Frontline Learning Research Vol.8 No. 2 (2020)
109 - 130
ISSN 2295-3159
a Utrecht University, the
Netherlands
Article received 25 October 2018 / revised 28 February 2020 / accepted 6 March/ available online 7 May
Digital technology facilitate interactions between learners and resources at a global level. New learner prototypes are therefore proposed, such as the notion of the global learner. In this paper, we argue that these prototypes of global learning often do not account for the variety of ways in which youth use technology and see themselves as learners. We take the example of Turkish-Dutch youth to show empirically how they represent an alternative for what is often seen as the prototype of what a global learner is. We combine ego-network methodology with in-depth interviews to provide a detailed account of how 25 Turkish-Dutch teens see themselves as learners, how they make use of technology to pursue their interests, how they reach out to others and media resources, and how they form selves in relation to the values and norms of their (transnational) community. Using the notion of ‘learner identity’, the study shows how these teens develop learner identities that are built on specific and culturally informed notions of ‘what a learning subject is’ that challenge the universality of the autonomous subjectivity implied in prototypical notions of the global learner. In addition, the study shows how through digital affordances, unique networked (trans)national connectivities are formed, which are informed by these teens’ specific socio-cultural position. We argue that by acknowledging these alternative ways of what a learning subject is, and how connections are formed, we can proactively incorporate them as useful models of global learning.
Keywords: Connected learning; global learner; learner identity; Turkish-Dutch teens; ego-network analysis
In the learning sciences, new prototypical notions of learning have been put forward that correspond to the possibilities and challenges of the digital era. These notions foreground the informal domain as a space where learning takes place and oppose or challenge traditional models for schooling. For instance, inspired by the possibilities of gathering an endless amount of resources on the internet and connecting with likeminded others to explore these resources, notions such as ‘affinity spaces’ (Gee, 2005), ‘connected learning’ (Ito, Gutiérrez, Livingstone, Penuel, Rhodes, & Salen, et al., 2013), or ‘personalized e-learning’ (O'Donnell, Lawless, Sharp, & Wade, 2015) have arisen. A similar example of a technology-driven prototypical model of learning is the notion of ‘global learning’. Inspired by the possibilities of utilizing technology to facilitate interactions between learners of different cultures, which, in principle, provides learners with the opportunity to develop global perspectives, the notion of global learning has been put forward to inspire educational reform (Gibson, Rimmington, & Landwher-Brown, 2008).
These concepts have in common that they put the learners’ personal engagement at the centre as well as the learners’ ability to gather (digital) resources based on this personal engagement. As such, they challenge traditional, authority-driven models of learning, in which knowledge distribution by institutions is the norm.
At the background of these discussions about new metaphors and models for learning in the digital age, our ambition with this paper is to expand our ideas of what a global learner might be. We do so through showing empirically how Turkish-Dutch youth develop particular socio-culturally informed ‘learner identities’ as well as unique networked (trans)national connectivities that challenge dominant metaphors of learning in the digital age. As we hope to show, they challenge the image of the autonomous, individualistic self-implied in these ideals of global learning, as well as the idea that connectivity evolves around the agentic efforts of the individual learner.
Adopting a perspective on learning as socially and culturally situated, this paper argues that such situated perspectives seem to be forgotten with the launching of 21st century notions of learning. Therefore, the paper seeks to expand such a perspective into learning in the 21st century and new models for learning.
In this paper, we build upon earlier work (de Haan, Leander, Ünlüsoy, & Prinsen, 2014, p. 508) in which we argued for a critical reconsideration of “idealized digital connectivities for learning”. In work on these idealized connectivities, the suggestion is made that “people are optimally networked so that resources are equally available, shared and voiced, and participation possibilities are maximized” (p. 508). We have argued that everyday social practices of connectivity reflect a much more nuanced and differentiated reality, based on the idea that ‘connectivities for learning’ are situated over time and socially constructed social practices that are informed by specific cultural norms and values. We have proposed that personal networks as a unit of analysis are a good starting place to explore these nuances and we have coined the term ‘Networked Configurations for Learning’ (NCL) to refer to the idea that connectivities for learning are diverse and socially situated.
In this paper, we expand our earlier argument on the specificity of connectivities. First, in this paper we provide a more detailed account of one group of learners, Turkish-Dutch youth, of which we have gathered more ethnographic data in comparison to the earlier paper. Second, we are making use of this sample to also elaborate more extensively on how the notion of ‘what a learner is’ can be socio-cultural-specific. We draw on Sinha’s (1999) idea of ‘learner identity’, who has argued that being or knowing how to be a particular kind of learner is not something that is ‘given’ or universal but rather something that is formed in socialization practices associated with particular communities. Third, in this paper we elaborate more explicitly on how digital connectivities are part of global-local dynamisms shaped by both migration and digital technology. In particular, we focus on the transformative potential of these mobilities for learning, by showing how ‘to be here and there at the same time’ and how being a member of several normative communities simultaneously provides unique opportunities for learners.
The study thus provides an empirical record of what we think of as an ‘a-typical case’ of a 21st century learner. The study documents Turkish-Dutch immigrants’ use of technological affordances to expand their learning and then asks how their efforts relate to the personalized, individually engaged learner pictured in new prototypical notions of learning.
Before we present our theoretical take on learning as a cultural and situated phenomenon, and how this relates to notions of connectivity and new technologies, we give a brief overview of how globalization and new technologies have spurred new notions of learning (1.2) as well as how teens from minority backgrounds constitute a good example of how technology is adopted in particular ways, related to the dynamics of migration (1.3).
We live in an era that is marked with abundant information and almost constant exposure to it. News headlines, blog, vlog and status updates, tweets, social media feeds, emails and text messages ask for our attention not only as the recipients of the information but also as the distributors, co-creators, and recyclers of it. New Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are widely acknowledged for their role in lowering the threshold of information access for everyone and in enabling new ways to interact. However, these changes are not only dependent on the influence of technologies. How people use these technologies is strongly related to who they are and their social, cultural and material environment. The dynamic interplay between technology and identity eventually also shapes the ways in which people interact, socialize and learn and can create specific socio-technical practices and divides in this respect (Hildreth & Kimble, 2004).
Knowledge production and consumption in so-called ‘global’ societies happens at geographically dispersed scales. In globalized information and knowledge societies, individuals are not only part of relatively homogeneous locally based communities, but, at the same time, they are a member of many different, locally and globally dispersed networks, which provides them with unique and tailored possibilities to find knowledge and learn in these networks (Farrell, 2006). This idea resonates with the more general concept of networked individualism that addresses how we relate to people in the digital age (Rainie & Wellman, 2012). Rainie and Wellman (2012) observe that in the past, personal networks used to be mainly defined by small, densely knit local groups, and communication was primarily face-to-face and location-dependent. Now, individuals are much less constrained by geographical boundaries, and even though traditional social spaces defined by, for instance, kinship relationships, neighbourhood and work remain important, they are no longer the only sites for socialization. According to Castells (2007), these changes also mean a shift from a more hierarchically structured social system to a more networked and participatory one, which is profoundly transformative for individuals as well as for the foundations of society as we know it.
Some have argued that this development fundamentally changes the way we learn, while simultaneously causing a greater diversification of the possibility to learn. An example of such work is developed in alignment with the notion and educational ideal of ‘connected learning’ (Ito, et al., 2013). Connected learning, which is enabled through new digital infrastructures in globalized societies, is defined as learning that is socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented towards educational, economic, or political opportunity. Basically, the premise is that new digital infrastructures and networks allow young people to pursue personal interests or passions, which they, with the support of others, turn into learning opportunities, which again might also lead to academic achievement or civic engagement. The premise is that new technologies enable people to explore and share interests freely and openly. There is a much greater freedom -in comparison to standardized education- in how people invest their time and energy to satisfy their (varied) interests as well as in the actual potential to turn these interests into careers. Connected learning has been presented as an ideal of learning in the global society for all, and in opposition to and as an alternative for outdated notions and practices of learning and education (Ito, et al., 2013; Kumpulainen & Sefton-Green, 2014). Although its idealized form is only available for progressive digital media users typically associated with privileged minorities (Ito, et al., 2013), this idea in fact highlights the variation in the lives and learning possibilities of young people.
In particular, teens from minority backgrounds constitute a good example of how technology is adopted in particular ways. For a long time, an important defining aspect of being an immigrant has been the geographical, social and cultural gap between the two ‘homelands’; the one that is left behind and the one of settlement. However, under the influence of new technologies, the image of the “uprooted migrant” is now replaced with the “connected migrant” (Diminescu, 2008). New technologies enable a space to be ‘together’ regardless of actual physical locations and enable being here and there simultaneously. The effort to establish new belongings and associations while maintaining the connections with loved ones and acquaintances wherever they may be is now a key part of the migration experience (Diminescu, 2008). These network connections can be considered also as paths of information, belonging, support etc., and form important “linguistic and social capital” (Lam, 2014, p. 503). More importantly, these new technologies provide immigrant teens with forms of networked capital, which reflects their social, cultural, ethnic, and historical background as well as their material reality. Often these networks provide them access to different social spheres that are heterogeneous. These new connectivities and the life worlds they give access to have implications for what it means to learn and socialize. The focus becomes much more on what it means to learn to participate and move through multiple different social spheres as well as on the process of transformation that is necessary to participate in these heterogeneous social and culture spheres and networks (de Haan, 2011).
Although new technologies also provide mainstream youth with these possibilities and challenges, they seem to define immigrant youth in particular. There is a small body of literature that indeed shows that immigrant youth access a variety of different spaces, social networks, which enable as well as challenge their learning in particular ways in comparison with mainstream youth. For instance, Lam (2009) observes that as Chinese-American teens explore their interests online they use both Chinese and English. This enables them to access a distinct range of information and media content, which provides alternative, more empowering spaces for their learning compared to learning at school. Likewise, Messina Dahlberg and Bagga-Gupta (2014) show how in online communities with multiple ethnic backgrounds, culturally and linguistically hybrid ways for co-constructing and mediating learning are supported, which are different from (monocultural or monolinguistic) institutional learning spaces.
Below, we will elaborate our argument on how new technologies create particular and situated opportunities for learning, departing from the notion of learning as a situated phenomenon (1.2.1). We argue that both the notion of ‘what a learner is’ (1.2.2) as well as connectivities that are constructed for learning are culturally and socially situated (1.2.3).
1.2.1 The ‘particular’ of learning and the acknowledgement of non-mainstream notions
We draw upon sociocultural learning theories, and more specifically on the notion that learning is situated in socio-cultural practice in two different ways. First, learning is situated in the sense that learning is a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). It is situated in sociocultural practices precisely because ‘human beings have the need and ability to mediate their interactions with each other and the nonhuman world through culture’ (Cole, 1998, p. 291). It cannot be captured by just looking at individuals. Learning is distributed among co-participants of communities of learners (Lave & Wenger, 1998). Second, learning is situated in the sense that it involves the appropriation of particular heritages and particular learner identities, and there is variation in how communities guide learners according to culturally informed notions of what learning is (Rogoff, 2003). This second position represents a more politically oriented strand of studies, as the issue is often raised that the heritages, identities and culturally informed learning practices of minorities are not always acknowledged in mainstream education (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002) or in educational theories (Rogoff, 2003). This study wants to highlight in particular the second sense of situatedness, while acknowledging the first.
1.2.2. Becoming a particular kind of learner: adopting a ‘learner identity’
To foreground the subjectivity of the learner, studies in the sociocultural tradition have argued that becoming a learner also involves developing a version of ‘the self’, which fits the cultural expectations of what is expected from a novice. As Sinha (1999) argues: becoming a learner is a situated phenomenon, which requires earlier experience in a particular socio-cultural practice. For instance, learning to recognize the appropriateness of a particular socially organized set up for a teaching learning situation and positioning oneself as a learner in accordance with socially appropriate roles (e.g., teacher and learner positions) is something that requires knowledge and prior experience of how learning is culturally and socially framed. Developing human beings are being constructed and positioned in ‘particular and specific kinds of non-discursive practices, in such a way that he or she becomes a learning subject, or self, of the kind required by the culture within which teaching learning situations and opportunities are situate’ (Sinha, 1999, p. 33). To elaborate his point, Sinha contrasts the often taken-for-granted image of the creative learner with other taken-for-granted images of learners, such as the idea that learners are information-processing subjects. He claims that we often forget that these notions of what a learner is or should be are themselves shaped by normative traditions on learning. When we, for instance, assume learners to be creative, this implies a socio-culturally constructed self that understands him/herself as a creative developing being. The same applies for the idea that learners represent an autonomous self that is operating relatively independent from her/his social environment in terms of motivation, cognition, awareness, judgement and action. In other words, the learning self is not a culturally neutral concept but depends on particular interpretations of how a subject is supposed to grow, relate, identify, know, etc. Although the relationship between learning and identity has been addressed in different ways (see for an overview Moje & Luke, 2009), this particular point is often forgotten. It is partly reflected in the distinction that Arnseth & Silseth (2013) make when they describe the learning self as both ‘a’ novice, that is, as becoming a central participant of a community that is endowed with a particular (community related) identity, and ‘a particular kind’ of novice, involving all it takes to become a central participant of that community. It is this second issue that we address here. However, evidently, both notions of a learner identity can never be entirely independent as both are embedded in culturally based notions of what membership in a community means.
1.2.3 Notions of connectivity and learning
Not only learner identities are particular and situated, but likewise (online) connectivities that are constructed for learning are defined by socially and culturally informed experiences. Following what we described above regarding the unique and tailored possibilities to find knowledge and use connections for learning afforded by technology, we argue that these diversified connectivities are situated in socio-cultural practices. As noted above in section 1.1, we have termed this Networked Configurations for Learning (NCL). As ‘networked individualism’ and ‘connected learning’, NCL focuses on the role of the new technologies and the importance they deem to our increased networking capacity via these ICT. However, in the concept of NCL, an argument is developed on how this network capacity matches with the socio-cultural, economic, personal conditions and drives of individuals or groups. Moreover, it is used to study how these networks function for learning and allows description of the particular online and offline networked connectivities of diverse socio-cultural groups and the culturally and socially informed experiences for learning these connectivities enable (de Haan, Leander, Ünlüsoy, & Prinsen, 2014, p. 532). NCL builds upon the idea that the personal networks and a person’s learning and socialization experiences are directly related to and interdependent with one another. Personal networks are the dynamic mechanisms where important everyday learning experiences are situated. Configurations of these networks are only partly shaped by new technologies and, as argued earlier, it is essentially people’s social, cultural, ethnic, and historical background and material reality that shape these networks. In this study, we describe how the formations of the networks of Turkish-Dutch youth inform and shape their learning, while also paying attention to the wider socio-cultural and historical context of these immigrant youth. Before we introduce our study, we provide an overview of the literature on Turkish-Dutch teens in the Netherlands, in particular as related to their media use, and how this has been discussed as related to what it means to grow up as a minority youth.
The Turkish-Dutch youth in our study are second- or third-generation immigrants: children of families whose (grand-)fathers were recruited mostly from the rural regions in Turkey. They migrated to the Netherlands for labour and reunited with their family over the course of eighties and nineties (Schneider, Crul, & Van Praag, 2014). Although current policies expect minorities to integrate, earlier integration was not facilitated as labour migrants were expected to return to their country, and language and culture maintenance as well as concentrated settlement were supported by the Dutch government. This policy is now seen as one of the explanations for the relative segregation of the Turkish immigrant community (Vedder & Virta, 2005; Verkuyten, 2001).
Studies on Turkish-Dutch adolescents have shown that they are raised in families that are very concerned with transmitting the Turkish tradition, history and language, and relationships between adolescents and their parents are highly impacted by what is considered appropriate according to the norms and values in the Turkish community. Turkish youth also show a strong attachment and self-esteem (related) to the Turkish community (Verkuyten, 2001). Earlier media researchers have reported how media, especially television, is used by Turkish families, including youth, to orient themselves towards Turkey and that they are also oriented towards homeland media (D’Haenens, 2003). Moreover, Turkish immigrants are documented as less active on the web, e.g., on discussion fora, in comparison to their Moroccan peers, the other large immigrant population in the Netherlands (Ünlüsoy, de Haan, Leander, & Völker, 2013).
Content analyses showed that the online discussion fora they use generally deal with Turkey and Turkish culture or identity (D’Haenens, 2003). From another perspective, Milikowski has pointed out how television watching can also have de-ethnicizing effects on these youth through the comparative lens it offers (2000).
There is not much known from the literature on how Turkish youth orient themselves on the internet from the perspective of their learning. Mostly, the literature that touches upon issues of education and learning deals with the participation of Turkish youth in formal schooling and their school success. Other literature centres around key factors relevant for public participation such as employment (e.g., Crul & Schneider, 2010) or issues of identity and well-being (e.g., Phalet & Hagendoorn, 1996; Verkuyten, 2001; Vedder & Virta, 2005).
Studies on the informal educational climate in Turkish families describe Turkish families as being defined by traditional gender division roles, fear of ‘Dutchification’ of their children (Lindo, 2000), as well as the significant gap between Turkish children’s and their parents’ experiences in education (Coenen, 2001). Additionally, studies have shown that immigrant parents of Turkish origin in the Netherlands orient themselves towards collective and in-group-serving values in the education of their children (Phalet & Schönpflug, 2001). For youth in Turkey, studies show that they have changed towards more independence, self-respect and autonomy in comparison with their parents under the influence of rapid economic and social change. However, these orientations continue to exist next to a strong orientation towards respect for tradition, obedience, politeness, honour for parents and elders and adherence to social expectations (Morsunbul, Crocetti, Cok, & Meeus, 2016).
The abovementioned literature, apart from the fact that the studies that report on Turkish-Dutch immigrant youth are relatively outdated to provide the background for this study, are informative with respect to the challenges youngsters in this community might be facing for their education and learning. Nevertheless, it lacks a perspective that considers how the global changes induced by ICT and social media have changed the learning opportunities for Turkish-Dutch youth in the Netherlands. We lack knowledge of the impact of new technologies on the learning opportunities of young immigrants such as the Turkish-Dutch youth in the Netherlands. How do the affordances of technology, and the connections and resources it provides, define these teens in who they want to become, and how they learn to become? How do the affordances of these technologies also define the global-local dynamism that characterizes the lives of these immigrant youth? And, in line with the aims and scope of this paper as described above, how can we describe these teens as a particular case of a global and connected learner to meet our ambition of expanding our ideas of what a global learner might be?
In line with the aim as outlined above, in this study we ask how
Turkish-Dutch teens perceive themselves (as learners), what the
characteristics are of their personal online and offline networks,
as well as how these networks enable and inspire them to achieve
their learning goals. The specific research questions that guide
our analyses are:
1. How can the personal networks of Turkish-Dutch youth be
described in terms of structural characteristics (size, density,
clusters) and composition (e.g., homogeneity, geographical
spread)?
2. What characterizes Turkish-Dutch teens as learners? We approach
this question by asking how Turkish-Dutch teens characterize
themselves, what their interests and ambitions are, who or what
they want to become, and what their view is on how they learn (to
become someone)? 3. How do Turkish-Dutch teens’ networks function
for their learning? In line with our goal to
understand how new technologies create particular and situated
opportunities for learning, we ask the following sub questions.
Can we distinguish particular interest-driven learning network
(sub)clusters? Are such networked sub clusters mediated by
specific technologies or media resources? How do such sub clusters
mediated by technologies enable or put boundaries on the learning
of Turkish-Dutch teens?
A total of 25 Turkish-Dutch teens of 13-16-year-old (M = 14.68, SD = 1.03; 14 female participants) were interviewed for this study. The participants were from two inner-city schools in secondary education. The school in Rotterdam (n = 12; 6 female) was a preparatory school for vocational university (called HAVO: Hoger Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs) and the school in Den Bosch (n = 13; 6 female) was a lower preparatory school for secondary vocational training (called VMBO: Voorbereidend Middelbaar Beroeps Onderwijs). Participants who went to the same school knew each other as schoolmates. All participants were born in the Netherlands; their families (either parents or grandparents) have migrated to the Netherlands for labour.
Participants were drawn from a largescale survey study on learning, identity and the use of new media; the survey sample was representative of migrant youth age 12-18 in the Netherlands, in secondary education. Given our interest in personal networks and (online) connectivities we selected the students who had reported online media use (i.e., checking in their online social media account, watching videos and using an instant messaging application) on a regular basis in the earlier survey. Through the schools we informed youth and their parents regarding our continued research and that participation was voluntary. The participants were informed that they could withdraw from the interview at any point. None made use of this possibility.
The interviews took place in a quiet room in schools, during school hours. They lasted on average 1,5 hours and the students received a voucher for their participation. The interviews were audio-recorded transcribed verbatim. During the transcription process, we found out that 3 interview recordings were corrupted, and one interview was only partially recorded. These 4 cases (3 girls, 1 boy) were excluded from qualitative analyses.
The participants were interviewed using a Social Network Interview (SNI) technique which revealed information regarding the structure and composition of their online and offline personal networks, see section 3.2. for details. On average, networks consisted of 21.5 contacts (SD = 6.57), varied between 12-35 contacts Across the sample, we collected information over 537 network contacts in total.
SNI is a semi-structured, in-depth interview instrument that is used to gather information and analyse personal networks, also called ego-networks. It consists of two parts. The first part, called the name generator, identified the ‘important people’ in the lives of our participants. We asked the participants to think of important people in their lives, e.g., who they identified with, who were reliable or who they hang out with. We also prompted the participants to think of different spaces (school, neighbourhood, social media, vacations) to help them remember people who might be considered important for their personal network. We used the network analysis programs VennMaker 1.0 and NodeXL to collect information and visualize the networks. Ego-network data contain demographic information regarding all contacts (called alters) in the participants’ (called ego) networks and information to interpret the relationships between the ego and his or her alters (e.g., how frequently they communicate) (Crossley, Belotti, Edwards, Everett, Koskinen, & Tranmer, 2015). In this study, we collected the following information about each alter: age, gender, location (same household, neighbourhood, city, elsewhere in the Netherlands, outside the Netherlands, unknown) and level of education. We also collected the alters’ relationship to the ego (immediate family, extended family, friends from school, friends elsewhere, acquaintance), how they communicate with that alter (mainly online, mainly in-person [offline], both on- and offline), and whether alters knew each other (i.e., whether they would recognize and talk to each other if they saw each other on the street).
The (clustered) position of alters, as related to each other and the respondent, was determined using the Harel–Koren Fast Multiscale algorithm, which is one of NodeXL’s force-directed algorithms (alters/nodes naturally push away from each other, while edges [relations/connecting lines] bring them closer together). This results in highly connected nodes migrating to the centre, while less connected nodes are pushed to the outside. The ‘groups’ function of NodeXL was then used to calculate clusters, which works by aggregating closely interconnected groups of nodes. Only when the network visualizations were generated by this software, we progressed to the second part of the interview. We asked the participants if the visualization resembled what they thought their network would look like (e.g., ‘Does this network picture and the groups generated represent your network?’). Overall, the representations were reported to be accurate, and small differences were discussed in the interviews.
The second part of SNI covered 1) how teens defined and identified with the different parts of their networks (we asked questions such as “are there people in this network picture that you look up to?”, “who are the people in this network that you spend most of your time with?”, “what do you do together?”); 2) what kind of (online or offline) learning activities they recognized in their network relationships (we asked questions such as “are there people or groups of people in this network with whom you undertake activities in which you want to become better?”); 3) how new technologies played a role in maintaining the network and what role these play for their learning (we asked questions such as “what are some of the things that you became better at (online or offline) over time?”, “how (if at all) did using new technologies made the experience different?”). The interviews were conducted with continuous attention for the personal networks of these teens, and their statements were consistently connected with the visualized personal network maps throughout the interview.
Prior to starting the interviews, we also checked briefly what the participants’ associations with learning were. Participants who strictly thought of school learning were encouraged to think of the concept more broadly (such as how they learned to bike, how they found out about a new app, how they explored different sports or developed a hobby) so that we could come to a shared understanding of the idea of learning. We informed the participants that school-learning examples were okay to mention, but that our study had a broader perspective on learning.
The first research question: ‘How can the personal networks of Turkish-Dutch youth be described in terms of structural characteristics (size, density, clusters) and composition (e.g., homogeneity, geographical spread)?’ was answered by analysing the quantifiable characteristics of ego-networks. Based on frequencies and averages, we described the general structural and compositional features of networks. Variables of ethnic, gender and age homogeneity were created per ego-network by computing the amount of alters who share the same ethnic background, gender or age as the ego. This measurement reveals the proportion of people who are similar to and/or different from the ego, in other words, the relative diversity (or uniformity) in each network. Density in each network, that is the proportion of individuals in a network who know each other, was computed to assess how tightly connected each network was. The network characteristics of girls and boys were also compared to each other. Section 4.1 describes the results of this analyses.
To answer the second research question, ‘what characterizes Turkish-Dutch teens as learners?’, the transcriptions were first read, with this research question and the respective sub-questions in mind. Nvivo software was used to label and analyse the narratives. We paid attention to perception of the self, identity markers, self-descriptions, and in cases where these were present, we pay attention to how these were related to issues of development, becoming and learning. Next, we focused on how they defined themselves as a learner, or how they defined striving to be someone (becoming) more generally. Section 4.2 and 4.3 describe the results of this analyses.
To answer the third research question: ‘What characterizes Turkish-Dutch teens’ networks as learning networks? And how do their networks function for their learning?’ as well as to answer the respective sub questions, we focused on particular interests, hobbies, and activities that they mentioned, asked if these were represented by particular sub clusters of their networks, if and how these were mediated by particular technologies, in particular when the relations were contacted offline, while also paying attention to the specific location of these network clusters or individual relations. Finally, we focused on if and how these sub-clusters enabled or hindered their learning.
We start off presenting general network characteristics in 4.1 (e.g., divides in their networks, and what characterizes the people in their networks), and continue with the narratives on their identity as a learner (represented in 4.2. and 4.3), while also connecting these narratives to the network data from 4.1. In sections 4.4 to 4.6, we again combine network data with their narratives on learning when we focus on how their learning happens in particular networked sub-configurations, paying attention to how technology mediates these configurations, and how these function for their learning. For instance, we argue how technology plays a role in creating specific network divides and how this works for their learning, or how technology provides access to particular networks, which then provides entrance to distinctive opportunities to gain information, form opinions, discuss positions and gain new insights. The analyses as a whole must also be read as a commentary on assumptions of models of global learning, especially when the analyses address how global learners can be identified and what kind of connectivities technologies create.
The following structural and compositional characteristics of the networks are derived from 25 ego-networks with 537 alters in total. In Table 1, we present a detailed overview of the personal networks and how boys’ and girls’ networks compare to each other. There were no significant differences between boys and girls regarding the proportions of different network characteristics. The noteworthy similarities across the networks are highlighted below.
As explained in the methods section, networks were generated based on the important relationships of participants. The Turkish-Dutch participants generated largely family-based, ethnically homogenous personal networks. The networks were densely connected, meaning that most people knew each other. The algorithm we used generally created two clusters, given the interconnectedness of the networks. The clusters created by the algorithm were typically characterized by family versus friends’ relations, or older generations versus peer relations. The participants confirmed the cluster structure; most of the participants divided their networks based on a friends and family sub-cluster. In a few cases, the algorithm created three clusters, which youth identified as family, and two different groups of friends (e.g., from a sports club and school or from the mosque and from school), and in one case virtually all network contacts were connected, resulting in a single cluster.
Table 1
Overview of Turkish-Dutch Youth’s Network Composition (in %)
Family members were nearly always the majority in their networks. The personal network with the least amount of family still had 45% (9 out of 20 alters) of family members, and the percentage went up to 80%, with an average of 60.6% family presence in networks. On average, 40.3% of alters were older than the participants and 5.8% were younger; peers were on average 53.9% of all network contacts. Network contacts who were mainly contacted online were 14.7% of all network contacts (79 out of 537). These 79 people were nearly exclusively family members who lived in Turkey or elsewhere, but outside the Netherlands.
There were no statistically significant differences in network configurations between boys and girls. For the whole sample, density scores varied between .50 and .98, indicating in the least dense network 50% of contacts knew each other. On average, 88.3% of all contacts were of Turkish descent (varied between 55% and 97%). There was a clear preference for hanging out with same-gender peers (70.6% were same-gender); often the only men in Turkish girls’ networks and women in boys’ networks were their relatives. Nearly a quarter (22.3%) of all network contacts lived outside the Netherlands (often in Turkey but also in Germany, France and Belgium), indicating that geographical distances were not preventing them from keeping in touch with their family and friends. The contacts that lived abroad were predominantly family members (89%), friends (10%) and 1 acquaintance (1%).
“You become who your parents raised you to be”
In both 4.2 and 4.3, we analyse how Turkish-Dutch youth perceive their ‘learning self’. In line with how we defined the notion of learner identity above, we first concentrate on their notion of ‘self’ in 4.2, while in 4.3 we extend this analysis with a focus on their vision on development and becoming. In both cases, we do so under the assumption that these two notions are highly related. We asked the participants to think about the characteristics, experiences, people, things and interests that made them ‘who they are’. Although there were individual differences in the way the responses were formulated, the prominent trend among all participants was their emphasis on and identification with their family and community. This was also clear from their social networks, as we just reported in 4.1, which for a large part consisted of members of the Turkish community, mostly family. Another sign of this family orientation, as the network pictures illustrate (see Figures 2 & 3), was that parents knew (almost) every one of the network contacts of their child.
