Technology use among Indigenous adolescents in remote regions of Australia

Abstract

Twenty-four Indigenous adolescents (mean age 16.4 years) attending a boarding school in a remote region of Western Australia participated in individual structured interviews that queried current patterns of use for each of: (1) television, (2) video games, (3) computers, (4) the Internet, and (5) mobile phones. Results suggest that television, video games and computers play a relatively minor role in the lives of participating adolescents. However, the Internet and particularly mobile phones were frequently used. Mobile phones were used by participating Indigenous adolescents in ways consistent with their collective culture (e.g. communicate with family and friends) but also similar to adolescents generally (e.g. to send text messages and access the Internet). When presented with the hypothetical option of using only one small screen technology, Indigenous adolescents overwhelmingly selected a mobile phone. The reasoning for such a preference emphasised the importance of communication and the global functionality of the device (e.g. Internet connectivity). The rapid uptake mobile phones by Indigenous adolescents may point the way to improved educational opportunities, specifically, m-learning.

Keywords::

• Indigenous
• Aboriginal
• adolescent
• mobile phone
• technology
• Australia

In industrialised nations, adolescents commonly engage with a range of technologies including television, video games, computers, the Internet and mobile phones (Brown & Marin, 2009; UNICEF, 2012). On average, adolescents in Singapore report playing video games for approximately 20 hours each week (Gentile et al., 2011). In 2010, more than 90% of Australians aged 15–17 years accessed the Internet from home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). In 2009, Americans aged 8–18 years spent an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes each day consuming small screen media, a significant increase from the previous years attributed primarily to widespread use of mobile phones (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). Canadian adolescents currently spend an average of 22 hours each week watching television (Television Bureau of Canada, 2012). Almost half of British teenagers (47%) own a smartphone; 59% acquired their smartphone during the past year (Ofcom, 2011).

A considerable volume of research establishes developmental and educational benefits associated with specific patterns of technology use (Johnson, 2012a; Schmidt & Anderson, 2007), most notably, moderate use complements, rather than displaces, learning activities and meaningful human interaction (Robinson, 2011). For example, research that considers the type of television programmes viewed by adolescents generally finds that educational programming is associated with positive developmental outcomes while entertainment programmes are negatively associated (Brown & Marin, 2009; Warburton & Highfield, 2012). Akilli (2007) reported that playing certain types of video games can increase adolescents' scores on measures of memory, critical thinking and problem solving. DeBell and Chapman (2006) concluded that Internet use promotes cognitive development, ‘specifically in the area of visual intelligence, where certain computer activities – particularly games – may enhance the ability to monitor several visual stimuli at once, to read diagrams, recognize icons, and visualize spatial relationships’ (p. 3). Durkin, Conti-Ramsdent and Walker (2011) found positive relationships between extent of mobile phone text messaging and measures of adolescent Standard English literacy. While the Internet has been popular for more than 20 years, relative to computer connectivity the cost of mobile phones has made them accessible to adolescents of a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds (Smith, 2012), a factor which influences access to emerging technologies (Hampton, 2010; Jansen, 2010; Wei & Blanks Hindman, 2011).

Adolescent characteristics, circumstances and use of technologies

Despite these mostly positive outcomes, patterns of technology use and associated developmental and educational consequences are mediated by a variety of individual characteristics (Homer, Hayward, Frye, & Plass, 2012; Johnson, 2011) and life circumstances (Hilbert, 2011). Internationally, adolescent digital literacy has been associated with home Internet access, socio-economic status, gender (Zhong, 2011), and language and literacy backgrounds. For example, Gentzkow and Shapiro (2008) demonstrated positive effects of television viewing ‘for adolescents from households where English was not the primary language, whose mothers had less than a high school education and for nonwhite children’ (p. 279). Jackson, von Eye, Witt, Zhao and Fitzgerald (2011) concluded that greater Internet use was associated with better reading skills, but only for youth initially low in reading skills. Similar positive outcomes were reported by Black and Steinkuehler (2009), who described how adolescents, who previously appeared unmotivated to read, acquired literacy skills through text-based communication required for online video games. In fact, Wei and Blanks Hindman (2011) concluded that ‘the differential use of the Internet is associated with a greater knowledge gap than that of the traditional media’ (p. 216).

Age is an individual characteristics related to patterns of technology use (Lee, Bartolic, & Vandewater, 2009; Rideout, 2011; Roberts & Foehr, 2008). Typically, infants do not engage with technologies but its use consistently increases from the early years into adolescence and early adulthood (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). Emerging technologies are generally adopted first by educated individuals in early adulthood (Johnson, 2012b) and, as the technology becomes more established, its use gradually includes adolescents and then children and those in middle and then late adulthood (Pierce, 2010). Thus, the effect of engaging with technology is mediated by age (Warburton & Highfield, 2012), and together this may impact on the individual's development and extend beyond them to others. For example, based on synthesis of 50 years of research, Schmidt and Anderson (2007) noted a relationship between educational television viewing and reading achievement during early childhood, but not after third grade. Likewise, television viewing before, but not after, three years of age has been linked to attention problems (Zimmerman & Christakis, 2007). Time spent playing video games increases with age (Homer et al., 2012), although there are gender differences with males aged 10–15 years reportedly spending more time doing so. Data from a longitudinal study of 3000 children in New Zealand demonstrated that as adolescent small screen viewing increased, quality of interactions with parents and peers tended to decrease (Richards, McGee, Williams, Welch, & Hancox, 2010).

Gender is an individual characteristics associated with variability in patterns of technology use (Lin & Overbaugh, 2009; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008). Lee and Chae (2007) observed that, among 10–12-year-old children, boys were more likely than girls to play video games while girls were more likely than boys to be involved in online communities. Homer et al. (2012) reported that game-type preference was predicted by gender and psychological characteristics; ‘females' positive feelings about the self were associated with increased likelihood of electing First Person Shooters as a favoured game type, and males' internalizing difficulties were associated with decreased likelihood of electing Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games’ (p. 1782). Cooper (2006) identified increased female, as opposed to male, computer anxiety as persistent over time and across international borders. However, Williams (2006) argued that the assumption that technology is more attractive to males than females may not be reasonably applied to individuals immersed in technology at home and school from a young age. Indeed, research increasingly reports no significant adolescent gender differences in, for example, ‘communication via e-mail, chat or videoconferencing, Web surfing and information search for personal or school purposes’ (Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2004, p. 377). Nonetheless, compared to boys, girls report more appearance pressure from electronic media (Chen & Jackson, 2012) and females tend to be more productive, prolific and effective than males in online environments (Caspi, Chajut, & Saporta, 2006; Li, 2006). However, Johnson (2011) reported that although girls used email more than boys, ‘boys who used email were brighter and more popular than boys who did not use email’ (p. 64).

Ethnicity is another individual characteristics associated with different patterns of technology use, although the link is often attributed to the relationship between ethnicity and socio-economic status (Hargittai, 2008). American college students of Asian and European descent, according to Junco and Mastrodicasa (2007), are more likely to own computers than other ethnic groups because of the disproportional resources available to them and also because of differences in cultural interpretation of the benefits of such technology. Fox and Livingstone (2007) confirmed that 56% Hispanic Americans, 71% of non-Hispanic whites and 60% of non-Hispanic blacks use the Internet. However, compared to socio-economic indicators, Harambama, Aupersb and Houtmanc (2012) concluded that cultural attitudes regarding social interaction was a better predictor of the appropriation of social Internet technologies. Based on a survey of more than 4000 college students, Junco, Merson and Salter (2010) reported that ‘the odds that female and white students owned cell phones were twice as high as for men and African-American students’ (p. 619). In contrast, Taveras, Hohman, Price, Gortmaker and Sonneville (2009) reported high rates of televisions in bedrooms of African American (70%) and Hispanic (74%) children compared with white children (22%). Situating televisions in rooms where children sleep was associated with practices that do not promote developmental-appropriate viewing. In this regard, differential patterns of electronic media technology use may advantage certain ethnic groups while disadvantaging others (Wei & Blanks Hindman, 2011).

Residing in an urban versus rural community is an individual circumstance associated with differential access to emerging technologies, most often attributed to delay in required infrastructure (Velaga, Beecroft, Nelson, Corsar, & Edwards, 2012). Indeed, a town in Canada situated in a remote valley surrounded by mountains did not have television reception until 1973 when the town elders convinced the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to install a transmitter for their community (Macbeth Williams, 1986). In the UK, 67% of urban and 25% of rural areas have comparable quality broadband infrastructure (Mark, 2010). Wireless Rural Extensions (WiRE) is a rural wireless network architecture that provides inexpensive, self-sustainable, high-bandwidth connectivity (Dhananjay, Tierney, Li, & Subramanian, 2011). However, Whitacre and Mills (2010) concluded that differences in income levels and aggregate regional high-speed access rates are the driving forces behind the high-speed divide, while rural–urban differences in infrastructure levels are relatively unimportant. Most likely, a combination of individual characteristics and circumstance result in adolescent use of digital communication technologies (Brown & Marin, 2009). For example, based on a survey of 1147 individuals aged 10–18 years, Hofferth and Moon (2012) concluded that adolescents ‘whose parents were better educated, who had higher family incomes, who had fewer siblings, and who lived in urban areas were more likely to own or share a cell phone’ (p. 108).

Approximately 2.5% of Australians self-nominate as Indigenous and more than two-thirds of these individuals reside outside of metropolitan areas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009). In many countries, Indigenous citizens do not have access to emerging technologies and are disadvantaged in school and in life (Black & Atkinson, 2007; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010). In Australia, a range of government policies have attempted to address inequalities in access to digital technologies. For instance, increased connectivity is being addressed by the National Broadband Network, and improved mobile phone technology, especially the rise of smartphones, is serving to overcome problems with hardware. Furthermore, the high cost of fixed-line services and their absence in many remote communities, combined with the deregulation of telecommunications, has fuelled exponential growth in mobile phone use in isolated regions of Australia (Brady, Dyson, & Asela, 2008). Despite these attempts, the key determinants of access such as age, income, educational attainment and Indigenous status seem to be persistent with respect to digital disadvantage (Notley & Foth, 2008). Whether or not this perception is accurate needs to be explored, and it is the aim of the current study to do this. Specifically, it provides description of patterns of technology use among Indigenous adolescents in remote regions of Australia as this will assist our understanding of the effect of improved digital infrastructure. Furthermore, this study explores the patterns and perceptions of television viewing, video gaming, use of computers with and without Internet connectivity and mobile phone use among Indigenous Australian adolescents residing in remote locations. It also examines whether patterns of technology use are related to Indigenous adolescent age and gender.

Research methods and procedures

Collecting data from Indigenous Australian adolescents is difficult because the population is transient, and obtaining parental permission for children to participate in research is extremely difficult. Approximately 60 Indigenous adolescents regularly attend a boarding school located in a remote region of Western Australia. The school principal, acting in loco parentis, provided consent for a research assistant to ask adolescents to voluntarily participate in a structured individual interview which queried patterns and perceptions of current use of technologies including television, video games, computers with and without Internet connectivity and mobile phones. The Indigenous adolescents, in every case, spoke English as a second language and, in general, were shy and preferred to respond non-verbally. The research assistant was known to the Indigenous adolescents from previous data collection and community service. Despite established rapport with the research assistant, the adolescents frequently responded to interview questions by nodding their head, shrugging their shoulders or providing a single word or phrase. The research assistant was culturally sensitive but prodding in attempting to obtain accurate answers to questions posed, although responses were not always forthcoming. Each interview occurred in the school during regular school hours during a time approved by the classroom teacher. Although limited data were collected, establishing rapport and providing ample time for participants to provide responses resulted in interview sessions of approximately 20 minutes in length.

