Content uploaded by Karl Maton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karl Maton on Oct 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of
the evidence
Sue Bennett, Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin
Sue Bennett is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Karl Maton is a
lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney. Lisa Kervin is a
lecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Address for correspondence: Sue
Bennett, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia. Email: sue_bennett@uow.edu.au
Abstract
The idea that a new generation of students is entering the education system
has excited recent attention among educators and education commentators.
Termed ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net generation’, these young people are said to
have been immersed in technology all their lives, imbuing them with sophisti-
cated technical skills and learning preferences for which traditional education
is unprepared. Grand claims are being made about the nature of this genera-
tional change and about the urgent necessity for educational reform in
response. A sense of impending crisis pervades this debate. However, the actual
situation is far from clear. In this paper, the authors draw on the fields of
education and sociology to analyse the digital natives debate. The paper pre-
sents and questions the main claims made about digital natives and analyses
the nature of the debate itself. We argue that rather than being empirically and
theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a
‘moral panic’. We propose that a more measured and disinterested approach
is now required to investigate ‘digital natives’ and their implications for
education.
The one thing that does not change is that at any and every time it appears that there have been
‘great changes’.
Marcel Proust, Within a Budding Grove
Introduction
Commentators on education are arguing that a new generation of learners is entering
our educational institutions, one which has grown up with information and commu-
nication technology (ICT) as an integral part of their everyday lives. It is claimed these
young people’s use of ICTs differentiates them from previous generations of students
and from their teachers, and that the differences are so significant that the nature of
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008 775–786
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
education itself must fundamentally change to accommodate the skills and interests of
these ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a). We shall argue that though such calls for major
change in education are being widely propounded, they have been subjected to little
critical scrutiny, are undertheorised, and lack a sound empirical basis. There is thus a
pressing need for theoretically informed research.
In this paper, we bring together educational research and the sociology of knowledge to
provide an analysis of the current state of play in the digital natives debate. We begin by
setting out the main claims made in the debate. Second, we explore the assumptions
underlying these claims and the consequent arguments for educational change, high-
lighting the limited nature of the research evidence on which they are based. Third, we
consider why such poorly evidenced claims have gained widespread currency by anal-
ysing the nature of the debate itself. This highlights how principal positions have
created the academic equivalent of a ‘moral panic’ that restricts critical and rational
debate. Lastly, we argue that the debate as currently formulated is at an impasse, and
the way forward requires a research agenda capable of providing a sound basis on
which future debate and policymaking can be founded.
Claims about ‘digital natives’
The generation born roughly between 1980 and 1994 has been characterised as the
‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a) or the ‘Net generation’ (Tapscott, 1998) because of
their familiarity with and reliance on ICT. They are described as living lives immersed in
technology, ‘surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players,
video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age’ (Prensky,
2001a, p. 1). Social researchers Howe and Strauss (2000, 2003), labelled this genera-
tion the ‘millenials’, ascribing to them distinct characteristics that set them apart from
previous generations. They offer a positive view of this new generation as optimistic,
team-oriented achievers who are talented with technology, and claim they will be
America’s next ‘great generation’.
Immersion in this technology-rich culture is said to influence the skills and interests of
digital natives in ways significant for education. It is asserted, for example, that digital
natives learn differently compared with past generations of students.They are held to be
active experiential learners, proficient in multitasking, and dependent on communica-
tions technologies for accessing information and for interacting with others (Frand,
2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001a, b; Tapscott, 1999). Commentators
claim these characteristics raise fundamental questions about whether education is
currently equipped to meet the needs of this new cohort of students. Tapscott (1998),
for example, described education in developed countries as already in crisis with more
challenges to come: ‘There is growing appreciation that the old approach [of didactic
teaching] is ill-suited to the intellectual, social, motivational, and emotional needs of
the new generation’ (p. 131). This was echoed by Prensky’s (2001a) claim that: ‘Our
students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational
system was designed to teach’ [emphasis in original] (p. 1).
776 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
For those born prior to 1980, Prensky (2001a) has coined the term ‘digital immi-
grants’. He claims that this section of the population, which includes most teachers,
lacks the technological fluency of the digital natives and finds the skills possessed by
them almost completely foreign. The disparity between the technological skills and
interests of new students and the limited and unsophisticated technology use by edu-
cators is claimed to be creating alienation and disaffection among students (Levin &
Arafeh, 2002; Levin, Richardson & Arafeh, 2002; Prensky, 2005a). Prensky (2001a)
characterises this as ‘the biggest single problem facing education today’ (p. 3). To
address this proclaimed challenge, some high-profile commentators are arguing for
radical changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and professional development in
education.
The debate over digital natives is thus based on two key claims: (1) that a distinct
generation of ‘digital natives’ exists; and (2) that education must fundamentally change
to meet the needs of these ‘digital natives’. These in turn are based on fundamental
assumptions with weak empirical and theoretical foundations, which we will explore in
the next sections.
On the distinctive characteristics of ‘digital natives’
The claim made for the existence of a generation of ‘digital natives’ is based on two
main assumptions in the literature, which can be summarised as follows:
1. Young people of the digital native generation possess sophisticated knowledge of
and skills with information technologies.
2. As a result of their upbringing and experiences with technology, digital natives have
particular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of stu-
dents.
In the seminal literature on digital natives, these assertions are put forward with limited
empirical evidence (eg, Tapscott, 1998), or supported by anecdotes and appeals to
common-sense beliefs (eg, Prensky, 2001a). Furthermore, this literature has been ref-
erenced, often uncritically, in a host of later publications (Gaston, 2006; Gros, 2003;
Long, 2005; McHale, 2005; Skiba, 2005). There is, however, an emerging body of
research that is beginning to reveal some of the complexity of young people’s computer
use and skills.
Information technology use and skills amongst young people
One of the founding assumptions of claims for a generation of digital natives is that
young people live their lives completely immersed in technology and are ‘fluent in the
digital language of computers, video games and the Internet’ (Prensky, 2005b, p. 8).
Frand (2000) claims that this immersion is so complete that young people do not even
consider computers ‘technology’ anymore. Personal testimonials (eg, McNeely, 2005;
Windham, 2005) depicting young people’s online lives as constantly connected appear
to confirm such generalisations.
Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate 777
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Recent research into how young people in postcompulsory education access and use
technology, however, offers a more diverse view of the role of technology in the lives of
young people. For example, a survey of 4374 students across 13 institutions in the
United States (Kvavik, Caruso & Morgan, 2004) found that the majority of respondents
owned personal computers (93.4%) and mobile phones (82%), but a much smaller
proportion owned handheld computers (11.9%). The most common technology uses
were word processing (99.5%), emailing (99.5%) and surfing the Net for pleasure
(99.5%). These results do demonstrate high levels of ownership of some technologies by
the respondents and high levels of some academic and recreational activities, and their
associated skills. The researchers found, however, that only a minority of the students
(around 21%) were engaged in creating their own content and multimedia for the Web,
and that a significant proportion of students had lower level skills than might be
expected of digital natives.
The general thrust of these findings is supported by two recent studies of Australian
university students (Kennedy, Krause, Judd, Churchward & Gray, 2006; Oliver &
Goerke, 2007) showing similar patterns in access to ICTs. These studies also found that
emerging technologies were not commonly used, with only 21% of respondents main-
taining a blog, 24% using social-networking technologies (Kennedy et al, 2006), and
21.5% downloading podcasts (Oliver & Goerke, 2007). As observed by Kennedy et al
(2006), although many of the students were using a wide range of technologies in their
daily lives, ‘there are clearly areas where the use of and familiarity with technology-
based tools is far from universal’ (p. 8). Some of this research (Kennedy et al, 2006);
Kvavik et al, 2005) has identified potential differences related to socio-economic status,
cultural/ethnic background, gender and discipline specialisation, but these are yet to be
comprehensively investigated. Also not yet explored is the relationship between tech-
nology access, use and skill, and the attitudinal characteristics and dispositions com-
monly ascribed to the digital native generation.
Large-scale surveys of teenagers’ and children’s use of the Internet (cf, Lenhart,
Madden & Hitlin, 2005; Livingstone & Bober, 2004) reveal high levels of online activity
by many school-aged children, particularly for helping with homework and for social
communication. The results also suggest that the frequency and nature of children’s
Internet use differs between age groups and socio-economic background. For instance,
Internet use by teenagers is far from uniform and depends on the contexts of use, with
widely varying experiences according to children’s school and home backgrounds (Lee,
2005). This is further supported by recent research showing family dynamics and the
level of domestic affluence to be significant factors influencing the nature of children’s
home computer use (Downes, 2002). These findings suggest that technology skills and
experience are far from universal among young people.
In summary, though limited in scope and focus, the research evidence to date indicates
that a proportion of young people are highly adept with technology and rely on it for a
range of information gathering and communication activities. However, there also
appears to be a significant proportion of young people who do not have the levels of
778 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
access or technology skills predicted by proponents of the digital native idea. Such
generalisations about a whole generation of young people thereby focus attention on
technically adept students. With this comes the danger that those less interested and
less able will be neglected, and that the potential impact of socio-economic and cultural
factors will be overlooked. It may be that there is as much variation within the digital
native generation as between the generations.
Distinctive digital native learning styles and preferences
The second assumption underpinning the claim for a generation of digital natives is
that because of their immersion in technology young people ‘think and process informa-
tion fundamentally differently from their predecessors’ (Prensky, 2001a, p. 1, emphasis in
the original). Brown (2000), for example, contends ‘today’s kids are always
“multiprocessing”—they do several things simultaneously—listen to music, talk on the
cell phone, and use the computer, all at the same time’ (p. 13). It is also argued that
digital natives are accustomed to learning at high speed, making random connections,
processing visual and dynamic information and learning through game-based activi-
ties (Prensky, 2001a). It is suggested that because of these factors, young people prefer
discovery-based learning that allows them to explore and to actively test their ideas and
create knowledge (Brown, 2000).
Although such claims may appeal to our common-sense perceptions of a rapidly
changing world, there is no evidence that multitasking is a new phenomenon exclusive
to digital natives. The oft-used example of a young person doing homework while
engaged in other activities was also applied to earlier generations doing homework in
front of the television. Such examples may resonate with our personal observations,
but research in cognitive psychology reveals a more complex picture. For example,
multitasking may not be as beneficial as it appears, and can result in a loss of concen-
tration and cognitive ‘overload’ as the brain shifts between competing stimuli (Rubin-
stein, Meyer & Evans, 2001; Sweller, 1988).
Nor is there clear evidence that the interactivity prevalent in most recreational com-
puter games is applicable to learning. The enthusiasm for educational games among
some commentators rests on the possibility of harnessing the high levels of engage-
ment and motivation reported by many game players to motivate students to learn.
Although the idea has excited interest for many years, and there is some evidence that
highly modified game-based approaches can support effective learning (Dede, 2005),
research into how to design games that foster deep learning is inadequate (Moreno &
Mayer, 2005). Furthermore, the substantially greater popularity of games amongst
males compared to females (Kennedy et al, 2006; Kvavik et al, 2005) may limit the
appeal of games to all learners. This is not to say that educational games might not be
effective, but simply questions the assumption that their apparent popularity in every-
day life makes them directly and unproblematically applicable to education.
Generalisations about the ways in which digital natives learn also fail to recognise
cognitive differences in young people of different ages and variation within age groups.
Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate 779
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Cognitive psychologists have studied the level and range of skills exhibited at different
ages (Berk, 2006; Carlson & Sohn, 2000; Mityata & Norman, 1986). The notable
differences identified throughout the key stages of infancy, early childhood, middle
childhood and adolescence are significant for the digital native debate. For example,
research findings have identified the developing capacity of short-term memory
(Cowan, Nugent, Elliott, Ponomarev & Saults, 1999). As this capacity increases with
age, so too do children’s abilities to scan information more quickly, apply strategies to
transform it more rapidly, hold more information within memory and move between
tasks more easily. Thus, differences across the developmental stages need to be consid-
ered when making claims about the level of skills ‘young people’ have and their ability
to successfully utilise these when interacting with ICTs.