According to the participants, their family relationships, and in some cases relationships with good friends, shaped who they were. In response to who or what made them who they are, the participants often simply stated ‘my parents’, ‘my family’ or Tahir (15, m), “without my parents and siblings I am nothing”. Emel (13, f) “You become who your parents raised you to be”. Simge (16, f) “What I learn at home from my mother and father shapes how I think and how I behave. My friends, they learn from their parents and behave that way…when we are together [with her group of friends] we influence each other too and do the same things together”. These examples illustrate a common understanding among Turkish-Dutch youth that the development of the self does not so much relate to becoming an independent self but a self that is highly relational, involving their closest relationships (with their parents and friends). These examples show not only that the notion of (being like your) family is a central and essential aspect of Turkish-Dutch teens’ identity but also that in their discourse on the self, a reference to the collective was always prominent. This was also evident from the fact that youth, when asked to describe themselves, more often referred to community values, such as being “respectful, especially towards older people” and “trustworthy, or honest”, than unique qualities. Thus, rather than characteristics that typify an individual, these qualities reflect a community ideal of how one should be and behave.
In addition to mentioning family, being Turkish was a prominent identity marker in their discourse on the self. This was inferred from a variety of responses to questions such as “with whom do you feel you can be yourself” and “where/when do you feel at home”. “Turkish-ness” seemed to represent a ‘comfort-zone’; a ‘place to withdraw’ or a state of feeling particularly at ease and seemed to be related to having a common history, values, and language. Other implicit references to their being Turkish included speaking Turkish at home, especially with parents, but also among friends, going to Turkey for vacation and following Turkish media. This identification with the Turkish community was also reflected in their network structure; 88.3% of all network contacts had a Turkish background (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Ethnic groups in Turkish-Dutch teens’
networks.
The orientation towards Turkey was also encouraged in the family. For example, Yildiz’s father explicitly encouraged her to speak Turkish more fluently: “My father says ‘you must learn Turkish’, he corrects my Turkish… his Turkish is very good. With my mother, I speak only Turkish because her Dutch isn’t good” (Yildiz, 14, f). The media-diet of the participants was primarily in Turkish, and this, too, was sometimes encouraged by their parents. Adnan (16, m): “My father comes home from work and he talks about all the news. He must listen to the [Turkish] news, read the newspapers and teletext and I’m at home beside him so I listen with him. I talk about Turkish politics a lot…”. Satellite television and online streaming were accessible for all participants. These technologies gave participants continuous access to Turkish media products (i.e., news, series, reality shows) and provided them with a wealth of information and material to understand and define ‘being Turkish’ for themselves.
4.2.1 Different others as contrasting examples in the diaspora
However, as already indicated above, through their social networks, youth were able to contact extended family and friends of family members who live in Turkey and in other migration countries (compare Table 1, which indicates that 22% of their network contacts are transnational contacts). These transnational contacts, especially the ones from other migration countries, ruptured the relative homogeneity of their models for identification as these family members were socialized in communities that partly hold different values and norms. For example, Ahmet (16, m) whose sister’s family lives in Germany says “My nephew is very different from me. He is a good person, that’s true, but he’s different…He doesn’t do sport, he sits too much behind the computer and he smokes…When we are there I get along with him and his friends, but up to a certain point…if they say come we’ll go smoke, I won’t…I learn German at school here, but when I am in Germany with my nephew I learn more. I understand everything, but I cannot talk very well”. This, and many other examples, show that the Turkish diaspora, and the possibility to connect with it through digital technology, brought these teens in contact with other cultural traditions, alternative possible selves and ‘versions’ of being Turkish, that serve as extended opportunities for learning and identification.
For instance, they provided important language learning opportunities, or a comparative perspective on life between Netherlands and other countries of the Turkish diaspora in terms of economic chances, school experiences, teenage life, youth cultures, and gender roles. In this sense, their perception of the (learning) self, as grounded in a particular version of communal belonging, seems to be changing through these digitally afforded networks, which allows a more diverse and fragmented identification with their community.
Figure 3. Network of Ahmet.
As a next step in our analyses, we focused on how teens expressed a process of becoming someone, or in other words, how they saw themselves as a learner. To understand Turkish-Dutch youth’s associations with learning, and what kind of learners they perceived themselves to be, we asked them questions such as ‘What do you associate with the word learning?’, ‘When and with whom do you feel that you learn something?’, or ‘Is there something you strive to get better at?’.
Our findings show that informal learning experiences were often expressed in narratives of ‘becoming a particular kind of person’, while taking someone from their community or family as a model that represented particular values and status. The participants often told us what kind of person they wanted to become, taking an individual as an example. For instance, Emel (13, f) mentioned her uncle (who is part of her online network, see her network picture in Figure 2) as her role model; “I would like to be exactly like him…When he was young he said to the family that he was going to study and graduate (at) university. He kept following his dream until he achieved it and I want that for myself. He is from Elazig and he studied in Cambridge”. Another example of this was Tahir (15, m), who said that his cousin was an inspiration for him because “he has a good life although he did not have much money. He has, how should I say that, he has worked a lot, worked a lot, gave it [money] to his parents to pay for the house […] Therefore, later when I have a job, I will also give a part [of my income] to my mother, I also want to take care of my parents.” These role models often share certain characteristics such as being loyal to their family, working hard, starting with very little and achieving their goals despite difficulties. The narratives often highlight these teens’ appreciation for such role models and their desire to become a similar example once it is ‘their turn’ to do so. Learning then represented modelling the important others from the community, as well as returning or giving back to the community, rather than seeking out a unique, individual path that distinguishes the individual from other members from that community.
Figure 2. Personal Network of Emel.
Age-related hierarchy and status play a significant role in how youth perceive the workings of learning as relational. In the following example, Emel (13, f) illuminates this hierarchy by describing herself as a role model for her younger brother: “my younger brother learns a lot from me, that he needs to respect older people, that he needs to follow his dreams…If there is something he doesn’t understand in his schoolwork he also comes to me”.
Furthermore, age and experience were essential elements and aspects in their vision of how one learns and gains wisdom. When comparing her peers (friends) to the older people in her network, Simge (16, f) said: “As you grow older you become more thoughtful and more understanding. That is the obvious difference. A person who is 15, 16 years old is more ‘uzmanlaşmış’ [which means specialized in Turkish, referring to the idea of being skilled, but here she means more prone] in making mistakes than, say, a 45-year-old. A 45-year-old [referring to her teacher at the mosque] can know more and is more thoughtful”. These examples make clear that for these youth, learning does not represent a process of making themselves independent from the community, pursuing a unique identity, or following a unique personal trajectory, but on the contrary, learning to become as one ‘ought to be’, to be like important others from the community and to return back value to the community.
Although these teens see learning as related to the explicit guidance of older generations and accept this guidance as learning, they did not exclude other ways of learning such as peer-learning or experimenting. However, these forms of learning were not foregrounded in their discourse in relation to learning or did not always count or were recognized as learning.
The point that Turkish-Dutch teens hold up collective identities to describe themselves, and do not use identifications that point to an autonomous, unique and individualized self as much, was also clear from their narratives about specific interests or activities that would typify them. Hobbies, individual habits or an exclusive personal expertise were rarely mentioned. In most cases, these hobbies would represent more generally appreciated activities for boys or for girls, such as fighting sports for boys and fashion for girls.
