ERIC EJ1149726: Students' Engagement with Learning Technologies

2013·0.14 MB·English

by  ERIC

Students’ engagement with learning
technologies
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
This paper seeks to add to the discussion surrounding young adults’ relationship and engagement with
learning technologies, exploring whether they naturally engage with these technologies when the use of them
is either compulsory or optional.
We discuss our findings in relation to whether young people are truly engaging with technologies or
whether they are simply passive consumers of some technology, and unenthusiastic innovators in others.
Participants in the UK (N=6, Mean Age 20.66, undergraduate psychology students) provided their responses
to a short series of face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions designed to elicit a critical exploration
of their learning experience with particular emphasis on learning technologies. Participants in the US (N=26,
Mean Age=22.38, pre-service teachers) responded to a series of short open-ended questions submitted online
using asynchronous video journals uploaded to a private classroom space on YouTube.
We found that young people are generally unenthusiastic users of learning technologies, which has
significant implications for the educational sector in the UK and the US, as many of our participants are
pre-service teachers. At a time when great emphasis is being placed on increasing student access to technologies
in the classroom to enrich the learning experience, and to offer greater opportunity for understanding and
discovery of information, trainee educators seem reluctant to engage with many types of educational
technologies.
Keywords:Learning technologies; student engagement/disengagement.
‘People think that because I’m 23 and was born into the technological generation, that it should be easy for
me to use the technology, that it should be a breeze. But it’s not.’ US 5
S
TUDENTS entering higher education suggested the natives’ brains may be
in the early part of the 21st century changing as a result of their growing
have a world full of technology at their up in technology-saturated environments.
fingertips. Those born around 1980, whom Tapscott, a self-defined DI (2012), describes
Prensky (2001b) and Tapscott (1999) call the N-Generation as ‘outpacing and over-
digital natives or the Net-generation, respec- taking adults on the technology track’ (1999,
tively, have spent much of their lives p.36). Both Prensky and Tapscott call for
surrounded by and using technology such as reforming the way in which the younger
the internet, mobile communications, and generation is educated, changes that would
satellite television. impact curriculum, instruction, and the
In response to rapid technological professional development of educators.
change, educational futurists such as Prensky As policymakers, advocacy groups, think
(2001a, 2001b) and Tapscott (1998, 2009) tanks, business leaders, and the media pick
have developed narratives to explain shifting up the message, such claims have the poten-
social dynamics and the parallel need for tial to initiate significant educational
changes in educational practice. Prensky change, from early childhood education
(2001a, 2001b) claims the younger genera- through higher education, whether such
tion of digital natives(DNs) think differently change is warranted or not. Often, reforms
from the older digital immigrants (DIs, to educational practice are put into place
those born before 1980), and he has without sufficient evidence or justification
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No 2, Autumn 2013 49
© The British Psychological Society
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
(David & Cuban, 2010), costing much in cousins could have dreamt. Tissington and
monetary expense and effort. Researchers Senior (2011) suggest that DNs view knowl-
(Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Sánchez et edge as a utilitarian concept that is accessible
al., 2011) have begun to question the exis- everywhere and at any time, and access to
tence of a fundamentally changed group of the sum of human knowledge is a way of life.
learners, calling for further exploration of
such claims. Current debate surrounding digital natives
Through this qualitative study, we seek to The support against a dichotomous digital
add to the research that explores the notion society is growing. For example, Bennett et
of the existence of a new generation of al. (2008) and Sánchez et al. (2011) dismiss
learners among contemporary undergrad- the very notion of DNs or DIs. Both studies
uate psychology and education students in report that although there is evidence that
the contexts of universities in the UK and recent generations are increasingly more
the US. comfortable with technology than their
predecessors, most use the technology to
Relevant literature supplement social activities and far less for
The ‘new generation of learners’ thesis educational purposes. Sánchez et al. (2011)
For the purposes of this paper, we see a suffi- report that young people still value face-to-
cient overlap between the concepts of the face contact and that social networks supple-
DN and the N-generation to treat them ment pre-existing friendships: the paradox
together: both groups are defined by a being that most individuals who socialise a
similar chronological timespan, and their great deal online still only do so with a
proponents call for changes in the level of handful of people, in spite of having dozens
embrace of technology in the education or even hundreds of ‘online friends’
system. (Dunbar, 1992; O’Malley & Marsden, 2008).
Prensky (2001a, 2001b) advocates for the In their deconstruction of Prensky’s
design of learning environments that (2001a, 2001b) premise of the digital knowl-
support multi-tasking, random access to edge divide, Kennedy et al. (2008)
information, frequent feedback and rewards, concluded that there is no compelling
and social networking. Prensky (2005) warns evidence that this technological division
that DNs are often restless and frustrated in actually exists. They state that while some
the face of conservative policies and prac- students embrace and clearly engage with
tices, created by DIs in school. Both Prensky new technologies, others of a similar age and
and Tapscott (1999) claim that DIs struggle background do not. They also criticised
to a large extent with technologies because Prensky’s notion that DI brains have
they retain an ‘accent’ (Prensky, 2001a) from changed to accommodate digital technolo-
their non-digital past, turning to books for gies. Instead, Kennedy and colleagues postu-
reference rather than the internet, for lated that if a division exists, it is between
example. living technologies [social and/or entertain-
According to Tissington and Senior ment] and learning technologies[technologies
(2011), young people have little patience for whose primary purpose is the facilitation or
delays, and they desire to be part of the enhancement of learning (Kennedy et al.,
digital community 24 hours a day, seven days 2008)]. Thus, by extending Prensky’s argu-
a week. Tissington and Senior (2011) refer- ment, this would imply one brain wired for
ence evolutionary biology and the human social technologies and another for LT.
desire to socialise as mechanisms for survival. A debate, which is yet to be explored, is
The DNs have adopted social networks in the potential impact DI (Prensky, 2001a,
order to stay in contact with peers but on a 2001b) teachers at school and tutors at
much grander scale than our evolutionary university have on their digitally native
50 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013
Students’ engagement with learning technologies
students. According to Bennett et al. (2008), goals. These goals are pedagogic benefits,
there is a moral panic among educators, in student tutor interaction, and serving the
relation to the provision of technologies in existing and new students in a cost effective
the classroom and lecture theatre. Some way. It is possible that sometimes a gap is
even state that the classroom is woefully ill created between the drive to introduce
equipped to meet the emotional, intellectual learning technologies, and their ultimate
and motivational needs of the DN (Prensky, effectiveness in the classroom or lecture hall.
2001b; Tapscott, 1999). Jones et al. (2010)
have made compelling arguments that Purpose of the study
changes in teaching practice in terms of In this study, we employed a qualitative
pedagogy and assessment are absolutely methodology. The aims were to explore why
fundamental if students are to reach their and how two distinct groups of undergrad-
full potential in an academic arena. uate students, in the UK and US contexts,
elected to engage or disengage with LT, and
Consumers, not innovators to explore whether previous educational
Bennett et al. (2008) report that students experience influenced engagement/disen-
tend to use technology in a different way to gagement with technology.
how Prensky and Tapscott suggest. Bennett The UK university was chosen because it
et al. propose that although young people had a number of learning technologies avail-
are familiar with technology, their use of it able to all students, but the use of these tech-
and skills are by no means uniform among nologies was not a compulsory element to
their peers. Kennedy et al. (2008) found that the degree programme. Whereas in the US
students were reluctant to engage with some students were undertaking a specific module
learning technology (LT). For example, they designed to be delivered entirely online, and
were happy to send text messages, but reti- students were obliged to use learning tech-
cent to write blogs or to read RSS feeds. This nologies that may have been unfamiliar to
would therefore suggest that although them. We acknowledge the potential
students have access to an increasingly wide confound of UK (optional) vs. US (compul-
range of technologies, their use of some sory) use of technology, and we were also
technologies is far less common than some mindful of cultural and geographical differ-
have argued. ences in the two populations, but these
differences did not detract from the fact that
Expanding use of technology in higher education both populations were digital natives, born
The push to use technology in higher educa- after 1980, and share access to the depth of
tion reaches beyond the computer labs and technological knowledge, and same degree
into the use of smart phones and tablets in of understanding or anxiety of technology.
