Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 409–419 | Cite as

Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants

Towards a Model of Digital Fluency
  • Qian (Emily) Wang
  • Michael D. Myers
  • David Sundaram
State of the Art

Abstract

The article looks at the differences between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants.” Digital natives are the new generation of young people born into the digital age, while “digital immigrants” are those who learnt to use computers at some stage during their adult life. Whereas digital natives are assumed to be inherently technology-savvy, digital immigrants are usually assumed to have some difficulty with information technology.

The paper suggests that there is a continuum rather than a rigid dichotomy between digital natives and digital immigrants, and this continuum is best conceptualized as digital fluency. Digital fluency is the ability to reformulate knowledge and produce information to express oneself creatively and appropriately in a digital environment. The authors propose a tentative conceptual model of digital fluency that outlines factors that have a direct and indirect impact on digital fluency namely, demographic characteristics, organizational factors, psychological factors, social influence, opportunity, behavioral intention and actual use of digital technologies.

Keywords

Digital natives Digital immigrants Digital fluency Net generation 

Supplementary material

References

  1. Agarwal R, Prasad J (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research 9(2):204–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron B, Walter S, Martin C, Schatz C (2010) Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon valley middle schools. Computers & Education 54(1):178–189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett S, Maton K (2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5):321–331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley D, Noonan P, Nugent H, Scales B (2008) Review of Australian higher education: final report. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra (December) Google Scholar
  6. Brown C, Czerniewicz L (2010) Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5):357–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvani A, Cartelli A, Fini A, Ranieri M (2009) Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (English Version) 4(3):183–193 Google Scholar
  8. Ching C, Basham J, Jang E (2005) The legacy of the digital divide. Urban Education 40(4):394–411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clearswift (2011) Work life web 2011. Work Life Web (August) Google Scholar
  10. Compeau D, Higgins C (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19(2):189–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotten S, Hale T, Moroney M, O’Neal L, Borch C (2011) Using affordable technology to decrease digital inequality: results from Birmingham’s one laptop per child XO laptop project. Information, Communication & Society 14(4):424–444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Google Scholar
  13. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 3:319–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewan S, Riggins FJ (2005) The digital divide: current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 6(12):298–337 Google Scholar
  15. Dimaggio P, Hargittai E (2001) From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: studying Internet use as penetration increase. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University Google Scholar
  16. Eckhardt A, Laumer S, Weitzel T (2009) Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on it adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology 24(1):11–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell E (2005) Among freshman, a growing digital divide. The Chronicle of Higher Education Google Scholar
  18. Ferro E, Helbig NC, Gil-Garcia JR (2011) The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. In: Proc 5th int conf on electronic government, vol 28(1), pp 3–10 Google Scholar
  19. Fischer G (2005) Computational literacy and fluency: being independent of high-tech scribes. In: Engel J, Vogel R, Wessolowski S (eds) Strukturieren – Modellieren – Kommunizieren. Leitbild mathematischer und informatischer Aktivitäten. Franzbecker, Hildesheim, pp 217–230 Google Scholar
  20. Gilster P (1997) Digital literacy. Meridian. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  21. Goode J (2010) The digital identity divide: how technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society 12(3):497–513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimley M, Allan M (2010) Towards a pre-teen typology of digital media. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(5):571–584 Google Scholar
  23. Gudmundsdottir G (2010) When does ICT support education in South Africa? The importance of teachers’ capabilities and the relevance of language. Information Technology for Development 16(3):174–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo RX, Dobson T, Petrina S (2008) Digital natives, digital immigrants: an analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research 38(3):235–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargittai E (2002) Second-level digital divide: differences in people’s online skills. First Monday 7(4):1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hargittai E (2010) Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry 80(1):92–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hargittai E, Litt E (2011) The tweet smell of celebrity success: explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society 13(5):824–842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hosein A, Ramanau R, Jones C (2010) Learning and living technologies: a longitudinal study of first year students’ frequency and competence in the use of ICT. Learning, Media and Technology 35(4):403–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howe N, Strauss W (2007) The next 20 years: how customer and workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review 85(7–8):41–52, 191 Google Scholar
