Digital Natives: Exploring the Diversity of Young People’s Experience with Technology

Part of the New Frontiers of Educational Research book series (NFER)

Abstract

The concept of ‘digital natives’, based on assumptions of high technology literacy of the current generation of students, has triggered extensive discussion and debate in relation to technology use in higher education. Whilst several previous studies have demonstrated that generational views of technology literacy and engagement are not useful to the planning of future teaching and learning developments in higher education (Helsper and Eynon 2009; Kennedy et al. 2008; Bennett and Maton 2010), the digital natives discussion has eventually led to research offering a greater insight into the reality of students’ engagement with technology. From the non-empirical foundations of the digital natives concept through initial quantitative studies and now towards new in-depth qualitative studies, a greater understanding is being developed of the diversity that exists around students’ adopt and use of technology. This chapter reports on a study which aims to further the understanding of the motivations, attitudes and practices of young people in relation to technology. Eight student case studies are presented which provide an in-depth exploration of the stories behind students’ choices and uses of technology across the contexts of their everyday life and academic study.

Keywords

Mobile Phone Text Message Academic Study Instant Messaging Digital Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barnes K, Marateo RC, Ferris SP (2007) Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate 3(4). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=382. Accessed 1 April 2007
  2. Bennett S, Maton K (2010) Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. J Comput Assist Learn 26(5):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett S, Maton K (2011) Intellectual field or faith-based religion: moving on from the idea of ‘digital natives’. In: Thomas M (ed) Deconstructing digital natives: young people, technology and the new literacies. Routledge, New York, pp 169–185Google Scholar
  4. Benson DE, Makolichick J (2007) Conceptions of self and the use of digital technologies in a learning environment. Education 127(4):498–510Google Scholar
  5. Carroll J, Howard S, Vetere F, Peck J, Murphy J (2002) Just want do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-35), Maui, Hawaii, Jan 2002Google Scholar
  6. Caruso JB, Kvavik RB (2005) ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: convenience, connection, control, and learning roadmap. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/ECARStudyofStudentsa/37610. Accessed 31 Dec 2011
  7. Corrin L, Lockyer L, Bennett SJ (2010) Technological diversity: an investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learn Media Technol 35(4):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czerniewicz L, Brown C (2010) Born into the digital age in the south of Africa: the reconfiguration of the ‘digital citizen’. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on networked learning 2010. Lancaster University, Aalborg, pp 859–65Google Scholar
  9. Dede C (2005) Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Q 28(1):7–12Google Scholar
  10. Garcia P, Qin J (2007) Identifying the generation gap in higher education. Innovate 3(4). http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=379. Accessed 5 April 2007
  11. Helsper E, Eynon R (2009) Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educ Res J 36(3):503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones C, Healing G (2010) Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. J Comput Assist Learn 26:344–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones C, Ramanau R, Cross S, Healing G (2010) Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Comput Educ 54(3):722–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Judd T, Kennedy G (2010) A five-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Comput Educ 55(4):1564–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy G, Krause K, Gray K, Judd T, Bennett S, Maton K, Dalgarno B, Bishop A (2006) Questioning the net generation: a collaborative project in Australian higher education. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp 413–417Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy G, Dalgarno B, Gray K, Judd T, Waycott J, Bennett S, Maton K, Krause K, Bishop A, Chang R, Churchward A (2007) The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: preliminary findings from a large cross-institutional study. In: Atkinson R, McBeath C, Soong A, Cheers C (eds) Providing choices for learners and learning: proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers In Learning In Tertiary Education. ASCILITE, Singapore, pp 517–525Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy G, Judd TS, Churchward A, Gray K (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Australas J Educ Technol 24(1):108–22Google Scholar
  18. Kirkwood A, Price L (2005) Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Stud High Educ 30(3):257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput Educ 56(2):429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McWilliam EL (2002) Against professional development. Educ Philos Theory 34(3):289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oblinger D, Oblinger J (2005) Is it age or IT: first steps toward understanding the net generation. In: Educating the net generation, EDUCAUSE, pp 2.1–2.20Google Scholar
  22. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5):1–6Google Scholar
  23. Prensky M (2004) The emerging online life of the digital native: what they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp. Accessed 13 May 2007
  24. Ryberg T, Dirckinck-Holmfeld L, Jones C (2010) Catering to the needs of the “digital natives” or educating the “net generation”? In: Lee MJW, McLoughlin C (eds) Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 301–318Google Scholar
  25. Salaway G, Caruso JB (2008) The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Educause Center for Applied Research. Educause, Boulder. http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/163283. Accessed 12 July 2011
  26. Sanchez J, Salinas A, Contrereas D, Meyer E (2011) Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A Qualitative Study. British J Educ Technol 42(4):543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tapscott D (1998) Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations