Whatever Happened to the Digital Natives? Disruptive Innovation in the Higher Education Community of Practice

  • Michael Flavin
Part of the Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)


This chapter uses the Community of Practice theory to understand how Disruptive Innovation impacts on higher education communities. The chapter also engages with critique of the Community of Practice in order to offer a nuanced reading of the theory in relation to technology enhanced learning.

New entrants to a university can be technology innovators, but universities may not welcome the new technologies users bring with them. Moreover, students and lecturers may not wish to use the technologies they use to support their social lives to support their learning and teaching lives, too.


Community of Practice Technology enhanced learning Higher education Wenger, Etienne Lave, Jean 


  1. Anderson, C., & McCune, V. (2013). Fostering meaning: Fostering community. Higher Education, 66, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avis, J. (2007). Engeström’s version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avis, J. (2009). Transformation or transformism: Engeström’s version of activity theory? Educational Review, 61(2), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bueger, C. (2013). Practice, pirates and coast guards: The grand narrative of Somali piracy. Third World Quarterly, 34(10), 1811–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lickyer, L. (2010). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from
  10. Engeström, Y., & Miettenen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farnsworth, V., Kleanthous, I., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2016). Communities of practice as a social theory of learning: A conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 1–22, 139–160.Google Scholar
  12. Fenton-O’Creevey, M., Dimitriadis, Y., & Scobie, G. (2014). Failure and resilience at boundaries: The emotional process of identity work. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O’Creevey, S. Kutchinson, S. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity and knowledgeability in practice-based learning (pp. 33–42). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Young people as teachers and learners in the workplace: Challenging the novice-expert dichotomy. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second level digital divide. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from
  16. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jewson, N. (2007a). Communities of practice in their place: Some implications of changes in the spatial location of work. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jewson, N. (2007b). Cultivating network analysis: Rethinking the concept of “community” within communities of practice. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, C., & Pryke, S. (2012). Wikipedia and the university, a case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 649–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kogut, B., & Metiu, A. (2001). Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17(2), 248–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists, in their own words (pp. 200–208). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (trans. Hall, M.J.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagy, D., Schussler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nickson, D., Warhurst, C., Cullen, A. M., & Watt, A. (2003). Bringing in the excluded? Aesthetic labour, skills and training in the “new” economy. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pohjola, I., & Puusa, A. (2016). Group dynamics and the role of ICT in the life cycle analysis of community of practice-based product development: A case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf
  31. Read, K. W. (2014). Sex work: Constructing “families” with community of practice theory. Community, Work and Family, 17(1), 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – Myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Somyürek, S., & Coşkun, B. K. (2013). Digital competence: Is it innate talent of the new generation or an ability that must be developed? British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), E163–E166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unwin, L. (2007). English apprenticeship from past to present. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 109–119). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. (1930). The socialist alteration of man. In R. Van Der Veet & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 175–184). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare.Google Scholar
  39. Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2014). Learning in a landscape of practice: A framework. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O’Creevey, S. Kutchinson, S. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity and knowledgeability in practice-based learning (pp. 13–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Flavin
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations