Digital natives

Together with my colleagues (Hendrik Kalb, Prof. Eric Schoop), I have recently written a book chapter about the education of future learners. In connection with this topic, I have done some theoretical research about the topic of digital nativeI have already mentioned my interest in this topic here). I want to present here some of my conclusions from this research:

Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

The learners, who have just begun attending higher education institutions or are about to do so, have been born in the late 1980s or in the 1990s. A number of possible views can be adopted in order to describe these learners. I will consider their approach to technology, because this issue is directly connected to the topic of technology-enhanced education. A crucial question in the use of technology in the education is the one of the acceptance of ICT (compare e.g. Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). Besides the factors which have a direct influence on the acceptance of ICT, the intention to use technology and the actual use of technology are affected by

•    computer self-efficacy,
•    computer anxiety and
•    attitude towards using technology

of the learners (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). Recently, it has been suggested, that there is a general positive attitude among the younger learners towards the use of ICT in practically any situation. Furthermore, these learners have been said to posses prodigious computer related skills. These arguments appear to justify the use of ICT in education in all possible settings. The term used to describe the generation of future learners is (among others) the “digital natives”.

The author of the term “digital natives” is Marc Prensky (Prensky, 2001a; Prensky, 2001b). Prensky describes the digital natives “‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (Prensky, 2001a, p. 1). This definition is very difficult to grasp. Prensky argues, that a fundamental discontinuity has taken place in the development of the future learner generation. This discontinuity has been caused by the role that technology plays in today’s lives. He also believes that young people who have grown up in close contact to ICT have not only fully different lifestyle than the generations before. He goes as far as to suggest, that neurological change has taken place. (Prensky, 2001a) Although Prensky is among the most prominent and most cited supporters of the digital natives theory, he was not the first to describe the “new generation theory”. The first mention of this theory is attributed to Don Tapscott (Tapscott, 1997). Tapscott describes the future learners as the “Net Generation” and the “Net Kids”. He also postulates, that the generation of future learners has excessive media skills and names a number of characteristics, which are common to the Net generation learners (Tapscott, 1997). Besides Prensky and Tapscott, there have also been many further authors, who promote the digital natives theory. Most of them base their theories on the claims of Tapscott and Prensky (for a review see Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Schulmeister, 2008). A number of terms are used to describe this new generation of learners: net generation, generation X, generation @, net kids, digital natives, homo zappiens etc. (compare e.g. Opaschowski, 1999; Prensky, 201a; Tapscott, 1997; Veen & Vrakking, 2006). Although there are some differences, particularly in describing the characteristics of the digital natives, the most of the theories can be summed up as follows (compare Bennett et al., 2008; Schulmeister, 2008):

• The digital natives are all those, who have been born roughly after the 1980.
• The digital natives are a distinct new generation natives with characteristics that separate it from the past generations.
• The digital natives have had extensive contact to technology, particularly the Internet, throughout their upbringing. They are used to employing ICT under all circumstances.
• The digital natives posses a high level of media literacy.
• Certain characteristics are common to the whole generation of digital natives (compare Howe & Strauss 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2006; Opachoschwski, 1999; Prensky, 2001a; Tapscott, 1997; Tapscott, 2008). Many of these characteristics directly influence the way they learn (e.g. quick absorption of information, networking, work in teams, attention disorders).
• Due to the behavioural changes caused by the intense contact with technology, there is a difference between the digital natives and the previous generations (digital immigrants). This difference, also called the “digital divide” (Tapscott, 1997) is so great, that it causes misunderstanding, even estrangement between the digital natives and the digital immigrants.
• The digital natives feel uncomfortable in the existing educational system (Levin & Arafeh, 2002; Oblinger, 2003; Prensky, 2001a). Connected to the digital natives theory is thus the claim for radical change in the current education, including the content as well as teaching methods.

The supporters of the digital natives phenomenon have attributed a number of positive as well as negative characteristics to the digital natives. These have been summed up here (compare Howe & Strauss 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2006; Opachoschwski, 1999; Prensky, 2001a; Tapscott, 1997; Tapscott, 2008):

Positive characteristics

• fast absorption of information
• multitasking
• networking
• working in teams
• greater self-confidence and independancy
• higher intelligence
• openness towards minorities
• achievement orientation
• innovation
• entertainment oriented
• critical approach towards information (scrutiny)

Negative characteristics

• superficial interests
• attention disorders
• speech disorders
• aggression
• personality disorders

Through these characteristics, the digital natives are said to differ fundamentally from the previous generations (the so called digital immigrant (Prensky, 2001a; Prensky, 2001b)) (Tapscott, 2008). Due to these differences the current educational system has become unsuitable to educate the future learners (Levin & Arafeh, 2002; Oblinger, 2003). “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (Prensky, 2001a, p.1). Connected to the digital natives theory is thus the claim for radical change in the current education, including the content as well as teaching methods.

The described digital natives theory has found a number of supporters in addition to the mentioned authors, who have contributed to its development. It has been particularly popular in the area of E-Learning, where it is being used as a justification for the introduction of technology enhanced education. There are however also many critics of the theory itself as well as the argumentation. Schulmeister presents a list of critical views on the digital master debate. Following points concerning the scientific argumentation are mainly criticised:

• Insufficient empirical evidence
  Particularly Tapscott and Prensky present hardly any empirical evidence. Their reasoning is based on examples of a highly selective sample. Despite this problem, both Prenksy and Tabscott are widely and uncritically cited in further publications. (Bennett et al. 2008; Schulmeister, 2008)
• Uncritical interpretation of empirical studies
  Scientific publications on the subject make use of empirical studies on the media (sometimes only focused on the PC or the Internet) usage among young people. The absolute or relative usage time is then interpreted to prove the existence or describe the habits of the digital natives. Schulmeister (2008) as well as Bennett et al. (2008) criticised this procedure. The data is often handled as a whole, without further splitting. Also, insufficient comparisons are offered with the use of other media or further activities.
• Unsupported conclusions
  Even with the use of empirical data, the authors often draw conclusions, which is not fully supported by the used data. This is particularly the case with the described characteristics of the digital natives. Sometimes an explanation of the observation is offered, without a view to possible counter-argumentation. Often, no further examination is done to falsify or verify or the ideas set forth by the authors. (Bennett et al. 2008; Schulmeister, 2008)

Due to these inconsistencies, the digital natives theory shows a number of weaknesses:

• Generation assumption
  One of the assumptions of the digital natives theory is, that a whole generation has been altered due to their relationship to technology. This assumption is clearly visible in the nomenclature like Net Generation, Net Kids, Generation @ etc. However, theory, that a whole generation possesses sophisticated technology related skills and a number of very concrete characteristics is not supported by research results to date (Bennett et al. 2008; Schulmeister, 2008). Though there are individuals who fit the description of the digital natives, there is no evidence, that this fits the whole generation. There are significant differences among the individuals in this alleged generation (for the discussion about the problems of the generation concept see Schulmeister, 2008). Also, there appears to be little reason against those born before the 1980s (who Prensky brands as the digital immigrants) should not have the same intensive relationship with technology as the digital natives and thus share the same characteristics (Schulmeister, 2008; Seufert, 2007).
• Unsupported characteristics
  The characteristics, which have been collected to describe the digital natives, are mainly unsupported by empirical evidence (Bennett et al. 2008; Schulmeister, 2008). This makes them very unreliable.
• Unsupported claims for changes in the educational system
  Due to the problematic reliability of the existence of a digital native generation and the characteristics of the digital natives, it is difficult to conclude the changes which should be done in the educational system. The claims made by Prensky and Tabscott are very unspecific. Claims by other authors are more concrete, but given the unsupported footing they are based on, it is questionable, whether they really apply. (Bennett et al. 2008; Schulmeister, 2008)

If we take into account the described weaknesses, we come to the conclusion that the main problem of the education of the future learners is not, that they have been estranged from the educational institutions by their relationship to technology and electronic media. The main problem is the growing heterogeneity of the learners. The educators have always been faced with learners with different knowledge, experience and skills. This heterogeneity will increase, because the learners have been confronted with a number of different electronic and non-electronic communication media. They have used this media in different ways, so not only their experience with the media, but also their skills differ greatly. And after the learners have left the educational systems, this heterogeneity will be mirrored in their working environments

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.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising : The Next Great Generation. New York, NY: Vintage.

Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: the widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved January 25, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67

Oblinger, D. G. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, and millennials: Understanding the “new students”. EDUCASE Review, 38(4):37-47.
Retrieved on January 25, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Educating the Net Generation. Washington, D.C.: Educause.
Retrieved January 25, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/

Opaschowski, H. W. (1999). Generation @. Die medienrevolution entlässt ihre Kinder: Leben im Informationszeitalter. Hamburg/Ostfildern, Germany: Kurt Mair Verlag.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On The Horizon – The Strategic Planning Resource for Education Professionals, 9(5),1-6.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On The Horizon – The Strategic Planning Resource for Education Professionals, 9(6),1-6.

Seufert, S. (2007). “Ne(x)t Generation Learning” – was gibt es Neues über das Lernen. In S. Seufert & T. Brahm, T. (Eds.), Ne(x)t Generation Learning«: Wikis, Blogs, Mediacasts & Co. – Social Soft- ware und Personal Broadcasting auf der Spur, pages 2-19. Swiss Centre for Innovation and Learning, Universität St. Gallen.

Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Veen, W. and Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: Growing Up in a Digital Age. London: Network Continuum Education.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., & Davis, G.B. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.