Indigenous adolescent research participants

Twenty-four Indigenous adolescents (15 males and 9 females) participated in the individual structured interviews. Four participants reported their age as 15 years, nine as 16 years, eight as 17 years and three as 18 years (mean 16.42 years, standard deviation 0.929). Adolescents resided at the boarding school for up to nine months each year and lived with their families the remainder of the year in even more remote regions of Western Australia. Adolescents can commence at the school in Year 10 (i.e. at approximately 15 years of age), though many enter during the equivalent of Year 11 or 12. Some stay for a short time (e.g. one semester), others stay longer – up to three years.

Structure interviews: determining patterns of technology use

During the individual interview session, the research assistant queried Indigenous participants with respect to their current patterns of use for each of: (1) television, (2) video games, (3) computers, (4) the Internet and (5) mobile phones. For example, the research assistant queried each adolescent individually: You've watched TV, right? How often? What show did you last watch? Where was the TV? Where you alone or with others? Did you enjoy watching TV? Why or why not? The questions regarding Internet use included type of connection (i.e. computer or mobile phone), and the questions on mobile phone use included: Did you talk or text? The research assistant wrote each response on an interview record sheet and codes were subsequently assigned, for example, with respect to frequency of use: 1 =  once a week or less; 2 = 2–3 times a week; 3 = 4–5 times a week; 4 = 6–7 times a week; 5 =  more than once a day. The final two questions in the individual interview queried Indigenous adolescents to indicate the one device they would select if they could only access one (i.e. television, video game, computer, Internet and mobile phone) and why that would be their choice.

Data analysis

Current patterns of use for each of television, video games, computers, the Internet and mobile phones are described in terms of frequency of responses. To determine associations, adolescent age and self-reported frequency of use were subject to Spearman's rho non-parametric correlational analysis, appropriate with small sample size. To determine gender differences, male and female categorical description of use was compared with Pearson's χ² analysis.

Results: patterns of technology use

All adolescents interviewed reported using each of the queried technologies during the past week, although considerable variability was apparent. As illustrated in Figure 1, 50% of adolescents reported watching television two or three times each week while 25% reported watching television multiple times each day. With respect to the most recent television programme viewed, 2 adolescents reported that they had watched the news, 7 that they had watched a sporting event, 2 watched cartoons, 10 watched Home and Away (a popular Australian night-time drama), 1 watched a crime show and 2 reported watching a movie. Two respondents indicated that they had last watched television at home while 22 indicated that they had last watched television in their dormitory. One adolescent reported that he/she had last watched television alone, 21 adolescents indicated that they had watched with others, and 2 adolescents noted that they were alone some of the time and with others some of the time during their last viewing episode. Twenty-three of the interviewed adolescents indicated that they had enjoyed watching television; only one claimed not to enjoy the experience because it was boring. Fifteen adolescents did not provided a reason for their television viewing enjoyment; one claimed that television provided information but most responded that it was fun, entertaining or provided something to do.

Figure 1 Percentage of Indigenous adolescents selecting each response option for frequency of use of each technology.

Perhaps because the Indigenous adolescents interviewed were similar in age (i.e. 15–18 years), age was not associated with patterns of television viewing. However, gender differences emerged in specific patterns of viewing but not in terms of frequency of viewing. Specifically, boys were more likely than girls to report watching sporting events on television, while girls were more likely than boys to report watching the night-time drama Home and Away; χ² (5) = 12.91, p <  0.05. There were no other significant gender differences in television viewing with others or alone and no differences in reported reasons for enjoying television viewing, although lack of significance may be a function of small sample size exacerbated by adolescent lack of responses, despite culturally sensitive encouragement by the research assistant.

With respect to video gaming, less than half of the participating Indigenous adolescents provided information in response to the interview questions. Despite repeated explanation and examples of video games by the research assistant, 14 of the Indigenous adolescents were unable to provide a response to the research assistant query of current frequency of use. It may be that the term video game (as well as Nintendo, Play Station, Xbox, Gameboy, Pac-man) was not understood by participants. Of the 10 adolescents who responded, 7 reported playing video games once a week or less and 3 reported gaming two or three times each week (Figure 1). With respect to the nine adolescents who provided details of the game they most recently played, four indicated that the game involved guns, three indicated racing, one indicated sports and one reported last playing an action game. Four adolescents reported that they had last played a video game at home, two at a friend's place and four at school. One respondent indicated that he/she had last played a video game alone, six indicated that they had played with others and one adolescents noted that he/she was alone some of the time and with others some of the time during his/her last gaming episode. Eight of the adolescents interviewed indicated that they had enjoyed playing a video game because it was fun; three claimed not to enjoy the experience because it was boring. As frequency of reported gaming increased, adolescent age tended to decrease (r = –0.56, n = 10, p <  0.05). There were no significant gender differences in patterns of video gaming (i.e. frequency, type and location of games played, played with others or alone, and enjoyment of gaming).

