1 / 27

Digital Natives + Others = First Year Students

EDUCAUSE 2007. Digital Natives + Others = First Year Students. Dr Gregor Kennedy Biomedical Multimedia Unit with colleagues: Dr Kerri-Lee Krause, Dr Terry Judd, Ms Anna Churchward & Dr Kathleen Gray. Marc Prensky (2001).

salvador-macias
Download Presentation

Digital Natives + Others = First Year Students

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EDUCAUSE 2007 Digital Natives + Others = First Year Students Dr Gregor Kennedy Biomedical Multimedia Unit with colleagues: Dr Kerri-Lee Krause, Dr Terry Judd, Ms Anna Churchward & Dr Kathleen Gray

  2. Marc Prensky (2001) • They [digital natives] have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones and all the other toys and tools of the digital age • It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. • It is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed - and are different from ours - as a result of how they grew up.

  3. Digital Natives • ‘Digital Natives’ = ‘Net Generation’ = ‘Y Generation’ = ‘Millennials’ • Born roughly between 1980 and 1994 • Characterised by their familiarity with and reliance on information and communication technologies (ICTs). • prefer multi-tasking and quick, non-linear access to information; • are adept at processing information rapidly; • have a low tolerance for lectures; • prefer active rather than passive learning; • rely heavily on communications technologies to access information and to carry out social and professional interactions. (Prensky 2001a, 2001b; Oblinger, 2003; Gros, 2003; Frand, 2000)

  4. The Problem: Natives vs. Immigrants • Digital Immigrant University staff are ill-equipped to educate Digital Natives, whose sophisticated use of emerging technologies is incompatible with current teaching practice. • Prensky (2001) suggests that this disparity is the “the biggest single problem facing education today” (p. 2). • Commentators say educators need to adjust their pedagogical models to suit the preferences of this new generation of students.

  5. The Problem with the Problem Assumptions underlying Prensky’s view on students in Higher Education: • All incoming University students are ‘Digital Natives’. • These ‘Digital Natives’ are an homogenous group. • These ‘Digital Natives’ are more adept with technology than their teachers. • Everyday skills with technology will easily translate into beneficial technology-based learning. This project sought to address the first two of these assumptions

  6. What is the evidence? • While there are plenty of case studies, and some evidence, of the successful application of technology in Higher Education, there is little empirical research on the Digital Natives per se. • Kvavik (2005) and Kvavik & Caruso (2005) • ICT permeates all aspects of students lives. • Students are comfortable with core technologies; less comfortable with specialised technologies. • High levels of use and skill did not necessarily translate into preferences for increased use of technology in the classroom. • Students prefer technology to a moderate degree and as a supplement in courses.

  7. Aim - Digital Natives Study • Empirically document first-year University of Melbourne students’ experiences with an array of technologies and technology-based tools. • Focus on: • - Entrenched technologies (e.g. computers, email). • - Emerging technology-based tools (e.g. IM, social networking, SMS, blogs, wikis, file sharing, RSS, podcasting). It is worth noting that the study does not investigate the more cognitive characteristics of the Digital Natives (cognitive structure or function; i.e. neuroplasticity).

  8. Method • 1,973 first year students surveyed. • Orientation week and first week of Semester 1, 2006. • Good representation across faculties. • 62.4% females 37.5% males. • 23.4% International 75.2% Local students.

  9. Method Questionnaire • Demographics (11 items) • Access to hardware and the Internet (16 items) • Use of ‘tech-tools’ • Computer (10 items) • Web (22 items) • Mobile (7 items) • Skills with ‘tech-tools’ (39 items) • Preferences for ‘tech-tools’ in University studies (34 items) Students were asked to report on their previous year

  10. Results - Access

  11. Results - Access ‘Core’ Technologies … or becoming so… • Mobile phone (96%) • Desktop computer (90%) • Digital camera (76%) • Broadband Internet (73%) • MP3 player (69%) • Laptop computer (63%) % of students with ‘Unrestricted’ access

