Even more on digital natives

Corrin et al. (2010) surveyed 470 Australian first year undergraduates’ use of technology. The results challenge the extent to which the so-called digital natives (Prensky, 2001) are sophisticated and adept users of online technologies to support learning. For example, most of those surveyed had never written a blog, built a website or used RSS feeds (p.646).

In addition, the students surveyed used technologies more frequently to support their everyday lives than to support their learning lives. This may suggest that their university was not encouraging or directing them to make use of a wide range of technologies to support learning. Alternatively, it may suggest that adeptness in using technologies in everyday life does not transfer seamlessly into using technologies to support learning. 

Jones and Healing (2010) interviewed first-year undergraduate students in England. Their research, too, challenges the digital natives argument. Jones and Healing found that over a third of their interviewees were not confident about using university Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), or using blogs or wikis (p. 349). Similarly, only a minority in the sample stated that uploading and downloading audio and video was important for their learning, though that same minority tended to be younger students at campus universities, a fact that could be used to validate the idea of digital natives (p. 349).

Both articles show students appreciating their HEI’s VLEs, with one student in Jones and Healing’s sample praising it as ‘a central thing for everything, a central source’ (p. 350). Moreover, even if one component of the VLE was not praised (a student reported dissatisfaction with their group forum [p. 351]), this does not discourage use of the VLE as a whole. It is possible that students draw what they want from institutional VLEs, and construct their own purposes for VLEs, though the range of available uses for a VLE is shaped by the content put in by the lecturer and institution. 

Jones and Healing argue that students’ use of technologies is closely related to course requirements. Hence, if H.E.I.s want students to engage with a wider range of technologies then some steerage needs to come from the H.E.I. in the design stage for individual modules. A pedagogically driven incorporation of technologies to support learning and assessment is more likely to prompt and develop engagement with technologies for learning.

 

References

Corrin, L. Bennett, S. and Lickyer, L. (2010) ‘Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study,’ Proceedings of the 7^th International Conference on Networked Learning,’ ed. By Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., de Laat, M., McConnell, D. and Ryberg, T.

Jones, C. and Healing, G. (2010) ‘Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies,’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, pp. 344-356.

More on digital natives

Bennett et al. (2008) see the digital natives (Prensky, 2001) category as reductive; the term neglects the role of economic, social and cultural factors in net usage: ‘It may be that there is as much variation within the digital native generation as between the generations’ (p. 779).  Bennett et al. also argue that technology plays different roles in students’ home lives and their learning lives, and that the skills people exhibit in their use of online technologies at home may not be easily transferable to educational contexts (p. 781).

Lohnes and Kinzer (2007) undertook their research at a liberal arts college in the US.  They adopted an ethnographic approach, arguing that questionnaires provide a decontextualised snapshot. Asking students to state their actual practices with technologies gave them, they argue, richer data.

One of Lohnes and Kinzer’s findings was that students stated they preferred not to use their laptops in the classroom, opting to use the classroom for face-to-face interaction, and perceiving the laptop as a physical barrier within the classroom. It would be interesting to see if similar research undertaken now would repeat the findings, given the extent to which laptops and other networked devices have become smaller and less obtrusive in the intervening years.

Jones and Shao (2011) dismiss the idea of digital natives, reviewing the literature and concluding that net usage is differentiated by a range of factors, including, but not limited to, age.  They critique Prensky’s analysis, arguing that it constructs a deficit model of teaching in higher education, whereby lecturers will still retain their digital immigrant identification (2011, p. 7). Furthermore, and in common with Bennett et al., Jones and Shao also question the extent to which general skill with technology translates into skill in the use of technologies to support learning (2011, p. 34).

Increasingly, research suggests that the digital natives/digital immigrants dualism is reductive, masking the extent to which a range of economic, social, cultural and educational factors interact to shape differentiations in internet usage generally, and use of the net to support learning in particular. Moreover, students may not be using a wide range of technologies to support their learning; research by Kirkwood (2008) and Margaryan et al. (2011) shows students being largely passive users of technologies to support learning, and using a narrow range of technologies. 

 

References

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) ‘The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence,’ British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 775-786.

 

Jones, C. and Shao, B. (2011) ‘The net generation and digital natives,’ Milton Keynes, The open University, http://oro.open.ac.uk/30014/ (accessed 3 February 2012).

 

Kirkwood, A. (2008) ‘Getting it from the Web: why and how online resources are used by independent undergraduate learners,’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, p. 372-382.

 

Lohnes, S. and Kinzer, C. (2007) ‘Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technology in college classrooms,’ Innovate, vol. 3, no. 5, http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol3_issue5/Questioning_Assumptions_About_Students’_Expectations_for_Technology_in_College_Classrooms.pdf (accessed 3 February 2012).

 

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. and Vojt, G. (2011) ‘Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies,’ Computers and Education, vol. 56, pp. 429-440.

 

Hargittai, E. (2010) ‘Digital Na(t)ives?…’

Hirgattai (2010) surveys first-year college students (typically 18-19 year olds) and finds significant differences in their use of the internet, correlated with socio-economic status. Those students from privileged backgrounds used the net more widely, and in more informed ways, than students from less privileged backgrounds. Moreover, students with at least one parent with a degree exhibited higher skill levels in relation to net usage.

Hirgattai’s research challenges Prensky’s (2001) theory of digital natives and digital immigrants. To look at age alone as the factor distinguishing use of the net is reductive. Instead, it seems more accurate to state that net usage reflects power structures within a society. Hence, the net is not causing change as much as it is illustrating our existing economic and social structures via a different medium.

Hirgattai’s work further suggests that connectivity is not the core issue; everyone can, at least theoretically, have a connection to the net, but they may still lack effective access (Hiragittai came to a similar conclusion in earlier research [2002]). Hence, less privileged sectors of the population who would stand to gain most from enhanced access to services and goods are effectively prohibited from doing so, not by technical connection, but by the absence of a skill set which itself is correlated with prosperity and educational attainment.

From a higher educational perspective, the potential of technology-enhanced learning to reach out to learners who wouldn’t normally access higher education is compromised by differences in skill sets in relation to existing net usage. Achieving widening participation in higher education through technology-enhanced learning is more of a cultural and pedagogical than a technical challenge.

References

Hargittai, E. (2002) ‘Second-level digital divide,’ First Monday, vol. 7, no. 4, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864 (accessed 2 February 2012).

Hargittai, E. (2010) ‘Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”’ Sociological Inquiry, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 92-113.

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’ On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6.