects and founder and director of the Values in Knowledge Foundation, said, “Virtually nothing from today’s internet will be recognizable 50 years from now. Connectivity will become ever more ethereal and divorced from devices. Speeds will have exceeded what can any longer be sensed by the human organism. Storage will seem limitless, as it will exceed all possible need. Most connectivity will be integrated into the biological organism.… Tech will enable creative people to create more. It will enable good people to do more good. It will enable lazy people to be more lazy. It will enable bad people to do more bad. It will enable family and social people to be closer and more loving. It will enable lonely and isolated people to become more isolated. It will enable radical advances in all things people do – sports, arts, medicine, science, literature, nature exploration, etc.”

Karen Oates , director of workforce development for La Casea de Esperanza, commented, “At the rate at which technology is evolving, the internet as we currently know it and interact with it will have morphed into something very different. I can see people allowing implants in their bodies so they can connect to whatever the internet becomes – leveraging it as an auxiliary brain. This also, however, opens the door for manipulation and potential control of people. Like anything, technology can be used for good or evil. Much will be dependent on to what extent an individual is willing to sacrifice independence for comfort, security, etc.”

Several other respondents voiced concerns about this future. A law professor based at a U.S. university said, “The book ‘Re-Engineering Humanity’ provides a reasonable description of the slippery, sloped path we’re on and where we seem likely to be heading. The authors’ big concern is that humans will outsource so much of what matters about being human to supposedly smart technical systems that the humans will be little more than satiated automatons.”

David J. Krieger , co-director of the Institute for Communication & Leadership in Lucerne, Switzerland, wrote, “Everything will be ‘personalized’ but not individualized. The European Western paradigm of the free and autonomous individual will no longer be a major cultural force. Network collectivism will be the form in which human existence, now no longer ‘humanist’ will play itself out. There will be no other life than digital life and no one will really have the opportunity to live offline. And if so, then there will probably be a three-class society consisting of the cyborgs, the hybrids and the naturals. This will of course generate new forms of social inequality and conflict.”

Despite the likely drawbacks many respondents see the hybrid future as a strong possibility.

Mike Meyer , a futurist and administrator at Honolulu Community College, commented, “The world in 50 years is likely to be very difficult to imagine or understand in today’s language. The options available will be contingent on many layers of both technology and human adaption that will occur over the next 50 years. This will be true as the steady acceleration of the rate of change continues based loosely on Moore’s Law leading to true quantum computing. Genetic engineering combined with nano components that may also be bioelectronic in nature will allow planetary network communication with implants or, perhaps, full neural lace. The primary distinction will be between those people with full communication plus memory and sensor augmentation versus those who choose not to use artificial components in their bodies. Everyone will use a planetwide network for all communication and process activity whether through augmentation or very small headbands or other options that are not implanted.”

Ray Schroeder , an associate vice chancellor at the University of Illinois, Springfield, wrote, “Connected technologies and applications will become much more seamlessly integrated into people’s lives. Technologies are emerging, such as MIT’s AlterEgo, that point to practical telepathy in which human thought will directly connect with supercomputers – and through those computers with other people. This kind of thought-based communication will become ubiquitous through always-on, omnipresent networks. Personal devices will fade away as direct connectivity becomes ubiquitous. These advances will enable instant virtual ‘learning’ of new ideas and the whole range of literature. One will be able to ‘recall’ a novel or a treatise as if one had studied it for years. Such will be the state of augmented memory. There will be attempts to apply new rules/laws, but technological capability will most often trump artificial restrictions. This will further empower people, by the power of their purchases and choice-to-use to set standards of acceptability and preference.”

David Klann , consultant and software developer at Broadcast Tool & Die, responded, “Further integration of humans and machines is inevitable. More devices will be implanted in us, and more of our minds will be ‘implanted’ in devices. The inevitable ‘Singularity’ will result in changes to humans and will increase the rate of our evolution toward hybrid ‘machines.’ I also believe that new and modified materials will become ‘smart.’ For instance, new materials will be ‘self-aware’ and will be able to communicate problems in order to avoid failure. Ultimately, these materials will become ‘self-healing’ and will be able to harness raw materials to manufacture replacement parts in situ. All these materials, and the things built with them will participate in the connected world. We will see continued blurring of the line between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ life.”

Anonymous respondents predicted:

• “Artificial general intelligence and quantum computing available in a future version of the cloud connected to individual brain augmentation could make us augmented geniuses, inventing our daily lives in a self-actualization economy as the conscious-technology civilization evolves.”
• “There is a probability of technological singularity. So far all the trends lead to it; it is hard to imagine a future in which this does not happen.”
• “Connective symbiosis – human-human, machine-human, human-machine – will continue to thicken.”
• “Implants in humans that continuously connect them to the web will lead to a loss of privacy and the potential for thought control, decline in autonomy.”

Everyone agrees that the world will be putting AI to work

The technology visionaries surveyed described a much different work environment from the current one. They say remote work arrangements are likely to be the rule, rather than the exception, and virtual assistants will handle many of the mundane and unpleasant tasks currently performed by humans.

