Acquired categories divided into two main topics as expected – opinions on the digital technology in the context of teaching and opinions on the digital technology in the context of learning and development.
Figure 1: Categories and their relations
Digital technology in teaching
Even though fostering information literacy is an aim of education as stated by law (ZOsn‐F, 2007) teachers clearly said that possibilities for using digital technology in elementary schools are in fact scarce and limited. The discus‐
sion started with positive aspects of the digital technology use in schools but was soon redirected to its limitations. The teachers listed several benefits of the digital technology such as electronic administration, fast and easy access
to visual content and other information, video feedback about movement and possibilities for designing more organized presentations. They listed the limitations which come with that (lack of time, poor accessibility of materi‐
als, finances etc.). They believe that digital technologies are not useful for all learning and they mentioned teaching reading and writing as an example.
This opinion is in line with scientific research which revealed negative effect digital age has on reading and writing skills (Tancig, 2015, 2016). Accessibility of information can pose traps for teachers. Some content that would be bet‐
ter shown concretely and practically is instead shown on a screen which is an unneeded support or “crutch” to teacher’s work and impoverishes instruc‐
tion. They were aware that the value of digital technology is not in making shortcuts when teaching. Its purpose is in extra value given to teaching and it demands more, not less work when preparing a class.
The role of the teacher, his expectations, knowledge, exerted effort and personality was emphasized. His role is irreplaceable. Raising awareness of students and parents of an appropriate use of digital technology is also an important role played by teachers. The only disagreement the focus group had among its members was on the level of awareness students have of dangers of the internet. Research shows that there is little actual under‐
standing among youth of the internet, its functioning and credibility (Be‐
heshti & Large, 2013; Bowler & Nesset, 2013; Ofcom, 2016).
The teachers also uncovered the need for changes on the system level.
The current information literacy development depends on the teacher too much. They wish for a more systematic approach of teaching information literacy e.g. a specialized school subject. It stems from their observations of a substantial effect of lectures and workshops on the topic of safe digital technology use which are currently performed by external teachers.
It can be said that digital technology is seen as neither saviour nor enemy by teachers. They see the mediating role of the teacher and the educational system as those responsible for its effects. They express many limitations they encounter and a need for extra knowledge, time and resources. This is in line with research which shows negative effects of introducing digital technology to instruction uncritically (OECD, 2015; Perry & Steck, 2015).
Digital technology in learning and development
The other topic turned out to be a) more heated (68% of everything said was about this topic) and b) more complex (more categories emerged and relations among them are more complicated). The topic relates to learning in the broadest sense and includes learning of school content with digital technology and other forms of digital technology use.
The basis for this topic was the division of the digital technology use on thoughtful and unthoughtful. Opinions on thoughtful technology use were relatively unanimous and less numerous. Teachers did not exclude positive opportunities digital technology offers in learning (information, extra exer‐
cise and explanation seeking, possibilities of distance collaboration) but they emphasized that these cannot be taken for granted. They must be used as an upgrade of learning and not as a shortcut. They demand extra work and student engagement and not less effort. At the same time the importance of well‐developed executive functions for efficient learning from digital technol‐
ogy was emphasized which is in line with research (McEwen & Dubé, 2015).
It is the unthoughtful use of digital technology that poses a greater and a more complex problem in teachers’ eyes. It was defined more broadly, its negative consequences were exposed and ways of influencing the children to be more thoughtful in its use were pointed out. Causes for negative influ‐
ences on children and answers to why attempts of improving the state were looked for.
Great concern about using digital technology in childhood and adolescence for the purpose of entertainment was expressed. Lillard’s and Peterson’s (2011) findings about immediate negative effects of cartoons were con‐
firmed. Negative effects of playing video games especially on motivation and learning were emphasized. Questionable content was considered too accessible to children. Children do not have the self‐regulatory skills for us‐
ing digital technology safely. Teachers blamed the exposure of children to the digital world being too early. It often starts before the age of one and the cause is parent passivity. Similar was found in Rideout’s and Hamel’s research (2006). The research on Slovenian children confirmed that the children today play computer games from a very early age – from age 7 on the average and two years earlier for those who later develop dependency behaviour (Pontes et al., 2016).
Many negative effects digital technology has on children were named. The biggest problem was seen in the decrease of children’s attention. Green and Bavelier (2003) proved that video games affect attention, Ophir et al.