lectures and seminars, but as Surry (2002) Further, we wanted to extend the discussion
points out there can be a number of barriers on whether young people are increasingly
to the introduction of educational tech- becoming consumers of technology rather
nology in higher education. These barriers than innovators and the potential impact
can include cost, the existing structure and that technology-reticent individuals have on
having adequate support. One crucial future generations.
barrier that Surry (2002) points out is
‘learning’, and he describes this as the need Method
for technology to enhance the educational This qualitative study is an exploration of
goals of the college or university. Surry undergraduate student use and perception
(2002) breaks down the ‘need’ element still of LTs, which can be defined as technologies
further by suggesting that technology is not whose primary purpose is the facilitation or
an end point but a means for accomplishing enhancement of learning (as opposed to
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013 51
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
supporting social or entertainment func- in the US (16 females and 10 males; mean
tions). age of 22.38 years; range from 20 to 30
years). Students enrolled in the course in
Participants and contexts partial fulfilment of the bachelor’s degree.
Data were collected from two groups of All elements of the course, including course
students (see Table 1). The first group material and assessments, were communi-
consisted of students in the UK who were cated and submitted online. Volunteers were
encouraged (not required) to engage with a recruited via an email of appeal.
number of LTs whilst in their first year at At first glance we appear to have chosen
university. The second group of students two very diverse populations to explore, as
consisted of university students in the US who they differ in geographical location, culture,
were required, as part of an online course, to course of study, and some might argue
interact and engage with a number of LTs. language. However, Prensky and Tapscott
The researchers felt that the differences stated that the only criteria to attaining an
between the two groups of undergraduate innate relationship with technology would
students, with the first being allowed to be being born after 1980, and having access
choose to use or not use the available LTs and to technology, both our populations share
the second being required to use LTs, would these crucial, and overriding criteria.
provide a unique contrast and further Studying young people who share the same
insights into young adults’ perceptions and geographical location, precisely the same
employment of technologies. cultural references and studying the same
Six first-year undergraduate psychology university course and mode of study would
(BSc Honours) students at a Post-92 univer- have compromised generalisability to a
sity in the UK volunteered (recruited via an greater or lesser extent, and any findings
email appeal, among first-year psychology would have suffered this understandable
students) to take part in this study (five limitation.
females and one male; mean age of 20.66;
range from 18 to 28). Volunteers were born Data collection
after 1980 and were registered to the The six UK students provided their
full-time psychology BSc (Honours) responses to a series of open-ended ques-
programme. tions designed to elicit a critical exploration
During their first year at university, of their learning experience with particular
students were given the opportunity to emphasis on technologies. The 30-minute
engage with a number of LTs, as part of their semi-structured interviews were conducted
undergraduate course. Alongside the Black- individually over the space of two days,
Board virtual learning environment students under the same conditions. Interviews were
had a dedicated website, smartphone appli- digitally recorded, transcribed, and
cations (providing assessment details, staff anonymised (UK 1–6).
contact information, and teaching material), The 26 US online students provided their
a dedicated social network, and Facebook responses to the same series of open-ended
applications. These LTs were an adjunct to questions as their UK counterparts, with
the normal technological provision within additional prompts to elicit responses in the
the degree programme, and although online environment (structured interview).
encouraged to use these tools, students were Student responses were submitted two-thirds
not penalised if they chose not to engage of the way through the semester as asynchro-
with them. nous video journals uploaded to a private
In addition, 26 undergraduate pre- space on YouTube. Videos were approxi-
service teachers enrolled in a required mately 10 minutes in length, and they were
educational technology course at a university transcribed, and anonymised (US 1–26).
52 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013
Students’ engagement with learning technologies
Table 1: Details of the student sample according to country and ID degree,
gender and age.
