The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Empowering children to make and Empowering

children to make
shape our digital futures – from and shape our
digital futures
adults creating technologies to
children transforming cultures 279
Netta Iivari Received 1 March 2020
Revised 5 June 2020
INTERACT Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland 15 August 2020
Accepted 18 August 2020

Abstract
Purpose – 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.
Findings – 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.
Keywords Schools, Empowerment, Education, Children, Digital technology design
Paper type Viewpoint

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

© Netta Iivari. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
The International Journal of
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create Information and Learning
derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full Technology
Vol. 37 No. 5, 2020
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http:// pp. 279-293
[Link]/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-4880
This study was funded by Academy of Finland (Grant #324685, Make-a-Difference project). DOI 10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0023
IJILT technology from their birth, they have severe limitations in technology comprehension.
37,5 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; Vainionp€a€a 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
280 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. Hilpp€o 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. Hilpp€o 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; Mari€en 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. Vainionp€a€a 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; Mari€en 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 Empowering
et al., 2017). The existing research has argued children are the experts in “being kids,” and this children to make
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
and shape our
ideating, designing as well as making interesting and valuable (digital) solutions for their digital futures
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). 281
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. Bj€orgvinsson 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
IJILT different meanings and forms of empowerment in the literature on children and digital
37,5 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
282 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 Empowering
refers to “to the degree to which behavior is seen as ‘making a difference’ in terms of children to make
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
and shape our
activities skillfully when he or she tries”; meaningfulness, which refers to “the value of the digital futures
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– 283
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).
Representing critical, community oriented view to empowerment, Jennings et al. (2006,
p. 41) model captures a comprehensive set of aspects;
(1) “A welcoming and safe environment
(2) Meaningful participation and engagement
(3) Equitable power-sharing between youth and adults
(4) Engagement in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes
(5) Participation in sociopolitical processes to effect change; and
(6) 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
IJILT themselves when engaging with digital technology but they should always consider a
37,5 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.

284 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
 Implications for digital technology education aiming at empowering children to make and shape our digital
Aspect of empowerment futures

Meaning (see Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Rajanen and Such education should be personally meaningful for children: it should address personally meaningful topics
Iivari, 2019) and tools and contribute to solving personally meaningful problems (for examples as well as challenges, see,
e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002; Iivari and Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015; Iivari et al., 2017). For instance, in the
case of COVID 19 such education could invite children to develop new tools to facilitate socializing with
classmates during online education period – isolation and loneliness of children have been reported as
problems amplified by the COVID 19 pandemic (see, e.g. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano, 2020; Fox et al., 2020)
Self-determination (see Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Such education should be offered in a way that children can decide on how and when to engage in digital
Rajanen and Iivari, 2019) technology making and shaping (for examples as well as challenges, see, e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002; Iivari and
Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015; Kinnula et al., 2017). This happens more naturally in nonformal than in formal
context, while recruitment and advertisement are then critical to prevent the digital divides widening. In the
case of COVID 19, for example, children could be invited into voluntary, yet exciting seeming activities and
supported with interesting, yet easy use means and tools for addressing a topic of their interest, for example
digitally augmenting their socializing with friends during the lock-down, in order to reduce isolation and
loneliness in their lives (cf. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano, 2020; Fox et al., 2020)
Impact (see Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Rajanen and Such education should be arranged so that children have a significant influence in and through digital
Iivari, 2019) technology making and shaping. Children should have decision-making power as regards the design process
and outcomes, and the outcomes should be tangible and their impact visible for children. (for examples as well
as challenges, see, e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002; Iivari and Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015; Kinnula et al., 2017) In
the case of COVID 19, for example, children could be invited to act as decision-makers as regards what the
greatest challenges caused by it are in their lives, which one of them should be addressed and what will be
developed, how and when (cf. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano, 2020 on children taking action against COVID 19).
They should also be able to experience the actual impact of their activities, for example by being able to
experiment with the new digital tools they have developed in practice

(continued )
285

education aiming at
Empowering

futures
generation to make and
children to make

shape our digital

empowering the young
Aspects to consider in
Table 1.
digital futures
and shape our

digital technology
 37,5

286
IJILT

Table 1.
Implications for digital technology education aiming at empowering children to make and shape our digital
Aspect of empowerment futures