Ed Lyell , longtime internet strategist and professor at Adams State University, wrote, “If we can change the governance of technology to focus on common good growth and not a division of winner/loser then we can see people having more control over their lives. Imagine that the tough, hard work, dangerous jobs are done by machines guided by computers and AI. We can see the prototype of these in how the U.S. is now fighting wars. The shooting is done by a drone guided by a smart guy/gal working a 9-to-5 job in an air-conditioned office in a nice town. Garbage could be picked up, sorted, recycled, all by robots with AI. Tedious surgery completed by robots and teaching via YouTube would leave the humans to the interesting and exciting cases, not the redoing of same lessons to yet more patients/students. Humans could live well on a 20-hour work week with many weeks of paid vacation. Having a job/career could become a positive, not just a necessity. With 24/7 learning and just-in-time capacity, people could change areas or careers many times with ease whenever they become bored. This positive outcome is possible if we collectively manage the creation and distribution of the tools and access to the use of new emerging tools.”

Jim Spohrer , director of the Cognitive OpenTech Group at IBM Research-Almaden, commented, “Everyone will have hundreds of digital workers working for them. Our cognitive mediators will know us in some ways better than we know ourselves. Better episodic memories and large numbers of digital workers will allow expanded entrepreneurship, lifelong learning and focus on transformation.”

Kyle Rose , principal architect, Akamai Technologies, wrote, “As telepresence and VR become more than research projects or toys, the already small world will shrink further as remote collaboration becomes the norm, resulting in major social changes, among them allowing the recent concentration of expertise in major cities to relax and reducing the relevance of national borders. Furthermore, deep learning and AI-assisted technologies for software development and verification, combined with more abstract primitives for executing software in the cloud, will enable even those not trained as software engineers to precisely describe and solve complex problems. I strongly suspect there will be other, unpredictable disruptive social changes analogous to the freer movement of capital enabled by cryptocurrencies in the last decade.”

David Schlangen , a professor of applied computational linguistics at Bielefeld University, Germany, said, “Physical presence will matter less, as high-bandwidth transmissions will make telepresence (in medicine, in the workplace, in in-person interactions) more viable.”

Ken Goldberg , distinguished chair in engineering, director of AUTOLAB and CITRIS at the University of California, Berkeley, said, “I believe the question we’re facing is not ‘When will machines surpass human intelligence?’ but instead ‘How can humans work together with machines in new ways?’ Rather than worrying about an impending Singularity, I propose the concept of Multiplicity: where diverse combinations of people and machines work together to solve problems and innovate. In analogy with the 1910 High School Movement that was spurred by advances in farm automation, I propose a ‘Multiplicity Movement’ to evolve the way we learn to emphasize the uniquely human skills that AI and robots cannot replicate: creativity, curiosity, imagination, empathy, human communication, diversity and innovation. AI systems can provide universal access to sophisticated adaptive testing and exercises to discover the unique strengths of each student and to help each student amplify his or her strengths. AI systems could support continuous learning for students of all ages and abilities. Rather than discouraging the human workers of the world with threats of an impending Singularity, let’s focus on Multiplicity where advances in AI and robots can inspire us to think deeply about the kind of work we really want to do, how we can change the way we learn and how we might embrace diversity to create myriad new partnerships.”

Kristin Jenkins , executive director of BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, said, “Access to information is enormously powerful, and the internet has provided access to people in a way we have never before experienced. This means that people can learn new skills (how to patch your roof or make bread), assess situations and make informed decisions (learn about a political candidate’s voting record, plan a trip), and teach themselves whatever they want to know from knowledgeable sources. Information that was once accessed through print materials that were not available to everyone and often out of date is now much more readily available to many more people. Ensuring access is another huge issue with internet 2.0/AI. Access to these tools is not guaranteed even within the U.S. – presumably one of the best places in the world to be wired. In many cases, access to current technology in developing areas of the world allows populations to skip expensive intermediate steps and use tools in a way that improves their quality of life.  Ensuring that people all over the world have access to tools that can improve their lives is an important social justice issue.”

Rich Ling , a professor of media technology at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, responded, “In the next 50 years there will be significant changes in the way that we work. The disruption of that will play through to the way people identify themselves and can also be turned into political movements. AI is on the point of eliminating a wide variety of jobs and professions (taxi driver, accountant, law clerk, etc.). At the same time a large portion of our identity often comes from an idealized sense of our work. Witness the notion of being a cowboy. This is a real job for a small number of people, but it is an identity for many. In the same way, there is an identity in being a truck driver, an insurance adjuster, etc. It often does not have the same panache as the idealized version of being a cowboy, but it’s nonetheless an identity. If that is taken away from people it can, in the worst case, lead to populist political movements. I answered that the general trend will be positive, but I expect that it is not a simple path to better lives through the application of IT. There are many social and eventually political issues that will be played out.”

Divina Frau-Meigs , professor of media sociology at Sorbonne Nouvelle University, France, and UNESCO chair for sustainable digital development, responded, “The most important trend to follow is the way game/play will become the new work. Convergence of virtual reality and immersive devices will modify the rules determining how we interact with each other and with knowledge and information in the future. These ‘alternative’ realities will enable more simulations of situations in real life and will be necessary in decision-making every step of our daily lives. We will need to be conscious of the distinction between game and play, to allow for leisure time away from rule-bound game-as-the-new-work. This will be particularly necessary for environmental issues to be solved creatively.”

Estee Beck , assistant professor at the University of Texas and author of “A Theory of Persuasive Computer Algorithms for Rhetorical Code Studies,” responded, “Society will shift toward educating the public on reading and writing code at an accelerated rate. Coding literacy will become part of K-12 curricula to prepare citizens for both STEM-related careers and consumer-oriented DIY solutions of tech problems. On the latter, because of the mass coding literacy spread in primary and secondary schooling, the ‘handyman’ will evolve into a tech tinkerer or handyman 2.0. Already acquainted with basic and intermediate home maintenance of basic lighting, plumbing and painting, the handyman 2.0 will fix code in home appliances, run software updates to modify and personalize processes in the home. The handyman 2.0 might run their own server and develop a self-contained smartphone and security system to protect against internet-related attacks. For those unable or uninterested in being a handyman 2.0, they can hire general and specialized contractors from a new industry of handymen 2.0. This industry – with public and private certifications – will employ hundreds of thousands of laborers and enjoy revenues in the billions.”

Hume Winzar , associate professor and director of the business analytics undergraduate program at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, wrote, “Working and study at a distance will be normalized, so lifestyle options will be wider. We won’t need to live/work/study in a major city to enjoy the best of what is available. Done right, it will expand opportunity for many, too.”

Barrack Otieno , general manager at the Africa Top-Level Internet Domains Organization, wrote, “I expect technology to enhance the work environment. The internet will mostly be used to enhance communication, coordination and collaboration.”

Benjamin Kuipers , a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, wrote, “In the post-World War II era, many people believed that American society was essentially benevolent, providing opportunities for political, economic and social advancement for individuals and families over decades and generations. This was somewhat true for the majority, but dramatically untrue for many minorities. We may have the opportunity to provide this societal benevolence for everyone in our society. The technological, often digital, tools we are creating have the promise of greatly increasing the resources available in society. While it may be possible to automate some current jobs, people have an intrinsic need for meaningful work. If we can use these new resources to support them, many jobs can be created to provide meaningful work for many people, and to improve the environment for everyone in society. Some examples of such jobs are child and elder care, and creation and maintenance of green spaces ranging from urban parks to rural farms to wilderness environments and many others. A national service requirement for young people gets certain kinds of work done, but also provides training in practical skills and practical responsibility, and also exposes individuals to the diversity of our society. Technological change produces resources that allow new things to be done and reduces certain constraints on what can be done. But we need to learn which goals we should pursue.”

Lane Jennings , a recent retiree who served as managing editor for the World Future Review from 2009 to 2015, wrote, “Entire classes of humans (drivers, construction workers, editors, medical technicians, etc.) are likely to be replaced by AI systems within the next 50 years. Whether individual members of such groups feel their lives have been improved or made worse will vary depending on many factors. Suffice it to say that public support of some kind to give displaced workers the means to live in relative security and comfort is essential. Moreover, this support must be provided in a way that preserves self-respect and promotes optimism and ambition. A world of former workers who perceive themselves as having been prematurely retired while machines provide the goods and services they once supplied seems to me highly unstable. To be happy, or at least contented, people need a purpose beyond simply amusing themselves and passing time pleasantly. One of the major functions of the internet in 2069 may be to facilitate contact between people with skills who want to work and jobs that still need doing in spite of high-tech robots and ubiquitous AI.”

Mark Crowley , an assistant professor expert in machine learning and core member of the Institute for Complexity and Innovation at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, wrote, “Technology affects people asymmetrically. Diseases will be cured with machine learning, profits will rise with automation and artists, engineers and scientists will be able to do more with less time and resources than ever before. However, many people will lose the only jobs they’ve ever known, and many others will feel alienated and left behind. Will society take steps to adapt its social standards? Will education adapt to prepare each generation for the reality ahead rather than focusing on the past? Will we allow people to live, with dignity, their own life, even if rapid technological changes leave them without a job that we would traditionally call ‘useful’ or productive? That depends on politics.”

Josh Calder , a partner at the Foresight Alliance, commented, “Changes will be for the better if the wealth generated by automation is spread equitably, and this will likely require significant changes to economic systems. If wealth concentration is accelerated by automation, the average person could be worse off.”

In 2069 the ‘new normal’ will be …

If the future is to change as dramatically and rapidly as many of the survey respondents believe, the world will see seismic shifts in norms and in what might be considered “normal” life.

Cliff Lynch , director of the Coalition for Networked Information, responded, “Over the next 20 to 30 years I expect to see enormous renegotiation of the social, cultural and political norms involving the digital environment.”

