Learners in the 21st Century:

Are they any different?

Linda Price

Introduction

The generation gap and ‘Digital Natives’Underlying assumptionsAvailable evidenceConsider the implications

Net generation, millenials & digital natives• Net generation 1977 – Generation Next 1997

(Tapscott, 1998, 2008)

• Digital Natives appear after 1980 (Prensky, 2001, 2001, 2009)

• Millenials - Born in or after 1982 – 1992 (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005)

The ‘Digital Natives’ Position• Young people have grown up in a

technology-rich environment – part of their lives

• Use technologies to find information; to communicate with/meet friends; for entertainment, etc.

• Expect good access to the Internet and often interact with more than one technology at a time

• They “think and process information fundamentally differently” from their predecessors

John, Birdsall Open University photo library

The ‘Digital Natives’

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ergonomic/3363073562/sizes/m/

The ‘Digital Natives’

http://teachcreatively.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/born_digital_native.jpg

The ‘Digital Natives’

http://teachcreatively.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/born_digital_native.jpg

Prensky’s view Let’s look at Prensky’s views on digital natives and

digital immigrants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwKD-GuKkFc

The Assertions…. Young people…

have similar access to, and familiarity with, a wide range of technologies

• can to exploit a full range of technologies while studying

• use ICT for educational and personal/social activities more or less identically

• Younger students ‘know’ the digital world, others have to learn it

Where’s the evidence?http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneysteiner/5713704415/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Boring but important…

…..let’s examine the evidence Before we overhaul our education systems…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25095603@N07/4548828992/

Some research findings• Krause, Hartley, James and  McInnes (2005)

–1st year students were spending 4.2 hours per week on the web

–Only 3% said they ever used it for study purposes  

•  Oliver and Goerke (2007)  –high proportions of students (> 90%) were online –but few used it for study purposes

Kvavik (2005) Surveyed 4,374 freshmen & college seniors

– frequent users of email, instant messaging, word processing and Internet browsing

– use varied by students’ majors• High levels of use & skill did not translate into increased

preferences for technology use in the classroom – 31% would like ‘extensive’ use in the classroom,– 26% would prefer classes with limited/no technology

• Two factors influencing students’ preferences– previous positive classroom experiences with technology– previous technology use and skill generally.

Caruso and Kvavik (2005)Investigated 18,000 students technological experiences

– ICT permeates all aspects of students’ lives. – However, only comfortable with a core set– less comfortable with specialised technologies

• Similar findings to Kvavik (2005) – high levels of use & skill did not translate into

technology preferences in the classroom – students had moderate preferences for technology as a

courses supplement

Kennedy et al. (2008) Surveyed 2,120 incoming 1st-year Australian university

students.  – many  were highly technology-savvy

BUT beyond computers, mobile  phones,  email - patterns  of

 access  and  use  of other  technologies were variable.   “While some students have embraced the

technologies and tools of the ‘Net Generation’, this is by no means the universal student experience.”

Smith, Salaway & Caruso (2009)ECAR Study of Undergraduates and ICT – USA (30,616)

Widespread use of ‘mainstreamed’ technologies – Web browsing– keeping in touch with friends,– university/course websites

• Fewer contribute to wikis, use podcasts/webcasts, etc.– Few (5%) use SN sites to communicate with instructors – Students’ majors reflect technological skills and

preferences

Ipsos MORI (2007)Student Expectations Study – HE applicants in UK– High levels of access to and use of a variety of

technologies, but most undertook only a limited range of activities

– Expectations of how ICT can be used are based upon their experiences at school

– Separation of ‘academic’ and ‘social’ worlds

Activity Take a pen or pencil and write your

name

Now take the same pen or pencil and draw a picture of the face of the person next to you.

CIBER/UCL Study (2008)

– Digital Literacy and the Google Generation – UK– Very little evidence of generational shifts – Found no

improvement in young people’s information skills– Young people exhibit “an uncritical trust in branded

search engines to deliver quick fixes”– ‘Get by with Google’ – few knew how to search

effectively and how to evaluate the information found

“Are the information literacy skills of young people appropriate for the demands of higher education?”

Jones et al. 2010

• Investigated ~550 students at 4 different types of institution

• Net generation (<20) at distance education university used social networking sites less than students at face-to-face institutions

• Study domain and institution had greater influence in patterns of technology use for net generation.

• Significantly – technology use for social/leisure and study purposes differ

Study Purposes Social/Leisure Purposes

(Jones et al. 2010)

Jelfs and Richardson (2013)• Surveyed 4,066 distance education students

• 60% 60-69 year olds responded online compared with 46% 21-29 year olds

• Students in all age groups reported broadly positive attitudes to technology.

• Older students were more likely to adopt a deep (understanding) approach to learning

Technology 21–30 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and over

Desktop computer 43.2 54.8 66.4 70.6 68.5

70.0

Laptop computer 86.0 81.7 77.2 74.6 66.8 52.3

Personal digital assistant

3.9 7.0 6.8 7.9 4.9 2.7

Mobile phone 74.4 66.1 70.7 70.1 68.3 56.3

Portable digital music player

45.5 42.8 37.1 34.3 28.7 16.9

USB memory stick 75.3 68.9 72.4 74.3 67.2 45.3

Handheld games player

13.0 10.7 10.2 6.8 3.9 1.6

Console games player

25.0 18.8 15.8 7.0 3.4 1.5

Access to technologies

Jelfs & Richardson (2013)

The Assertions….• Students have similar access to, and

familiarity with, a wide range of technologies

• Students can to exploit a full range of technologies while studying

• Students use ICT for educational and personal/social activities more or less identically

• Younger students ‘know’ the digital world, others have to learn it

Evidence is lacking…http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneysteiner/5713704415/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Review

X

XX

X

Summary of the evidence

• Scant evidence exists to illustrate that younger students “think and process information fundamentally differently” from their predecessors

• Age is not the sole determinate in technology use – particularly for education

• Institution, study domain and previous experience are influential

Digital immigrants – ‘moral panic’?

– arguments couched in dramatic terms– appeals for urgent action and fundamental change – polarized, relying on oppositions between Digital Natives and

Digital Immigrants, – each person is fixed by their generational position

• Leads to a deficit model for professional development– older teachers will never bridge the generational gap (Bayne &

Ross, 2007).

Bennett et al. (2008) likened the debate to an academic form of ‘moral panic’

Implications for teachers

• Technology is not the defining factor for educational change – it is only part of the wider context

• Underpinning pedagogy and design of education is far more influential

(Kirkwood and Price, 2005; Price and Kirkwood, 2008; Kirkwood and Price, 2008; Price and Kirkwood, in press)

• CAUTION: don’t assume that education has to change just for the ‘net generation’

http://www.flickr.com/photos/audiolucistore/7403731050/lightbox/

Implications for policy makers

• Both younger and older students hold broadly positive attitudes to technology – age is not a discriminator

• While students’ use of technology is integral to their experience – it is more important to consider the context in which technology will be used and how it will support students in their learning

• Should reject stereotypes regarding younger and older learners

The future….• The focus is still on

• developing intellectual abilities: discernment, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, etc.

• learning how to learning independently• coping with uncertainty, etc. • supporting learners in a variety of contexts

The challenge is knowing how to use technology purposefully to help learners achieve these goals