Children and young people’s uses of the Internet for homework

Understanding students' use and value of technology for learning

“…It was reported that the capital of their family informed the dispositions of the young people, thus impacting on their engagement with and interest in technology. A small number of studies have too used Bourdieu's concept of capital, demonstrating associations between familial capitals and how the social class of parents informs the perceived potential of technologies for learning (Hollingworth et al 2011, Sutherland-Smith, Snyder, andAngus 2003), and primary students' use of technologies for homework (Cranmer 2006). Through the use of Bourdieu's sociological constructs these studies were able to illustrate narratives of practice, providing an understanding of the circumstances and experiences that presuppose practice.…”

Conceptualising technology practice in education using Bourdieu's sociology

“…Three from these 10 studies applied economic capital to analyse students' and their family's capacity to acquire digital technologies (Cranmer 2006;Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen and Rose 2011;Kapitzke 2000). In these studies, economic capital acts as one proxy for socioeconomic status that allows researchers to compare students' technology practice according to social class.…”

“…• Networks of technological contacts and support including parents, siblings and others (Beckman, et al 2014;Cranmer 2006;Johnson 2009a;Taylor 2005;Sutherland-Smith, et al 2003) • Opportunities to learn technological skills and knowledge at school from teachers (Johnson 2009c) demonstrating how these relationships according to field can attribute to the agency a student experiences with their technology practice. Understanding the structures of students' home fields, including the differing digital opportunities afforded to students' in these spaces, can provide educational technology researchers with important details about school students' orientation towards technologies (habitus).…”

“…access to technology in the home) are well documented, these five studies, as outlined in Table 1, demonstrate the ability of the theory to investigate more subtle or hidden structures and conditions of the field. These studies explored embodied structures of fields such as students' position of power in the field in regards to technology practice in comparison with parents (Johnson 2009a) and teachers (Johnson 2009c;Taylor 2005), (Beckman, et al 2014) and in online fields (Johnson 2009a(Johnson , 2009b • Family economic capacity evidenced by possession of technologies (Kapitzke 2000;Hollingworth, et al 2011) and to access the internet in the home (Cranmer 2006;Kapitzke 2000;Hollingworth, et al 2011) Cultural capital • Computer attitudes, use and competencies (Tondeur, et al 2011) • Digital tastes and capacity acquire cultural capital at school (North, et al 2007) • Conversion of 'internet literacy' as cultural capital across fields (Taylor 2005) • Capacity to negotiate cyber-relations (Johnson 2009a), navigate harms and risks online (Hollingworth, et al 2011) • Involvement in techno-culture (Kapitzke 2000) • Socialisation into technology practice by family and friends (Beckman, et al 2014) • Family orientation toward education and technology (Cranmer 2006;Hollingworth et al 2011;Sutherland-Smith, et al 2003) • Time invested into developing technological skills and knowledge (Beckman et al 2014) Social capital…”

‘Whatever it means, you should have it’: Exploring digital literacies in arts education

“…The unique demands of composite modes of study -studio based learning as well as online and more traditional tutor-led scenarios -requires students to develop confidence in the underpinning principles common to all three literacy areas: adaptability, However, students' use of technology in learning and teaching may not necessarily match existing confidence and competencies of everyday, personal use. As increasing criticism of reductionist concepts such as Generation Y, the supposedly technologically confident successors to Generation X, (Manuel 2002) and digital natives (Prensky 2001a(Prensky , 2001b attest, assumptions are often made on the part of institutions as to students' use of technology and the perceived ease of transferring principles from the personal domain to the academic (Beetham 2009;Cranmer 2006). Reaction to the digital natives debate now posits it as oversimplistic (Luckin et al 2009), and as harbouring potential for the interpretation of students' digital literacies to be stronger than they actually are (JISC 2009).…”