The Open University's Institute of Educational Technology The Net generation encountering e-learning at university Chris Jones Ruslan Ramanau, Anesa Hosein,

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… ” (Palfrey and Gasser 2008 p239)

“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!” (Brenda Gourley VC Open University, Council address Sept 2008)


Another example…

Image from Wired magazine 2006


Claims about ‘Natives’

Prensky claims that if you’ve done any of these, you’re a Digital Immigrant:

•Printed out your email (or had your administrative assistant print it out for you–even worse) •You need to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen) •You’ve brought people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL). •The “Did you get my email?” phone call (my emphasis)


The generational metaphor

Howe and Strauss have a long standing argument about US generations

A four stage historical cycle

Different forces in other countries? E.g. China, or RSA

https://sites.google.com/site/sjlewisprojects/the-ascent-of-man


The brain and plasticity

Baroness Greenfield the Director of the Royal Institution in the United Kingdom told the House of Lords that children's experiences on social networking sites:

"are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity". 24th of February 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/social-networking-site-changing-childrens-brains )

Claims by Prensky Neuroplasticity

Stimultation changes brain structure and the way people think Malleability

The way people think changes with experience Attention span and reflection

Attention ‘in bursts’ Reflection – this needs translating into digital native language

The consistency of the human condition Relative biological stability Socio-cultural and historical adaptability


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 English universities selected for type

Urban ‘Red brick’, 1960’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 1964 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%)

Survey 2 and 3 – longitudinal

Survey 2 – Autumn 2008, 5 universities completed (14 courses n= 1098 response rate 42%)

Survey 3 – end of year 1 Spring 2009 completed (Same 14 courses as Survey 2, n= 713 response rate 28%)


Interviews

Staff Face to face (n=12) Conversational style with the aim of gathering information about:

The university, course and programme Staff conceptions of the student cohort

Students Volunteers from survey 10 from phase 1, 58 from phase 2 Telephone interviews Conversational style with the aim of:

Understanding the reasons for use of technology Attitudes towards university provision of e-learning


Cultural probes

Participants recruited from interviewees (n=18 + 1, not able to receive SMS)

Initial briefing and equipment delivery (Video camera and notebook)

SMS prompts over 24 hours What time is it? Where are you now? Are you using any

technology? If so what are you using?

Who are you with? How do you feel about it?

‘Focus’ group feedback

Based on: Riddle, M.D. and Arnold, M.V. (2007) The Day Experience Method: A Resource Kit. http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/dtl_publish/12/67585.html


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%

By Survey 3 the ownership was 88% and 43% had bought a laptop during their first year at university

The differences across age and gender groups (Survey 1) were at significant levels e.g. 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

Survey 1

Survey 3

Owned (%) Shared access (%)

No access (%)

Mobile phone 97.8 (97%) 1.1 1.1

MP3/iPOD/ 82.4 5.3 12.2

Memory stick/card

87.9 (91%) 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 (Survey 1)

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

Students chose to use the same technologies for study as those they were required to use on their courses In general used them more than they are required to Blogs, Wikis and Virtual Worlds little used. The most used technologies allowed:

access to resources and personal communication

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

Gender effects 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 (Survey 1)

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) 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.

55.7 % of students aged 26 years of age and older never participated in social networking sites and only 24.3 % of them reported daily use. 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 (Survey 1)

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)


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


Expected and actual use of ICT (Surveys 2&3)


NetGen

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

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

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

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

Non-NetGen

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

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

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

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


Mode of study (place-based or distance)

Frequency Place based Distance Learning

p

Sent MMS messages 3.20 2.70 0.01

Sent or responded to an e-mail 4.64 4.49 0.10

Used an instant messenger 3.62 2.95 0.00

Participated in a text-based chat room 1.88 1.79 0.52

Visited virtual world 1.27 1.10 0.06

Used conferencing via the Web 1.56 1.26 0.02

Looked at messages on SNS 3.96 3.04 0.00

Sent messages on SNS 3.80 2.93 0.00

Edited my profile on SNS 3.28 2.49 0.00

Table 4: Frequency of ICT use for university types (5 – very often – 1- never)

•Students entering place based and distance-learning universities show different ICT usage. •Students who chose to the distance-learning courses use ICT less frequently.


