Digital Learners in Higher Education: A Research Project Update

Tannis Morgan, Mark Bullen

VOL. 25, No. 1

Abstract

This article provides an update of the Digital Learners in Higher Education Research project. In Phase 1 of the project, concluded that there is no empirically-sound basis for most of the claims that have been made about the net generation. It also found there are no meaningful differences between net generation and non-net generation students at this institution in terms of their use of technology, nor in their behavioural characteristics and learning preferences at one Canadian postsecondary institution. Phase 2 of the study will explore the “whys” of these findings, with the intention of informing teaching and learning practices.

Background

The techno-deterministic discourse that suggests immersion in a digital world has fundamentally altered the generation born between 1982 and 2000 has become so firmly entrenched, it is treated as a self-evident truth. Futurists and commentators have been successful in convincing many educators that this “net” generation behaves differently, has different social characteristics, different ways of using and making sense of information, different ways of learning, and different expectations about life and learning, all due to their exposure to digital technology (Howe and Strauss, 2000; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Palfrey and Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001a, b, 2005; Tapscott, 1998, 2009).

Alarmed by what we saw as a widespread and uncritical acceptance of this steretotype, we began researching the issue in 2008. We reviewed the literature thoroughly and then conducted a study at a Canadian postsecondary institution to determine whether or not the students fit the profile of the net generation learner as portrayed in the literature. We concluded that there is no empirically-sound basis for most of the claims that have been made about the net generation. We also found there are no meaningful differences between net generation and non-net generation students at this institution in terms of their use of technology, nor in their behavioural characteristics and learning preferences (Bullen, Morgan & Qayyum, in press). Our findings are consistent with the conclusions of other researchers (Bennett et al, 2008; Guo, Dobson and Petrina, 2008; Jones and Cross, 2009; Kennedy et al, 2007, 2009; Kvavik, 2005; Margaryan and Littlejohn, 2008; Pedro, 2009; Reeves and Oh, 2007; Selwyn, 2009).

Overview of Phase 2

Our critical stance on the Net Generation literature, and the evidence provided by the Phase 1 study generated considerable interest and several institutions expressed the desire to replicate the study at their own institutions. As a result we embarked on a second phase and have been joined by the University of Regina and the Open University of Catalonia.

Regardless of whether today’s students fit a Net Gen profile, there is no question that digital technologies are an important part of their social and educational lives, as it is for most students in the developed world. Educators around the world are scrambling to understand the rapidly changing technological landscape and determine how, or if, their teaching should change to accommodate emerging technologies. We are told that students want educators to be flexible in accommodating and incorporating new ICTs into their teaching, and to accept that their social use is relevant to their educational use. And while there may not be a generational basis for this contention, the question of how ICTs should be used in teaching and learning in higher education remains to be explored. Specifically, what are the pedagogical implications of social and educational uses of ICTs? How do students and faculty think that ICTs should be used in their teaching and learning? Are there similarities between different types of institutions, both locally and globally, in how students and faculty understand this question?

Our research and participation at conferences have shown that these questions are being asked at many institutions internationally. The OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation launched the New Millennium Learners research project in 2007. In Australia, the University of Melbourne recently completed a multi-university study, Educating the Net Generation. In South Africa, the University of Capetown is researching the use and access to ICTs in South African higher education and in the UK, the Open University has the Net Generation Encountering E-Learning research project. Our discussions with international researchers investigating this topic have underlined the importance of investigating these questions on a global scale, given the penetration of ICTs in the developed world, and the increased mobility of students internationally. Our goal is to build on the completed and active research in this area to try to develop a comprehensive understanding of the issues that take into account the diversity of cultural and institutional contexts.

Methodology

The purpose of the Phase 2 research is twofold:

To gain a more international understanding of digital learners. While there were no significant differences between Net Gen and non-Net Gen students at a Canadian Polytechnic, is this the case for students at a Canadian research university or at a Spanish distance education university?
To gain a better understanding of the implications of social and educational use of ICTs by students in our respective teaching and learning contexts.

The first phase of our study revealed that a student’s “toolkit” contains both generalized and context-specific uses and understandings of the affordances of technology. Consistent with Salaway et al (2007) there were examples of technology use that students preferred to keep in the social domain, as well as examples of technology use that easily transferred to and had a perceived value in the educational context. Phase 2 will explore the “whys” of this finding, with the intention of informing teaching and learning practices.

By educational use, we are referring to how students use ICTs in the context of their teaching and learning at their institutions. In other words, educational use refers to how students use ICTs in formal academic settings, while social use refers to the use of ICTs outside of formal teaching and learning.

We intend to investigate the following research questions:

1. Do postsecondary students distinguish their social and educational use of ICTs?
2. What impact do students’ social use of ICTs have on postsecondary learning environments?
3. What is the relationship between social and educational uses of ICTs in postsecondary education?

