While technology has increasing influence throughout higher education, there is still much to be learned about its effective educational contribution. However many teaching interventions appear to be technology-led rather than responding to identified teaching and learning issues. This technologically deterministic view tends to mask important issues such as our role as educators in the 21st century and what we expect our students to be capable of as graduates in an increasingly global world. University teachers’ views about and approaches to teaching are more influential in the success of a technological application than knowledge about how a specific technology works. Thus developing a scholarly approach to using technology is more essential than technical competence. Fundamental to this is an understanding of teaching and learning. Transforming learning is a complex activity. It requires sophisticated reasoning about the goals and purpose of any intervention and how an educational programme may be designed. So although technology can enable new forms of teaching and learning to take place, it cannot ensure that effective and appropriate learning outcomes are achieved. Instead, we need to reflect on our views about teaching and learning and whether our approach helps students achieve appropriate goals. While technology makes a valuable contribution to supporting student learning, it is not the technology itself that is the agent of change: it is the teacher

1. Learners in the 21st Century:
Are they any different?
Linda Price

2. Introduction
The generation gap and
„Digital Natives‟
Underlying assumptions
Available evidence
Consider the implications

3. Net generation, millenials &
digital natives
• Net generation 1977 – Generation Next 1997
(Tapscott, 1998, 2008)
• Digital Natives appear after 1980 (Prensky, 2001,
2001, 2009)
• Millenials - Born in or after 1982 – 1992 (Oblinger
& Oblinger, 2005)

4. The „Digital Natives‟ Position
• Young people have grown up in a
technology-rich environment – part of
their lives
• Use technologies to find information;
to communicate with/meet friends; for
entertainment, etc.
• Expect good access to the Internet
and often interact with more than one
technology at a time
• They “think and process
information fundamentally
differently” from their predecessors
John, Birdsall Open University photo library

5. The „Digital Natives‟
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ergonomic/3363073562/sizes/m/

6. The „Digital Natives‟
http://teachcreatively.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/born_digital_native.jpg

7. The „Digital Natives‟
http://teachcreatively.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/born_digital_native.jpg

8. Prensky‟s view
Let‟s look at Prensky‟s views on digital natives and
digital immigrants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwKD-GuKkFc

9. The Assertions….
Young people…
have similar access to, and familiarity
with, a wide range of technologies
• can to exploit a full range of
technologies while studying
• use ICT for educational and
personal/social activities more or less
identically
• Younger students „know‟ the digital
world, others have to learn it
Where’s the evidence?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneysteiner/5713704415/sizes/o/in/photostream/

10. Boring but
important…
Before we overhaul our education systems…
…..let‟s examine the evidence
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25095603@N07/4548828992/

11. Some research findings
• Krause, Hartley, James and McInnes (2005)
– 1st year students were spending 4.2 hours per
week on the web
– Only 3% said they ever used it for study purposes
• Oliver and Goerke (2007)
– high proportions of students (> 90%) were online
– but few used it for study purposes

12. Kvavik (2005)
Surveyed 4,374 freshmen & college seniors
– frequent users of email, instant messaging, word processing
and Internet browsing
– use varied by students‟ majors
• High levels of use & skill did not translate into increased
preferences for technology use in the classroom
– 31% would like „extensive‟ use in the classroom,
– 26% would prefer classes with limited/no technology
• Two factors influencing students‟ preferences
– previous positive classroom experiences with technology
– previous technology use and skill generally.

13. Caruso and Kvavik (2005)
Investigated 18,000 students technological experiences
– ICT permeates all aspects of students‟ lives.
– However, only comfortable with a core set
– less comfortable with specialised technologies
• Similar findings to Kvavik (2005)
– high levels of use & skill did not translate into
technology preferences in the classroom
– students had moderate preferences for technology as a
courses supplement

14. Kennedy et al. (2008)
Surveyed 2,120 incoming 1st-year Australian university
students.
– many were highly technology-savvy
BUT
beyond computers, mobile phones, email -
patterns of access and use of other technologies were
variable.
“While some students have embraced the
technologies and tools of the „Net Generation‟, this
is by no means the universal student experience.”

