Teenagers connected to digital environments – what happens when they get to school? Commonalities, similarities and differences from their perspective

  • Gila Cohen ZilkaEmail author


In light of the many major changes in teenagers’ lives of due to digital applications and the significant role they play in their lives, and since school is a place where they spend many hours, this study examined their perspective of how the digital environment is integrated into their school life. Participating in this mixed-method study were 233 Israeli teenagers who completed a questionnaire and of whom 45 were interviewed. Findings show that what they have in common is extensive use of their smartphones and computers for study-related matters, they use many apps and social networks and belong to a variety of study-related groups. Similarities are that they have learned to need information and to obtain relevant information to solve problems or satisfy their curiosity. Differences lie in their comparison of the digital environments of their smartphone and home computer and those used in school, and to some participants the school environment seems outdated, slow, and scholastically and technologically unchallenging.


Information and communication technology (ICT) Digital literacy Equal opportunity Computer Smartphone Teenagers 


Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

The study received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) of Achva Academic College.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.


  1. ACMA. (2007). Media and communication in Australian families. Sydney: ACMA Available at Accessed Jan 2019.
  2. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2008). Of rhetoric and representation: The four faces of ethnography. The Quarterly Sociological, 49(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, A., & Hanson, J. (2003). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in mass media and society. Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.Google Scholar
  4. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technologicl pedagogicl content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ascough, R. (2007). Welcoming design: Hosting a hospitable online course. Teaching Theology and Religion, 10(3), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson, E., & Delamont, S. (2006). In the roiling smoke: Qualitative inquiry and contested fields. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 747–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atwal, K., Millwood Hargrave, A., Sancho, J., Agyeman, L., & Karet, N. (2003). What children watch: Analysis of children’s programming provisions between 1997–2001. London: BSC/ITC.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators online, 7(1), 1–30 Retrieved from: Accessed Jan 2019.
  10. Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don 't trust anyone under 30). New York: Penguin Tarcher.Google Scholar
  11. Billings, D., & Halstead, J. (2009). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (3rd ed.). Saunders/Elsevier: St. Louis.Google Scholar
  12. Brandt, D. (2015). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (2002). Media effects, advances in theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron Review. Retrieved from Accessed Jan 2019.
  15. Chenail, R. J. (2012). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Qualitative data analysis as a metaphoric process. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 248–253 Accessedn Jan 2019.
  16. Christensen, C., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disruptive class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Cochrane, T., Narayan, V., & Oldfield, J. (2013). iPadagogy: Appropriating the iPad within pedagogical contexts. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 7(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole, J.E., & Kritzer J.B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36-40.
  19. Coleman, A. M. (2001). Dictionary of psychology. Oxford Reference Online: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (2007). Media and the American child. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Durish, P. (Ed.). (2013). Information technologe programs: Successes and challenges. Birmingham: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  22. Eisen, S., & Lillard, A. S. (2017). Young children’s thinking about touchscreens versus other media in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 11(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engstrom, M., Santo, S., & Yost, R. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 151–167.Google Scholar
  24. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feenberg, A. (2010). Btween reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education. An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93–143). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fowles, J. (2003). Is television harmful for children? No. In A. Alexander & J. Hanson (Eds.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in mass media and society (pp. 47–53). McGraw-Hill/Dushkin: Guilford.Google Scholar
  28. Gatfield, L., & Millwood-Hargrave, A. (2003). Dramatic Licence – Fact or fiction? London: Broadcasting Standards Commission.Google Scholar
  29. Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative research: Critical essays. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47, 556–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jadric, M., Bubas, G., & Babic, S. (2010). Motivation, internet access and ICT experience as factors of success in a non-moderated e-learning course. Int. J. of Intelligent Defence Support Systems, 3(1/2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jelfs, A., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, M. J. (2009). Student and tutor expectations of effective tutoring in distance education. Distance Education, 30(3), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawrence, J., & Sankey, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A sphere of influence enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference 2008. Retrieved from