When asked ‘which activities do you strive to get better at’, boys often responded with sports, games and sometimes also interests such as cars, computers, planes/flying. Turkish-Dutch boys were mostly keen participants in sports, specifically football and martial arts (e.g., karate, kendo, boxing). They practised these sports often in sport-schools or sport-clubs on an amateur or semi-professional level. Sport practices represented relatively unique and individualized learning spaces for them, which was also evident from their social network pictures. For instance, Ahmet (16, m), a goal-keeper, stated: “I learn a lot from football … I learn a lot about how I should move, there is a lot of interaction (between coach and other keepers), and we learn to make decisions and logical thinking, especially logical thinking”. Ahmet’s network picture (see Figure 3) illustrates that sports and gaming are in fact personal spaces that are relatively independent from the rest of his mainly family-based, densely connected network. Ahmet’s interest in sports is fostered through two contacts represented in this part of his network: a friend with whom he plays the online game “Online Soccer Manager” and only talks about football-related issues, and his football coach.
Girls, on the other hand, found informal learning interests rather difficult to pinpoint, but most of them expressed their interest in fashion and spending time together with friends. In contrast to the boys’ enthusiasm for sports, there was very little attention to sports from girls. None of the female participants were actively doing any sports at the time of the interview. Additionally, there were no other overlapping interests between boys and girls. For girls, it seemed the social aspect of any given interest was more central than gaining expertise in their field of interest, such as improving their ‘eye for fashion’. In other words, they were ‘just’ interested in fashion because they enjoyed the social side of consulting each other about clothes.
Thus, we found that for these youth, ‘interests’ were more generally appreciated activities and were not seen as personal. Boys sometimes developed relatively unique interest-based networks, mostly related to sports or online gaming, while girls were reluctant to recognize interest-based learning in their favourite activities.
As already illustrated in the example of Ahmet in 4.4, Turkish-Dutch youth used the internet to support their offline interests or activities, such as sport, school or music preferences. For instance, as Turkish-Dutch boys often were engaged in fight-sports such as karate, taekwondo and boxing, most of these boys also visited YouTube to watch fragments of fight choreography (e.g., Bruce Lee movies), fighting tournaments or street-fight videos. They often searched for information that often would be hosted in Turkey or have content related to Turkey. For instance, boys who are interested in football would search Turkish websites about football, such as Fanatik (a Turkish sports (online-)newspaper), or they would visit websites that stream Turkish television series.
However, this media content based in Turkey would be shared and discussed in social networks that are transnational and consist of social contacts both based in the Netherlands and abroad, mostly in Turkey, but also in the Turkish diaspora. This is clear from the example of Ceylin (16, f) (see Figure 4, which shows her social network). In the interview, Ceylin mentions how a combination of media network resources has helped her to think more consciously and critically about the social position, rights and demands of ethnic minorities. She explains how she learned that a television series (Behzat C., a crime-detective television series) in Turkey was cancelled due to, among other issues, bringing up the issue of education in Kurdish for Kurdish people. The news of cancellation combined with what she knew about Kurdish people in Turkey through her personal transnational social network triggered the conversation. She explains that her cousin, one of the transnational contacts in her network, informed her that in Turkey, he observed that Kurdish people were living comfortably similar to how they do and did not have a lower status or have lesser means to maintain their lives “[When her cousin was in Izmir] He said that he saw Kurdish people, and they were all very rich…Those who live in the cities especially are powerful people and have all the means….”. Through her transnational social network, she is made aware that Kurdish minority status in Turkey is not necessarily a problematic one regarding economic means and that they have consumer patterns she can also identify with. See Figure 4, which shows 3 of her cousins that inform Ceylin about ‘new’ places in Turkey she does not know yet and give access to knowledge regarding Kurdish minorities in Turkey, among other issues. The perspective she gained about Kurdish people through her nephew enabled her to also identify with and see them (also) as minorities. Through the information provided via her online social network, she started to see the Kurdish as minorities similar to herself: “Well Kurdish people should have their rights [particularly referring to the right of education in native language, which was an issue in the crime-detective television series], [...] I’m here [in the Netherlands] a Turkish person”. She continues her comparison of her own situation as a Turkish minority in the Netherlands with the situation of Kurdish people in Turkey. The combination of watching this Turkish television series, hearing the news of cancelling, and having online contact with family in Turkey, who have contact with Kurdish people in Turkey, enabled her to compare the situation of minorities in Turkey and in the Netherlands. Through these different resources and sometimes conflicting stories from these resources, Ceylin has learned to see the complexities of minority status and of political rights, including her own situation and that of the Kurdish people.
Figure 4. Network of Ceylin.
In addition to tapping into the content issued in Turkey, Turkish-Dutch immigrant youth use media specifically tailored for Turkish-Dutch immigrants. The following example shows how their media use also develops along ethnic lines and social networks and marks divides between Turkish-Dutch immigrants and their Dutch classmates.
The first author asks Ceylin (16, f) about a radio app for Turkish-Dutch immigrants. “I: What is Taksim fm? Turkish music? C: Yes. Taksim.fm is a radio channel in the Netherlands made by Turkish people. But it’s Turkish, look, [she turns on the radio (on her phone)] but it’s not only music, it’s talk-shows, and they have a website. I don’t remember if there’s a Mehmet Akif (DJ). (…) they talk about the Dutch and the news here [meaning in the Netherlands] but also about Turkey and other stuff. It’s [focused] specifically [on] the things that are interesting for the Turkish-Dutch young people.” Ceylin continues to explain how different media and apps are utilized differently for different ethnic groups. She says: “The Dutch people of my age wouldn’t know Taksim fm […] one main difference between Dutch people and me is that I speak both Turkish and Dutch and a little English sometimes like “I love you” (giggles). Turkish people also write out accents, you know, like the Laz messages [on WhatsApp], so that’s different with us [referring to her Turkish-Dutch friends]. But (with) my Dutch classmates, well, we use it [WhatsApp] for school stuff, because, well, we’re friends but not the best friends, and school is our only common subject. They are not part of my other daily life”. This example shows how specific media applications, media content, language used, and even typography are network-dependent. While texting with her Turkish-Dutch friends, Ceylin uses the Turkish language or specific typographical codes associated with the Laz language to joke or tune in to themes specifically interesting for Turkish-Dutch immigrant youth.
Another example of such a divide is experienced by Fatos (15, f). She is a fan of a Turkish actor in her favourite drama-series Little Secrets (Turkish: Küçük Sırlar). She explains “I love the internet. We have satellite TV to watch Turkish channels at home, and I watch television there, but if I’m not at home or if I don’t have time at the time of the show, then I stream it from the internet…. She mentions a list of series and talk-shows she follows; when asked which one she likes most, she says: Cetin, from Küçük Sırlar. I’m his fan. So are my friends […]. Fatos tells that after school she spends much time chatting with her friends, and one of their favourite subjects is what happens in the series [Küçük Sırlar], for instance, how the characters dress up and about their expensive lifestyle in Istanbul. She also seeks information and other related content (e.g., photos, news) regarding the series and the actor she likes and shares this on her social media account (Hyves, a Dutch social networking platform active between 2004-2013), where she reports to have approximately 400 contacts. In addition to its entertainment value, this series enables these girls (Fatos and her other Turkish-Dutch friends) a window into life in Turkey. However, she is sharing this interest exclusively with her Turkish-Dutch friends. Fatos tells us how she cannot share this topic with one of her best friends, M., and how this creates a boundary between them. The access to the show through satellite TV and the internet creates an information divide between M., who is Dutch and who she considers one of her best friends, and her friends who have access to the show.