Alistair Nolan a senior policy analyst in the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, wrote, “I speculate that individuals’ interaction with digital technologies will become much more pervasive and intimate than it is already. Digital technology will be used to counter some of the stresses created by economic development and a digital culture. Digital avatars, for example, might provide intelligent company for the old and lonely, coaching those subject to psychological disorders, encouraging and guiding the sedentary to adopt healthier lifestyles, and so on. But changes and societal stresses brought by digital technologies may require a fundamental overhaul of the social contract. A new digital social contract will likely be needed, the specifics of which we cannot be sure now, but the contours of which we see suggested today in proposals ranging from universal basic income to institutionally mandated time free from digital distraction. The hope is that political processes allow our social arrangements to adjust at a pace commensurate with broader technological change, and that dysfunction in political processes is not aggravated by digital technologies. It has been commented that when humankind attempts to take astronauts to Mars the primary challenge will not be technological. Instead, it will be social: namely, the ability of unrelated individuals to live in close confinement for long periods of time. At the level of entire polities, in a similar way, our primary challenge may be living together in civil ways, attending to the full range of human needs, while the technology brings opportunities to carry us forward, or carry us off course.”

Betsy Williams , a researcher at the Center for Digital Society and Data Studies at the University of Arizona, wrote, “Free internet-connected devices will be available to the poor in exchange for carrying around a sensor that records traffic speed, environmental quality, detailed usage logs, and video and audio recordings (depending on state law). There will be secure vote-by-internet capabilities, through credit card or passport verification, with other secure kiosks available at public facilities (police stations, libraries, fire stations and post offices, should those continue to exist in their current form). There will be a movement online to require real-name verification to comment on more reputable sites; however, this will skew participation tremendously toward men, and the requirements will be reversed after a woman is assaulted or killed based on what she typed in a public-interest discussion.”

Pamela Rutledge , director of the Media Psychology Center, responded, “Starting with Generation Z and going forward, internet and 24/7 real-time connectivity will no longer be viewed as a ‘thing’ independent from daily life, but integral, like electricity. This has profound psychological implications about what people assume as normal and establishes baseline expectations for access, response times and personalization of functions and information. Contrary to many concerns, as technology becomes more sophisticated, it will ultimately support the primary human drives of social connectedness and agency. As we have seen with social media, first adoption is noncritical – it is a shiny penny for exploration. Then people start making judgments about the value-add based on their own goals and technology companies adapt by designing for more value to the user – we see that now in privacy settings and the concerns about information quality…. Technology is going to change whether we like it or not – expecting it to be worse for individuals means that we look for what’s wrong. Expecting it to be better means we look for the strengths and what works and work toward that goal. Technology gives individuals more control – a fundamental human need and a prerequisite to participatory citizenship and collective agency. The danger is that we are so distracted by technology that we forget that digital life is an extension of the offline world and demands the same critical, moral and ethical thinking.”

Geoff Livingston , author and futurist, commented, “Technology will become a seamless experience for most people. Only the very poor who cannot afford technology and the very rich who can choose to separate themselves from it will be free from connectedness. When I consider the current AI conversation, I often think the real evolution of sentient beings will be a hybrid connectedness between human and machine. Our very existence and day-to-day experience will be through an augmented experience that features faster thinking and more ethereal pleasures. This brings a question of what is human? Since most of us will be living in a machine-enhanced world, the perspective of human reality will always be in doubt. Most will simply move through their existence without a thought, able to change and alter it with new software packages and algorithms, accepting their reality as the new normal. Indeed, perception will become reality. There will be those who decry the movement forward and wish for yesteryear’s unplugged mind. The counter movement against the internet of 2070 will be significant, and yet much like today’s Luddite, it will find itself in the deep minority. For though the cultural implications will be significant, the internet of 2070 offers the world a much more prosperous and easier life. Most will choose comfort over independence from devices.”

Meryl Alper , an assistant professor of communication at Northeastern University and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, wrote, “Parents will be inundated by non-intuitive, AI-sourced information about their children (e.g., their moods, their behaviors) through the data collected about them in their everyday lives. Parents will face a choice about knowing too much about every single aspect of what their child does and says (be it with them or without them) or not knowing all the details – while being aware that someone else (teachers, doctors, law enforcement) is compiling this information for later determinations of some kind about their child. Parents will ultimately be encouraged to automate this data-intensive parenting, but this itself will create more work for parents (and thus more work for parents to outsource).”

Uta Russmann , professor in the Department of Communication at FHWien der WKW University of Applied Sciences for Management & Communication, warned, “In 50 years every aspect of our life will be connected, organized and hence, partly controlled, as technology platform and applications businesses will take this opportunity. A few global players will dominate the business; smaller companies (startups) will mostly have a chance in the development sector. Many institutions, such as libraries, will disappear – there might be one or two libraries that function as museums to show how it used to be. People who experienced today’s world will definitely value the benefits and amenities they have through technology (human-machine/AI collaboration). If technology becomes part of every aspect of our lives we will have to give up some power and control. People thinking in today’s terms will lose a certain amount of freedom, independency and control over their lives. People born after 2030 will probably just think these technologies produced changes that are mostly for the better. It has always been like this – people have always thought/said ‘in the old days everything was better.’”

