Digital natives and digital immigrants: getting to know

Digital natives and digital immigrants: getting to know each other Alex J. Autry Jr and Zane Berge

Alex J. Autry Jr is Chief, Instructional Quality, Federal Government Distance Learning Association, Ohio, USA. Zane Berge is a Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to review characteristics associated with digital natives and digital immigrants and explores selected research studies related to information and communication technology. Some of the challenges facing the twenty-first century in training and developing our future workforce are explored, along with the differences between generations that contribute to their personal learning and instructional styles. Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature is combined with the authors’ experience and the reporting of a survey on generational differences regarding perceived usefulness of technology in training programs. Findings – A new digital language is evolving and is increasingly prevalent with technical savvy individuals as a normal means of communication, creating a communication lull between generations affecting both the digital natives and digital immigrants. This communication barrier extends beyond the casual day-to-day endeavors but reaches into learning environments. The survey indicated that the younger the respondent, the more favorable that person is to wanting technology in the learning environment. Practical implications – In order for effective learning to occur both instructors and students must be able to match both instructional strategies and learning styles consistently. In addition, those who are responsible for aligning educational and learning strategies should meet the training and development programs being deployed. There is a need to examine possible rationale correlating with native and immigrant lifestyles that support their cognitive process. These processes relate to how natives and immigrants receive information and how it stimulates the brain to connect the inputs with previously learned data – how an individual’s brain becomes ‘‘wired’’ to manipulate stored data to be used during problem-solving and critical thinking activities in both life events and training sessions. Originality/value – The paper explores whether individuals of the younger generation have more of a learning advantage or disadvantage compared to learners from an older generation. Exposure to new technologies strengthens the user’s acceptance and knowledge of the digital product and may begin to acquaint them with other and future similar technological gadgets. Keywords Communication technologies, Information technology, User studies, Learning, Skills, Training Paper type General review

s technology continues to drastically forge into new cyberspace capabilities, it dramatically effects how our world communicates and shares information on both small and large scales. Looking at Web 2.0 technology alone, it creates a greater degree of openness and participation among its users; Web 2.0 to allow digital artifacts to be shared between groups, teams, and individuals (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008). The uses of these technologies are customary and have become a significant extension to the digital natives. This type of behavior is considered natural and common in the twenty-first century by Gen Yers, ‘‘native’’ because they possess other contributing characteristic. Some of these attributes include exceptionally curious, self-reliant, contrarian, smart, focused, able to adapt, high in self-esteem, and having a global orientation (Tapscott, 1998).

A

PAGE 460

j

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING

j

VOL. 43 NO. 7 2011, pp. 460-466, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858

DOI 10.1108/00197851111171890

In comparison, the younger generation has been exposed to more information both locally and globally, than digital immigrants when they were similar in age. However, digital immigrants (pre-Gen Y) have progressed rapidly in moving into the digital world – adapting to and relying more on technology for work and personal use. Not too long ago, it was thought that the only way to research information was to go to the local library to gather the resources needed. That has now become a secondary source to the internet for most people in developed countries. Not only is the information current but many times it can be real time data on the internet and is readily and easily accessible. Today a legitimate research effort can be accomplished by manipulating an iphone from almost any location. No more rummaging through aisles and aisles of crammed books shelves or shifting through journal racks to uncover or validate information and facts related to one’s quest for information and knowledge. We have moved to an age where the people’s diversity is compounded by their generational differences. These distinctions are part of the individual’s structure, their framework, or who they are. Everyone is a product of their environment, background, and the attributes of their experiences. Whether it’s because of their social, economical, heritage and educational experiences any or all of these are contributing factors in how they behave or approach new adventures.

Generational differences The workforce and the educational systems in developed countries face a dilemma in regarding today’s training and development world. What is the best strategy for teaching learners? Veteran college instructors express some concern in teaching today’s students. Is this because the students are so different? If so, what makes them different? These type of inquires are legitimate questions for an instructor who wants to make an educational difference to their learners. Pedagogy that these instructors previously used no longer seems to be as effective with students between the ages of 18 to 28 (Eisner, 2004). Many instructors agree that classroom management is taking more of their instructional time to maintain the learners’ attention and motive them to learn. Today’s students – kindergarten through college – represent the first generation to grow up with the internet and other ‘‘new technologies’’ (Prensky, 2001a). This generation has been referred to as the ‘‘N Gen’’ for net generation or ‘‘D Gen’’ for digital generation. But one of the more descriptive words associated with this generation is ‘‘digital natives.’’ These students have a language of their own when it comes to performing task or collaborating on digital technologies such as computers, cell phones, and video games. These technologies are common instruments that this generation is routinely exposed to during their daily lives. They have grown up being socialized and living a life differently than their parents. The digital landscape of today is full of instant messaging (IMing), e-mails, digital phones and video games. Not only do many of these technologies allow individuals to communicate rapidly but enables them access to additional informational resources from virtually any location by pushing a button. This technological environment is not the same world their parents’ generation grew up experiencing. However, the generation of their parents includes many of today’s instructors. These instructors grew up engaging in a less technologically advanced environment. These new technologies were in their infancy stage and did not play a significant role in the majority’s

