The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students

Muhammet Demirbilek

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

Full Text (PDF)

Muhammet Demirbilek ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ University of Florida, USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the digital propensities of post-secondary students (N=409) in various faculties/colleges at a large state university located in southwestern Turkey. It was also examined whether gender, the program attended, socioeconomic status, education type (first and second shift education), the number of family members and the number of computers per household are contributing factors to Information and Communication Technologies use. According to the data analyzed, male students use Information and Communication Technologies more than female students. Results also suggest that faculty attended, education type, family income, the number of computers and children per household are some of the important factors in having high digital propensity index.

Keywords

digital propensity
digital natives
gender
ICT practices
post-secondary education
socioeconomic status

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 10, Issue 2, 2014, 115-123

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

Publication date: 15 Dec 2014

Article Views: 3934

Article Downloads: 1822

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Becker, G. (2000). Creating comparability coefficient: The case of Cronbach alpha and Cohen kappa. Psychological Reports, 87, 1171-1182.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
Bingimlas, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5 (3), 235-245.
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369.
Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive Technologies’, ‘Pedagogical Innovation’: What's new? Findings from an in-depth study of students' use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511-524.
Downes, T. (2002). Blending play, practice and performance: Children’s use of the computer at home. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2), 21–34.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the "Net Generation". Socioiogicaiinquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.
Jones, M. G., Harmon, S. W., & O’Grady-Jones, M. (2005). Developing the digital mind: Challenges and solutions in teaching and learning. Teacher Education Journal of South Carolina, 2004–2005, 17–24.
Jones, C.; Ramanau, R.; Cross, S. & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), pp. 722–732.
Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education 6th edition. London: Routledge
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. London: Broadway Business.
Kennedy, G., Krause, K.-L., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B. & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 332-343.
Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B. & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control (Research Study, Vol. 5). Boulder, CO. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405/rs/er s0405w.pdf
Livingstone, S. & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children’s use of the Internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning, 1(3), 395–419.
Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(5). Retrieved September 29, 2013 from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id =431&action=article
Lorenzo, G., & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the net generation is net savvy. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Paper 2. Boulder, CO. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from http://www.educause.edu/library/ resources/ensuring-net-generation-net-savvy
McWilliam, E. L. (2002). Against professional development. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(3), 289–300.
Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Repositories and communities at cross-purposes: Issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 24(4), 333-347.
Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S., (2010). The digital literacy debate: an investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (5), 531-555.
Norman, D. K. (2008). Predicting the performance of interpreting instruction based on digital propensity index score in text and graphic formats. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida
Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A Five Country Comparison Using Microdata. Social Science Research 36 (3), 1135 -1155.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M., (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9, 1– 6.Retrieved August 25, 2013 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291-307.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds, pp. 1–145. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-MMediain-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native - myth and reality. Paper presented at the CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) London seminar series. Retrieved August 21, 2013 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/9775892/Digital-Native.
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, (Research Study, Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved August 12, 2013 fromhttp://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0808/ RS/ERS0808w.pdf.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill Companies.
Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers &Education, 55(1), 406–414.

How to cite this article

APA

Demirbilek, M. (2014). The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

Vancouver

Demirbilek M. The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(2):115-23. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

AMA

Demirbilek M. The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(2), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

Chicago

Demirbilek, Muhammet. "The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 2 (2014): 115-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

Harvard

Demirbilek, M. (2014). The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), pp. 115-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a

MLA

Demirbilek, Muhammet "The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: An Investigation of the Digital Propensities of University Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp. 115-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a