  12. Results - Use ‘Core’ Tech-Activities … or becoming so … • Sending or receiving email (94%) • Mobile phone voice calls (92%) • Mobile phone text messaging (93%) • Creating documents (88%) • Playing digital music files (84%) • Web-searching for general information (83%) • Communicating via instant messaging (80%) • Web-searching for study (76%) % of students completing activities daily or weekly

  13. Results - Use ‘Emerging’Tech-Activities … • Mobiles to take digital photos or movies (57%) • Mobiles to send digital photos or movies (33%) • Web-based file sharing- music (38%) - photos (31%) • Blogs- reading (38%) - commenting (27%) - maintaining (21%) • Social networking(24%) • VOIP telephony(19%) • Web-conferencing(19%)

  14. Factor Analyses

  15. Factor Analyses

  16. Factor Analyses

  17. Results - Use Used 9 factors in a MANOVA by Gender (male, female) by Residency (international, local) by Faculty Gender • Females > Males for: - Web Publishing - Advanced Mobile • Males > Females for: - Web Services - Games

  18. Results - Use Used 9 factors in a MANOVA by Gender (male, female) by Residency (international, local) by Faculty Residency • International > Local for: - Web Publishing - Advanced Mobile - MP3, Pics & IM - Advanced Web - Games - Standard Mobile • Local > International for: - Web Services

  19. Results - Use Used 9 factors in a MANOVA by Gender (male, female) by Residency (international, local) by Faculty

  20. Results - Preferences To assist with my University studies I want to be able to use…

  21. Results - Preferences Most want to use … • Computer for digital document creation and multimedia presentations, learning portal, web searches and Uni services, instant messaging and SMS. Some want to use … but some don’t … • Creating web pages / web sites, using PDAs, social networking software, web conferencing, RSS feeds and blogs

  22. Implications: Learning and Teaching Strategy • While there are clearly many tech-savvy first year students; - there is substantial diversity among this cohort - particularly when one moves beyond ‘core’ technologies. • Any technology-based learning and teaching strategies need to consider student equity (access and skill levels). • There are essential technologies expected by students. • While the use of some technologies is widely endorsed by students; other technologies clearly don’t enjoy this endorsement.

  23. Digital Natives + Other Students = First Year Students Implications for Prensky • The assumptions underpinning Prensky’s rhetoric about a new generation of Digital Native students don’t quite hold. • The “sheer volume of their interaction” with their technologically ubiquitous environment • They have “spent their entire lives” using … videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. • It’s true for some, It’s not true for others …

  24. Implications for Prensky Rather than scrambling to react to the so-called ‘Digital Natives’ … and changing our curricula in response to what we think they might be like (or like) … … we need to think carefully about how we can use particular ‘core’ and ‘emerging’ technologies to support learning in higher education, given the known diversity of experiences, attitudes and expectations of all students.

  25. Quadrant 1: Convenience • Technology and online resources, services readily available • Fast response time: immediacy • Converged devices • Networks and tech support available 24/7 • Quadrant 2: Connection • Mobile electronic connections • Multiple devices that are personal, customizable, portable • Members of their communities reachable anywhere, anytime • Social - work in teams • Quadrant 3: Control • Multitasking • Customization • Focused on grades, performance • Control the when & where of social interaction • Quadrant 4: Learning • Rich media, visual imagery, including the ability to integrate virtual and physical (e.g. through simulations) • Experiential, participatory • Real-time engagement Pushing Boundaries: Beyond Convenience Quadrant 1: Convenience 50% Quadrant 2: Connection 20% The ECAR Framework: Students’ ICT expectations and preferences Quadrant 3: Control 14% Quadrant 4: Learning 13% (adapted from Kvavik & Caruso, 2005, p.11)

  26. Acknowledgements • The Project Team: Kerri-Lee Krause, Terry Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray. • The Project Sponsor: Associate Professor Sue Elliott, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching, Learning and Equity). • Students and staff who assisted with data collection. • Billy Lee for this presentation. • Barney Dalgarno and Sue Bennett.

  27. Questions … www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/netgen/index.html www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/index.html

More Related