(2009) and Baumgartner et al. (2014) proved similar specifically for persons who multitask often. Multitasking was found problematic also by our par‐
ticipants. Roberts et al. (2005, 2010) and Foehr (2006) found its increase among children in the USA. Teachers are aware of its harmfulness. Other negative effects mentioned were restlessness, thought passivity, memory problems and addiction. Addiction to digital technology and its harmfulness were also identified in the literature (Lee et al., 2012; Thadani & Cheung, 2011; Macur et al., 2016; Pontes et al., 2016; Soror et al., 2012, 2015; Ver‐
brugge et al., 2013).
Besides the mentioned negative effects digital technology has on cognition teachers also mentioned negative effects it has on aspects of socio‐emo‐
tional development such as emotional apathy, restlessness and impatience in personal relationships, lack of empathy due to lack of authentic peer so‐
cializing and a lost touch with reality. Poorer empathy development as the cause of lacking in authentic peer relations has ground in neuroscience find‐
ings. Infants’ mirror neurons have trouble reading a mechanic arm’s inten‐
tions but they have less problems predicting a human hand move (Meltzoff, 1995, in Tancig, 2008).
Danger of internet abuse was also mentioned being a reality of the digital world in the time of adolescence (Skumavc, 2016).
The role of education in and for the digital age
A great role in educating children to manage the digital world was assigned to primary family upbringing. This opinion is the basis for the many hand‐
books published to advise on upbringing children in the digital age (e.g.
Beheshti & Large, 2013; Kaye, 2017; Schofield Clark, 2013; Sprenger, 2010;
Taylor, 2015). Parents were criticized for not having enough knowledge about digital technologies and not being aware enough about the dangers of unthoughtful digital technology use. Digital technology is seen as being misused for parenthood shortcuts (it merely distracts the child so he tem‐
porarily demands less parent attention). To defend parents a little they said that the parents differ greatly in attitudes and upbringing styles and that highly aware parents do exist especially among more educated parents. An American research actually showed that it is the children of medium edu‐
cated parents who are exposed to computer games the least while children of lower and higher educated parents engage in this kind of entertainment more often (Roberts et al., 2005). Another defence of parents mentioned by our participants was that raising awareness about harmful effects of digital technology in the media is still relatively scarce. They try to substitute this at least partially at parent‐teacher meetings.
Teachers confirmed the research findings about the role of parent supervi‐
sion over the digital technology use and that this supervision is in reality lacking (Foehr, 2006; Roberts et al., 2005, 2010; Skumavc, 2016).
Despite the pessimism about the digital technology teachers agreed that this is not the main enemy of young generations development. They broad‐
ened the problem and found out that the problems they see in the field of digital technology are actually a reflection of problems of the broader society ad its zeitgeist. A value crisis was mentioned which results in low
credibility of all (not just digital) media, in glorification of consumerism and following the interest of the capital instead the interest of children. A sub‐
stantial generation gap makes raising new generations harder than ever.
Conclusions
Elementary school teachers are very critical about effects modern technol‐
ogy has on children and adolescents. On one hand they are aware of the opportunities the technology offers for teaching and learning. On the other hand they are conscious about the fact that these opportunities are taken advantage of poorly and that technology is in reality mostly used unthought‐
fully. They know the dangers for cognitive and socio‐emotional develop‐
ment and observe negative effects digital technology can have on children.
They emphasize the role of upbringing and education in optimizing the digi‐
tal technology use. There are problems of using digital technology in the eyes of teachers but there is also awareness that these problems have to be addressed. They believe the education should address the problem first and that teacher education, children and adolescents education as well as parent education should be included. Digital technology is neither saviour nor enemy – it is what we make of it as would be agreed by Apple (1988).
The present research addresses the creators of education system to take better care of systematic education for the digital age and information lit‐
eracy teaching. The development of information literacy is at the moment left to personal enthusiasm and attitudes of teachers. They feel it is their responsibility and see the importance of the problem but miss the needed knowledge. They wish having more centralized guidelines in this area and more defined forms of teaching information literacy. They suggest more parent awareness raising by schools and the media.
It would be interesting to see how parents, children and adolescents feel about this topic. Similar qualitative research can be found in the scientific literature including parents and adolescents but rarely elementary school children. Having in mind that this is the period when the digital technology starts playing a more prominent role in their lives it would be important to see their beliefs about its effects. There also exists a need to carry out a quantitative survey about the actual digital technology use among ele‐
mentary school students in Slovenia following the trend of research done abroad.
Because of the importance of the problem science must define the causality between digital technology and development. Longitudinal research in this area is urgent.