Also illustrated in Figure 1, only 2 of the 22 adolescents who responded to the interview question indicated using a computer more than three times weekly. Approximately 82% (n = 20) of respondents indicated using the computer for school work, 9% or two individuals reported playing games and another two individuals reported viewing pictures and listening to music. One respondent indicated that he/she had last used a computer at home, while the remainder indicated that they had last used a computer at school. One adolescent reported that he had last used a computer alone, 19 adolescents indicated that they had used a computer with others and 2 adolescents noted that they were alone some of the time and with others some of the time during their last computer use. Nineteen of the adolescents interviewed indicated that they enjoyed using a computer because it was fun, interesting or easy to do school work; three claimed not to enjoy the experience because it was boring. Indigenous adolescent age and gender was not significantly related to any aspect of computer use, although lack of significance may be a function of small sample size exacerbated by adolescent lack of responses.

Approximately half of the 22 adolescents who responded to the interview question indicated using the Internet less than three times weekly. Approximately 20% (n = 5) reported using the Internet four to seven times weekly and close to 30% (n = 6) reported Internet use multiple times daily. More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that they last used the Internet to access Facebook or to chat; 22.7% (n = 5) reported using the Internet to do school work and the remaining two adolescents reported playing games or listening to music. Approximately 90% (n = 20) of respondents indicated that they accessed the Internet at school, while the remainder indicated that they had accessed the Internet at both home and school. Approximately one-third of Indigenous adolescents interviewed reported accessing the Internet via personal computer, one-third via phone and one-third using both small screen devices. One adolescent reported that he was last online alone, 19 adolescents indicated that they were last online with others and 2 adolescents noted that they were alone some of the time and with others some of the time during their most recent use of the Internet. Nineteen of the adolescents indicated that they had enjoyed accessing the Internet because it was fun, interesting or easy to do school work; three claimed not to enjoy the experience because it was boring. Indigenous adolescent age and gender was not significantly related to any aspect of Internet use, although females reported using the Internet an average of 4.5 times weekly while males reported using the Internet an average of 2.5 times weekly.

Also illustrated in Figure 1, approximately 90% of the 23 adolescents who responded to the interview question indicated using a mobile phone multiple times daily. Slightly less than half of the adolescents indicated that they last used their phones to access the Internet, 36.4% (n = 8) to send a text message and 18.2% (n = 4) to send/receive a voice call. Approximately 54% of respondents indicated that they talked to or texted their family, 30.8% a friend and 15.4%, all males, simply stated girls. More than 80% (n = 19) of adolescents indicated that they used their mobile phone last at school, 13.0% (n = 3) at home and one respondent indicated last using their mobile phone both at home and school. Slightly less than half (n = 11) of Indigenous adolescents reported using their phones when they were alone, 26.1% (n = 6) when they were with others and 26.1% (n = 6) both alone and with others. All adolescents indicated that they had enjoyed using their mobile phone because it was nice to talk and text. Indigenous adolescent age and gender was not significantly related to any aspect or pattern of mobile phone use.

The final two questions in the individual interview queried Indigenous adolescents to indicate the one device/application they would select if they could only access one and why that would be their choice. As indicated in Figure 2, the majority of adolescents indicated their preference for a mobile phone because they could use it to communicate (10 respondents) or because it can do everything (5 respondents). Three adolescents indicated their preference for a personal computer to access information (two respondents) or because it was fun (one respondent). One adolescent indicated his preference for a television to access information and three indicated their preference for video games to relax (two respondents) or have fun (one respondent). Selection of specific preferred small screen application was not significantly related to Indigenous adolescent age or gender, although no female indicated preference for use of televisions or video games.

