Survey of 2588 students at three Australian universities
Use of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies low.
“ To accept the claims of some of the commentators on the changes needed in universities to cater for this generation of students without undertaking further research is likely to be a substantial mistake.”
Contradictory Evidence 5/13/2009 Source Comments University of Guelph (2008)
Survey of 2706 students
Reluctant to mix personal and academic use of computers
May not use technology the way we expect them to
Use of online social networks for academic use is low
Contradictory Evidence 5/13/2009 Source Comments Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008).
Review of literature
not a homogeneous generation with technical expertise and a distinctive learning style.
variations within the generation may be more significant to educators than similarities.
Contradictory Evidence 5/13/2009 Source Comments Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007).
Review of Literature
“ Most of the popular literature on the subject...appears to rest on limited data, almost always conducted by survey methods characterized by a lack of reliability and validity data."
Contradictory Evidence 5/13/2009 Source Comments Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008)
students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use not a grounds for making radical changes to higher education.
Contradictory Evidence 5/13/2009 Source Comments University College of London (2008)
Comprehensive study of the information-seeking behaviour of the Net Generation (post 1992)
Poor information literacy
Fail to critically evaluate information found on Internet
Questions based on Net Gen literature and Part 1 of study
Net Gen Characteristics 5/13/2009 Item Level of Agreement Significance Digitally literate High Not significant Connected Moderately high Small relationship Multitasking Moderately high Small relationship Experiential learning Moderately high Not significant Structured learning Moderately high Not significant
Net Gen Characteristics 5/13/2009 Item Level of Agreement Significance Group work Low Small relationship Social Moderately high Not significant Goal oriented Moderate Not significant Preference for text Moderate Small relationship Community minded Moderate Not significant
Communication with Peers 5/13/2009 Mode Level of Use Significance BCIT email Moderate Not significant Personal email Moderately high Not significant Instant messaging Moderate Small relationship Text message (phone) Moderately high Small relationship Facebook/ MySpace Moderate Small relationship Talking via phone Moderately high Small relationship Talking in person High Small relationship WebCT Low Small relationship
Communication with Instructors 5/13/2009 Mode Level of Use Significance BCIT email Moderate Not significant Personal email Moderate Not significant Instant messaging Low Not significant Text message (phone) Low Not significant Facebook/ MySpace Low Not significant Talking via phone Low Not significant Talking in person High Not significant WebCT Low Small relationship
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). The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality. Accepted for publication in the Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology . http://www.box.net/shared/fxqyutottt
Frand, J. (2000). The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2000, 15-24.
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation . New York: Random House.
Kennedy et. Al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings . Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Singapore. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kvavik, R.B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L Oblinger (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation, pp. 7.1-7-20. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Unpublished paper. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrReality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf
Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the Net Generation . Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5)
Prensky, M. (2001b ). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II; Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6).
Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Generational Differences. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology , 295-303.
Seely-Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital . USDLA Journal, 16 (2).