What both of these examples show is that digital (mobile)communication also mediates and re-informs specific network divides. Therefore, next to media resources and the networks associated with them, which provide unique learning opportunities in the form of distinctive opportunities to gain information, form opinions, discuss positions and gain new insights, these youth also create clear boundaries in their social networks, which cut them off from other opportunities to learn and socialize.
The results show how Turkish youth create their own version of a global learner, based on notions of the self and of becoming that are primarily relational and oriented towards the collective. Furthermore, afforded by technology, these youth create unique networked relationships for their learning, which are relatively closed for outsiders and are organized around the collectivities of the family and ethnically informed networks. At the same time, in the diaspora, their (transnational) networks are slowly becoming more diverse and fragmented. Through contact with different migrant communities, settled in different countries, they are confronted with multiple versions of the ideal self as well as with diversification of socialization ideals and practices.
Although the network configurations of the participants sometimes reflect existing traditional (e.g., gender-based) boundaries, their networks also provide novel learning opportunities. Unique trans-local experiences and corresponding means of reflection are mediated by a combination of the specific configuration of their (transnational) social networks, access to technology and media content. In this discussion, the main point we want to address is how these teens form a specific kind of global learner, which is not covered in all respects by recent prototypical models for learning in the digital era, such as in the concept of the connected learner. Before doing so, we first discuss the other main point we want to bring under the attention, namely how our network analysis approach has enabled us to reach the goal of this study: to provide a critical reconsideration of “idealized digital connectivities for learning”.
Ego-network analysis as we have applied in this study, combining the gathering of social network data with in-depth interviewing, is especially adept for exploring the interaction between social structures and certain qualities or processes assigned to individuals and how these influence and shape each other (Crossley, et al. 2015). In our case, we were able to map the specific social relationships that youth employ for their learning and understand their experience and perception of the “learning self” in relation to the structural and compositional aspects of their personal communities. In other words, this methodology allowed us to study learning as a networked phenomenon. As such, the approach was particularly useful to comment on models of learning that put connectivity up front. Given that with this methodology, we can map the particularity of the connectivities of these youth empirically, it is suited to relate this conceptual work with the empirical record. The combination between quantitative analyses and interpretative work also enables the analysis of underlying paradigms associated with models of connectivity, such as the idea of an autonomous, independent self that is at the centre of the connectivity. Moreover, the methodology allows us to study more precisely than with, for instance, interview studies, how learning opportunities and identities are created by, and vice versa create, social capital. Ego-network analysis is up to now only used by a limited number of studies to study learning. We hope this study contributes to showing the potential of this approach for the study of learning.
As we have argued before (de Haan et al., 2014) the prototypical image of a so called ‘connected learner’ as implied in the connected learning project resonates with a learner that is “highly agentic, driven by individual needs and interests, and pursues his or her learning in individualized and tailored-to-the-need networks”(p. 510). It is important to be specific here to what of the connected learning project we direct our critique. We argue that the initial ideal of highly engaged learners that seek out (online) connections to fulfil their individual interests is itself a culturally informed particular image of a learner. We do not direct our critique to the educational ideal of the project of connected learning which has been presented as an ideal of learning in the global society for all, and in opposition to and as an alternative for outdated notions and practices of learning and education (Ito et al., 2013). We think that although connected learning is presented as an inclusive project in which individual learners are stimulated to connect to peers and other collectivities, there is not enough attention for how it was inspired initially by an individualistic learner ideal, based on the idea of unique preferences, networking efforts and independence in formulating their knowledge interests.
The Turkish-Dutch teens in this study are well-connected learners, but they diverge from the ideal implied in this prototypical learner in several critical ways. First, there is very little emphasis on individuality among this group. These teens underline the interdependency and connectedness within their family and community much more than they bring up individual characteristics or interests. The driving force for these teens seems to be establishing interdependence with the family and the Turkish(-immigrant) community. Second, the learning experiences of Turkish-Dutch teens can be characterized as conformist or traditional in the sense that they appreciate the guidance from their parents to lead them to what is considered the key values and virtues of their community. To be a good person, it is important to act according to the norms of this community. The role models for a ‘good person’ are often those people who are respected within the family. In this regard, these teens also diverge from the image of a teenager in Western middle-class families more generally, who puts less stress on relatedness with their family and much more on their individual agency (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005).
Furthermore, our data showed that the socialization and learning experiences of these teens are defined by relatively (ethnically) homogeneous, closed and dense social networks and that this is also partly the case for their online networks. In these communities, which are now also extended to the online world, the passing on of traditional values, family bonds, and hierarchical relationships, a focus on the collective and strong gender divisions remain important. This part of our data is in line with the image that was provided in the literature on Turkish-Dutch immigrant populations and that depicts this group as a relatively gender-segregated community (Vedder, 2005), with a strong attachment to Turkey (Verkuyten, 2001) and a “fear of ‘Dutchification’ of their children” (Lindo, 2000, p.221). This part of our results would imply that, even given their access to online media, these youth’s learning ecologies seem rather stable and closed towards new influences, which is rather atypical for learning in migration (de Haan, 2011). However, our study also revealed that their NCL undergo important changes, related to new possibilities provided by digital media. Our results partly confirm earlier studies that the Turkish community’s media use is geared towards content from Turkey and that Turkish-Dutch immigrant youth’s online activities are also geared towards Turkey in terms of the language used, reference to Turkish culture or identity (D’Haenens, 2003). This was evident from how Turkish-Dutch youth ‘plugged in’ media content in their networks that came from media channels based in Turkey directed at the Turkish community. Nevertheless, our study also shows how tendencies described by the phenomenon “networked individualism” (Rainie & Wellman, 2012) impact these youth. Looking at where the online contacts of Turkish-Dutch youth are located geographically, it was clear that they connect online with people who live relatively close by (in their neighbourhoods and in their cities). However, technology was also used to build networks across spaces, and their networks were defined by particular local-global dynamics. Digital media allows the learning of these Turkish-Dutch youth not only to reach towards Turkey but also to other Turkish diaspora countries in Europe (e.g., Germany, Belgium, France). These networks provide them with important trans-local learning experiences in terms of access to different languages and life worlds, even if these happen within their extended families. Moreover, our data has shown that mobility patterns between Turkey and the Netherlands allow media content to be reinterpreted in similar ways as Milikowski (2000) has argued. As shown by the example of Ceylin, through a constant comparison between contexts, particular media-based content is re-weighted and re-interpreted, which provides important new possibilities for learning.
Certainly, these youth are not only “connected migrants” (Diminescu, 2008) who establish new belongings and associations while maintaining the connections with their root community; they are also ‘connected learners’. They use new technologies to create spaces for their learning, regardless of actual physical locations, and give form to new ways of being that allow them to be ‘here and there simultaneously’. This greatly expands their socialization and learning possibilities. The ‘being here and now simultaneously’ has been associated with the notion of deterritorialization and the possibility it allows to develop a critical position by authors such as Braidotti (1994). Rather than the detachment from particular places in a literal sense, it is the distantiation of conventions and the multi-perspectivity that is seen as enabling the development of a critical position in relation to the “canonical”. In a similar vein, the living within or moving between heterogeneous spaces as well as the need to take distance from the existing cultural paradigms while reconsidering and recreating them has been referred to as the migrant condition (Papastergiadis, 2000). The data shows that the trans local social network configurations of these young migrants, also in combination with their mobility patterns, generated particular opportunities for deliberation and reflection, that are related to the particular kinds of both deterritorialization and connectivity these youth experience.