Figure 2 Number of Indigenous adolescents indicating most preferred technology.

Discussion and implications for Indigenous adolescents in remote regions

There are profound cultural, ethical and logistic challenges to collecting data from Indigenous Australian adolescents residing in remote communities. Indigenous Australian cultures are collective and cooperative, not individualistic and competitive; public presentation and expression is viewed negatively and often associated with ridicule (Kral, 2012). Relative to Australian adolescents of European descent, Indigenous adolescents appear shy, withdraw and timid (Brady et al., 2008). Being directly asked questions, as in a research interview, particularly if the question is not understood, engenders social anxiety and emotional disengagement. This is not surprising given that many Indigenous Australian adolescents, particularly those in remote communities, have limited Standard English language and literacy skills (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010). Such data collection challenges may explain the paucity of research on this population. And yet, the very populations which are least researched may be those most in need of rich description and corresponding accurate conceptualisation prerequisite to strategies intended to improve developmental and learning outcomes. With respect to the current investigation, the adolescents who provided data attended a residential high school and thus may represent the most digitally connected and literate Indigenous youth in remote regions of Australia. While sample size was small (n = 24) and, consequently, generalisation of findings questionable, tentative and preliminary conclusions regarding patterns and preferences of technology use are warranted.

The extent of television viewing reported among participating Indigenous adolescents in remote regions was less than that might typically be reported by adolescents in urban regions (Brown & Marin, 2009), perhaps due to limited programme selection, school-based restrictions and/or cultural characteristics. Indeed, the collective, as opposed to individualistic, culture of Australian Indigenous people (Exley, 2012) explains that only one adolescent reported watching television alone. And yet, gender differences in viewing preferences appeared consistent with those frequently reported in the general population, that is, males view sporting events while females view relationship dramas (Vasan, 2010). Similarly, the participating adolescents reported watching television as a leisure activity, as is the case with most adolescents, regardless of cultural background (Lee et al., 2009). Even so, while Australia recently introduced educational television programming directed at Indigenous children (Lonsdale, 2010) and Indigenous television dramas are increasingly available (Knox, 2012), current findings would suggest that television plays a relatively minor role in the lives of Indigenous adolescents.

During the individual interviews, more than half of the Indigenous adolescents were non-responsive with respect to their recent video gaming, and the group that did provide information indicated infrequent gaming relative to the general population (Brown & Martin, 2009; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). Consistent with collective cultural nuances, only one adolescent reported playing a video game alone. The types of games reportedly played were consistent with those played by adolescents generally (Lenhart, 2008). Younger Indigenous adolescents reported more frequent gaming than older adolescents, suggesting a cohort effect. It may be that video games have been slow to infiltrate remote Indigenous communities. Furthermore, video games may not be readily available in the boarding school, which provided other small screen technologies such as computers and television. Nonetheless, the value of video games in developing cognitive skills (Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011) and school-based learning (Hainey, Connolly, Stansfield, & Boyle, 2011) has resulted in numerous efforts to enhance indigenous gaming (Jorgensen & Lowrie, 2011). Anderson and Courtney (2011), for instance, describe an educational intervention to introduce and develop design thinking skills with two groups of Australian Indigenous high school students using Indigenous knowledge to develop design thinking skills along with literacy and numeracy skills. While such initiatives may modify patterns of video gaming, current findings suggest that gaming plays a relatively minor role in the lives of Indigenous adolescents residing in this remote region of Australia.

