More on the Digital Natives "Myth"

According to the findings of a study conducted by UK researchers, Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008, December 11), digital natives may not be the tech-savvy multitaskers portrayed in the literature. These authors continue by suggesting that moves to integrate technology into the curriculum simply to satisfy this new group of students may be a mistake.

Margaryan and Littlejohn begin by presenting some of the claims made about today's students and their relationship with technology. In the academic literature, as well as the mass media, scholars argue that the adoption of emerging technologies (i.e., the Web 2.0) has created an ever-widening gap between young people and the educational institutions they attend. But as the authors of this report note, the claims have yet to progress beyond the rhetoric. In fact, very little is known about the reported transformations that supposedly occur in young people due to their exposure to and use of technology.

While empirical research on this topic has started to surface, the conclusions are far from clear - some of the findings support the Millennial claims, whereas others run counter to them. Following their review of the research, Margaryan and Littlejohn conclude that evidence to support the digital natives rhetoric is lacking. Thus, the goal of their research is to investigate the ways in which students and instructors use technology to support learning. Students (Year 3 individuals in Social Work and Engineering) completed surveys and a selected group (students and instructors) participated in semi-structured interviews.

First the survey results:

Overall, more males than females participated in the study (39F, 121M), which is not surprising given that there are more males in Engineering than females. What is perhaps more interesting is the upper level age range of the students: the maximum age of the Engineering students was 38; in contrast, the maximum age of the Social Work students was 50. Margaryan and Littlejohn note that most of the Engineering students were around 20 years of age; however, the fact that there was quite an age spread, especially with the Social Work students, suggests that these were not the typical undergrads (age 18-22). It is worth mentioning that the authors do acknowledge that they had both "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" in their study.

In terms of technology, one of the first findings is that the students have home internet access. In addition, the students make use of the internet in the library, labs, and cafes. The top technologies owned by the study participants include: mobile phones, computers (PCs and laptops), portable media players, and digital cameras. When broken down by age, the digital natives owned mobile phones, portable media players, laptops, and game consoles. The digital immigrants owned similar technologies, yet were more likely to own a PC than the digital immigrants. A higher percentage of the digital immigrants owned a digital camera in comparison to the digital natives. Google and websites were the top technologies the Engineering and Social Work students used in the classroom. Course sites and text messaging were near the top as well. A much higher percentage of Engineering students mentioned the use of Wikipedia when compared to the Social Work students - 84% and 47% respectively.

One point that surfaced during the course of the interviews is that the participants had difficulty distinguishing between formal and informal learning situations. When asked about informal learning technologies, once again websites and course websites ranked the highest in use. The use of mobile phones and Google/Google Scholar were also frequently noted. For this question, the Engineering students ranked Wikipedia as a technology they consult for their informal learning activities. When looking at informal learning technology through an age lens, the findings suggest that older students are more likely to use Google Scholar, text messaging, and mobile phones than the younger students.

This study also examined technologies used during personal time. The Engineering students used video sharing, blogging, Wikipedia, and YouTube more than the Social Work students. Recreational access of virtual worlds such as Second Life ranked the lowest among the students as a whole. When comparing the students by age, the main difference is in their use of photo sharing and file sharing sites. Digital natives use photo sharing more; digital immigrants use file sharing more. The least frequently used technologies by the digital natives include virtual worlds, chat rooms, and discussion groups; digital immigrants infrequently used virtual worlds, blogs, chat rooms, and internet gaming. Overall, the difference between the digital natives and the digital immigrants includes the use of virtual worlds and internet games. And, as the data suggest, a small percentage of students is accessing virtual worlds.

And now the interview data:

Almost all of the students owned a mobile phone. Desktop computers appear to be more popular than laptops. (Students mentioned adequate access to computers on campus.) When asked about portable computing devices such as a PDA, several students mentioned that they didn't know what that was. Very few of the students owned game consoles.

In terms of technologies used for learning, virtual learning environments (VLE) such as Blackboard ranked the highest. Many of the students indicated that they use these spaces as content repositories. Lecture slides, notes, and course readings are commonly uploaded to the VLE. While the VLE reports by students were positive, they were puzzled by the inconsistent use of these online repositories by instructors.

Moreoever, when asked about Google, Wikipedia, YouTube and other similar tools, some students were not familiar with them. In fact, some of the Engineering and Social Work students had never heard of Google Scholar or Wikipedia. The terms podcasting and blogging were unfamiliar to a few students as well. Interestingly, those who were familiar with Wikipedia, for example, use it in a passive rather than active manner. In other words, they consult it for information but do not contribute to its content. Further, there was no evidence that digital games were used for learning.

The students were also asked about the advantages and disadvantages of technology in a learning environment. One suggestion was that the students should be taught how to use a particular technology rather than being told to go out an use it for an assignment. Several did suggest that the use of technology to improve course communication would be a positive thing.

What were some of the barriers to the integration of technology into the courses? 1) Students' lack of technological skills; 2) instructors' lack of technological skills; and 3) instructors' lack of engagement in teaching.

In addition to the student responses, the instructors were given a chance to contribute to this study. An interesting finding came from the Engineering instructors who viewed the Web 2.0 as a fad and not worth investing the time and energy needed to integrate these tools into the curriculum. One Engineering instructor admitted that he experimented with technology in his classroom but reported that he received negative feedback from his students. Some of the instructors noted that the Web 2.0 technologies are for "soft" subject areas and for pre-college education. Other barriers included time, reluctance to change, and lack of student/instructor IT skills. Of this group of instructors, handheld devises, wireless networking, texting, and instant messaging were considered to have the most educational potential.

Overall, students are using the Web 2.0 in a very limited manner. In contrast to claims that suggest they are demanding technology in the classroom, these findings suggest that students are content with the more traditional pedagogies. Many students are looking to their instructors for guidance in their use of technology; however, the instructors report that these tools are merely fads or indicate that they are simply unaware of them. Thus, this study provides empirical evidence that not all digital native are demanding an educational revolution - one that involves the integration of technology into the curriculum. Was this group atypical or is the rhetoric wrong/skewed/biased/etc.? If the digital natives (individuals who may not be as tech-savvy as they are portrayed in the literature) are not driving the revolution, then who is?