We believe that picturing this kind of a-typical global and connected learner helps us to expand our ideas of what a global learner might be. Seeking to uncover the one-sidedness of notions of ‘new’, 21st century learning helps to understand how some might be privileged while others are marginalized. On a more positive note, acknowledging diverse types of connected learners can help to proactively incorporate them as useful models of global learning (Doerr, 2017).
Further, the particular form of the NCL utilized by these Turkish-Dutch youth might also involve the risk of growing up relatively isolated. Therefore, we would plea for more attention be paid to these particular informal learning experiences within the (semi-)formal contexts of learning, such as schools, libraries or community centres. It is important for teens and educators alike to realize how these network configurations are playing a role in shaping who these teens are and how they shape their future opportunities. With this paper, we hope to have contributed to a critical reflection on the particularity of networked connectivities and their impact on the potential diversification of learning and socialization in our societies. With this, we align with the ideal implied in the educational connected learning project that seeks ways to expand patterns that have been found for what might be privileged learners to all learners. However, our contribution turns the way to work towards this ideal around. Instead of starting with elite or privileged learner ideals, and expand these to larger populations, our mission is to first expand our knowledge and ideals of the ways in which youths can make use of the possibilities our digital societies offer. It is key that educators and practitioners are partner in this process and are aware of this variation in their work with both majority and minority students.
Arnseth, H. C., & Silseth, K. (2013). Tracing learning and
identity across sites: Tensions, connections and transformations
in and between everyday and institutional practices. In O. Erstad,
& J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, Community, and Learning
Lives in the Digital Age (pp. 23-38). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the
network society. International Journal of Communication, 1,
238-266. Retrieved from
https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/104/47
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated
cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18,
32–42.
Coenen, E. (2001). 'Word niet zoals wij': De veranderende
betekenis van onderwijs bij Turkse gezinnen in Nederland.
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help us think about
diversity? Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 291-304.
doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0504_4.
Crossley, N., Bellotti, E., Edwards, G., Everett, M. G., Koskinen,
J., & Tranmer, M. (2015). Social network analysis for
ego-nets: Social network analysis for actor-centred networks.
London: Sage.
Crul, M., & Schneider, J. (2010). Comparative integration
context theory: Participation and belonging in new diverse
European cities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33, 1249-1268.
doi:10.1080/01419871003624068
De Haan, M. (2011). Immigrant Learning. In K. Symms Gallagher,
R.K. Goodyear, D.J. Brewer & R. Rueda (Eds.), Urban education:
A model for leadership and policy (pp. 328-341) (14 p.). New York:
Routledge
De Haan, M., Leander, K., Ünlüsoy, A., & Prinsen, F. (2014).
Challenging ideals of connected learning: the networked
configurations for learning of migrant youth in the Netherlands.
Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 507-535.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.964256
D'Haenens, L. (2003). ICT in Multicultural Society: The
Netherlands: A Context for Sound Multiform Media Policy?
International Communication Gazette, 65, 401-421.
doi:10.1177/0016549203654006.
Hildreth, P. M., & Kimble, C. (Eds.). (2004). Knowledge
networks: Innovation through communities of practice. Igi Global.
Diminescu, D. (2008). The connected migrant: An epistemological
manifesto. Social Science Information, 47, 565-579.
doi:10.1177/0539018408096447
Doerr, N. M. (2017). Phantasmagoria of the global learner:
Unlikely global learners and the hierarchy of learning. Learning
and Teaching, 10, 58–82. doi:10.3167/latiss.2017.100206
Farrell, L. (2006). Making Knowledge Wor: Literacy & Knowledge
at Work. New York: Peter Lang.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces:
From the age of mythology to today's schools. In D. Barton, &
K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power
and social context (pp. 214--232). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gibson, K., Rimmington, G., & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008).
Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with
global learning. Roeper Review, 30, 11-23.
doi:10.1080/02783190701836270.
Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente:
Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16,
623–641.
Hirzalla, F., de Haan, M., & Ünlüsoy, A. (2011). New media use
among youth in migration: A survey-based account. Wired Up
Technical Research Report. Utrecht University. Retrieved from
http://www.uu.nl/wiredup/publications.htm
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J.,
Salen, K., ... Watkins S. C. (2013). Connected Learning: An agenda
for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub:
Irvine, USA.
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural
context: Implications for self and family. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422.
Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected
learning and how to research it? International Journal of Learning
and Media, 4, 7-18. doi:10.1162/ijlm_a_00091
Lam, W. (2009). Literacy and learning across transnational online
spaces. E-learning, 6, 303-324. doi:10.2304/elea.2009.6.4.303
Lam, W. (2014). Literacy and capital in immigrant youths' online
networks across countries. Learning, Media and Technology, 39,
488-506. doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.942665
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press: U.K.
Lindo, F. (2000). Does culture explain? Understanding differences
in school attainment between Iberian and Turkish youth in the
Netherlands. In H. Vermeulen & J. Perlmann, Immigrants,
Schooling and Social Mobility (1st ed., pp. 206-224). Houndmills:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Messina Dahlberg, G., & Bagga-Gupta, S. (2014) Understanding
glocal learning spaces: An empirical study of languaging and
transmigrant positions in the virtual classroom. Learning, Media
& Technology, 39,468-487. doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.931868
Milikowski, M. (2000). Exploring a model of de-ethnicization.
European Journal of Communication, 15, 443-468.
doi:10.1177/0267323100015004001
Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity:
Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research.
Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 415-437.
Morsunbul, U. Crocetti, E., Cok, F., & Meeus, W. (2016).
Identity statuses and psychosocial functioning in Turkish youth: A
person-centered approach, Journal of Adolescence, 47, 145-155.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.001
O'Donnell, E., Lawless, S., Sharp, M., & Wade, V. (2015). A
review of personalised e-learning: Towards supporting learner
diversity. International Journal of Distance Education
Technologies, 13, 22-47. doi:10.4018/ijdet.2015010102
Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The turbulence of migration:
Globalisation, de-territorialisation, hybridity. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Phalet, K. & Hagendoorn, L. (1996). Personal adjustment to
acculturative transitions: The Turkish experience. International
Journal of Psychology, 31, 131-144. doi:10.1080/002075996401142
Phalet, K., & Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational
transmission of collectivism and achievement values in two
acculturation contexts: The case of Turkish families in Germany
and Turkish and Moroccan families in the Netherlands. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 186–201.
doi:10.1177/0022022101032002006
Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, J., Crul, M., & Van Praag, L. (2014). Upward
mobility and questions of belonging in migrant families. New
Diversities, 16, 1–7.
Sinha, C. (1999). Situated Selves: Learning to be a learner. In J.
Bliss, R. Säljö & P. Light (Eds.), Technological resources for
learning (pp. 32-46). Oxford: Pergamon.
Ünlüsoy, A., de Haan, M.J., Leander, K. & Völker, B.G.M.
(2013). Learning potential in youth’s online networks: A
multilevel approach. Computers and Education, 69, 522-533.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.007
Vedder, P. & Virta, E. (2005). Language, ethnic identity, and
the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and
Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29,
317-337. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.05.006
Verkuyten, M. (2001). Global self-esteem, ethnic self-esteem, and
family integrity: Turkish and Dutch early adolescents in The
Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25,
357-366. doi:10.1080/01650250042000339