Furthermore, the claim that there might be a particular learning style or set of learning
preferences characteristic of a generation of young people is highly problematic. Learn-
ing style theories (cf, Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993; Kolb, 1984) do differentiate between
different preferences learners might have and different approaches they might adopt,
but these are not seen as static, nor are they generalisable to whole populations. Such
theories acknowledge significant variability between individuals. Research also shows
that students change their approach to learning depending on their perception of what
a task requires and their previous success with a particular approach (Biggs, 2003;
Ramsden, 1992). To attribute a particular learning style or even general preferences to
a whole generation is thus questionable.
In this section, we have examined the key assumptions underlying the claim that the
generation of young people born between 1980 and 1994 are ‘digital natives’. It is
apparent that there is scant evidence to support this idea, and that emerging research
challenges notions of a homogenous generation with technical expertise and a distinc-
tive learning style. Instead, it suggests variations and differences within this population,
which may be more significant to educators than similarities.
Some commentators might still argue that regardless of whether the digital native
phenomenon is a generational trait or whether it is more due to exposure to ICTs, the
education of tech-savvy students is still a major issue for education.This second promi-
nent claim in the debate, that education must fundamentally change to accommodate
digital natives’ interests, talents and preferences, therefore requires exploration.
On arguments for fundamental changes in education
The claim we will now examine is that current educational systems must change in
response to a new generation of technically adept young people. Current students have
been variously described as disappointed (Oblinger, 2003), dissatisfied (Levin & Arafeh,
2002) and disengaged (Prensky, 2005a). It is also argued that educational institutions
at all levels are rapidly becoming outdated and irrelevant, and that there is an urgent
need to change what is taught and how (Prensky, 2001a; Tapscott, 1998). For example,
Tapscott (1999) urges educators and authorities to ‘[g]ive students the tools, and they
will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their schools
780 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
relevant and effective places to learn’ (p. 11). Without such a transformation, commen-
tators warn, we risk failing a generation of students and our institutions face imminent
obsolescence.
However, there is little evidence of the serious disaffection and alienation among stu-
dents claimed by commentators. Downes’ (2002) study of primary school children
(5–12 years old) found that home computer use was more varied than school use and
enabled children greater freedom and opportunity to learn by doing. The participants
did report feeling limited in the time they were allocated to use computers at school and
in the way their use was constrained by teacher-directed learning activities. Similarly,
Levin and Arafeh’s (2002) study revealed students’ frustrations at their school Internet
use being restricted, but crucially also their recognition of the school’s in loco parentis
role in protecting them from inappropriate material. Selwyn’s (2006) student partici-
pants were also frustrated that their freedom of use was curtailed at school and ‘were
well aware of a digital disconnect but displayed a pragmatic acceptance rather than the
outright alienation from the school that some commentators would suggest’ (p. 5).
This evidence points to differences in the ways young people use technology inside and
outside of school, and suggests that school use of the Internet can be frustrating, but
there is little basis to conclude that these differences are causing widespread and pro-
found disengagement in learning. Rather, they tell us that technology plays a different
role in students’ home and school lives. This view is supported by research in postcom-
pulsory education, indicating that students are not clamouring for greater use of tech-
nology (Kvavik et al, 2004; Lohnes & Kinzer, 2007). These studies demonstrate the need
to be much more careful about the views we ascribe to young people about technology.
Furthermore, questions must be asked about the relevance to education of the everyday
ICTs skills possessed by technically adept young people. For example, it cannot be
assumed that knowing how to look up ‘cheats’ for computer games on the Internet
bears any relation to the skills required to assess a website’s relevance for a school
project. Indeed, existing research suggests otherwise. When observing students inter-
acting with text obtained from an Internet search, Sutherland-Smith (2002) reported
that many were easily frustrated when not instantly gratified in their search for imme-
diate answers and appeared to adopt a ‘snatch and grab philosophy’ (p. 664). Similarly,
Eagleton, Guinee and Langlais (2003) observed middle-school students often making
‘hasty, random choices with little thought and evaluation’ (p. 30).
Such research observes shallow, random and often passive interactions with text, which
raise significant questions about what digital natives can actually do as they engage
with and make meaning from such technology. As noted by Lorenzo and Dziuban
(2006), concerns over students’ lack of critical thinking when using Internet-based
information sources imply that ‘students aren’t as net savvy as we might have assumed’
(p. 2). This suggests that students’ everyday technology practices may not be directly
applicable to academic tasks, and so education has a vitally important role in fostering
information literacies that will support learning.
Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate 781
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
In summary, calls for a dramatic shift from text-based to multimedia educational
resources, the increased use of computer games and simulations, and a move to con-
structivist approaches that emphasise student knowledge creation, problem solving
and authentic learning (Brown, 2000; Oblinger, 2004; Tapscott, 1999) based solely on
the supposed demands and needs of a new generation of digital natives must be treated
with caution. This is not to discount other arguments made for changes to education
that are based on theory and supported by clear research evidence, but we suggest that
the same standards must be met before radical change is made on the basis of the digital
native idea.
Discussion
Our analysis of the digital native literature demonstrates a clear mismatch between the
confidence with which claims are made and the evidence for such claims. So, why have
these claims gained such currency? Put another way, why have these arguments
repeatedly been reproduced as if they were supported by empirical evidence? An exami-
nation of the nature of the ‘debate’ itself offers some clues.
Cohen’s (1972) notion of a ‘moral panic’ is helpful in understanding the form taken by
the digital natives debate. In general, moral panics occur when a particular group in
society, such as a youth subculture, is portrayed by the news media as embodying a
threat to societal values and norms. The attitudes and practices of the group are sub-
jected to intense media focus, which, couched in sensationalist language, amplifies the
apparent threat. So, the term ‘moral panic’ refers to the form the public discourse takes
rather than to an actual panic among the populous. The concept of moral panic is
widely used in the social sciences to explain how an issue of public concern can achieve
a prominence that exceeds the evidence in support of the phenomenon (see Thompson,
1998).
In many ways, much of the current debate about digital natives represents an academic
form of moral panic. Arguments are often couched in dramatic language, proclaim a
profound change in the world, and pronounce stark generational differences. These
characteristics are exemplified in the followed quote from Prensky (2001a), but are also
evident throughout much of the digital natives literature:
Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past ... A really big
discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a ‘singularity’—an event which changes
things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. (p. 1)
Such claims coupled with appeals to common sense and recognisable anecdotes are
used to declare an emergency situation, and call for urgent and fundamental change.
Another feature of this ‘academic moral panic’ is its structure as a series of strongly
bounded divides: between a new generation and all previous generations; between the
technically adept and those who are not; and between learners and teachers. A further
divide is then created between those who believe in the digital native phenomenon and
782 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
those who question it. Teachers who do not change their practices are labelled as ‘lazy’
and ‘ineffective’ (Prensky, 2001a). Those who refuse to recognise what is described as
an inevitable change are said to be in denial, resistant and out of touch, and are
portrayed as being without legitimate concerns (Downes, 2007; Tapscott, 1998).
Thus, the language of moral panic and the divides established by commentators serve
to close down debate, and in doing so allow unevidenced claims to proliferate. Not only
does this limit the possibility for understanding the phenomenon, it may also alienate
the very people being urged to change. Teachers, administrators and policymakers have
every right to demand evidence and to expect that calls for change be based on well-
founded and supported arguments. As is evident from the review in this paper, many of
the arguments made to date about digital natives currently lack that support.
Without critical rational discussion, little progress can be made towards a genuine
debate about digital natives. Sceptics can highlight the lack of empirical evidence to
dismiss the notion of digital natives as hyperbole. Advocates making claims with little
evidence are in danger of repeating a pattern seen throughout the history of educa-
tional technology in which new technologies promoted as vehicles for educational
reform then fail to meet unrealistic expectations (Cuban, 2001).