‘‘ Many instructors agree that classroom management is taking more of their instructional time to maintain the learners’ attention and motive them to learn. ’’

j

j

VOL. 43 NO. 7 2011 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 461

everyday life. As these digital components were being introduced to the consumer’s marketplace and became readily available to the common households they were still used sparingly. The cost of the emerging digital instruments was a common reason that prevented many technological opportunities to be restricted to a smaller audience. Another barrier for many people was the technological knowledge of the baby boomers (born between 1946 through 1964). Their understanding of how to use and manipulate these digital components led this generation to became associated with the term ‘‘digital immigrants.’’ Let us look at some of the elements that makes a difference between a digital native and digital immigrant. Both are living, breathing creatures and have brains made up of the same biological components. The brain processes information in the same manner whether one is a digital native or digital immigrant. However, while the brain processes information in the same manner, that information may be stored in a way that manufactures different outcomes now or in the future. To say technology might be wiring (digital natives) or rewiring (digital immigrants) as we continue to use technology in our daily routines should not be surprising. The brain’s flexibility (plasticity) to adapt and change its output is based on new and reinforced informational stimuli or inputs (Interlandi, 2008). The sayings, ‘‘practice, practice, practice’’ or ‘‘repetition develops muscle memory’’ can provide prime examples of how the digital natives are wired to receive and retrieve data. They have grown up using (practice) technology and it makes senses that these individuals would have more neurons reinforcing a particular way to use or filter that digital information – just like an athlete or musician who practices continually providing inputs and stimuli to the brain. So when they are ready to perform the activity or think about a concept, the execution becomes easier even when facing a new situation. The brain is able to retrieve and connect relevant stored information in each decision making procedure. Social psychology supports the theory that an individual’s thought process pattern changes with their experiences. These experiences come from the individual’s social environment as well as other characteristics of their background. Cultural differences makes an impact on how one views different situations and might dictate what and why people think the way they do. Individuals who grow up in different cultures do not just think about different things, but actually think differently. Individual’s background and experiences impacts their thought processes (Prensky, 2001b). Individuals in a culture that is exposed to and uses technology routinely will most likely program their brains to process technology inputs differently than a person who was not raised in a technology environment and has had limited experiences using digital instruments. The brain’s ability to change still requires effort and does not instantly change without reason. We have all heard the term ‘‘street smart’’ usually referring to someone who is able to survive in a dangerous environment, such as a modern city, because of their experiences. These individuals are not necessarily more intelligent than someone who grew up living in a small town where everyone knew one another and trusted one another. These two examples provide us a reference to see how individuals may think about different situations or information differently based on the individual’s life experiences and inputs. Taking this example one-step further, let us imagine that the individual who previously lived in the small town had move to a large modern day city. She had been living and working in the inner city for the past couple of years. Do you feel that such a person will change how they think or how they think differently about decisions she makes? Baby boomers grew up in a time when there was not much technology used in the normal household. Their educational environment was the traditional classroom and they relied on the instructor and written correspondence (hard copies) to provide the information for them to learn. Baby Boomers grew up being taught by instructors deploying a linear learning strategy in their instructional approach and collaborating on course material with their peers in one geographical location, either at school or by telephone where the conversation was limited to the caller and receiver.

j

j

PAGE 462 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 43 NO. 7 2011

‘‘ Digital natives are often said to be ‘hardwired’ to think from a technological perspective. ’’

Generation Y (born between 1982 through 1995) grew up using technology. These individuals, in general, are more technological literate than are individuals from previous generations. Gen Y or digital natives are use to ‘‘connexity,’’ defined as the interrationship and interdependence among individuals, machines, and global communication networks. Many digital natives are very comfortable in a virtual world (Eisner, 2004). Most of these individuals have logged 10,000 hours playing video games, over 200,000 e-mails, and IMing, and over 10,000 hours talking on a digital cell phones. They have viewed over 20,000 hours of TV and viewed half a million commercials (Prensky, 2001b), with more than one-third of these persons having downloaded music, all before they reach their mid-20s. They are the most interactive, informed, and independent generation. Gen Y-ers may be best reached by word-of-mouth messages, which spread quickly through the technology they frequent (Weiss, 2003). Mass communication is a norm using e-mail, web, Facebook and other Web 2.0 applications.

Twitching Digital natives have been using technology all their lives. They grew up with the Apple Macintosh, which was introduced to the digital immigrants when the baby boomers were toddlers (Salopek, 2003). Technology products such as computers and digital cell phones are able to process information instantaneously and the digital natives have grown to being able to work and play at this rapid pace. The behavior needed for effective videogame playing is often referred to as ‘‘twitch speed.’’ Digital immigrants developed their minds to accept learning information at a slower pace. Presently the digital natives thrive on the rapid pace and are able to multi-task. As a matter of fact, if they (digital natives) are not continuously having their brains stimulated they often get bored and are not able to concentrate as effortlessly as with receiving multiple inputs from different sources. On the other hand, baby boomers (digital immigrants) process information using a linear or step-by-step process and are content with delays in retrieving information. Digital native expectations for everyday stimuli have led to the death of patience and the emergence of a society increasing expecting, wanting and demanding instance gratification (Anderson, 2006). Multimedia such as video games, TV, texting, web and DVDs provides instance fulfillment, while reading gives a slower return on their time. Digital natives want to move from one stimulus to another (twitching) using technology media as their source to gain a sense of gratification. Students of the twenty-first century want to control how, what, and when a task is completed. These Gen Yers are independent and enjoy being able to provide inputs associated with their learning. Web-based technologies have increased the social capabilities and have allowed these students to engage in a social, collaborative, and active dialogue. They use both online social and web-based products to actively participate in the learning environment with both fellow students and their instructor. The online instructional media tools give the student a greater level of investment in their responsibility to learn the course material. Online learning theory and pedagogical practice also centers on the concept that learning needs to be situated in a social and collaborative context (Baird and Gen, 2009). These types of discussion among students can be a healthy learning experience, which often allows students to understand the content from a different perspective and sharing their views on the subject content from their life experiences. This adds increase attention to proper media selection for delivering course material. Not only as

j

j


a strategy for distance learning courses but also as an instructional strategy used for encouraging outside the classroom communication between students and instructor and students. Mentioned earlier was how individuals become ‘‘wired’’ on their thought process. Digital natives are often said to be ‘‘hardwired’’ to think from a technological perspective. Gen Y students look at the variety of available technologies and then construct their own learning path, and content based on their intrinsic learning needs. As learners choose, integrate, and share content it opens additional opportunities for them to be actively engaged. It promotes taking in the content and understanding how it relates to other previously learned information. The student is able to receive and provide feedback with their peers and make use of community knowledge.

Information and communication A study was conducted by the Faculty of Education (2,000 teachers) at the University of British Columbia from 2001 to 2004 to research information and communication technology (ICT) competency related to age of the student (Guo, 2005). Prensky (2001b) wrote that based on the latest research in neurobiology, there is no longer any question that stimulations of various kinds actually changes the brain structure and affects the way people think. This marvel is technically known as neuroplasticity, referring to how the brain is able to reorganize itself as it is introduced to new information. The first author of this paper conducted a survey of n ¼ 258 individuals born before 1995. The survey was to get respondents opinions of whether they believed the use of technology should be incorporated in the instructional strategy in today’s training and development initiatives. Participates were categorized by age groups. Group B (born between 1945 and 1964), group X (born between 1965 and 1981), and group Y (born between 1982 and 1995). The number of participates for each group were as follows: group B was 52 individuals, group X was 127 individuals, and group Y was 79 individuals. The results indicated the majority (69.38 percent) of individuals’ surveyed favored technology utilization in training programs. The findings for each group (group Y 50 of 52, group X 87 of 127, group B 42 of 79) also indicated the younger the person, the more favorable that person is to wanting technology in the learning environment. Individuals in group Y were almost twice as likely as those in group B to favor technology in training (see Figure 1). Krause (2007) reported on the findings from a study conducted in some Australian universities of first year students as to their understanding of technology. The results indicated that the students had a significant difference in their knowledge of technology. These differences where associated with socio-economic background, age and gender Figure 1 Percentage of individuals who favor technology in training