The main shortcoming of the present research is the approach that does not allow the findings to be generalized. More discussions including other teachers should be conducted or quantitative data should be obtained to support the conclusions.
References
Al‐Ruz, J. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2011). Jordanian pre‐service teachers’ and technology inte‐
gration: A human resource development approach. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 14(4), 77–87.
Alsaeed, M. S. (2017). Using the internet in teaching algebra to middle school students: A study of teacher perspectives and attitudes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 10(2), 121–136.
APA. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, VA: APA Publishing.
Apple, M. W. (1988). Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in Education. NY, London: Routledge.
Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relation‐
ship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120‐1144. doi: 10.1177/0272431614523133
Beheshti, J., & Large, A. (2013). The Information Behavior of a New Generation: Children and Teens in the 21st Century. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow press.
Beland, L., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student per‐
formance. Labour Economics, 41, 61–76. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004
Bindu, C. N. (2017). Attitude towards, and awareness of using ICT in classrooms: A case of expatriate Indian teachers in UAE. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 10–17.
Bowler, L., & Nesset, V. (2013). Information literacy. In J. Beheshti & A. Large (Eds.), The In-formation Behavior of a New Generation: Children and Teens in the 21st Century (pp. 45–63).
Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow press.
Castro Sánchez, J. J., & Chirino Alemán, E. (2011). Teachers’ opinion survey on the use of ICT tools to support attendance‐based teaching. Computers & Education, 56, 911–915.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.005
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047
Efe, R. (2011). Science student teachers and educational technology: Experience, intentions, and value. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 228–240.
International Telecommunication Union. (2017). ICT Facts and Figures. Retrieved 20. 8. 2017 from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU‐D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx
Fairchild, J. L., Meiners, E. B., & Violette, J. L. (2016). “I tolerate technology‐‐I don’t embrace it”: instructor surprise and sensemaking in a technology‐rich learning environment. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(4), 92–108.
Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenome‐
nological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media Multitasking Among American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors, and Pairings. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Folkesson, A., & Swalander, L. (2007). Self‐regulated learning through writing on computers:
Consequences for reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2488–
2508. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.04.003
Green, C. G., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention.
Nature, 423, 534–537.
Hismanoglu, M. (2012). Prospective EFL teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration: A study of distance higher education in Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 185–196.
Kaye, L. (2017). Young children in a digital age. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Lee, Z. W. Z., Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2011). An investigation into the problematic use of Facebook. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences, 1768–1776. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.106
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of televi‐
sion on young children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), 644–649. doi: 10‐1542/
peds.2O10‐191E
Macur, M., Király, O., Maraz, A., Nagygyörgy, K., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Prevalence of problematic internet use in Slovenia. Slovenian Journal of Public Health, 55(3), 202–211. doi:
10.1515/sjph‐2016‐0026
Mažgon, J., Kovač Šebart, M., & Štefanc, D. (2015). The role and use of e‐materials in voca‐
tional education and training: The case of Slovenia. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 157–164.
McEwen, R. N., & Dubé, A. K. (2015). Engaging or distracting: Children’s tablet computer use in education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 9–23.
OECD. (2015). Students, computers, and learning: making the connection. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Ofcom. (2016). Children and parents: media use and attitudes report. London: Ofcom.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583–15587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106
Orhan‐Karsak, H. G. (2017). Investigation of teacher candidates’ opinions about instructional technologies and material usage. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(5), 204–216.
Parsons, D., & Adhikari, J. (2016). Bring your own device to secondary school: The percep‐
tions of teachers, students and parents. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14(1), 66–80.
Perry, D., & Steck, A. (2015). Increasing student engagement, self‐efficacy, and meta‐cog‐
nitive self‐regulation in the high school geometry classroom: Do iPads help?. Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 122–143. doi:10.1080/07380569.2015.1036650
Peffer, T. E., Bodzin, A. M., & Duffield Smith, J. (2013). The use of technology by nonformal environmental educators. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 16–37.
Pontes, H. M., Macur, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). Internet gaming disorder among Sloveni‐
an primary schoolchildren: Findings from a nationally representative sample of adolescents.
Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(2), 304–310. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.042
Rideout, V. (2012). Children, Teens, and Entertainment Media: The View from the Classroom.
San Francisco: A Common Sense Media Research Study.