Danny Gillane , a netizen from Lafayette, Louisiana, commented, “The content owners will become the platform companies (Disney, Time Warner, etc.), and the platform companies will become the content owners (Comcast, Netflix, etc.). In the U.S., we will give up more privacy to gain more convenience. We will have to choose between paying with our wallets or paying with our personal information in order to keep up with the Joneses. Collaboration and communication will become less personal as more of it will be done through virtual reality and through our devices. The promise of worldwide connection will lessen as Europe places restrictions on tech companies to protect its citizens’ rights, but the U.S. will pass laws to protect shareholders even at the expense of its citizens’ rights. Unless the focus of technology innovation moves away from consumer entertainment and communication products (such as social networks) and more toward medical and scientific advances, we will see fewer people truly benefiting from the internet. The money that fuels America’s politics already fuels its legislative efforts, or lack of, with regard to technology. So, I actually don’t think we’ll see any actual change, unless one considers for-profit companies having an even larger presence in more parts of our lives more often and in more ways.”

Justin Reich , executive director of MIT Teaching Systems Lab and research scientist in the MIT Office of Digital Learning, responded, “The trends toward centralization and monopolization will persist. The free, open internet that represented a set of decentralized connections between idiosyncratic actors will be recognized as an aberration in the history of the internet. Today’s internet giants will probably be the internet giants of 50 years from now. In recent years, they’ve made substantial progress in curtailing innovation through acquisitions and copying. As the industry matures, they will add regulatory capture to their skill sets. For many people around the world, the internet will be a set of narrow portals where they exchange their data for a curtailed set of communication, information and consumer services.”

Michael R. Nelson , a technology policy expert for a leading network services provider who worked as a technology policy aide in the Clinton administration, commented, “We will see more change and disruption in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 20. If governments and incumbents allow it, we could see twice as much. All we know about 2069 is that data storage, network capacity and tools to turn data into knowledge will be basically unlimited and cost almost nothing. But, we also know that the wisdom needed to use the power of technology will not be available to everyone. And we also know that political forces will try to create scarcity and favor some groups over others. Let us hope that the engineers innovate so fast that consumers have the tools and choices they need to overcome such constraints.”

Guy Levi , chief innovation officer for the Center for Educational Technology, based in Israel, wrote, “Digital tools will be part of our body inside and remotely, and will assist us in decision- making constantly, so it will become second nature. Nonetheless, physical feelings will still be exclusively ‘physical,’ i.e., there will be a significant difference between the ‘sensor-based feelings’ and real body feelings, so human beings will still have some advantages over technology. This, I believe, will last forever. Considering this, physical encounters among people will become more and more important and thus relationships, especially between couples, will prosper. It will be the return of LOVE.”

No need to give it orders – your digital assistant already knows what you want

Many of these experts expect that – despite some people’s worries over privacy issues – digital experiences will be far more personalized in 2069. One likely trend: Instead of having to directly communicate requests to a device, AI-enabled, database-fed digital technologies will anticipate individuals’ needs and provide customized solutions.

Michael Wollowski , associate professor of computer science and software engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, expert in the Internet of Things, diagrammatic systems and artificial intelligence, wrote, “Much of our lives will be automated. Better yet, we will be in control of the degree of automation. Technology will assume the role of a polite personal assistant who will seamlessly bow in and out. Technology based on learned patterns of behavior will arrange many things in our lives and suggest additional options.”

Peter Reiner , professor and co-founder of the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia, Canada, commented, “The internet will remain a conduit for information about us as well as a tool for us to access information about the world. Whilst many commentators rightly worry about the degree to which apps can know about us today, we are only at the early stages of corporate and governmental surveillance of our inner lives. In 50 years’ time, apps will be remarkably more sophisticated in terms of their knowledge about us as agents – our wants and desires, our objectives and goals. Using that information, they will be able make decisions that align with our personal goals much better than they can do today, and as this happens they will become bona fide extensions of our minds – digital (or as seems likely, quantum-based) information-processing interfaces that are always available and seamlessly integrate with the human cognitive toolkit. These cognitive prostheses will be so much a part of our everyday lives that we will barely notice their existence. Our reliance upon them will be both a strength and a weakness. Our cognitive prowess will substantially expand, but we will feel diminished in their absence.”

David Zubrow , associate director of empirical research at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, said, “Networked devices, data collection and information on demand will become even more ubiquitous. I would hope that better curation of information along with its provenance occurs. The trend of digital assistants that learn your preferences and habits from all the devices that you interact with will become integrated with each other and take on a persona. They may even act on your behalf with a degree of independence in the digital and physical worlds. As AI advances and becomes more independent and the internet becomes the world in which people live and work, laws for responsibility and accountability of the actions of AI will need to be made.”