Country and ID Degree topic Gender Age
Group 1: UK 1 * Psychology F 22
Learning UK 2 * Psychology F 18
Technology UK 3 * Psychology M 19
Use UK 4 * Psychology F 19
Optional UK 5 * Psychology F 18
UK 6 * Psychology F 28
Group 2: US 1 * Early Childhood F 20
Learning US 2 * Early Childhood F 20
Technology US 3 * Early Childhood F 20
Use US 4 * History M 20
Required US 5 ** Special Education F 21
US 6 ** Early Childhood F 21
US 7 * Speech Language Pathology F 21
US 8 * Early Childhood F 21
US 9 ** Middle Grades –LASS M 21
US 10 * Special Education F 21
US 11 * Math M 21
US 12 § Early Childhood F 22
US 13 * Biology F 22
US14 ** Early Childhood F 22
US 15 * Math F 22
US 16 * History M 22
US 17 * Speech Language Pathology F 22
US 18 * Middle Grades –MATH-SCI M 22
US 19 * Early Childhood F 22
US 20 * Early Childhood F 23
US 21 * Special Education M 23
US 22 * Special Education M 23
US 23 * Early Childhood F 24
US 14 ± Math M 27
US 25 ± PoliSci M 29
US 26 * Middle Grades –MATH-SS M 28
Race – Ethnicity: * White –not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, ** Black/African-American,
§ Asian, ± American Indian or Alaskan Native.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013 53
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
Use of different methods UK–US rich data and methodological and investi-
We exploited a number of different but gator triangulation. In the current research
related methodologies, namely face-to-face we used multiple qualitative analysts (both
semi-structured interviews (UK partici- experimenters), and a third independent
pants), and structured recorded interviews additional analytic auditor used to review
(US participants). Within a semi-structured data for discrepancies, overstatements and
interview, which emphasises validity, the reporting errors. Transferability is generally
researcher tries to build a rapport with the described as the ability to extrapolate the
respondent and the interview is like a findings to other situations. We used two
conversation, the objective is to understand seemingly diverse populations, who differ in
the respondent’s point. This approach is a number of ways, for example, geography,
generally the preferred method, depending culture and method of study, but share the
on the research question. A structured inter- same overriding relationship that all were
view emphasises reliability, and often uses born post-1980 and all have access to the
larger samples sizes than semi-structured very latest learning technologies; together
interviews because respondents answers can these emphasise generalisability and trans-
be directly compared, hence our decision to ferability. Kirk and Miller (1986) state that
have a greater number of participants from dependability is equal to the term reliability
the US. An important advantage over many used in quantitated research. The depend-
other types of research methodologies is that ability of the research findings in this study
interviews are extremely adaptive. We was established by a transparent coding
needed to adopt an adaptive approach for procedure and inter-coder verification. To
pragmatic reasons. The US students were ensure coding consistency, every coder used
geographically isolated from the researchers, the same version of the scheme to code the
due to the nature of their degree pro- raw interview data.
gramme, and were unable to attend face-to-
face interviews. As we applied the criteria set Findings and interpretation
out by Lincoln and Guba (1985) used to Through thematic analysis several higher-
judge qualitative research (see below), we order dimensions were found. These
would argue that data from both populations included technical problems, functionality,
has credibility, transferability, and depend- prior experiences, and perceptions of use,
ability. each of which is discussed in more detail
below.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using thematic analysis, a Technical problems
method for identifying, analysing and According to Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and
reporting patterns or themes (Braun & Tapscott (1999), those born after 1980 would
Clarke, 2006). In thematic analysis, the task have an innate understanding of technology
of the researcher is to identify a number of simply because they were surrounded by it
themes, which adequately reflect their their entire lives, and even their brains
textual data (Howitt & Cramer, 2007). In the would be wired in such a way as to enhance
current paper, we used inductive analysis, so their understanding of technology. Contrary
that the themes were not fixed to a pre- to these expectations, we found that many of
existing framework, but were data-driven our participants experienced a number of
(see Braun & Clarke, 2006). Lincoln and technical problems. For example, in relation
Guba (1985) outline a set of criteria that are to the dedicated social network, UK 1 stated,
typically employed to judge qualitative ‘While I did sign up to blabberBOX, it took
research – credibility, transferability, depend- ages to sign up and then took ages to learn
ability. Credibility comes through the use of how to send messages. I thought this is just
54 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013
Students’ engagement with learning technologies
too much,’ and added ‘…it just got over- technology applications, and that in-service
whelming for me, personally. It was just too training is essentially useless.
