where only one in ten respondents declared that the Internet was their top interest (Pyżalski, 2012a)

Equally rarely does the choice of indirect communication (via the Internet) correspond to the respondents’ preference for talking about more personal issues online (about 7% of “often” and “always”

responses) or to whether they talk about different subjects online than they do offline (“often” and “always” jointly accounted for less than 17% of responses).

This distribution of responses means that the Internet is of great significance to a smaller part of the population of young people (when the indicators are used in this way). Additionally, it is worth noting the high percentage of users whom the Internet does not help in being themselves and who never communicate online differently than offline (this also includes personal matters).

It is therefore difficult to ascertain that young people in general perceive the Internet as a special communication or social environment;

rather, it is an area of functioning where its various aspects exist and are determined by other non-Internet-related factors.

Another important consideration is the young people’s self-evaluation of their digital skills. Contrary to the common view that young people are very capable, the survey respondents (aged 11–17) were very critical of their own skills (Pyżalski, Zdrodowska, Tomczyk, Abramczuk, 2019).

Table 2. Young people’s self-evaluation of their online skills – percentage of respondents who declared the highest indicators (N = 985, young people aged 11–17)

SELF-EVALUATION OF ONLINE SKILLS

WHOLE SAMPLE OF YOUNG PEOPLE

AGED 11–17 I know how to install applications on a mobile device (e.g. on a telephone or tablet). 74.8%

I know how to remove someone from my contact list. 74.6%

I know what information should and shouldn’t be made available on the Internet. 66.2%

I know how to save a photo found on the Internet. 62.9%

I know how to change my privacy settings (e.g. on a social media portal). 59.9%

I know how to shop using mobile applications. 50.7%

I know how to check the cost of using mobile applications. 49.2%

I know how to make and publish music or videos on the Internet. 39.0%

It is easy for me to choose the best keywords to find something on the Internet. 37.6%

It is easy for me to check if the information I found on the Internet is true. 31.9%

I know how to edit and change the content that other people created

and published on the Internet. 24.0%

Source: own work based on J. Pyżalski, A. Zdrodowska, Ł. Tomczyk, A. Abramczuk (2019).

Data concerning the respondents’ self-assessment of their online skills (Table 2) show that even the simplest skills (which are, in fact, often practiced as part of the school curriculum) are not, in the opinion of the young people, well mastered. This low assessment concerns mainly security measures (6 out of 10 respondents think that they have mastered them well), and looking for information and checking its correctness (only one third of the respondents think highly of their skills in this respect). It is, however, necessary to note that in surveys where the actual level of skills cannot be objectively verified, the values of the indicators are overestimated in relation to the actual level.

The recent study confirms earlier observations (see Pyżalski, 2012a;

2012b) that young people have a relatively low opinion of their digital skills and that they display considerable differences in mastering skills that are often mistakenly attributed to the whole population. Hence it is difficult to treat this as a positive verification of the characteristics specified in most digital generation concepts, which speak of a high level of ICT proficiency. Nonetheless, from the point of view of an empirical verification of these concepts, this indicator should also be considered significant and worth applying.

Qualitative aspect and wide range of the young generation’s ICT use

The last, albeit very important, indicator showing whether or not young people belong to the digital generation is their actual activity online. Therefore, it represents not so much simply using the Internet or the amount of time spent online, but rather the quality and range of undertaken activities (Table 3).

Table 3. Activity of young people on the Internet in the month preceding the survey (N = 1249 people aged 9–17, data in %)

NEVER ALMOST I join an online campaign

(protest) or sign an online

petition. 79.5 9.8 3.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 5.9

I discuss social or political issues with other people

online. 72.4 11.4 6.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 5.3

I make my own video or music and publish

it on the Internet. 68.3 16.3 6.2 2.2 1.1 0.6 5.3

I use the Internet to talk with people from other

countries. 52.9 19.2 10.8 6.8 3.0 2.1 5.1

I take part in an interest/

hobby group on the I use the Internet for

learning school subjects. 25.2 20.9 30.4 11.1 3.6 2.0 6.7

I use the Internet to find information about national

and international issues. 24.7 26.3 27.1 9.4 3.4 1.7 7.4

I play games on the

Internet (alone). 18.2 18.7 24.7 18.3 9.6 5.1 5.4

I look for something to buy or for information about how much something costs.

