Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies
Introduction
An idea that has gained currency is that the generation born after 1980 grew up with access to computers and the Internet and is therefore inherently technology-savvy (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005, Palfrey and Gasser, 2008, Prensky, 2001, Tapscott, 1998). This generation has been termed Digital Natives, Millenials, or Net Generation. In Prensky’s (2001) definition, those born in or after 1980 are ‘digital natives’ while those born before 1980 are ‘digital immigrants’. The proponents of this idea claim that, not only does this generation have sophisticated skills in using digital technologies, but also that, through their exposure to these technologies, they have developed radically new cognitive capacities and learning styles (Prensky, 2001). The new learning styles are said to include “fluency in multiple media, valuing each for the types of communication, activities, experiences, and expressions it empowers; learning based on collectively seeking, sieving, and synthesizing experiences rather than individually locating and absorbing information from a single best source; active learning based on experience that includes frequent opportunities for reflection; expression through non-linear associational webs of representations rather than linear stories; and co-design of learning experiences personalized to individual needs and preferences” (Dede, 2005a, p. 10). The proponents claim that the current education system is not equipped to accommodate the changing needs of this new generation of learners and call for “widespread discussion among members of the academy about the trends, regardless of whether at the end of that dialogue those involved agree with these speculative conclusions.” (Dede, 2005b, p. 15.19). Universities are urged to act on this ‘speculative conclusions’ by making “strategic investments in physical plant, technical infrastructure, and professional development… Those who do will gain a considerable competitive advantage in both recruiting top students and teaching them effectively” (Dede, 2005b, p. 15.19).
Although these arguments have been well-publicised and uncritically accepted by some, there is no empirical basis to them. Recently, counter-positions emerged, emphasising the need for robust evidence to substantiate the debate and to provide an accurate portrayal of technology adoption among students (Bennett et al., 2008, Schulmeister, 2008, Selwyn, 2009). Therefore, empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of the nature and extent of technology uptake by students. In parallel to understanding what tools students use and how they use them, it is also important to elucidate the role of digital technologies in students’ learning, because “it is not technologies, but educational purposes and pedagogy that must provide the lead, with students understanding not only how to work with ICTs, but why it is of benefit for them to do so.” (Kirkwood & Price, 2005, p. 257).
A nuanced understanding of the extent and nature of technology use by university students requires insight into the contexts in which the technologies are being used, for instance the pedagogic design of courses; students’ socio-economic background and their life circumstances such as affluence, geographic proximity to friends and family, and personal psychological characteristics such as sociability and openness to new experiences (Schulmeister, 2008). Disciplinary difference is one key contextual variable. Previous research identified higher rates of technology use amongst technology and business students, and lower rates among arts, languages and health and social welfare courses (Kirkwood & Price, 2005). However, these results must be viewed with caution since most of the data is over a decade old and is focused on now fairly established technologies such as computers and CD-ROMs.
The aim of this paper is to contribute empirical evidence towards building a more accurate picture of the patterns and the contexts of technology adoption by university students and to begin to explore the motivations driving technology adoption. Empirical data is essential in substantiating the conceptual debate and underpinning the design of educational systems and policy-making in universities. To this end, our study explored the nature and extent of students’ use of technologies in formal and informal learning and socialising. An investigation of students’ use of technologies for learning and their views on the educational value of technologies was supplemented by an analysis of faculty’s use of technologies in teaching and their perceptions of the educational benefits of tools.
Selected recent studies examining the extent and nature of technology uptake by university students have been reviewed to provide a wider context in which to contextualise our findings. While a systematic review of the corpus of empirical work published to date is beyond the purpose of this paper, we use these recent studies as examples to characterise the state-of-the-art in this area. The following parameters were applied to guide our scoping of the literature:
- •
Given the fast-paced nature of changes in this domain, we focus on peer-reviewed published work that reports data collected from 2005 onwards;
- •
We focused only on studies that dealt with university students rather than secondary school pupils
- •
We included a balanced set of examples from a range of countries.