much and I’m not a technophobe or We, however, found that in most cases,
anything. It was just too much to keep up our participants struggled with the operation
with…’. UK 5 said, ‘Technology is just not my of technology. In spite of seeing the utility of
thing. I just get so confused, I can click on a Moviemaker and Audacity, US 1 remarked,
link, but apart from that, I’m lost’, and UK 6 ‘using Moviemaker was pretty difficult, and
stated, ‘…I had real problems just accessing Audacity I would not use again, because it
some of the apps. I just couldn’t get it to was so difficult to use.’ US 2 made a number
upload or download or whatever it is.’ of comments concerning how frustrating
Many of the US participants also using the movie-making technology was and
reported experiencing technical problems; states that ‘it took me over 10 hours to work
US 9 stated that although he found the use it out… it was frustrating at first, but once I
of technology ‘pretty easy,’ he still had prob- did figure it out, it was kind of good.’ US 7
lems making an assignment video. He echoed these sentiments, saying ‘it took over
explained that it was ‘time-consuming due to two hours to upload my digital movie to
audio synchronisation issues.’ This theme YouTube, which was frustrating when I had
permeated many statements. Participant US other things to do’, conveying a reticence to
10 had tried 10 times to use the equipment engage in the multi-tasking Prensky would
to make the feedback video and reported have predicted among a student of this
she was ‘tripping over technology’ and that generation.
she had ‘…toyed with a number of audio US 7 states that she would probably not
settings and microphones…’ before finally have used this technology if she had not
figuring out how to use the equipment. been asked to do so in this course. She
Participant US 1 states that although she further stated, ‘I am not a fan of online
knew how to browse the internet, ‘the new things. I would prefer to do things face-to-
technologies… were more difficult.’ face.’ US 9 was not really engaging with the
It is clear from these statements that technology ‘…I’m struggling… bit fed up,
these young people struggled with the many really.’ He also states that if it were not ‘for
practical aspects of technologies. Although this course, I would not use [technology].’
many participants stated that they had no The UK participants mirrored many of
technical issues, the vast majority stated these issues with functionality. For example,
some sort of technical problem, particularly UK 3 said, ‘…I did try to download your
when setting up equipment. This evidence iPhone app, but I couldn’t find how to do it,
would cast doubt on the notion of a genera- so I gave up in the end.’ UK 6 states that
tion of individuals who find technology ‘I do struggle with technology, [and] I much
innate and intuitive. prefer face-to-face contact with my tutors.’
Overall, these data do not show young
Ease of use or functionality adults as being technologically savvy or in
Alongside the notion that DNs have an possession of innate abilities to use tech-
innate understanding of how technologies nology. In many instances, they show these
works is the idea that they would have an individuals as being distinctly frustrated and
explicit appreciation of how to operate the wary of technology and reluctant to use it in
technology. Prensky (2005) states that young their everyday life and in their future profes-
people are adopting new systems for commu- sional contexts.
nication including blogging, using wikis, and
using search engines such as Google. He Previous experience with technology
further postulates that DNs have no need to Previous publications have suggested young
read instruction manuals to understand adults will have an instant rapport with tech-
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013 55
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
nology, that there will be no need to read were to be seen but not ever spoken to… in
operating instructions, and there will be a fact this is so not the case.’ UK 2 states that
tendency for them to look to technology to because they were unprepared for the use of
answer everyday questions. Contrary to these LT it was ‘…a bit off-putting. We suddenly
claims, many of our participants stated that had to learn all the new stuff, login to this
they had trouble setting up and operating and login to that. I’ve still not got my head
these technologies, and they stated a reti- around it.’ UK 5 states that ‘I really didn’t
cence to use the technologies in the future. expect that we would be using computers to
A number of participants tried to use analyse data; my A-level tutor said that every-
existing knowledge of technologies to map thing would be done by hand.’ UK 4 states
onto the new technologies that they were the ‘we all got the wrong message [from her
trying to use. UK 1 stated that she did not A-level tutors]: they told us that A-level
like the blabberBOX, because ‘it was unlike would be harder than university, and that the
Facebook’ and if it had Facebook-type func- jump to university would be nothing… but
tionality they ‘may have used it more often.’ it’s been a huge jump.’
