Transcript Kennedy - time2learn

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)
• 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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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
Results - Access
Unrestricted
Access
Limited
Access
No
Access
Not Sure
/Missing
Mobile Phone
96.4
0.9
1.5
1.3
Desktop Computer
89.5
4.9
3.7
1.9
Digit al Came ra
76.0
8.9
13.7
1.4
Memo ry Stick
72.5
7.1
17.3
3.1
Broadband Internet
72.9
5.7
18.1
3.3
MP3 player (iPod)
68.9
5.7
23.3
2.2
Portable Computer
63.2
10.0
24.0
2.8
Ga mes Console
47.4
13.2
36.6
2.8
Dial -up Internet
44.1
6.1
44.0
5.7
Electronic Organiser (PDA)
10.8
7.8
77.3
4.1
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
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
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%)
Factors
Factor Analyses
Web
Publishing
Comme nt on blog
.864
Read blog
.822
Create own blog
.822
Social networking
.632
Build website
.521
Advanced
Mobile
Send mob ile picture s
.802
Take mobile pictures
.706
Mobile as organiser
.684
Mobile to access web
.665
Moblie to email
.597
MP3, Pics
& IM
Download MP3
.788
Uploa d MP3
.693
Play digital music
.630
Play web recordings
.609
Web me ssaging
.439
Share photos on web
.405
Factors
Factor Analyses
Advanced
Web
Web Calls (VoIP)
.791
Web Conferencing
.739
Read RSS feeds
.617
Contibute to a Wiki
.516
Standard
Web
Web for General Info
.702
Web for Ema il
.666
Web for Reference Info
.662
Web for Pastime s
.493
Web Portal
.480
Standard
PC
Comp uter for study
.653
Comp uter for writing
.643
Comp uter for graphics
.613
Comp uter for mulitmedia
.595
Comp uter for editing
.466
Factors
Factor Analyses
Web
Services
Web to buy things
.708
Web services
.706
Build website
.461
Ga mes
Comp uter Games
.799
Console Game s
.724
Networked Game s
.647
Standard
Mobile
Mobile to SMS
.894
Mobile to Call
.881
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
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
Results - Use
Used 9 factors in a MANOVA
by Gender (male, female)
by Residency (international, local)
by Faculty
Faculty
Factor
Web Publishing
Standard PC
Web Services
Ga mes
Hig h Users
Low Users
ABP
LFR
ENG
Arts
ABP
ENG
E&C
ABP
Arts
ED
MDHS
ENG
ED
Arts
Results - Preferences
To assist with my University studies
I want to be able to use…
% Agree
% Disagree
… web for other services (e.g. enrolm ent,
sign up for classes, paying fees)
83.9
4.0
… mobile phone to send or receive text messages
84.2
4.3
... web to access a learning portal
80.9
4.1
… web for instant mes saging/chat
74.6
6.7
… web to download MP3 files (e.g. podcast lectures)
60.6
11.4
… web to build and ma intain a website
33.0
23.5
… social networking software on the web
31.8
23.7
… web to keep my own blog
32.2
25.4
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
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.
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 …
Digital Natives
+ Other Students
= First Year Students
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.
Pushing Boundaries: Beyond Convenience
The ECAR Framework: Students’ ICT expectations and preferences
Quadrant 1: Convenience
Quadrant 2: Connection
• Technology and online resources,
services readily available
• Mobile electronic connections
50%
• Fast response time: immediacy
• Converged devices
• Networks and tech support available
24/7
• Multiple devices that are personal,
customizable, portable
20%
• Members of their communities
reachable anywhere, anytime
• Social - work in teams
Quadrant 3: Control
Quadrant 4: Learning
• Multitasking
• Rich media, visual imagery, including
the ability to integrate virtual and
physical (e.g. through simulations)
• Customization
14%
• Focused on grades, performance
• Control the when & where of social
interaction
13%
• Experiential, participatory
• Real-time engagement
(adapted from Kvavik & Caruso, 2005, p.11)
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.
Questions …
www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/netgen/index.html
www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/index.html