Reading and printing

University I always read on screen I mostly read on screen I mostly print out I always print out I have no preference Missing Total

A 6 (8%) 26 (36%) 27 (38%) 4 (6%) 9 (13%) 2 74

B 15 (18%) 30 (36%) 29 (35%) 4 (5%) 6 (7%) 1 85

C 25 (19%) 46 (35%) 37 (28%) 7 (5%) 15 (12%) 4 134

D 66 (22%) 130 (43%) 66 (22%) 20 (7%) 23 (8%) 6 311

E 23 (21%) 40 (37%) 31 (29%) 4 (4%) 10 (9%) 1 109

Total 135 (19%) 272 (39%) 190 (27%) 39 (6%) 63 (9%) 14 713

Table (Survey3): Reading on screen or printing out preference NB Figures rounded up so they don’t add to 100%

Survey 1 •56% (similar in Survey 3) reported mostly or always reading on screen,•around one third of students (similar in Survey 3) reported mostly or always printing out downloaded written materials).•Over two thirds (68.3%) reported that they save/download materials when accessing them online.


Describing first year students

What follows is work in progress

We have begun to try and abstract some features from our data using factor analysis

This has then been used to develop some provisional clusters of students

The slides that follow are based on initial work using 2 step cluster analysis

Caution has to be taken because this type of cluster analysis tends to force membership amongst students e.g. all females or all males grouping together.

Further analysis of our data will examine how other clustering techniques may affect group membership and the categories derived in this initial analysis.


Cluster characteristics (Survey 2)

Cluster

1 2 3 4

Web

Interactive

V. High Low Low High

Work-

oriented

Average Average Average Average

Social

Interactive

Low V. Low High High

Technically-

oriented

Average Average Average Average


Cluster membership (Survey 2)Cluster 1

Web

Interactive

2

Work

Oriented

3

Social

Interactive

4

Technically

Oriented

Males 68 (18%) 76 (21%)

0 (0%) 224 (61%)

Females 95 (18%) 124 (23%)

320 (59%) 0 (0%)

≤ 20 140 (20%) 16 (2%) 320 (46%) 224 (32%)

21-25 22 (21%) 85 (79%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

26-35 1 (2%) 48 (98%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

≥36 0 (0%) 51 (100%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Place-based 161 (20%) 86 (11%)

320 (41%) 224 (28%)

Distance-

Learning

2 (2%) 114 (98%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

UK 0 (0%) 193 (26%)

320 (43%) 224 (30%)

International 163 (96%) 7 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)


Characteristics & membership (Survey 2)

UK Males ≤20

UK Females ≤20

Distance Learning

Int’nal


Describing the variations

Place based whole time vs distance learning part-time Mode of study seems to have a significant effect Distance students -

Lower use of ICT than place based students Lower use affects both Net gen aged and older

students Less likely to be social interactive or web interactive

Other clusters Gender

Females show greater social interactivity and lower web interactivity than males

International students Show lower social interactivity but higher web

interactivity


Student spaces and places

Changes in the past 10 years – the rise of mobile technologies

The persistent importance of the study bedroom

Charles Crook - Learning Nests

Nardi and O’Day – local habitations

The use of informal spaces:

Library

Multi-media Labs

Little evidence of the adoption of a ‘mobile’ culture


Learning Nests (Day Experience)

Example 1. Study area in a permanent home addressAs you can see I’m in my spare bedroom, which has got washing, place where I keep my washing, my exercise bike which usually just sits in the corner, my desk which has my laptop and all the current things I’m working on at the minute, my ironing board and a couple of bookcases. At the moment I’ve only got two bookshelves that I use for my work and this is basically where I spend most of my evenings. Usually two to three hours an evening, depends on what I’ve got to do. And then some of the, I’ve got a normal computer downstairs which is attached to a printer, which I print everything off but this is basically at the moment where all my work gets done. (Non-Net Generation, female, Social Work University E)

Example 2 Study bedroom (the most common situation)I’m still doing my homework, it’s a different homework this time but I’m using my laptop again, on Facebook and also using MSN to talk to my friends. I’ve also got like an on-line dictionary in here which is helping me rather than using the book ‘cos its much quicker, like a proper dictionary ‘cos its much quicker. I’m in my room so I’m surrounded by all my stuff which I like. (Net generation female, German University D)

Example 3 In a public area using mobile device(s)I am currently in the MRL [Multi-Media Resource Laboratory] and the technology I am using as you can see Microsoft OneNote for note taking, Microsoft word and WebCT which I’m currently downloading some assignments off. I’m on my own doing work and the environment I am sitting in is comfortable as you can see, [view of sofa seating with more formal area in the rear of the shot] which is fairly busy as well. I am currently using my laptop for doing my studies and mobile phone for communicating with other students. (Net Generation Male Information and Communications University B)


Life on screen (Interviews/Day Experience)

The students we engaged with using the Day Experience method integrated their lives on screen.