  30. Huff AS (2008) Literature review: designing research for publication. Sage, Thousand Oak, pp 147–178 Google Scholar
  31. Huffaker D (2005) The educated blogger: using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal 13(2):91–98 Google Scholar
  32. Hughes J (2007) The ability-motivation-opportunity framework for behavior research in IS. In: Proc 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 250a Google Scholar
  33. Johnson Controls Research (2011) Why and how businesses must tailor workspaces to young workers Google Scholar
  34. Jones C, Czerniewicz L (2010) Describing or debunking? The net generation and digital natives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5):317–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones C, Healing G (2010) Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5):344–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones C, Ramanau R, Cross S, Graham H (2010) Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education 54(3):722–732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jung Y, Peng W, Moran M, Jin S-AA, McLaughlin M, Cody M et al. (2010) Low-income minority seniors’ enrollment in a cybercafe: psychological barriers to crossing the digital divide. Educational Gerontology 36(3):193–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaare BH, Brandtzæg PB, Heim J, Endestad T (2007) In the borderland between family orientation and peer culture: the use of communication technologies among Norwegian tweens. New Media & Society 9(4):603–624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kennedy G, Dalgarno B, Bennett S, Gray K, Waycott J, Judd T et al (2009) Educating the net generation: a handbook of findings for practice and policy. Higher Education Australian Learning and Teaching Council Google Scholar
  40. Kennedy G, Dalgarno B, Gray K (2007) The net generation are not big users of web 2.0 technologies: preliminary findings. In: Proc ASCILITE, Singapore, 2007, pp 517–525 Google Scholar
  41. Kennedy G, Judd T, Dalgarno B, Waycott J (2010) Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5):332–343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kennedy G, Judd TS, Churchward A, Gray K, Krause K-L (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24(1):108–122 Google Scholar
  43. Koufaris M (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research 13(2):205–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ktoridou D, Eteokleous-Grigoriou N (2011) Developing digital immigrants’ computer literacy: the case of unemployed women. Campus-Wide Information Systems 28(3):154–163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kvasny L, Keil M (2006) The challenges of redressing the digital divide: a tale of two US cities. Information Systems Journal 16:23–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laumer S, Eckhardt A, Trunk N (2010) Do as your parents say? Analyzing IT adoption influencing factors for full and under age applicants. Information Systems Frontiers 12(2):169–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li Y, Ranieri M (2010) Are “digital natives” really digitally competent? A study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology 41:1029–1042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lu J, Yu C-S, Liu C, Yao JE (2003) Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research 13(3):206–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luu K, Freeman JG (2011) An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia. Computers & Education 56(4):1072–1082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malliari A, Korobili S, Zapounidou S (2011) Exploring the information seeking behavior of Greek graduate students: a case study set in the University of Macedonia. International Information and Library Review 43(2):79–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin CL, Eisenbud L, Rose H (1995) Children’s gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development 66(5):1453–1471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Menchen-Trevino E, Hargittai E (2011) Young adults’ credibility assessment of Wikipedia. Information, Communication & Society 14(1):24–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3):192–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nasah A, DaCosta B, Kinsell C, Seok S (2010) The digital literacy debate: an investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research & Development 58(5):531–555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. National Research Council (1999) Being fluent with information technology. National Academy Press, Washington Google Scholar
  56. Nedbal D, Auinger A, Hochmeier A, Holzinger A (2012) A systematic success factor analysis in the context of Enterprise 2.0: results of an exploratory analysis comprising digital immigrants and digital natives. E-Commerce and Web Technologies:163–175 Google Scholar
  57. Oblinger D, Oblinger J (2005) Educating the net generation. Educause, Washington Google Scholar