Another participant echoed this sentiment. When asked about the technologies used
An interesting point is that many partici- in A-level teaching, all six participants stated
pants stated that they do not use technology that none were used, other than having
in their everyday lives, but made reference to access to the internet and handheld calcula-
using mobile phones, iPods and computers tors.
on a daily basis. This could be evidence that Even though the US participants reiter-
some technologies are so ubiquitous and ated a similar message, the surprising message
ingrained in everyday life that they are liter- that many of the future teachers stated is that
ally second nature. In this regard, Prensky they are unlikely to use LT in their own class-
and Tapscott are in a limited fashion vindi- room. Many question the usefulness or the
cated, limited by the fact that participants ease of use of LT, while some question the
make reference to social technologies and place for LT in the classroom.
rarely mention LT. But this only goes to US 13 sums up many of the statements.
emphasise that individuals are increasingly ‘LT are cool and everything, but I don’t find
becoming consumers of technology and them useful… if not required I would not
increasingly less likely to be innovators. use them… I don’t have time to sit here and
use this stuff… I’m unlikely to use it when
Previous perceptions of technology in higher teaching.’
education
A number of UK participants stated that Conclusion
their A-level tutors indicated LT would not Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and Tapscott (1999,
be available in universities. UK 2 stated ‘my 2009) suggested that the new generation
A-level tutor said that I would need to hand- would innately possess unprecedented abili-
write all my assignments and that I would ties with technology. The teachers of this
need to make extensive notes during new generation, said Prensky, were in danger
lectures… [The tutors] made it sound like of not being able to appropriately teach
we would be given no help at all… the fact is these students, due to issues of having an
this is not true: we have BlackBoard with all accent from the pre-digital age.
our lecture slides and notes, and we use Calls for further research to explore the
computers with [Microsoft] Word to type strength of the digital native/N-generation
our assignments.’ UK 5 received a similar constructs have resulted in studies such as
message from her A-level tutors: ‘We were this that seek to deny or confirm the pres-
given every indication that we would not be ence of a special generation of learners vis-a-
given notes, or hand-outs, and that tutors vis technology.
56 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013
Students’ engagement with learning technologies
What we found appears to cast doubt on all technology (and certainly not all impor-
the very notion that digital natives exist, not tant technology) is easy to take in like the air.
in the way the Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and Robotics programmes, multimedia presenta-
Tapscott (1999, 2009) thought of them tion software, publishing software, and
anyway, as an innately technologically knowl- research software are just a few examples of
edgeable generation. In contrast, however, technologies that will require greater
we found that the digital natives appear to commitment on the part of the user. To
have an increased affinity with some tech- assume that because a person is younger they
nologies (e.g. Facebook, and smartphones, can easily use such programmes is folly on
etc.), but their true skillset is limited, and the part of organisations. People will
they rarely turn to learning technologies. In continue to need time and resources such as
essence we found that our participants were professional development to improve their
consumers of technology rather than inno- knowledge and skills.
