The purpose of the study is to investigate the popular assumption that the “digital natives” generation surpasses the previous “digital immigrants” generation in terms of their technology experiences, because they grow up with information and communication technology. The assumption presumes that teachers, the digital immigrants, are less technology savvy than the digital natives, resulting in a disconnect between students’ technology experiences inside and outside of the formal school setting. To examine the intersection of these generations and their technology experiences, this study used a mixed-methods approach to survey and compare middle school science teachers’ (n = 24) and their students’ (n = 1,060) inside–outside school technology experiences, and conducted focus group interviews to investigate any barriers that prevented them from using technology in school. The findings imply that the concept of digital natives may be misleading and that the disconnect between students’ inside–outside school technology experiences may be the result of the lack of sufficient teacher training concerning technology integration strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Pixy Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the Net Generation. Innovate, 3(4). http://csdtechpd.org/pluginfile.php/1622/mod_glossary/attachment/25/Teaching_and_Learning_with_the_Net_Generation.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2014.
Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context. Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008a). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008b). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: how the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, 32(2), 10–20.
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(5), 357–369. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x.
Bullen, M., Belfer, K., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The net generation in higher education: rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Excellence in E-Learning, 2, 1–13.
Campbell, T., Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Duffy, A., & Wolf, P. (2010). Learning with Web Tools, Simulations, and Other Technologies in Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 19(5), 505–511.
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 56–69. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305.x.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cortina, J. W. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813.
Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2010). Born into the Digital Age in the south of Africa: the reconfiguration of the ‘digital citizen’ (pp. 2–4). Aalbord: Network Learning conference.
Enrique Hinostroza, J., Labbé, C., Brun, M., & Matamala, C. (2011). Teaching and learning activities in Chilean classrooms: is ICT making a difference? Computers & Education, 57(1), 1358–1367. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.019.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second- order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: a roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956.
Guo, R. X., 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. doi:10.2190/EC.38.3.a.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.
Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. doi:10.1080/01411920902989227.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.
Hsu, S. (2011). Who assigns the most ICT activities? Examining the relationship between teacher and student usage. Computers & Education, 56(3), 847–855. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.026.
Hsu, H.-Y., & Wang, S.-K. (2010). The exploration of New York City high school students’ global literacy. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(1), 43–67.
Hsu, H.-Y., Wang, S.-K., & Runco, L. (2013). Middle school science teachers’ confidence and pedagogical practice of new literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 314–324. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9395-7.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: summary of findings from the digital youth project. White paper, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/report. Accessed 30 Jan 2009.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 560–565.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., et al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies:Preliminary findings. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 517–525.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00371.x.
Kent, N., & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people’s home and school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 440–455.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284–296. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013.
Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington D.C., Pew Internet & American Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2002/The-Digital-Disconnect-The-widening-gap-between-Internetsavvy-students-and-their-schools.aspx. Accessed 12 May 2014.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Olver, M. (2009). Do web 2.0 tools really open the door for learning? Practices perceptions and profiles of 11-16 year-old students. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 87–104.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1983). Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall. 1983.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Montgomery, D. C. (1976). Design an analysis of experiments (2nd ed., pp. 100–102). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111–131.
National Research Council. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital native digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59, 1065–1078.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new students: Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37–47. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2014.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en. Accessed 17 May 2014.
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2003). Overcoming educators’ digital immigrant accents: a rebuttal. The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. http://technologysource.org/article/overcoming_educators_digital_immigrant_accents/. Accessed 1 Nov 2013.
Prensky, M. (2011). From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate, 5(3), 1–9. http://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Intro_to_From_DN_to_DW.pdf.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington D.C. Pew Internet and the American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TeachersandTechnologywithmethodology_PDF.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2014.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Selwyn, N. (2006). Exploring the digital disconnect between net savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(1), 5–17.
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (pp. 75–83). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: what are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2006). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. State & Country QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407–422.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–271.
Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D., & M., Longhurst (2014). Investigation of middle school science teachers’ and students’ use of technology inside and outside of classrooms. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.
Funding for this study was obtained from the National Science Foundation, award #DRK12 1401350 & 1020091. All work associated with this study is that of the authors. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following advisory board members: Dr. Kent Crippen, Dr. Shelley Phelan, Dr. Thomas Reeves, and Ms. Susan Brustein.
Formal/informal technology use survey
Formal/informal technology use survey
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, SK., Hsu, HY., Campbell, T. et al. An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 637–662 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4
- Middle school education
- Digital natives
- Teaching/learning strategies
- Information and communication technology (ICT)