15. Smith, Salaway & Caruso (2009)
ECAR Study of Undergraduates and ICT – USA (30,616)
Widespread use of „mainstreamed‟ technologies
– Web browsing
– keeping in touch with friends,
– university/course websites
• Fewer contribute to wikis, use podcasts/webcasts, etc.
– Few (5%) use SN sites to communicate with instructors
– Students‟ majors reflect technological skills and
preferences

16. Ipsos MORI (2007)
Student Expectations Study – HE applicants in UK
– High levels of access to and use of a variety of
technologies, but most undertook only a limited range
of activities
– Expectations of how ICT can be used are based upon
their experiences at school
– Separation of „academic‟ and „social‟ worlds

17. Activity
Take a pen or pencil and write your
name
Now take the same pen or
pencil and draw a picture of
the face of the person next to
you.

18. CIBER/UCL Study
(2008)
– Digital Literacy and the Google Generation – UK
– Very little evidence of generational shifts – Found no
improvement in young people‟s information skills
– Young people exhibit “an uncritical trust in branded
search engines to deliver quick fixes”
– „Get by with Google‟ – few knew how to search
effectively and how to evaluate the information found
“Are the information literacy skills of young people
appropriate for the demands of higher education?”

19. Jones et al. 2010
• Investigated ~550 students at 4 different types of
institution
• Net generation (<20) at distance education university
used social networking sites less than students at face-
to-face institutions
• Study domain and institution had greater influence in
patterns of technology use for net generation.
• Significantly – technology use for social/leisure and
study purposes differ

20. Study Purposes Social/Leisure Purposes
(Jones et al. 2010)

21. Jelfs and Richardson (2013)
• Surveyed 4,066 distance education students
• 60% 60-69 year olds responded online compared with
46% 21-29 year olds
• Students in all age groups reported broadly positive
attitudes to technology.
• Older students were more likely to adopt a deep
(understanding) approach to learning

22. Access to technologies
Technology 21–30 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and
over
Desktop computer 43.2 54.8 66.4 70.6 68.5 70.0
Laptop computer 86.0 81.7 77.2 74.6 66.8 52.3
Personal digital 3.9 7.0 6.8 7.9 4.9 2.7
assistant
Mobile phone 74.4 66.1 70.7 70.1 68.3 56.3
Portable digital 45.5 42.8 37.1 34.3 28.7 16.9
music player
USB memory stick 75.3 68.9 72.4 74.3 67.2 45.3
Handheld games 13.0 10.7 10.2 6.8 3.9 1.6
player
Console games 25.0 18.8 15.8 7.0 3.4 1.5
player
Jelfs & Richardson (2013)

23. The Assertions…. Review
• Students have similar access to, and
familiarity with, a wide range of
technologies
X
• Students can to exploit a full range of
technologies while studying X
• Students use ICT for educational and
personal/social activities more or less
identically
X
• Younger students „know‟ the digital
world, others have to learn it X
Evidence is lacking…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneysteiner/5713704415/sizes/o/in/photostream/

24. Summary of the
evidence
• Scant evidence exists to illustrate
that younger students “think and
process information
fundamentally differently” from
their predecessors
• Age is not the sole determinate in technology use
– particularly for education
• Institution, study domain and previous experience
are influential

25. Digital immigrants –
„moral panic‟?
Bennett et al. (2008) likened the debate to
an academic form of „moral panic‟
– arguments couched in dramatic terms
– appeals for urgent action and fundamental change
– polarized, relying on oppositions between Digital Natives and
Digital Immigrants,
– each person is fixed by their generational position
• Leads to a deficit model for professional development
– older teachers will never bridge the generational gap (Bayne &
Ross, 2007).

26. Implications for
teachers
• CAUTION: don‟t assume
that education has to
change just for the „net
generation‟
• Technology is not the defining factor for educational
change – it is only part of the wider context
• Underpinning pedagogy and design of education is
far more influential
(Kirkwood and Price, 2005; Price and Kirkwood, 2008; Kirkwood and Price, 2008; Price and
Kirkwood, in press)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/audiolucistore/7403731050/lightbox/

27. Implications for
policy makers
• Should reject stereotypes
regarding younger and
older learners
• Both younger and older students hold broadly positive
attitudes to technology – age is not a discriminator
• While students‟ use of technology is integral to their
experience – it is more important to consider the
context in which technology will be used and how it will
support students in their learning

28. The future….
• The focus is still on
• developing intellectual abilities:
discernment, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, etc.
• learning how to learning independently
• coping with uncertainty, etc.
• supporting learners in a variety of contexts
The challenge is knowing how to use technology
purposefully to help learners achieve these goals