Theoretical Framework

The question of social versus educational use implies a sociocultural orientation to our study, and requires the use of theories or frameworks that help to explain use-in-context. We are using third generation activity theory (AT) (Engestrom, 1987) as a framework to examine more closely the nature of social and educational use, and the implications for teaching and learning. AT provides a means of looking at both social and educational contexts and a way of examining how these two contexts intersect or collide. AT is also valuable when examining larger units of analysis (e.g., institutions) in understanding the phenomenon being investigated. In particular, we will draw on Thorne’s (2003) notion of “cultures-in-use” to understand the intersection of social and educational use.

Research Design

We are using a multi-case study embedded research design (Yin, 2009) of three cases of social and educational use of digital technology.

Case Sampling

For Stake (2006), “ an important reason for doing the multicase study is to examine how the program or phenomenon performs in different environments” (p. 23). He lists three main criteria for selecting cases in a multi-case study:

Is the case relevant to the phenomenon being studied?
Do the cases provide diversity across contexts?
Do the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts?
(p. 23)

Consistent with this view, we have adopted maximum variation purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) for both case and within-case sampling. As a multi-case embedded research design, we are looking at three units of analysis in each of the cases: the institution, programs, and students. The number of programs and students investigated may vary across the institutions, depending on the size of the institution and available resources.

Case Contexts

BC Institute of Technology: BCIT is a Canadian campus-based polytechnic teaching institution with a large online and distance education program. It offers career-oriented programs in trades, professional and technical fields that are driven by employer-identified needs.
Open University of Catalonia: OUC is a fully online European university that offers undergraduate and graduate programs. It tends to attract older learners who have delayed their post-secondary education or are returning because of career changes or the need to acquire new skills. They offer programs in Spanish, Catalan and English. Students come from Spain, Latin America and, increasingly, other European countries.
University of Regina: The University of Regina is a relatively small Canadian research-intensive university. Its students are primarily from Saskatchewan but it has a number of international students and international programs.

The following themes have emerged from a preliminary analysis of the pilot interviews conducted at BCIT:

Profiles of Use: Given our critical stance on the generational classification of technology and learners (Bullen, Morgan & Qayyum, in press) we are cautious in any attempt to categorize profiles of use. However, if viewed on a continuum, our interviews with students revealed that there are clear resistors to technology, cautious users, specific or limited users, and integrators. Within these profiles are interesting conditions and affordances that contribute to the social and educational practices of students that we interviewed.
Relationship of social use to educational practices: students approached these practices within a range of conscious separation to a desire for more integration. As expected, mobile phone use and texting was a predominant practice, but smartphone uptake was limited. Ease of use, convenience, and cost determined the selection of technology for social use. There were overlapping uses (e.g. email), largely social uses (mobile texting and Facebook) and largely educational uses (program specific technologies).
Limited challenge to the current academic paradigm: None of the students challenged the current academic paradigm. In fact, several students talked about the importance of paying attention in lectures, of limiting distractions, and of the value of notetaking by hand. Furthermore, when students were asked what needed to change in their programs to make better use of technology for their learning, the responses hardly suggested any significant steps towards innovation.

This research contributes to an emerging body of international studies (Jones & Healing, 2010) that investigate digital technology practices from a sociocultural perspective.

For more information on this research project, visit the project website at http://digitallearners.ca

References

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., & Qayyum, A. (in press). Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation is Not the Issue. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Guo, R.X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of ICT Competence in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 235-254.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials rising: The next great generation. New York: Random House.

Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 26, 344-356.

Jones, C., & Cross, S. (2009). Is There a net generation Coming to University? In ALT-C 2009 ”In dreams begins responsibility”: Choice, evidence and change, 8-10 September 2009, Manchester, UK.

Kennedy, G., Dalgarnot, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K., Bishop, A. , Chang, R., & Churchward, R. (2007). The Net Generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Singapore.

Kennedy, G., Dalgarnot, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K., Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward, R. (2009). Educating the Net Generation: A handbook of findings for practice and policy. University of Melbourne.

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.

Oblinger, D.G., & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Pedró, F. (2009). New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and policy implications. Paris: OECD-CERI.

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).

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.

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.

Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2007). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2007. Boulder, Colo: Educause. http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/TheECARStudyofUnderg/45075.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The Digital Native: Myth and Reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(4), 364-379.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38-67.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied social research methods series, 5. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Tannis Morgan is an Educational Technology Specialist at the JIBC where she is responsible for assisting the development and implementation of an e-learning strategy. She has a PhD in Language and Literacy Education from UBC. E-mail: tmorgan@jibc.ca

Mark Bullen is the Dean of the Learning & Teaching Centre at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. He is leading the Digital Learners in Higher Education research project. E-mail: mark_bullen@bcit.ca