Relative to Internet use, computer use was not commonly reported by participating Indigenous adolescents and occurred primarily at school during completion of school work and with others presents, perhaps in a classroom or computer lab. Most commonly, adolescents reported enjoying using a computer because it facilitated completion of school assignments. For the sample of interviewed Indigenous adolescents, however, Internet use was considerably more common than using a computer; approximately half reported Internet use more than four times in the past week and nearly 30% reported using the Internet multiple times daily. Almost all respondents indicated accessing the Internet at school, which may reflect limited connectivity in their extremely remote family homes. School-based computers and mobile phones were both commonly used to access the Internet and, consistent with a collective culture, the Internet was rarely accessed when an Indigenous adolescent was alone, even though in this boarding school context, opportunities for solitude did exist. As is the case with adolescents generally (Brown & Marin, 2009; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010), the Internet was a mechanism of social exchange, particularly Facebook, which may be compatible with Indigenous preference for visual, as opposed to linguistic, representations (Exley, 2012; Kral, 2012). Unlike television, video games and computers, and consistent with recent research, the Internet appears to play a relatively important role in the lives of Indigenous adolescents residing in remote regions of Australia (Martin, 2010; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010).

Mobile phones were commonly used by participating Indigenous adolescents and were used in ways consistent with a collective culture (e.g. to communicate with family and friends), but the use was also similar to that of adolescents in the general population (e.g. to send text messages and access the Internet). When presented with the hypothetical option of using only one technology (i.e. the second last interview question), overwhelmingly but not exclusively, Indigenous adolescents selected a mobile phone. The reasoning for such a preference emphasised the importance of communication and the global functionality of the device (e.g. Internet connectivity). Based on previous research, this is not surprising. Specifically, Brady et al. (2008) reported that within a few short weeks of the implementation of the wireless network in 2005, most adults in a remote Indigenous Australian community had purchased a mobile phone, and one young adult in this study estimated that he/she sent 100 messages per day, that is, ‘yarning through text’ (p. 392). In fact, Australian telecommunications companies report ‘that the introduction of mobile telephony into Indigenous communities has trebled the usage expected’ (Department of Industry & Resources, 2006, p. 6), attributed to the low price of basic mobile phones compared with the purchase of a computer and Internet service provider contracts. Kral's (2012) ethnographic findings from research undertaken in the Ngaanyatjarra Land in the south-east of Western Australia explain the social mechanisms responsible for Indigenous adolescent adoption of technologies such as mobile phones:

As small mobile digital technologies – digital camera, USB sticks, mp3 players and mobile phones – have become more affordable, yarnangu [people or person] are purchasing these devices as individual everyday social objects. The size of these objects is important: most are small enough to fit in pockets and bras and can be slept with at night. In an environment predicated upon demand sharing, these are items of personal ownership that don't have to be shared. These technological artefacts are an extension of yarnangu sociability; they represent a medium of identity expression and a way of maintaining connectedness with others, and, as such, they are objects to be looked after for future use. Affective significance is embedded in these new artefacts. They make sense because they enable communication and enrich social relationships, albeit at a distance, thus illustrating that when the adaptability of material artefacts is immediately evident, new social practices emerge, corporeal dispositions alter and new resources are woven into an existing system to fulfil an essentially expressive function. (p. 230)

Indigenous adolescents' preferences for the use of mobile phones to communicate and to access the internet may present a challenge for educators. In particular, there is a need to consider how to address the needs of this cohort, while satisfying their preferences. It does seem that culturally, m-learning (i.e. learning via a mobile device such as a phone) is compatible with Indigenous learning styles due to the ‘flexible and democratic styles of teaching and learning’ and particularly the way that it allows ‘students more autonomy and control over their learning, and gives voice to underrepresented groups’ (Pirbhai-Illich, Turner, & Austin, 2009, p. 147). As such, m-learning may represent the way forward for Indigenous adolescents in remote regions. Finally, studies such as the current one, by providing a description of preferences and pattern of technology use, provide a first step in enabling Australian Indigenous educators to meet the challenge of incorporating m-learning in their often extremely remote classrooms.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Genevieve Marie Johnson

Genevieve Marie Johnson received a doctoral degree from the University of Alberta (Canada) in 1990, and a Graduate Diploma in Distance Education Technology from Athabasca University (Canada) in 2007. Having been actively involved in university teaching for more than 20 years, she is currently a senior lecturer in the School of Education at Curtin University in Western Australia. Dr Johnson has conducted many studies and published and presented widely on the instructional applications of digital technology (a complete list of publications is available at http://www.members.shaw.ca/gen.johnson/).