Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction?

This article analyzes the digital native-digital immigrant dichotomy based on the results of a small-scale study conducted at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Dentistry, regarding students' and faculty members' perceptions toward the implementation of digital learning technologies in the curriculum. The first element chosen for measurement was user perception of the impact on learning of basic software such as email, web browsers, online e-texts as well as hardware devices such as personal computers, laptops and MP3 players. In addition, the study also evaluated Blackboard, the learning management system of choice introduced by the parent university in the academic year 2006-2007. The results of this study suggest that there exists a slight inter-generational difference at the Faculty in the perceived usefulness and importance of digital technologies for learning and teaching, but that this difference is minimal, with no universal applicability. The study concludes that the digital native-digital immigrant duality is a complex phenomenon which cannot always be described in these extreme terms.

[1]  Jean D.M. Underwood.  Rethinking the Digital Divide: Impacts on Student-Tutor Relationships. , 2007 .

[2]  A. Colley,et al.  Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: what has changed? , 2003 .

[3]  Brenda A. Dyck.  When Digital Natives Come to School. , 2006 .

[4]  Christina Meiers,et al.  From E-learning to M-learning , 2012 .

[5]  T. E. Dinero.  Scale development. , 1996, Journal of health & social policy.

[6]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[7]  Robyn E. Parker,et al.  Perceptions of Instructional Technology: Factors of Influence and Anticipated Consequences , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[8]  S. Turkle.  Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[9]  Floyd J. Brock,et al.  The Effects of Demographics on Computer Literacy of University Freshmen , 1992 .

[10]  E. Hargittai.  Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”* , 2010 .

[11]  Hannah Thinyane,et al.  Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students' use and experience with technology , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  Educating the Net Generation , 2005 .

[13]  Mark Conner,et al.  Age differences in skill acquisition and transfer in an implicit learning paradigm , 1992 .

[14]  S. Owen,et al.  Development and Validation of the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale , 1989 .

[15]  M. Prensky.  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants , 2001 .

[16]  David Bond,et al.  Podcasting and its relation with student performance , 2008 .

[17]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychology Review.

[18]  S. Petrina,et al.  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and Ict Competency in Teacher Education , 2008 .

[19]  J. Palfrey,et al.  Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives , 2009, Choice Reviews Online.

[20]  ThinyaneHannah.  Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students' use and experience with technology , 2010 .

[21]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[22]  T. Judd,et al.  First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? , 2008 .

[23]  Florin D Salajan,et al.  University of Toronto's dental school shows "new teeth": moving towards online instruction. , 2008, Journal of dental education.

[24]  M. Prensky.  Do They Really Think Differently , 2001 .

[25]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency , 2024, Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo.

[26]  Sandra Galindo.  Palfrey, J.; Gasser, U. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York, NY: Basic books, 2008 , 2009 .

[27]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  The digital native - myth and reality , 2009, Aslib Proc..

[28]  J. Calder.  Survey research methods , 1998, Medical education.

[29]  M. Weiss,et al.  E-Mail in Academia: Expectations, Use, and Instructional Impact. , 2008 .

[30]  Yi-Shun Wang,et al.  Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[31]  J. Lorimer,et al.  Net gen or not gen? Student and Staff Evaluations of the use of Podcasts/Audio Files and an Electronic Voting System (EVS) in a Blended Learning Module. , 2007 .

[32]  David J. Zimmerman,et al.  Where is Aggressive Price Competition Taking Higher Education? , 2000 .

[33]  Christopher R. Jones,et al.  Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[34]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  The Next Generation of Educational Engagement , 2004 .

[35]  Fowler,et al.  Survey research methods, 2nd ed. , 2009 .

[36]  Sue Bennett,et al.  The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[37]  Karsten Rex,et al.  The Relationship of Computer Experience and Computer Self-Efficacy to Performance in Introductory Computer Literacy Courses , 1998 .

[38]  Jim Gaston.  Reaching and Teaching the Digital Natives , 2006 .