Daniel Siewiorek , a professor with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted, “We will all have virtual coaches that learn and grow with us. They will be in communication with the virtual coaches of others, allowing us to learn from the experience of others. For example, my grandfather could teach me how to swing a baseball bat through his virtual coach even though my grandfather passed away before I was born.”

Gary Kreps , distinguished professor of communication and director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, wrote, “Future computing systems will be fully integrated into everyday life, easy to access and use, and adaptable to meeting individual preferences and needs. These devices will serve as integrated personal assistants that can intuitively provide users with relevant information and support. There will be no need for typing in requests, since systems will be voice- and perhaps even thought-activated. These systems will adapt to user communication styles and competencies, using familiar and easy to understand messages to users. These messages will be presented both verbally and visually, with the ability to incorporate vivid examples and relevant interesting stories for users. Information content will build upon user preferences, experiences and needs. These personal computing systems will learn about users and adapt to changing user needs, assisting users in accomplishing important tasks and making important decisions. These systems will also automatically network users to relevant personal and professional contacts to facilitate communication as desired by users. The systems will also help users control other forms of technology, such as transportation, communication, health care, educational, occupational, financial, recreational and commercial applications. Care must be taken to program these systems to be responsive to user preferences and needs, easy to use, adaptive to changing conditions and easy for users to control.”

Ian Rumbles , a quality-assurance specialist at North Carolina State University, said, “Fifty years from now the internet will be available to us through us thinking, versus using a keyboard or speaking. The display of data will be visible only to the user and how that display is shown will be totally customized for that user. The ability to obtain answers to questions and look up information in a format that is defined by the user will greatly improve the lives of people.”

More leisure time expected in ‘real life’ and virtual worlds

Could it be true that technology will finally create more free time? Some respondents in this study expect that the evolution of digital technologies will allow for more leisure activities and less “work.” Some predict people may choose to live most of their lives in a virtual reality that lacks the messy authenticity of real life. They also predict that in the widening global media marketplace of the future individuals will have access to a wider range of entertainment options than ever before.

Dan Schultz , senior creative technologist at the Internet Archive, said, “The world is about to have a LOT more time on its hands, a culture-redefining level of newfound time. Governments will need to figure out how to ensure people are compensated for that time in ways that don’t correlate to capitalistic value, and people are going to need creative outlets for their free time. We’re going to need better mental health services; we’re going to need to finally redefine the public education system to shift away from the 19th century factory model. It will either be a golden age for invention, leisure, entertainment and civic involvement, or it will be a dystopia of boredom and unemployment.”

James Gannon , global head of e-compliance for emerging technology, cloud and cybersecurity at Novartis, responded, “In 50 years machine-to-machine communication will have reduced a lot of menial decision-making for the average person. Smart-home technology manages the basic functions of the household, negating the need for many manual labor roles such as cleaners and gardeners. Many services are now delivered remotely such as telehealth and digital therapeutics…. Technology and the internet have already dramatically increased the standard of living for billions of people; this trend will not cease.”

Chao-Lin Liu , a professor at National Chengchi University, Taiwan, commented, “If we can handle the income and work problems, lives will be easier for most due to automation.”

Paola Perez , vice president of the Internet Society chapter in Venezuela and chair of the LACNIC Public Policy Forum, responded, “Technology will make everything in our lives. We won’t drive, we won’t cook. Apps are going to be adapted to all our needs. From the moment we wake up we are going to have technology that cooks for us, drives for us, works for us and suggests ideas for our work. Problems are going to be solved. But all our data is going to be known by everybody, so we won’t have private lives.”

Alex Smith , partner relationship manager at Monster Worldwide, said, “Everything will be centered around saving us time – giving us back more time in our days.”

A professor of communications said, “Simple, mundane tasks will be taken care of by AI, allowing more time for creative thinking, arts, music and literature.”

David Wells , the chief financial officer at Netflix at the time of this canvassing, has an idea for how to fill all of that free time. He predicted, “Continued global connectedness with our entertainment, music and news will mean global popularity of some media with a backdrop of local flavor that may be regional and/or hyper local. 3D visual (virtual) rendering will evolve and become integrated into user interfaces, discovery interfaces along with AI assistants, and will heavily define learning and entertainment.”

Gabor Melli , senior director of engineering for AI and machine learning for Sony PlayStation, responded, “By 2070, most people will willingly spend most of their lives in an augmented virtual reality. The internet and digital life will be extraordinary and partially extraplanetary. Innovations that will dramatically amplify this trajectory are unsupervised machine learning, fusion power and the wildcard of quantum computing.”

Valarie Bell , a computational social scientist at the University of North Texas, commented, “While the gadgets and tools we may have in the future may result in more conveniences, like when ovens turned into microwaves, we find with technology that we trade quality and uniqueness for convenience and uniformity. What tastes better and provides a better experience? The homemade chocolate cake Grandma made from scratch with attention to great ingredients and to baking the cake until it’s perfectly moist OR the microwaved chocolate-cake-for-one? The microwave cake takes less than 10 minutes and you simply add water, but Grandma’s cake is not over-processed, and you taste the real butter, real vanilla, real chocolate instead of powdered butter flavoring and powdered chocolate substitute. Technology will bring us things faster, perhaps even cheaper, but not necessarily better.”

Michel Grossetti , a sociologist expert in systems and director of research at CNRS, the French national science research center, wrote, “The boundaries between private life and work or public life will continue to blur.”

Social connections, community and collaboration will be improved

Some experts expect that digital advances will lead to better communication among disparate groups, resulting in stronger interpersonal relationships and positive community development. A number of respondents said that physical barriers to communication and community building will mostly disappear over the next half century. They are hopeful that greater connectivity will lead to better collaboration in response to major world problems, more equitable distributions of wealth and power and easier access to information and resources.

Tomas Ohlin , longtime professor at Linköping and Stockholm universities in Sweden, predicted, “AI will exist everywhere. The internet will, after a few decades, be replaced by a more value-added surface on top of our present system. Its governing will be truly decentralized, with participation from many. Cultural differences will exist on this surface, with borders that will differ from the present. However, there will not be as many borders as today; this new information society is a society with flexible borders. Human beings are friendly, and the world we create reflects this. Communication and contact between everybody is a fundamental and positive resource that will lead to fewer conflicts.”

Bryan Alexander , futurist and president of Bryan Anderson Consulting, responded, “I’m convinced we’ll see individuals learn how to use technologies more effectively, and that collectively we’ll learn how to reduce harm.”

Charles Zheng , a researcher into machine learning and AI with the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, commented, “Life will not qualitatively change much for people in the middle and upper classes of society. The biggest impact will be to the lower classes, and will mostly be positive. The increase in information gathering in all levels of society will also improve the efficiency of social welfare programs. Access to information becomes democratized as cities start offering free, basic Wi-Fi and the government hosts AI educational programs which can teach young people how to find jobs and access public resources. The increase in networking also makes … social nonprofits more effective at helping the disadvantaged. Government accountability is also improved now that people at all levels of society can leave reviews about government services online.”

Craig Mathias , principal at Farpoint Group, an advisory firm specializing in wireless networking and mobile computing, commented, “Civilization itself centers on and thus depends upon communication of all forms. The more we communicate, the better the opportunities for peace and prosperity on a global basis. It would be difficult to imagine communications without the internet, now and especially in the future.”

Gene Crick , director of the Metropolitan Austin Interactive Network and longtime U.S. community telecommunications expert, wrote, “Genuine universal technology access has become a vital issue for every community. AI/IT can make powerful tools, resources and opportunities available to anyone interested. To help rhetoric become reality, we could adopt and insist on a few fundamental principles, including standards for openness and accountability. How? Just a notion but perhaps a modernized version of the National Science Foundation internet administration transfer two decades ago.  Though the outcome was far from pretty, those who participated felt we got the job done. Today’s improved communications tools could make possible a much simpler, more widespread ‘grassroots’ discussion and decision process.”

Liz Rykert , president at Meta Strategies, a consultancy that works with technology and complex organizational change, responded, “We will see more and more integration of tools that support accountability. An early example of this is the use of body cams by police. The internet will let us both monitor and share data and images about what is happening, whether it is a devastating impact of climate change or an eventful incident of racism. Continued access to tools of accountability and access to knowledge and collaborative opportunities will support people to be both bold and collaborative as they seek new solutions. The internet will be the base to support these efforts as well as the platform that will continue to serve as the means for how we will work together to respond to problems either urgent (like a flood or fire) or longer-term like solving problems like affordable housing.”

Matt Belge , founder and president of Vision & Logic, said, “Humanity has always strived to be connected to other humans, and writing, publishing, art and education were all efforts to serve this desire. This desire is so deeply seated, this desire for connection, that it will drive everything we do. Privacy will become less of a concern and transparency will become more of the norm in the next 50 years. Therefore, I expect technology to enable deeper and more personal connections with fewer secrets and greater openness. Specifically, AI will help people with like interests work together, form deeper relationships and collaborate on advancing our entire species. I believe humans are always striving for more and more connection with other humans and technology is evolving in ways to facilitated this.”

Sam Ladner , a former UX researcher for Amazon and Microsoft, now an adjunct professor at Ontario College of Art & Design, wrote, “We will continue to see a melding of digital and analog ‘selves,’ in which humans will now consider their digital experiences less and less divorced from their face-to-face experiences. Face-to-face social connections will become ever more precious, and ever more elusive. Having an ‘in real life’ relationship will be a commodity to be exploited and a challenge to keep. Physical experiences will increasingly be infused with digital ‘backchannel’ experiences, such as an ongoing digital conversation either in text, images or VR, while the physical event carries on. Likewise, IRL (in real-life) events will become even more exclusive, expensive and a source of cultural capital. Isolated people will fail to see their isolation before it reaches a desperate point, because collectively, we will fail to see physical connections as a key ingredient to ward off loneliness. Loneliness will take on a new meaning; digital friends will assist some isolated people, but loneliness will focus more on lack of human touch, and face-to-face eye contact. New medical disorders will emerge, based on this social withdrawal, and given the aging demographic, a public policy crisis will overwhelm nation-states’ budgets and capabilities. Lonely, aging, physically infirm people may find relief in online forums of all sorts, but we will be surprised to learn what a total absence of IRL interaction will yield.”