  34. Lee, C. (2008). A neophyte about online teaching. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(7), 1180–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
  36. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2005). UK children go online: Final report of key project findings. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  37. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Livingstone, S. (2013). Online risk, harm and vulnerability: Reflections on the evidence base for child internet safety policy. ZER: Journal of Communication Studies, 18, 13–28.Google Scholar
  39. Livingstone, S. (2015). From mass to social media? Advancing accounts of social change. Social Media and Society, (May 11). Scholar
  40. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital age. New York: NYU Press ISBN 9781479824243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Görzig, A. (Eds.). (2012). Children, risk and safety on the Internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Bristol: Marston Books, Policy Press.Google Scholar
  42. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Ólafsson, K., & Haddon, L. (2014). Children's online risks and opportunities: Comparative findings from EU children Online and Net Children Go Mobile. LSE, London: EU Children Online.Google Scholar
  43. Mahler, D. (2012). Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactive whole-class technology: Facilitating student-to student whole-class dialogic interaction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matareese, A. (2011). Online learning: Experts say digital literacy is about thinking — not gadgets. Medill News Service, April 30th.Google Scholar
  45. McQuail, D. (2005). Mass communication theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. McQuail, D. (2010). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4), 219–224.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ofcom - Office of Communications (2010). UK adults' media literacy report. Retrieved 17 May from Accessed Jan 2019.
  49. Oliver, K., Osborne, J., & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary student’s expectations for teachers in virtual school environments? Distance Education, 30(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oriogun, P. K., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005). Validating an approach to examining cognitive engagement within online groups. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pelz, B. (2004). Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(3), 33–46.Google Scholar
  52. Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Potter, W. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 2, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet & Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. Scholar
  56. Rovai, A., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet & Higher Education, 13(3), 141–147. Scholar
  57. Rovai, A., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The classroom and school community inventory: Development, refinement and validation of a self-report measure for educational research. Internet and Higher Education, 7(4), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salman, E. (2006). Taxonomy of collaborative e-learning. Cincinnati: Union Institute & University.Google Scholar
  59. Salyers, V., Carter, L., Carter, A., Myers, S., & Barrett, P. (2014). The search for meaningful e-learning at Canadian universities: A multi-institutional research study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning – IRRODL, 15(6).Google Scholar
  60. Sharan, Y. (2014). Learning to cooperate for cooperative learning. Anales de Psicologia, 30(3), 802–807.Google Scholar
  61. Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends, 53(1), 48–56.Google Scholar
  63. Splitter, L. J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education. Studies in Philosophical Education, 28(2), 135–151. Scholar
  64. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, P., & Kitter, S. (Eds.). (2010). Millennials: A portrait of generation next. Retrieved from Accessed Jan 2019.
  66. Tyner, K. (2014). Literacy in a digital world: Technology and learning in the age of information. Mahwah: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van der veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77. Accessed Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2)
  71. Zilka, C.G. (2014). Empowering educators & mentors in the social media age – the three element way. Butan-Galim. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  72. Zilka, C. G. (2016a). Reducing the digital divide among children who received desktop or hybrid computers for the home. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 233–251 Accessed Jan 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zilka, C. G. (2016b). Do online friendships contribute to the social development of children and teenagers? The bright side of the picture. International journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS), 6(7).Google Scholar
  74. Zilka, C. G. (2017a). Awareness of eSafety and potential online dangers amongst children and teenagers. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 319–338 Accessed Jan 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zilka, C. G. (2017b). Awareness of ICT capabilities, digital literacy, and use of reflective processes in children who received their first home computer. Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(1), 80–98 Accessed Jan 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zilka, C.G. (2018). Аlways with them: Smartphone use by children, adolescents, and young adults – Characteristics, habits of use, sharing, and satisfaction of needs. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1-11. (UAIS).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar-Ilan University; Achva Academic CollegeEmunimIsrael

Personalised recommendations