By way of edna.edu.au, I’ve just run across a paper titled “The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings“. Written by a team of researchers from several different Australian institutions, the paper outlines the findings of a survey of 2588 first year university students that sought to uncover the technological usage habits of members of Generation Y.
The paper refutes the notion that this generation is comprised of “Digital Natives” and should thus be referred to as the “Net Generation”, as the findings of the survey reveal a “greater diversity in frequency of use of technology than many commentators have suggested.”
The paper also questions suggestions by some that “immersion in technology during their developmental years has changed the way that they learn and perhaps even the physiology of their brains.”
As a base introduction to the discussion of what some are calling a “paradigm shift” in education, this paper is worth a read. This shift is said to be characterised by a cultural gap between the growing in-flux of students who allegedly grew up in the presence of technology and are therefore well-versed in its use and accustomed to interacting in a much more democratic, user-generated realm; and those for whom technology was adopted much later in life – if at all – relatively speaking.
As Wikipedia describes in the article on the “Digital Native“:
“A digital native is a person who has grown up with digital technology such as computers, the Internet, mobile phones and MP3. A digital immigrant is an individual who grew up without digital technology and adopted it later.”
While the paper does appear to adopt a highly skeptical tone regarding new media and Web 2.0 tools, the statistics it contains are quite interesting. It’s demographic of Australian higher education also makes it quite relevant for Australian Universities researching emerging technology.
Along those lines, the paper’s observation on the trends in uptake of these tools is worth noting as well:
“…given that much of the previous research about the Net Generation has been conducted in North America, it could be that Australian students are not as enamoured with Web 2.0 technologies as American students.”
The paper argues that, based on these findings, it would be “a substantial mistake” to implement institution-wide changes that seek to accommodate the perceived needs of “Digital Natives”, when the fundamental basis for the label seems to be in question.
My view on the results is slightly different. I agree the statistics call for proper investigation of the realities of the student population before implementing expensive technical projects, but this should be the case with any project of such a scale.
Secondly, with respect the the paper’s statement that “Australian students are not as enamoured with Web 2.0 technologies as American students”, I fail to see how an inference to a perceived value by Gen Y students can be made here, when the reality the low levels of usage could just as easily be due to a lack of awareness of technology.
For example the paper cites the response of a student who didn’t know what a blog is. This is not necessarily indicative of perception of value, but lack of awareness.
Furthermore, these findings do not and cannot infer the efficacy of emerging technology for education. The true reality of this is yet to be discovered and needs to be researched further.
Ultimately the effectiveness of a technical element always comes down to local context. This includes how it’s implemented, the available learning opportunities, the technical abilities of those involved, and a variety of other factors. What works in one course or for one student may not work for another.
Hi,
The link below is to tv program I’ve produced about an education in the future when both teachers and students will be “digital natives”.
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?TAWSP_Dbt_20080918_779329_0
Hi mike, interesting research. Im glad to see that more and more research is done on this topic. About a year ago I’ve finished my masters degree with a research on learning environments for net generation learners (in the Netherlands N=240). I cahme to conclude that a significant majority of the students are (heavy) users of ICT but that there are certainly differences between groups (eg. gaming: boys vs girls). I found low use of blogs and most kids dont know about wiki’s or wikipedia. Nevertheless, they are on the web and socialize A LOT! Especially with connectivist ideas in mind I think we should really try to look for ways to embrace social technologies into our learning. The use of technolgies within CCK08 gives me a lot of inspiration and a lot to think about. One thing is sure, there are some major developments and we need to do much more research on that (academically or otherwise).
My master thesis can be found at
http://joostrobben.info/files/Robben_Master%20Thesis_Learning%20env%20Net-gen%20learners_28-08-07.pdf
currently working on an academic journal paper version of it.
thanks, Joost
Hi Joost,
Thanks very much for providing the link to your thesis. I read it on the way into work yesterday and found it fascinating. Your research definitely provides a different view on the matter than Kennedy et al. Taking the two together provides an interesting view on Gen Y students, I think.
I did get the impression that Kennedy et al set out to debunk current commentary on the matter as much a provide empirical data; the paper was rife with references to how wrong the current views are. So I have to say it’s a bit difficult to see it as an objective study.
Certainly their data speaks for itself, though I personally took their interpretations of the data with a grain of salt. I also found it curious that they didn’t release the questionnaire in the paper, instead requiring people to email them directly.
Access to the actual questions is incredibly important in interpretation of data, because the manner in which a question is posed has a direct impact on the way it is perceived, and the resulting response as a consequence.
As an exaggerated example, consider the following questions:
a) “How useless and over-hyped is Web 2.0?”
b) “What is your view on Web 2.0?”
These questions emote very different responses from one another, despite covering the same subject matter. Without knowing not just what was asked, but how, it is hard to effectively conclude anything.
I also find it very interesting that much of the data in the section on “Use of Web 2.0 Tools” fell in the “Missing/Not used” category. Data missing is incredibly different from technology not used; so I don’t think we can draw any firm conclusions based on what is provided there.
By contrast, your research was quite insightful. It suggests that – at least in your sample – usage of new technologies is absolutely occurring, but its nature depends on the context of the user. Kennedy et al seem to argue a similar point, yet in a much more critical way.
Interestingly there were some definite areas of overlap in the data sets too. For example both your study and Kennedy et al revealed fairly low levels of usage of both blogs and wikis.
It would seem that technologies that enable people to actually produce content are not nearly as popular – or utilised – as those that facilitate communication. Would you agree?
Kennedy et al’s data would seem to support that observation. For example, much of their data focussd on use of technology to produce things – such as images, movies, podcasts – or for information management and searching – and seems to point to fairly sporadic irregular usage.
As I said in the post though, these findings just point to the current informal usage occurring outside of formal education; not the educational efficacy of the technology itself. Perhaps the lesson that can be gained from these studies is more on how to to engage with Generation Y students, and ways to adapt the technology to suit new perspectives, rather than what to implement.
Cheers,
Mike