  58. Papastergiou M, Gerodimos V, Antoniou P (2011) Multimedia blogging in physical education: effects on student knowledge and ICT self-efficacy. Computers & Education 57(3):1998–2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Papert S, Resnick M (1995) Technological fluency and the representation of knowledge: proposal to the national science foundation. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge Google Scholar
  60. Perillo S (2007) Reaching generation Y to be or not to be – relevant. Australian Anglican Schools Network, Melbourne, pp 17–19 Google Scholar
  61. Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 5–6(3–4):137–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prensky M (2001a) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2. On the Horizon 9(5):1–6, MCB UP Ltd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prensky M (2001b) Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On the horizon 9(5), MCB UP Ltd Google Scholar
  64. Rainie L (2006) Digital natives invade the workplace: young people may be newcomers to the world of work, but it’s their bosses who are immigrants into the digital world. PEW Internet & American Life Project:1–5 Google Scholar
  65. Salajan FD, Schönwetter DJ, Cleghorn BM (2010) Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: fact or fiction? Computers & Education 55(3):1393–1403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Selwyn N (2008) An investigation of differences in undergraduates’ academic use of the Internet. Active Learning in Higher Education 9(1):11–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stern MJ, Adams AE, Elsasser S (2009) Digital inequality and place: the effects of technological diffusion on Internet proficiency and usage across rural, suburban, and urban counties. Sociological Inquiry 79(4):391–417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strauss W, Howe N (1992) Generations: the history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. Morrow, New York Google Scholar
  69. Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Gosain S (2009) Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quarterly 33(2):371–393 Google Scholar
  70. Tapscott D (1998) Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  71. Thornham H, McFarlane A (2011) Discourses of the digital native: use, non-use, and perceptions of use in BBC Blast. Information, Communication & Society 14(2):258–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tømte C, Hatlevik OE (2011) Gender-differences in self-efficacy ICT related to various ICT-user profiles in Finland and Norway. How do self-efficacy, gender and ICT-user profiles relate to findings from PISA 2006. Computers & Education 57(1):1416–1424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Valtonen T, Dillon P, Hacklin S, Väisänen P (2010) Net generation at social software: challenging assumptions, clarifying relationships and raising implications for learning. International Journal of Educational Research 49(6):210–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van den Beemt A, Akkerman S, Simons PRJ (2010) Pathways in interactive media practices among youths. Learning, Media and Technology 35(4):419–434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Dijk J (2006) Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34(4–5):221–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van Dijk J, van Deursen A (2008) Inequalities of digital skills and how to overcome them. In: Handbook of research on overcoming digital divides: constructing an equitable and competitive information society. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, pp 278–291 Google Scholar
  77. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11(4):342–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2):186–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vodanovich S, Sundaram D, Myers MD (2010) Research commentary – digital natives and ubiquitous information systems. Information Systems Research 21(4):711–723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Volman M, van Eck E, Heemskerk I, Kuiper E (2005) New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education 45(1):35–55 Google Scholar
  81. Wang E, Myers MD, Sundaram D (2012) Digital natives and digital immigrants: towards a model of digital fluency. In: Proc ECIS. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/39/. Accessed 2012-07-08 Google Scholar
  82. Waycott J, Bennett S, Kennedy G, Dalgarno B, Gray K (2010) Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education 54(4):1202–1211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wei K-K, Teo H-H, Chan HC, Tan BCY (2011) Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research 22(1):170–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yavuz A, Odabaşı HF, Kuzu A (2011) Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding the integration of information and communication technologies in Turkish education faculties. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10(3):175–184 Google Scholar
  85. Zhao L, Lu Y, Huang W, Wang Q (2010) Internet inequality: the relationship between high school students’ Internet use in different locations and their Internet self-efficacy. Computers & Education 55(4):1405–1423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qian (Emily) Wang
    • 1
  • Michael D. Myers
    • 1
  • David Sundaram
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Operations ManagementUniversity of Auckland Business SchoolAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations