Advertisement

Networked Learning, Stepping Beyond the Net Generation and Digital Natives

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter critically examines the idea that young people have undergone a change in which exposure to digital and networked technologies has caused a step change in the character of a whole generation. The empirical and theoretical basis for this argument is reviewed and critical theoretical perspectives are assessed. Evidence from earlier research is compared and contrasted with evidence gathered from students who are said to be part of the new generation. The chapter explores the consequences of these ideas from the standpoint of networked learning. One aim of the chapter is to suggest ways in which the changes that have taken can be more adequately theorized in relation to the idea of networked learning. Arguments used to support generational change rely on a technological determinism and alternative accounts understand young people as active agents. I suggest expanding the notion of the agent to include persons enacting roles in collective organizations. Overall, the importance of the debate is that determinist arguments can close down debate and networked learning would be impoverished if this occurs.

References

  1. Archer M. (2002). Realism and the problem of agency. Journal of Critical Realism, 5, 11–20.http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/02/14/a-critique-of-tapscott-and-williams-views-on-university-reform
  2. Archer M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/02/14/a-critique-of-tapscott-and-williams-views-on-university-reform
  3. Bates, T. (2010). A critique of Tapscott and William’s views on university reform. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/02/14/a-critique-of-tapscott-and-williams-views-on-university-reform
  4. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: A dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education, Brighton 11–13th December 2007. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf
  5. 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
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2008). Trends in student use of ICTs in higher education in South Africa. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of WWW Applications. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/ResearchOutput/2008_wwwApps_UseTrends.pdf
  8. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369.http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/ResearchOutput/2008_wwwApps_UseTrends.pdf Google Scholar
  9. Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding and student finance. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/
  10. Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (Eds.). (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people and new media. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2009). The Net generation in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Excellence in eLearning, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  12. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Corrin, L., Lokyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: An investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning Media and Technology, 35(4), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czerniewicz, L., Williams, K., & Brown, C. (2009). Students make a plan: Understanding student agency in constraining conditions. ALT-J, The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 17(2), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2009). Issues and concepts in networked learning: Analysis and the future of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Goodyear, P., Asensio, M., Jones, C., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2003). Relationships between conceptions of learning, approaches to study and students’ judgements about the value of their experiences of networked learning. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2001). Students’ experiences of networked learning in higher education, final project report (2 vols). Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2005). Networked learning in higher education: Students’ expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50(3), 473–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Herring, S. (2008). Questioning the generational divide: Technological exoticism and adult construction of online youth identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 71–92). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Hosein, A., Ramanau, R., & Jones, C. (2010a). 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
  24. Hosein, A., Ramanau, R., & Jones, C. (2010b). Are all net generation students the same? The frequency of technology use at university. IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2010, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  25. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future and the fourth turning: An American prophecy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The Next greatest generation. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, C. (2011). Students, the net generation and digital natives: Accounting for educational change. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, C., & Asensio, M. (2001). Experiences of assessment: Using phenomenography for evaluation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, C., Asensio, M., & Goodyear, P. (2000). Networked learning in higher education: Practitioners’ perspectives. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 8(2), 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, C., & Bloxham, S. (2001). Networked legal learning: An evaluation of the student experience. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 3(15), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, C., & Cross, S. (2009). Is there a Net generation coming to university? In H. Damis, & L. Creanor (Eds), “In dreams begins responsibility”- choice evidence and change: The 16th Association for Learning Technology Conference, Manchester 2009 (pp. 10–20). Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/18468/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices: An introduction. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, C., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach – weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 90–102.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010a). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010b). Networks and locations for student learning. Learning Media and Technology, 35(4), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, C., & Hosein, A. (2010). Profiling university students’ use of technology: Where is the net generation divide? International Journal of Technology Knowledge and Society, 6(3), 43–58.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. J., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers in Education, 54(3), 722–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2010). A five-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Computers in Education, 55(1), 564–571.Google Scholar
  39. Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by ‘Net Generation’ students. Computers in Education, 56(3), 625–631. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., et al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings of ASCILITE Singapore 2007. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
  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., Krause, K.-L., Judd, T., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2006). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Melbourne: Centre for Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  43. Kennedy, G. E., Krause, K.-L., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.Google Scholar
  44. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers in Education, 56(2), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Ho, A. (2009). The digital divide between university students and teachers in Hong Kong. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ASCILITE 2009, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/­auckland09/procs/mcnaught.pdf
  46. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE Online book. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Google Scholar
  47. Oliver, B., & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171–186.Google Scholar
  48. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  49. Pedró, F. (2009). New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and policy implications. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).Google Scholar
  50. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Ryberg, T. (2007). Patchworking as a metaphor for learning: Understanding youth, learning and technology. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.telearn.org/warehouse/RYBERG-THOMAS-2007_(001783v1).pdf
  53. Ryberg, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2010). Catering to the needs of the “digital natives” or educating the “Net Generation”? In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  54. Salajan, F. D., Schönwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers in Education, 55, 1393–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  56. Sánchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., & Meyer, E. (2010). Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 543–556. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulmeister, R. (2010). Students, Internet, eLearning and Web 2.0. In M. Ebner & M. Schiefner (Eds.), Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education: Ubiquitous learning and digital native. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  58. Selwyn, N. (2003). ‘Doing IT for the kids’: Re-examining children, computers and the ‘Information Society’. Media, Culture and Society, 25(3), 351–378.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Smith, S. D., & Borreson Caruso, J. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010 (Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
  61. Smith, S., Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2009 (Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
  62. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  63. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. Educause Review, 45(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
  64. Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers in Education, 55, 406–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2009). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers in Education, 54(4), 1202–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Isla de Diaz, I., et al. (2003). The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Institute of Educational TechnologyOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations