I was recently asked by Southampton University’s Learning Spaces Committee to briefly review published research on the computing skills of incoming students, to ascertain if the ‘digital native’ really did exist. The objective was to inform the design of new “learning spaces” – both online and offline.
There has been considerable angst reported in the media about meeting the needs of the ‘digital native’ student – someone who has grown up with new technology and uses it proficiently and naturally. But are today’s students really expert users of these tools? Our own experience at Southampton suggests not…and there are a number of recent studies which support this view. So what exactly are the arguments – for and against?
The evidence for the digital native:
• Prensky (2001) argued that this group of ‘Digital Natives’ constituted the first generation of students to grow up with the Internet, having spent their entire lives exposed to computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams and mobile phones.
• A more recent endorsement of this view is provided by extensive research carried out with US teenagers by Tapscott (2008), who noted the need for a greater focus on the development of problem solving skills in a world where information is abundant, rather than on memorising a contained amount of tutor-directed content.
• Research conducted by the European Interactive Advertising Agency (EIAA, 2008) showed European students were dedicating a greater percentage of their time to Internet-related activities such as information gathering, online gaming and online chats as opposed to watching TV, talking on the phone or reading newspapers and books. They were able to absorb information quickly and from multiple sources, more easily adapt to changes and had amazingly flexible minds, adopting a ‘process’ rather than a ‘content’ view to problem solving and searching for information.
The evidence against the digital native:
• Kennedy et al (2007) found that the skills and enthusiasm for Web 2.0 tools amongst the ‘Google generation’ were overrated:
– students focused solely on social use of the tools
– students were sceptical of the wider relevance of social media and actually expected more traditional means of interaction in the classroom
– Some studies reported a ‘pick and mix’ approach to Web 2.0 tools – high usage of Wikipedia and social networking, but low uptake of blogging and social bookmarking meaning that students were focusing only on the more passive features of Web 2
• Bennett, Maton and Kevin (2008) considered that ‘it may be that there is as much variation within the digital native generation as between the generations’ (p779). The authors also questioned the view that digital native learning styles are different from other generations as individuals have different learning preferences that may change over time. They conclude: ‘Young people may do things differently, but there are no grounds to consider them as alien to us. Education may be under challenge to change, but it is not clear that it is being rejected.’ (p.783)
Browne et al’s (2008) survey of technology-enhanced learning in universities identified lack of staff skills as the greatest inhibitor to change. The authors also noted that current students were still influenced by traditional school pupil/teacher relationships and educational methods. They had little expectation that the university approach to learning would be any different.
It is clear from this brief review that not all students have the aptitude for new technology characterised by the “digital native” label. Students and tutors may still lack digital skills, and pressure for change from within might not be very high at the moment, but these skills are now increasingly defined by employers as “basic” competences that every educated person is expected to have.
At a time when universities face criticism for declining standards and graduate unemployment is at record levels, producing individuals with the skills, time and confidence to navigate and manage the online environment is increasingly important. Such students will stand out from the crowd by gaining access to new career opportunities, finding niche or potentially global audiences for their work, or enriching the lives of others. Those who do not display such initiative risk being marginalised or left behind.
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L.(2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology 39/5 775-786
Browne et al (2008) Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK
European Interactive Advertising Association (2008). Available at http://www.eiaa.net/news/eiaa-articles-details.asp?lang=1&id=66 Accessed on March 27 2009.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K.L., Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward A. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Prensky, M (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, MCB University Press, Volume 9, No. 6. October.
Tapscott, D. (2008) Grown up Digital, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Recent Comments