the open university's institute of educational technology the net generation encountering...

The Open University's Institute of Educational Technology

The Net generation encountering e-learning at university

Chris JonesRuslan Ramanau, Anesa Hosein, Graham Healing and Simon Cross

[email protected]

© Dr C, Jones. Some rights reserved. This presentation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.


New kinds of learners?

“In education they [the Net generation] are forcing a change in the model of pedagogy, from a teacher-focused approach based on instruction to a student-focused model based on collaboration.” (Tapscott 2009 p 11).

“In order for schools to adapt to the habits of Digital Natives and how they are processing information, educators need to accept that the mode of learning is changing rapidly in a digital age… Learning itself has undergone a transformation over the past 30 years… For Digital Natives, research is more likely to mean Google search than a trip to the library. They are more likely to check Wikipedia…” Palfrey and Gasser 2008 p239)


The Net Generation

Most of our students, moreover, are part of what we now describe as the Net Generation. This is a generation who think IM, text and Google are verbs not applications! “They expect to be engaged by their environment, with participatory, sensory-rich, experiential activities (either physical or virtual) and opportunities for input. They are more oriented to visual media than previous generations – and prefer to learn by doing rather than by telling or reading.” They prefer to discover rather than be told. (Becta Research Report 2008, page 13) So, as John Thompson frames the question: “Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students?”

Brenda Gourley VC Open University, Council address Sept 2008


A new generation of learners/learning?

'Listening to What We're Seeing.'

One student walks across campus listening to an iPod; another is engrossed in text messaging on her cell phone. During class, they're Googling, Instant Messaging and playing games - often at the same time. More likely to use the library as a gathering place than a resource, this is the Net Generation. They co-exist beside older students who are juggling work, childcare and eldercare. Although we see them daily, do we understand our learners? What do their experiences, attitudes and expectations mean for educational institutions?

Diana Oblinger’s introduction to her keynote address ALT-C 2006


Net Generation e-learners?

What is the current engagement of university students with new technologies? In social life In higher education

Is there a distinct outlook affecting an entire ‘generation’? If so what are their characteristics (new practices)?

Is there any evidence of new affordances in terms of social engagement? What can we do now that was not possible previously?

Does pedagogy have to change to reflect generational changes? New types of literacy – information literacy

From scarcity to abundance From consumers to producers of knowledge

When is a cut and paste mash-up plagiarism?


The project - methods and methodology

ESRC project began January 2008 Mixed methodology to achieve a broad empirical description and a close

observational approach to small samples 5 universities selected for type

Urban ‘Red brick’, 1970’s ‘New University’, Large Metropolitan post ’92, Recent University (ex-University college), Distance University.

1st year courses selected for range of disciplines/subject Included Net Generation and older students

Three kinds of intervention Survey Interviews Cultural probes (Day experience method)


Universities and courses

Table 1: University types.and courses

University A University B University C University D University E

Founded Founded 19th Century

Founded 1970s (Polytechnic) university status in 1992

Founded 1960s Founded 1969 Founded 21st Century from university college

Location Large urban metropolitan

Large urban metropolitan

Large scale distance

Mid size campus outside small city

Mid size with multi-site, small towns

Course units English Sociology (Survey1)/ Social Science Key Skills (Survey 2&3)

Science Modern Languages

Journalism

Bio-science Information and Communication

Health and Social Care (Survey1) /Social Science (Survey 2&3)

Computing Psychology

Veterinary science The Arts Accounting and Finance

Social Work


Surveys

Survey 1 (April 2008) – snapshot

Whole course survey (14 courses n = 596, response rate average 30%)

4 conference papers

ALT-C paper available online and ORO

1 journal paper in press (Computers and Education)

Survey 2 and 3 – longitudinal

Survey 2 – Autumn 2008, 5 universities completed (14 courses n= 1098)

Survey 3 – end of year 1 Spring 2009 completed (Same 14 courses as Survey 2, n= approx 716)


Computer ownership

77.4 % of students owned a laptop and 38.1 owned a desktop computer

In Survey 2 the ownership of laptops was 75.2%

The differences across age and gender groups were at significant levels, i.e. female

students (χ² =13.87, d.f. = 1, p = .003) and students 25 years of age and younger were

more likely to own a laptop (χ² =26.52, d.f. = 1, p < .001) and male students (χ² =18.94, d.f. = 1, p < .001), and those age 26 years of age and over (χ² =31.03, d.f. = 1, p < .001) were more likely to own a desktop

0

50

100

Male Female >26 26 +

Desktop

Laptop


Other devices

Owned (%) Shared access (%)

No access (%)

Mobile phone 97.8 1.1 1.1

MP3/iPOD/ 82.4 5.3 12.2

Memory stick/card

87.9 4.2 7.9

Games console

38.4 22.1 39.5

Data on ownership echoes empirical data from other studies, e.g. Kennedy et al. (2008) reported 97.3 % of medical students at a major university in Australia owning a mobile phone; 85.9 % owning a memory stick, but 85.3 % had access to a desktop computer (compared to 38.1 % in our survey 1, 63.4 % in survey 2)

ECAR Annual survey (Salaway et al., 2008) on the undergraduate use of IT in the USA found similar patterns to ours – 80.5 % of students owned laptops, 51.3 – desktops; no significant gender differences in laptop ownership and minor in desktop ownership


Choice of Technologies

Students tended to use the same technologies for study as they did for social purposes or for entertainment (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, p < .001 for all the survey items)