j

j


(Bayne and Ross, 2007). A homogeneity speculation is dangerous and is not supported by the study. Engagement of a whole generation of learners leveraging what they already know and expertly use is a challenge to today’s educators, and is certainly a major consideration when teaching or training in a learning organization (Cabanero-Johnson and Berge, 2009). More importantly, this new digital pedagogy emphasizes providing students with a broad range of technology tools then allowing them to use them as a means to construct their own understanding and knowledge. As a result, students are highly motivated to discuss content, solve problems together, and apply new concepts which relate to their own practice. Even more importantly it permits students the opportunity to self assess their understanding of the content through collaboration with their fellow students. Students improve their problem solving and critical thinking skills. Students are empowered to customize their learning and to take on new learning challenges. Digital natives have been characterized as creative, innovative, self-confident, highly educated, and educationally minded. They like to share their ideas from what they have learned. They enjoy collaborating in small groups using tools like Wiki, Wimba, and Blackboard. Because of their strong morals they want to make a difference in the world. Technology such as video games, e-mails, instance messaging, and cell phones have made them grow accustom to receiving consistence feedback. They strive for positive reinforcement and want to know when they are doing well. The instructional designer when designing and developing courseware must consider which instructional strategies to incorporate with the inputs from other key personnel involved in the educational or training process (Noe, 2008). From the analysis to the evaluation phase of the instructional systems design (ISD) methodology effective training is relies on continual validation and improvement throughout the courses lifecycle. Effective learning occurs when students are actively involved in organizing, and finding relationships in the information they encounter rather than being passive recipients of a teacher – delivered bodies of knowledge (Eggen and Kauchak, 1988). Instructional mediums media selection is critical in delivering quality and effective instruction connecting instructional strategies and learning styles. Media selection is an integral part of the ISD process. The instructional medium must support the course objectives to attain the desired learning outcomes (Holden, 2005). Today’s learning environment between instructors and students has created an instructional dilemma. Two knowledge and intelligent groups (digital natives and immigrants) who grew-up in different generations and exposed to different life styles and experiences, must now be dependent on one another for deploying effective training and understanding the information for use in the future. Students preferentially take in and process information in different ways: by seeing and hearing, reflecting and acting, analyzing and visualizing, and reasoning logically and intuitively around the information being processed cognitively. To learn, we depend on our senses to process the information around us (Eggen and Kauchak, 1988).

Conclusion Prensky’s (2001a) paper, ‘‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’’, adopts the metaphor of native speaking and immigrants to differentiate today’s students born after 1982 (digital natives) and their teachers (digital immigrants) (Barry, 2009). We uncovered that the brain is a remarkable biological wonder. The brain has the capability to reorganize and cognitively process information based on the data it has processed throughout our lifetime. The generational gap between Baby Boomers and Gen Yers has resulted in the brain inputs from a linear systematic approach to a rapid bombardment of information from a digital multi-media/tasking world. The reinforcement of stimuli on the brain can affect the brain’s internal ability to sort, connect, and store bits of data for future use. The reinforcement of these inputs ‘‘wires’’ our brain to process its outputs. If our brains are accustomed to receiving digital data then it becomes ‘‘hardwired’’ to easily process similar information.

j

j


Generations are unintentionally participating in various experiments involving training and development activity. Learning events, hit and miss deployments, are often a result of generational differences and their experience using new technology. We must move toward reducing the disconnection between instructional delivery and perceived learning preferences. To efficiently increase training and development efforts between digital natives and digital immigrants the instructional strategies and learning preferences of all parties involved must align.

References Anderson, R.C. (2006), ‘‘Understanding digital children’’, available at: http://humanresources.about. com/od/educationgeneral/a/learning_org.htm Baird, D.E. and Gen, Y. (2009), ‘‘Gen Y and digital learning styles’’, available at: http://learnhub.com/ lesson/1528-gen-y-and-digital-learning-styles Barry, W. (2009), ‘‘Digital natives revisted’’, available at: http://holyroodpark.net/heywayne/weblog/ 1616.html Bayne, S. and Ross, J. (2007), ‘‘The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition’’, available at: www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf Cabanero-Johnson, P.S. and Berge, Z.L. (2009), ‘‘Digital natives: back to the future of microworlds in a corporate learning organization’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 290-7. Eggen, P.D. and Kauchak, D.P. (1988), Strategies for Teachers, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Eisner, S. (2004), ‘‘Teaching generation Y – three initiatives’’, Journal of College and Teaching Learning, available at: ttp://phobos.ramapo.edu/,seisner/Teaching.htm Guo, X.R. (2005), ‘‘Self-assessment during online discussion: an action research perspective’’, in Mann, B.L. (Ed.), Selected Styles in Web-based Educational Research, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 144-59. Interlandi, J. (2008), ‘‘Reading this will change your brain’’, Newsweek, October 14, available at: www. newsweek.com/id/163924 Krause, K. (2007), ‘‘Who is the e-generation and how are they faring in higher education?’’, in Lockard, J. and Pegrum, M. (Eds), Brave New Classrooms: Democratic Education and the Internet, Peter Lang, New York, NY, pp. 125-39. McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2008), ‘‘The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: personalization, participation, and productivity’’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 10-27. Noe, R. (2008), Employee Training and Development, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA. Prensky, M. (2001a), ‘‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’’, On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001b), ‘‘Digital natives, digital immigrants II: do they really think differently?’’, On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 1-6. Salopek, J. (2003), ‘‘Going native: cross the generation gap by learning to speak game’’, T þ D, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 17-19. Tapscott, D. (1998), Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Corresponding author Zane Berge can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j

j
