Abstract
Research suggests students’ use of information and communication technology (ICT) may be more a matter of digital literacy and access rather than a generational trait. We sought to identify ICT preferences of post-secondary students (N = 580) through a Digital Propensity Index (DPI), investigating communication methods, Internet practices and the creation of online content. Age, gender and socioeconomic status were examined as factors which might explain why students use ICT. Results suggest age is a factor in ICT use but that it is not the most important consideration; the gender gap and gaps between socioeconomic groups in terms of ICT use may be closing. The findings raise a variety of implications for institutions training pre-service teachers, curriculum developers designing instructional materials and educational leaders developing ICT policy for schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA Online. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code1992.html.
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.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008, October 20–22). The digital learner at BCIT and implications for an e-strategy. Paper presented at the 2008 research workshop of the European distance education network (EDEN), Paris, France.
Conole, G., Laat, M. D., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2006). JISC LXP student experiences of technologies final report. Joint Information Systems Committee. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lxpprojectfinalreportdec06.pdf.
Downes, T. (2002). Blending play, practice and performance: Children’s use of the computer at home. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2), 21–34.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Jones, M. G., Harmon, S. W., & O’Grady-Jones, M. (2005). Developing the digital mind: Challenges and solutions in teaching and learning. Teacher Education Journal of South Carolina, 2004–2005, 17–24.
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. London: Broadway Business.
Kennedy, G., Krause, K.-L., Judd, T., 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.
Kvavik, R. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (Chap. 7). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control , 5. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405/rs/ers0405w.pdf.
Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children’s use of the Internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning, 1(3), 395–419.
Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate, 3. Retrieved September 29, 2009 from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=431&action=article.
Lorenzo, G., & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the net generation is net savvy. The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3006.pdf.
Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality? Students’ use of technologies for learning. Unpublished manuscript, Glasgow Caledonian University.
McWilliam, E. L. (2002). Against professional development. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(3), 289–300.
Norman, D. K. (2008). Predicting the performance of interpreting instruction based on digital propensity index score in text and graphic formats. Unpublished dissertation, University of Central Florida.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds, pp. 1–145. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf.
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., Nelson, M. R., & Ellison, N. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008, 8. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0808/RS/ERS0808w.pdf.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—myth and reality. Paper presented at the CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) London seminar series. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9775892/Digital-Native.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C. et al. The digital literacy debate: an investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 531–555 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8