Competence (see Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Rajanen Such education should build children’s confidence in their skills and competences in digital technology
and Iivari, 2019) making and shaping (for examples, see, e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002; Iivari and Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015;
Iivari and Kinnula, 2018; Iivari et al., 2018; Kinnula et al., 2017). The education should take into account the
individual learners’ skills and competences and offer them experiences of success, gently guiding the learners
toward more advanced and demanding forms of digital technology making and shaping as well as make
visible alternative, yet valuable, skills and competences to programming and computational ones, such as
design and innovation related ones (see, e.g. Vainionp€a€a et al., 2019). In the case of COVID 19, children could be
informed of the variety of expertise needed in projects aiming at digitally augmenting learning, making visible
that innovation, design, social, pedagogical and artistic expertise is needed in addition to technology,
programming and engineering. Afterward, children could be invited, based on their existing interests and
expertise, to adopt, learn and contribute in different roles in their projects
Social responsibility (see Jennings et al., 2006; Rajanen Such education should make visible for children that when they engage in digital technology making and
and Iivari, 2019) shaping, they have a social responsibility to consider not only their own needs but more broadly families’,
organizations’ and communities’ needs and to try to ensure that the activities contribute to these broader
collectives gaining control and mastery in their lives and to improvements in equity and quality of their life (for
examples, see, e.g. Iversen et al., 2017; Jennings et al., 2006). In the case of COVID 19, for example, children could
be sensitized to the different digital divides still prevalent in the society and encouraged to consider, in
addition to their own needs, the needs of children and families marginalized in different ways and how design
and technology could be utilized to improve equity and quality of their life (cf. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano,
2020 on children having strong sense of social justice and an interest to serving those who are vulnerable or
marginalized during COVID 19). An example topic could be digital divides regarding digital technology access
among children during COVID 19 (reported in Hilpp€o et al., 2020; Iivari et al., 2020; Larkins, 2020): the children
could be invited to consider what kinds of divides around access exist, how those affect children’s learning and
well-being in the middle of a pandemic and how design and technology could make a difference in their lives
Critical reflection (see Jennings et al., 2006; Rajanen and Such education should invite children to engage in critical reflection on the oppressing conditions of the status
Iivari, 2019) quo, on associated sociopolitical processes and on the problematic structures, processes, values and practices
involved (for examples, see, e.g. Chawla and Heft, 2002; Iversen et al., 2017; Jennings et al., 2006). In the case of
COVID 19, for example, children could be invited to critically reflect on the sociopolitical processes, structures,
practices and values that are contributing to the creation, maintenance or widening of the different kinds of
digital divides in the society and in children’s lives during COVID 19, e.g. around access to digital technology

(continued )
 Implications for digital technology education aiming at empowering children to make and shape our digital
Aspect of empowerment futures

Critical action taking (see Jennings et al., 2006; Rajanen Such education should entail actual, collaborative action taking aiming at liberating the oppressed (for
and Iivari, 2019) examples, see, e.g. Jennings et al., 2006). In the case of COVID 19, for example, children could be invited to
actually collaborate with a particular marginalized group or community, for example with children with
limited access to digital technology and to utilize design and technology for improving equality and their
quality of life (cf. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano, 2020 on children taking action against COVID 19). They should
also be able to see and reflect on the consequences of their action taking
Participation and engagement (see Jennings et al., 2006; Such education should sensitize children to their responsibility to work toward participation and engagement
Rajanen and Iivari, 2019) of the broader community by developing a welcoming and safe environment with meaningful activities that
contribute to the competence building of all participants (for examples, see, e.g. Jennings et al., 2006). In the
case of COVID 19, for example, children could be guided to invite a specific group of marginalized children to
action taking with design and technology (cf. Cuevas-Parra and Stephano, 2020 on children taking action
against COVID 19 with a strong sense of social justice and interest in serving those marginalized). This would
entail them tailoring the activities to suit the specific group, for instance considering the age and the expertise
of the target group, for example existing expertise on digital technology. This would also entail the children
creating a welcoming and safe environment for the target group, so that the target group participants feel
respected, their contribution valued and their opinions heard when they engage in the joint activities. The
children should also be guided to consider competence building of the target group participants: what would
be valuable competences for these participants and how they could be supported in gaining those competences
during the collaboration
Power sharing (see Jennings et al., 2006; Rajanen and Such education should explicitly address power aspects always intermingled with this type of endeavors:
Iivari, 2019) between adults and children as well as among children. The children should be encouraged to work toward
equal power sharing among all participants. (for examples as well as challenges, see, e.g. Chawla and Heft,
2002; Iivari and Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015; Jennings et al., 2006) In the case of COVID 19, for example,
children could be encouraged to explicitly address the power aspects intimately intermingled with their
relationship with their teachers as well as with the target group they are working with and for. The children
should be encouraged to treat everyone as equal and aim at sharing decision-making power among all
involved
287
Empowering
and shape our
children to make

Table 1.
digital futures
IJILT prejudice or lack of pre-interest or information (cf. Iivari and Kinnula, 2016). With the model,
37,5 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
288 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 Empowering
This commentary concentrated on digital technology education of children, maintaining that children to make
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
and shape our
digitalization and prepare the young generation to manage and master in their technology digital futures
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 289
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. Bj€orgvinaaon 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. Vainionp€a€a 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.
IJILT Iivari and Kinnula, 2016; Iivari et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2020). One study has already
37,5 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
290 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.

References
Balanskat, A. and Engelhardt, K. (2014), Computing Our Future: Computer Programming and Coding-
Priorities, School Curricula and Initiatives Across Europe, European Schoolnet, Brussels.
Bj€orgvinsson, 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 B€ uching, 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:
[Link]
%20the%20time%20of%20COVID-19%[Link].
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”, Empowering
First Monday, Vol. 7 No. 12, available at: [Link]
download/1010/931. children to make
Fischer, G. (2013), “End-user development: from creating technologies to transforming cultures”,
and shape our
International Symposium on End User Development, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 217-222. digital futures
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- 291
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: [Link]
[Link] Date (accessed 8 December 2017).
Hilpp€o, 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: [Link]
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: [Link]
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.
IJILT 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
37,5 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 Vent€a-Olkkonen, L. (2020), “Digital transformation of everyday life–how
292 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., Mansikkam€aki, E. and Simil€a, 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: [Link]
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.
Mari€en, 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; M€a€ar€aykset ja ohjeet 2014:96 [national core curriculum for basic education;
regulations and guidelines]”, Opetushallitus: Next Print Oy, 4th ed., available at: [Link]
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: Empowering
a study of teachers’ role in digital fabrication”, Information and Technology Literacy: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global, Hershey, pp. 301-319. children to make
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
and shape our
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465. digital futures
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.
293
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.
Vainionp€a€a, 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.

Corresponding author
Netta Iivari can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]