vators. Even young people who were born after
Our study would refute the notion of the 1980 have not been truly immersed in tech-
existence of a generation of learners with nology particularly in the classroom right
uniform pro-technology qualities. Rather, from their very first day, as a consequence of
our students in both the UK and US under- cost, because their teachers, as we have
graduate context are experiencing a number reported, were sceptical of technology and
of challenges and frustrations with the use of its usefulness in an educational setting, and
technology, often to the point of acknowl- because educational technology was in its
edging that they will not likely continue infancy in the 1980s. It would be of great
using them beyond the course or interest to revisit this research once again
programme. Technical problems are not after a cohort of students (young potential
viewed as fun challenges, but rather as obsta- educators) has passed through the educa-
cles and distractors from the course or tional system who have seen the use of
programme. Students often feel they are educational technology right from their very
‘tripping over technology.’ first days in reception classes aged 3 or 4. It
Several among the group of pre-service is possible that these true ‘digital citizens’
educators were reticent to embrace tech- will have a much different approach to using
nology, and they indicated clearly that they educational technologies in the classroom.*
would not be using it in their future K-12 Much of the language and logic of both
classrooms. What does Prensky say to this? In Prensky and Tapscott’s message (e.g. digital
the case of our study, these ‘digital natives’ native, digital immigrant, Net-generation,
demonstrate a low tolerance for technical digital divide, etc.) has entered the vernac-
challenge, and little in the way of techno- ular of education. While the premise of the
logical fluency beyond the use of digital natives, for example, may hold a kind
programmes such as Facebook. of common sense appeal, it is important that
In a recent TED Talk, Tapscott observed we examine the claims given for educational
that the Net Generation has ‘no fear of tech- reforms. The more confidence we have in
nology, because it’s not there. It’s like the air’ the merit of a given reform idea, based on
(Tapscott, 2012). In light of our results, we evidence, the more likely we are to make
may understand this to mean that easy-to- realistic, positive change.
use, hyper-intuitive programmes such as
many mobile apps, Pinterest and Facebook *Thanks must go to an anonymous reviewer
are ‘like the air’: requiring little challenge for raising these points.
for the user, they are easily taken in. But not
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013 57
Derek Larkin & Kim C. Huett
About the Authors Correspondence
Derek Larkin is a Senior Lecturer in Derek Larkin PhD
Psychology at Edge Hill University (UK). Department of Psychology,
Edge Hill University,
Kim C. Huett is an instructor in the Depart- St Helens Road,
ment of Educational Innovation at the Ormskirk L39 4QP.
University of West Georgia (US). Email: [email protected]
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives digital immi-
natives‚ debate: A critical review of the evidence. grants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), Prensky, M. (2001b). Do they really think differently?
775–786. On the Horizon, 9(6).
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis Rainie, M. (2006). Digital ‘natives’ invade the workplace.
in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
3(2), 77–101. 2 November 2011, from:
David, J.L. & Cuban, L. (2010). Cutting through the hype: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/70/digital-natives-
The essential guide to school reform.Cambridge, MA: invades-the-workplace
Harvard Education Press. Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G. & Roberts, D.F. (2005).
Dunbar, R. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on Generation M: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds.
group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, A Kaiser Family Foundation Report. Retrieved
22(6), 469–493. 2 November 2011, from:
Howitt, D. & Cramer, D. (2007). Research methods in http://www.kff.org/entmedia/index.cfm
psychology.Essex: Prentice Hall. Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D. & Meyer, E.
Internet World Users by Language (2011, 31 July). (2011). Does the new digital generation of
Internet World Stats.Retrieved 2 November 2011, learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of
from: Educational Technology, 42(4), 543–556.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm Surry, D.W. (2002). A model for integrating instructional
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. & Healing, G. (2010). technology into higher education. Paper presented at
Net generation or digital natives: Is there a the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
distinct new generation entering university? Research Association, New Orleans.
Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732. Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill
Krause, K. (2008). First-year students’ experiences Companies.
with technology: Are they really digital natives? Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York:
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, John Wiley & Sons.
24(1), 108–122. Tapscott, D. (2012, June). Four principles for the open
Kirk, J. & Miller, M.L. (1986). Reliability and validity in world[Video file]. Retrieved from:
qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott _
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Tissington, P. & Senior, C. (2011). Social networks:
O’Malley, A. & Marsden, P. (2008). The analysis of A learning tool for teams? British Journal of
social networks. Health Services and Outcomes Educational Technology, 42(5), E89–E90.
Research Methodology, 8(4), 222–269.
58 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 19 No. 2, Autumn 2013