15.3 21.9 33.4 13.5 5.2 4.0 6.8

I look for information about employment/learning

Source: own work based on J. Pyżalski, A. Zdrodowska, Ł. Tomczyk, A. Abramczuk (2019).

As it turns out, the most frequent activities are watching videos, listening to music and daily communication with friends or family.

These are activities (especially the first two mentioned) where the user is passive, and which could easily be replaced by watching television or listening to the radio. It would be difficult to be critical of these findings if other, more social activities online were equally frequent.

It is worth noting that the survey revealed many differences within the studied population concerning activities depending on gender and age.

As shown by other studies, the type of activity undertaken online is also connected to socioeconomic status, which in turn is connected to digital inequality. This means that the present inequalities are connected not with access to hardware or Internet connection, but to who is capable of using the Internet and for what purpose (van Dijk, 2012).

Taking into account the analysis so far, it is difficult to say that ICT permeates all areas of young people’s lives, since many of them never or hardly ever undertake any valuable or creative activities online.

Obviously, the cause of this situation can include other, more general factors. For example, if someone is not involved in any social campaigns, then usually they are likewise not involved in any on digital media.

And if they are not interested in the news, they will not look for such information online. This interpretation further highlights the fact that traditional socialisation factors, not related to digital media, continue to play an important role, also in respect to using the Internet. Hence attaching key importance to the Internet in the socialisation of young people without a holistic, multifactor approach is unfounded.

Digital generation concepts: a critical approach

The author would like to use the findings presented above to critically analyse the assumptions of the digital generation concepts. This is not the first negative research-based assessment of this phenomenon. Such concepts (especially those created by Marc Prensky) have already been examined (Bennett, Maton, Kervin, 2008; Boyd, 2010; Helsper, Eynon, 2010;

Pyżalski, 2012b). On the whole, researchers raised the following arguments:

q The digital generation concepts are often based on anecdotal evidence of how young people function, and usually concern individual examples. Population-based research does not confirm most of the characteristics described in these concepts (at least for the whole or the majority of the population). The research presented herein confirms these observations. At present, there

is no sufficient empirical evidence to confirm the concepts’

assumptions (cf. Pyżalski, 2012b).

q The authors of such concepts attach too much significance to how the Internet affects the lives of young people. They mistakenly place it at the centre of their lives, ignoring other factors that impact on their personal and social development.

As Neil Selwyn points out, “such deterministic discourse obscures the key values and relations behind the growing use of technology in society” (Selwyn, 2003, p. 368).

q As shown by the previously described presentism error, the authors of these theories ignore information that some of the features attributed to the present generation have already been highlighted (before the Internet era), for example, multitasking, which to some extent also refers to earlier generations.

q These theories do not take into account the evolution of the Internet and the fact that in most countries both adults and young people are active Internet users.

q They ignore the diversification of young Internet users and attribute high digital competences to their whole population, whereas in reality only a smaller group demonstrates these competences.

Accepting the digital generation concepts indiscriminately is a dead end for educators: both researchers and teachers (Boyd, 2014). The subsequent false diagnoses may lead to ill-considered and worthless didactics designed for a population whose image is simplified, stereotyped and falsely homogenous (despite the fact that in reality it is very diverse).

Observing the current discourse on young people, one may repeat the appeal of Susan Herring (2008), which I have already referred to (Pyżalski, 2012b). She challenges the radical concepts of an intergenerational digital gap and points to the necessity to shift the paradigm from technology to the needs of young people. These needs should be treated as a point of departure for analyses aiming to fulfil them in the age of digital media.

Such a proposal is valuable also from the axiological perspective and stands a better chance of building a foundation for educational theories which, in turn, will provide a basis for educational practice. As Neil Selwyn points out (2009, p. 366): “there is a pressing need to develop and promote a realistic understanding of the relationship between young people and technology […] if we are to play useful and meaningful roles in supporting current generations of young people”.

2