Practical Applications of Research by Irene T. Boland, PhD
For decades, thinking about how to educate digital natives (born 1976–2000) has been a hot topic for K-12 and higher education professionals. Now that members of this generation are entering the workforce, we take a hard look at what they are (and aren’t) and what changes are needed in how we teach, train and share information at work. This issue of Practical Applications of Research references four peer-reviewed articles, cited at the end of the article. As always, interspersed with the summary of the research are practical guidelines for applying the facts to your work. The terms digital natives and ‘net generation are used interchangeably in this article.
What is a digital native?
There is no single authority that has clearly defined the date boundaries for the ‘net generation (or digital natives). The broadest date range of their births is from 1976 to 2000. What is more important is what characterizes their environment while growing up. They are the first full generation to grow up surrounded by some culture-changing technology: personal computers and the internet. Younger members of this generation also find video gaming and mobile phones a ubiquitous part of their world. A survey of 37,000 members of this generation from over 200 universities was published in Chief Learning Officer in 2006. That survey found that what this generation values most is: 1) work/life balance, 2) continuing their education, 3) building a sound financial base, and 4) contributing to society.
Are all digital natives naturally technology experts?
No. What digital natives have is a wide exposure to technologies. They have typically picked up, tried, and discarded many different technologies over the years. What is rare is that they have been deeply expert in any of them. Simply being around technologies has not predictably lead to any level of expertise in technologies. This applies to ‘net gen learners worldwide.
Meet your learners where they, in fact, are – not where age-based myths tell you
A South African study (Brown and Czerniewicz) which lasted 6 years and involved more than 3,500 ‘net generation students from six different universities in South Africa investigated the popular claim that these students would naturally be technology experts. Referencing another study, they mention that the use of the terms Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants (those who had to learn technology in their adulthood) were divisive and used to imply superiority (digital native) and inferiority (digital immigrant). I have seen this in corporate training. You probably have, too. There’s no research basis for assuming that there is any disadvantage to learning technology as an adult compared to throughout childhood.
Think of it this way – if you were born before 1980 (the so-called digital immigrant), you were likely surrounded by indoor plumbing and electricity which you used every day. Do you think of yourself as an electrician or a plumber – just by exposure to these technologies? Of course not.
The learners in this study were not uniform in their years of computing experience – with half only using computers in the last six years and one third only having four years of computer experience. This can, obviously, be attributed to economic and political conditions in South Africa. What’s interesting to note is that, just like in the US, once the technologies became available – they weren’t necessarily evenly available to all learners immediately. The group of learners that could be considered digital native, due to their access to technology, were evenly split between male and female, mostly English speaking and came from high or middle economic classes. Challenges to the rest of the student population included no computer at home, no internet at home, having to share a home computer with several people, and having to access internet in a public place (for a limited time) such as a library or internet café.
The great equalizer in this population was that 95% owned mobile phones and had a high adoption rate for a instant messaging program that was popular throughout the country. By meeting the learners where they are (mobile phone), the university was able to expand digital access to the university’s learning management system. A key takeaway for business training – a portion of your population (regardless of age) will have and love to use particular devices to access their digital training. Take the time to know your learner and then meet them where they are (using their preferred device).
Side note: I recently talked with a communication professional in a large organization. He’s in his mid-twenties (statistically, he’s ‘net gen). He told me he finds things like instant messaging to be terribly distracting – so he never opens the company-wide chat application. Digital native mythology would have us believe that the ‘net gen loves the always-on flow of communication. What presumptions might you have about the younger people you work with?
The concluding point from this study was that use of the terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant are too simplistic – being binary. We can’t look at our learners as either in or out of a highly technically skilled group based simply on their age. As a learning and development professional, you know how to assess learners skills, knowledge and attitudes – and looking at their age isn’t it.
As many of our organizations are global, we can’t think of our learners as a uniform US-like population. If you have employees in emerging markets, studies of non-US learners can help you better understand the realities and needs of your regional learners. In Part 2 of this Practical Applications of Research series, we look at digital natives in China.
About Dr. Boland
Dr. Boland is a deeply versed hands-on learning and development expert. Her work has spanned from military and government to K12 publishing and corporate worlds. She holds her doctorate in Education, specializing in online learning. Through the Practical Applications of Research column at www.eLearningFuture.com, she closes the gap between research in learning and its realistic application to learners in all arenas.
Reference
Brown, C and Czerniewicz, L. Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, toward digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2010), 26, 357-369.
I think that even Prensky would agree that the terms native and immigrant are too limiting but I suggest that it started an important conversation. The expertness in the use of technology depends on your point of view, if we ascribe academic standards to technology use then yes they are not experts. However, in terms of familiarity of use for social media etc and giving people a virtual footprint then there is a master skill at work.
In education technology use there are many contradictions, there was another study in South African citing a university where students preferred to use their mobile phones to the university computers for internet connection and there is a US study that shows that searching for information on the internet is less rigorous now than it was 10 years ago. Technology at the moment is not sentient, it needs structure and strategy to work effectively. There are promising developments with institutions creating bridges between familiar users of technology and learning by creating strategic and synergetic communication structures within the organisation and focusing on how mentors approach the use of technology with learning.