Rideout, V., & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: electronic media in the lives of in-fants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2010). Generation M2: media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Safe.si (2014). Rezultati ankete: Spletne navade in trendi mladih v Sloveniji [Results of the survey: Internet habits and trends among youth in Slovenia]. Retrieved 20. 8. 2017 from https://safe.si/novice/rezultati‐ankete‐spletne‐navade‐in‐trendi‐mladih‐v‐sloveniji Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Teo, T. (2015). Becoming more specific: Measuring and modeling teachers’ perceived usefulness of ICT in the context of teaching and learning. Computers &
Education, 88, 202–214. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.05.005
Schofield Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: understanding families in the digital. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sherman, L. E., Greenfield, P. M., Hernandez, L. M., & Dapretto, M. (2017). Peer influence via instagram: Effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 89(1), 1–11. doi:10.1111/cdev.12838
Skumavc, G. (2016). Spletno nadlegovanje in učenci s posebnimi potrebami, magistrsko delo [Internet Harassment and Students with Special Needs, Master’s Thesis]. Ljubljana: Univer‐
sity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education.
Soror, A. A., Hammer, B. I., Steelman, Z. R., Davis, F. D., & Limayem, M. M. (2015). Good hab‐
its gone bad: Explaining negative consequences associated with the use of mobile phones from a dual‐systems perspective. Information Systems Journal, 25(4), 403–427. doi:10.1111/
isj.12065
Soror, A., Steelman, Z., & Limayem, M. (2011). Discipline yourself before life disciplines you:
Deficient self‐regulation and mobile phone unregulated use. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 849–858. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.219 Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-based teaching :) in the digital age. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
SURS. (2016). Internet v 1. četrtletju 2016 uporabljalo 75 % oseb (16–74 let), 55 % prek mo-bilnega ali pametnega telefon [Internet used by 75 % of population in the 1st quarter of 2016 (16–74 years old), 55 % using a mobile or a smart phone]. Retrieved 20. 8. 2017 from http://
www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/6263
Šarić, M. (2007). Fokus skupine v psihološkem raziskovanju [Focus groups in research in psychology]. Psihološka Obzorja [Horizons of Psychology], 16(3), 125–137.
Tancig, S. (2008). Razvoj empatije, teorije uma in metareprezentacije: interdisciplinarni po‐
gledi [Development of empathy, theory of mind and meta‐representations: interdisciplinary views]. In M. Bohanec et al. (Eds.), Zbornik 11. mednarodne multikonference Informacijska družba [Proceedings of the 11th International Multi-Conference Information Society] (pp.
353–357). Ljubljana: Mednarodna multikonferenca Informacijska družba [International Multi‐Conference Information Society].
Tancig, S. (2015). Utelešena kognicija in možgani v digitalni dobi [Embodiment and brain in the digital age]. In J. Port (Ed.), Telo in tehnologija: Zbornik 8. kulturološkega simpozija [Body and Technology: Proceedings of the Eight Culturology Symposium] (pp. 79–92). Lju‐
bljana: Kult.co, culturologists’ society. .
Tancig, S. (2016). Od Prousta do Twitterja – nevroedukacijske raziskave bralne pismenosti v
digitalni dobi [From Proust to Twitter – neuroeducation research on reading literacy in the digital age]. In T. Devjak & I. Saksida (Eds.), Bralna pismenost kot izziv in odgovornost [Read-ing Literacy as a Challenge and Responsibility] (pp. 9–26). Ljubljana: Faculty of Education.
Taylor, J. (2015). Vzgajanje tehnološke generacije [Raising Generation Tech]. Maribor: Hiša knjig, Založba KMŠ.
Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2012). The five central psychological challenges facing ef‐
fective mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 820–832.
doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8535.2012.01362.x
Thadani, D. R., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2011). Exploring the role of online social network dependency in habit formation. 32nd International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011, (pp. 3446–3461). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/08c8/84 0587263e87b8478c84fd72bff5b096b7de.pdf
Veličković, S., & Stošić, L. (2016). Preparedness of educators to implement modern informa‐
tion technologies in their work with preschool children. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(1), 23–30. doi: 10.5937/IJCRSEE1601023V Verbrugge, K., Stevens, I., & de Marez, L. (2013). The role of an omnipresent pocket device:
smartphone attendance and the role of user habits. Crises, ‘Creative Destruction’ and the Global Power and Communication Orders, Proceedings. Presented at the Crises, “Creative
smartphone attendance and the role of user habits. Crises, ‘Creative Destruction’ and the Global Power and Communication Orders, Proceedings. Presented at the Crises, “Creative