Peggy Lahammer , director of health/life sciences at Robins Kaplan LLP and legal market analyst, commented, “Historically access to natural resources, with limited intelligence on how to best use those resources, provided the means to survive and prosper. As we continue to become more specialized in our expertise and less skilled in many tasks required to survive, we are more dependent on others with specialized talents. I believe the internet and a connected world have fueled this transformation and will continue to do so in the next 50 years. The internet will continue to connect people around the globe and cause instability in areas where people have limited resources, information or specialized skills necessary to thrive.”

Bert Huang , an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science at Virginia Tech focused on machine learning, wrote, “I believe the internet can meet the promise of helping people connect to all of humanity. The main concern I see with the internet is that it plays counter to human intuitions about scale. When humans see thousands of like-minded individuals on the internet, it is too easy to believe that those thousands of people represent all of humanity. One promise of the internet is that it would allow people to interact with, and learn from, individuals with widely different backgrounds, unifying the human species in way that was previously impossible. Unfortunately, the more recent effect has apparently been that people are further entrenched in their own narrow views because they are surrounded on the internet with inconceivably large numbers of people sharing their own views. These large numbers make it difficult for people to fathom that other valid views exist. I believe technology can and will help alleviate this problem.”

A technical information science professional commented, “The daily living ‘operations’ will change drastically from today – how we work, how we take care of family, how we ‘commute’ from place to place, how we entertain and so on. However, the fundamental of living, creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with others will be more dominant focus of our lives, and those concerns and efforts will not change.”

Several of the expert respondents who said they believe humanity will be better off in the future thanks to digital life said that in 50 years individuals will have greater autonomy and more control over their personal data.

Eileen Donahoe , executive director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, commented, “I envision a dramatic change in terms of how we think about people’s ownership and control of their own data. People’s data will be seen as a valuable commodity and platforms will arise to facilitate data sovereignty for individuals. If we move toward development and deployment of platforms and systems that allow individuals autonomy to choose when and where they exchange their data for goods and services, this will constitute an important positive step toward wider distribution of the benefits of a data-driven society.”

Greg Lloyd , president and co-founder at Traction Software, responded, “The next 50 years will see performance of hardware, storage and bandwidth increase and cost decrease at a rate no less than the past 50 years. This means that the resources available to any person – at the cost of a current smartphone and network subscription – will be close to the resources supporting a Google regional center. This will turn the advertising supported and privacy invasive economic model of the current internet on its head, making it possible for anyone to afford dedicated, private and secure resources to support a Prospero and Ariel-like world of certified and secure services. That people agreed to grant access to their most private resources and actions to platform companies in order to support use of subsidized internet services will become as oddly amusing as the fact that people once earned their living as flagpole sitters. Your smartphone and its personal AI services will be exactly that: your property, which you pay for and use with confidence. When you use certified agents or services, you’ll have choices ranging from free (routine commerce, public library or government services) to fabulously expensive (the best legal minds, most famous pop stars, bespoke design and manufacturing of any artifacts, membership in the most exclusive ‘places’). In all cases your personal smartphone (or whatever it turns into) will help you negotiate enforceable contracts for these services, monitor performance and provide evidence any case of dispute. Think Apple with a smart lawyer, accountant, friend and adviser in your smartphone, not Facebook becoming Silicon Valley’s version of Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil.’”

James Scofield O’Rourke , a professor of management at the University of Notre Dame specializing in reputation management, commented, “I foresee two large applications of digital connections such as the internet over the next half century. First, I see access to information, processes and expertise that would either be delayed or inaccessible today. Second, I see a much larger degree of autonomy for the individual. This could mean everything from driverless trucks, automobiles and other vehicles to individual control over our immediate environment, our assets and possessions, and our ability to choose. In exchange, of course, the notion of privacy will virtually disappear.”

R “Ray” Wang , founder and principal analyst at Silicon Valley-based Constellation Research, said, “The new internet can also be a place where we decentralize human rights, enabling an individual to protect their data privacy and stay free. Keep in mind privacy is not dead. It’s up to us as a society to enforce these human rights.”

Susan Aaronson , a research professor of international affairs and cross-disciplinary fellow at George Washington University, responded, “I admit to being a techno optimist. I believe that true entrepreneurs ‘see’ areas/functions that need improvements and will utilize technologies in ways that make it easier for, as an example, the blind to see.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Emerging Technology
• Future of the Internet (Project)
• Internet of Things
• Online Privacy & Security

A quarter of U.S. teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in K-12 education

Many americans think generative ai programs should credit the sources they rely on, americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, computer chips in human brains: how americans view the technology amid recent advances, most popular, report materials.

• Shareable quotes from experts about the next 50 years of digital life

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center