In this sense there was no distinction between the location of work and play

Many applications open at once, seamlessly moving between them“Right, I’ve just flicked on to the internet and I’m just checking my Tiscali e-mails which is the first thing I usually do and see whether anybody interesting has bothered to contact me. Usually there are only Facebook notifications - looks as though there is one from my football team which means I probably will actually go on to Facebook which is never a good idea to see what all that’s about. I usually follow the same thing each day, I log on to my Tiscali e-mail see whether anything interesting is on there, usually there isn’t. Then I go on to BBC sport because I’m a bit of a sport addict and see what’s happening there. Then I check my [University] student e-mails because there’s usually a lot more going on there. That could be if there is any lecture changes or exam results out that I need to be aware off. Then I log into [local VLE] and the lecture writing up begins.” (Net Generation female studying Veterinary Science University A)


Distraction (Interviews)

Nick Carr “The human brain like any animal brain is attuned to distraction… the internet bombards us with stimuli… it creates in a sense an environment of information that plays to our desire to our need to be distracted… it becomes very difficult to keep a focus on anything” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/interviews.shtml )

One of the key themes from our interviews

“…if I’m doing some work and I’ve got Facebook open then I get a message or I’ll see pictures that my friend’s posted from a party and I get distracted and I’ll loose where I was in my work and then it’s a bit like I’ve lost my place and it’s hard to get back in and you know, all from that one little message..” (Net Generation Male, Information and Communications University B)


Responses to distraction (Interviews)

1. Removing the sources of distraction by switching them off“to be honest you just turn it all off and then you just don’t stick with it otherwise as soon as you turn it on, you’re losing time and you’re wasting your own time really.” (Net Generation Male, Modern Languages University D)

2. Physically removing themselves from the distractions“…and the computer is, is you know, today’s distraction, yesterday it was the TV now it’s the internet (laughs) so it, it has quite a serious downside…I tend to use the Library to get away from technology.” (Older Female Veterinary Science University A)

3. Interspersing study with breaks“…it’s just a matter of the person and whether they can not get distracted by it [technology], but I do think it’s just good to have those things there so that you can have a break and chill out and stuff, while you are trying to work.” (Net Generation Female English University A)

4. Working under pressure“Personally I tend to work best under pressure so I’ll sort of leave it until the last minute... I’ll tend to close everything down or at least have it minimised at the bottom of the screen and ignore it, set myself to appear offline on MSN messenger and leave everything, mainly to stop distractions from people talking to you, and try to ignore everything else.” (Net Generation Female Bio-Sciences University A)


Discussion and concluding points

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 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)


Implications for teaching?

The Net Generation/Digital Natives and determinism

Hard forms - “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).

Softer forms - “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… ” (Palfrey and Gasser 2008 p239)

Are there things we will just have to accept?

If so what are they?

What will we have to do?


Choices not necessity

Students seem to use new technologies that allow (afford) – Communication Access

Students (in general) are not currently using many of the most talked about new technologies Blogs, Wikis, Virtual Worlds

If students tend to use the technologies that they are required to use… I would choose to include these new technologies in my

courses Because …

I would choose to avoid these new technologies in my courses Because…


Engaging with university

Digital Natives as Digital phrenology? Association between known features

and presumed characteristics Two related claims

The ubiquitous nature of certain technologies, specifically gaming (Oblinger 2004, Prensky 2001, 2001a) and the Web, have affected the outlook of an entire age cohort in advanced economies

The new technologies emerging with this generation, most recently Web 2.0, have particular characteristics that afford certain types of social engagement.

What is the relationship between student activity and university context?


References

Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S.J., and Healing, G. (2009) Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022http://oro.open.ac.uk/18700/

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://oro.open.ac.uk/18690/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 sites: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/netgeneration/ http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=8354


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.

Documents

The Open University's Institute of Educational Technology The Net generation encountering e-learning at university Chris Jones Ruslan Ramanau, Anesa Hosein,