For example, students aged 25 years of age and under tended to use text and instant messaging, social networking sites and Internet telephony more frequently than older students (p < .001, one-way ANOVA)

Gender were not as pronounced: female students tended to use text messaging and social networking sites more often (p < .001, one-way ANOVA)


Use of Social Networking

68.3 % of the respondents in the sample participated in online social networks (e.g. Facebook, Bebo, MySpace) at least on a daily basis or more frequently

Variation in terms of frequency of use between Age of students - 25 years of age and under and older students (F(1, 587)

= 332.23, p < 0.001) Amongst Net generation age students (25 and under) 81.7 % used social

networking on at least a daily basis, whilst only 5.1 % ‘never’ participated in online social networks. In comparison 55.7 % of students aged 26 years of age and older reported they had never participated in social networking sites and only 24.3 % of them reported the frequency of usage reported by younger students.

For the four age bands – 20 years of age and under, 21 to 25 years of age, 26 to 35 years of age and older than 35 years of age.

Younger respondents reported more frequent use of social networking websites (F(3, 584) = 554.20, p < 0.001), e.g. only 4.3 % of those aged 20 and younger never used this technology compared to 78.5 % of those aged 35 years of age and older.


Intra-generational difference

Item Means and F values on Self-Reported Frequency of Technology Tasks among Net Generation Students (5-Point Scale, One-way ANOVA, d.f. = 1 ).

20 and under 21-25

Read and send e-mail 4.33 4.34

Use mobile phone messaging 4.81* 4.66*

Instant messaging 3.75* 3.36*

Participate in online social networks 4.32* 4.06*

Read and write blogs 1.57 1.58

Use Wikis 2.76 2.69

Play games 2.29 2.51

Download/ stream music 2.97 2.80

Download/ stream TV/ video 2.81** 2.29**

Upload audio, images or video to social networks

2.47** 2.32**

* p < .05 ** p < .001


Expected use of ICT (Survey 2)

< 1 hr 1 to 2 hr 2 to 3 hrs >= 3 hrs Total

NetGen

Leisure 357 (38%) 245 (26%) 167 (18%) 177 (19%) 946

Study 274 (29%) 311 (33%) 190 (20%) 167 (18%) 942

Non-NetGen

Leisure 68 (53%) 25 (19%) 11 (9%) 25 (19%) 129

Study 41 (32%) 45 (35%) 18 (14%) 25 (19%) 129

Total

Leisure 425 (40%) 270 (25%) 178 (17%) 202 (19%) 1075

Study 315 (29%) 356 (33%) 208 (19%) 192 (18%) 1071


Actual use of ICT (Survey 3)

< 1 hr 1 to 2 hr 2 to 3 hrs >= 3 hrs Total

NetGen

Leisure 107 (18%) 121 (20%) 136 (22%) 245 (40%) 609

Study 116 (19%) 184 (30%) 137 (22%) 174 (29%) 611

Non-NetGen

Leisure 42 (43%) 29 (30%) 10 (10%) 17 (17%) 98

Study 20 (20%) 31 (31%) 18 (18%) 30 (30%) 99

Total

Leisure 149 (21%) 150 (21%) 146 (21%) 262 (37%) 707

Study 136 (19%) 215 (30%) 155 (22%) 204 (29%) 710


Some general conclusions

Digital and networked technologies infuse most students lives and the material context claimed for a Net Generation exist There are age related differences but no single identifiable

generational set of changes Social Networking and communication technologies are at the

centre of age related differences The Net Generation age group is itself divided by age internally There are other significant factors including, institutional mode and

gender apart from age Networked communication has a high degree of salience Students are often physically alone but usually digitally connected

SNS e.g. Facebook and Mobile (Cell) phones Digital networks help maintain distant links (eg. Home from

university/university friends from home)


References

Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S.J., and Healing, G. (forthcoming) Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022

Jones, C., and Cross, S.J. (2009) Is there a Net generation coming to university? Association for Learning Technology Conference, Manchester 2009. Available from:http://oro.open.ac.uk/18468/http://repository.alt.ac.uk/view/year/2009.html

Jones, C., and Ramanau, R. (2009) The Net Generation enters university: What are the implications for Technology Enhanced Learning? M-2009: Proceedings of the 23rd ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education including the 2009 EADTU Annual Conference, 7-10 June 2009, Maastricht NL.http://www.ou.nl/Docs/Campagnes/ICDE2009/Papers/Final_paper_088jones.pdf

Jones, C., and Ramanau, R. (2009) Collaboration and the Net generation: The changing characteristics of first year university students. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: CSCL2009: CSCL Practices. http://oro.open.ac.uk/18689

Kennedy, G., Gray, K. and Tse, J. (2008) 'Net Generation' medical students: technological experiences of pre-clinical and clinical students, Medical Teacher, 30:1, 10-16

Salaway, G. and Caruso, J. B., with Mark R. Nelson (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008 (Research Study, Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Project web site: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=8354 ( http://tiny.cc/9lvBC )


Acknowledgement

We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of our collaborators at the five participating universities, in particular Susan Armitage, Martin Jenkins, Sheila French, Ann Qualter and Tunde Varga-Atkins.

We would like to thank all the student volunteers who have helped us throughout our research.

the open university's institute of educational technology the net generation encountering...

Documents

entire generation

educational institutions

new technologies

p239 slide

evidence of new affordances

characteristics new

older students

text messaging