Following a brief discussion of these examples of extant research, we present and discuss the results of our small-scale mixed-method study conducted in January–May 2007, within two disciplines (Social Work and Engineering) in two UK universities. We explored age variations in the nature and extent of technology use and analysed disciplinary variation in technology adoption comparing use in a technical (Engineering) and a non-technical (Social Work) discipline. Finally, drawing upon the combined qualitative and quantitative data and the perspectives of both students and faculty, we conclude by outlining implications of our findings for the validity of the ‘digital natives-digital immigrants’ binary and propose foci for future research.
Section snippets
Background
A range of empirical studies investigating students’ use of technologies have been published in recent years. In Australia, Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, and Krause (2008) surveyed 2120 undergraduate students from different faculties. This study focused on the extent of students’ access to and use of established and emerging technologies for learning. The study examined what tools were used and how frequently. However, the nature and the context of technology use – how technology was used
Institutional context of the study
The study was conducted in two UK universities: a post-1992 university (University A) and a pre-1992 university (University B). There are a number of dimensions to this distinction, but principally it denotes institutions (previously colleges or polytechnics) that gained university status during or after 1992, as part of a policy drive towards promoting ‘widening participation in Higher Education’, and universities that were established prior to 1992. A key distinction is that post-1992
Methodology
The study employed a mixed methods research approach, with a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase, both of which were ascribed equal status (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed methods research aims to maximise the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. An initial questionnaire survey explored the types of technology tools students adopted and the frequency with which they used these tools for formal and informal learning and socialising (extent of technology
General ownership and use of hardware devices
The majority of participants owned a range of tools: mobile phones (n = 159, 99.4%), personal computer (n = 127, 79.4%), portable media player (n = 111, 69.4%), laptop computers (n = 106, 66.3%), digital camera (n = 92, 57.5%) and games consoles such as play station (n = 85, 53.1%). Fewer students owned handheld computers (n = 10, 6.9%) and portable games consoles (n = 29, 18.1%). Table 1 summarises results related to ownership of devices according to discipline and age.
The patterns of technology ownership by
Discussion
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) emphasise that to be considered a mixed-method design, findings must be integrated during the interpretation of the results. Therefore, the discussion is structured around key themes arising from both the quantitative and qualitative phases.
Conclusions, limitations and future research
This explorative study aimed to provide a snapshot of the extent and nature of students’ use digital technologies and their perceptions of the educational value of these technologies. The results lead us to conclude that students may not have the characteristics of epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent ‘digital natives’. Students in our sample appear to favour conventional, passive and linear forms of learning and teaching. Indeed, their expectations of
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA) for funding this study as part of the “Learning from Digital Natives: Integration of Formal and Informal Learning (LDN)” project. The authors are grateful to colleagues in the LDN project for their contributions: Ms Kathryn Trinder (Research Fellow, Glasgow Caledonian University), Dr Jane Guiller (Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University) and Professor David Nicol (University of Strathclyde). Special thanks to the students and
References (25)
- et al.
Bias in qualitative research designs
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
(2002) - et al.
The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence
British Journal of Educational Technology
(2008) - et al.
The digital learner at BCIT and implications for an e-strategy
- et al.
Privacy and integrity in the virtual campus
Planning for neomillennial learning styles
EDUCAUSE Quarterly
(2005)Planning for neomillennial learning styles: implications for investments in technology and faculty
The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods
(1978)Lessons from the career of an engineer
Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”
Sociological Inquiry
(2010)- et al.
Small steps across the chasm: ideas for embedding a culture of open education in the university sector
Education
(2010)
Variations in progression of social work students in England
Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come
Educational Researcher
Cited by (636)
Digital natives in the scientific literature: A topic modeling approach
2024, Computers in Human BehaviorA rationale for promoting cognitive science in teacher education: Deconstructing prevailing learning myths and advancing research-based practices
2023, Trends in Neuroscience and EducationEvaluate the drivers for digital transformation in higher education institutions in the era of industry 4.0 based on decision-making method
2023, Journal of Innovation and KnowledgeCapturing the invisible: Non-institutional technologies in undergraduate learning within three New Zealand universities
2023, Internet and Higher Education