Neither dismissive scepticism nor uncritical advocacy enable understanding of whether
the phenomenon of digital natives is significant and in what ways education might need
to change to accommodate it. As we have discussed in this paper, research is beginning
to expose arguments about digital natives to critical enquiry, but much more needs to be
done. Close scrutiny of the assumptions underlying the digital natives notion reveals
avenues of inquiry that will inform the debate. Such understanding and evidence are
necessary precursors to change.
Conclusion
The claim that there is a distinctive new generation of students in possession of sophis-
ticated technology skills and with learning preferences for which education is not
equipped to support has excited much recent attention. Proponents arguing that edu-
cation must change dramatically to cater for the needs of these digital natives have
sparked an academic form of a ‘moral panic’ using extreme arguments that have lacked
empirical evidence.
The picture beginning to emerge from research on young people’s relationships with
technology is much more complex than the digital native characterisation suggests.
While technology is embedded in their lives, young people’s use and skills are not
uniform. There is no evidence of widespread and universal disaffection, or of a distinctly
different learning style the like of which has never been seen before. We may live in a
highly technologised world, but it is conceivable that it has become so through evolu-
tion, rather than revolution. Young people may do things differently, but there are no
grounds to consider them alien to us. Education may be under challenge to change, but
it is not clear that it is being rejected.
Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate 783
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
The time has come for a considered and disinterested examination of the assumptions
underpinning claims about digital natives such that researchable issues can be identi-
fied and dispassionately investigated. This is not to say that young people are not
engaged and interested in technology and that technology might not support effective
learning. It is to call for considered and rigorous investigation that includes the perspec-
tives of young people and their teachers, and genuinely seeks to understand the situa-
tion before proclaiming the need for widespread change.
References
Berk, L. E. (2006). Child development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: OUP.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: how the Web changes work, education, and the ways
people learn. Change,March/April, 10–20.
Carlson, R. A. & Sohn, M-Y. (2000). Cognitive control of multistep routines: information process-
ing and conscious intentions. In S. Mondell and J. Driver (Eds), Control of cognitive processes:
attention and performance XV111 (pp. 443–464). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Cowan, N., Nugent, L. D., Elliott, E. M., Ponomarev, I. & Saults, J. S. (1999). The role of attention
in the development of short-term memory: age differences in the verbal span of apprehension.
Child Development,70, 1082–1097.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: implications for investments
in faculty and technology. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation
(pp. 15.1–15.22). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://
www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Downes, S. (2007). Places to go: Google’s search results for the ‘Net generation’. Innovate,3,4.
Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=
article&id=455
Downes, T. (2002). Blending play, practice and performance: children’s use of computer at home.
Journal of Educational Enquiry,3, 2, 21–34.
Eagleton, M. B., Guinee, K. & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: the hero
inquiry project. Voices from the Middle,10, 3, 28–35.
Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: changes in students and implications for higher
education. EDUCAUSE Review,35, September-October, 14–24.
Gaston, J. (2006). Reaching and teaching the digital natives. Library Hi Tech News,23, 3, 12–13.
Gros, B. (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday,8, 7. Retrieved February
21, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/xyzgros/index.html
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation. New York: Vintage.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Washington, DC: American Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Jonassen, D. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2006). First year students’ experi-
ences with technology: are they really digital natives? Melbourne, Australia: University of
Melbourne. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/
munatives/natives_report2006.rtf
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B. & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology
2004: convenience, connection, and control. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
784 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405/rs/
ers0405w.pdf
Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communication, and control: How students use technology.
In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 7.1–7.20). Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Lee, L. (2005). Young people and the Internet: from theory to practice. Nordic Journal of Youth
Research,13, 4, 315–326.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M. & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology:Youthare leading the transition
to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: the widening gap between Internet-savvy students
and their schools. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved April 10,
2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67
Levin, D., Richardson, J., & Arafeh, S. (2002). Digital disconnect: students’ perceptions
and experiences with the Internet and education. In P. Baker & S. Rebelsky (Eds), Proceedings
of ED-MEDIA, World Conference On Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommuni-
cations (pp. 51–52). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
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,3, 5. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://
www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=431
Long, S. A. (2005). What’s new in libraries? Digital natives: if you aren’t one, get to know one.
New Library World,106, 3/4, 187.
Lorenzo, G. & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the Net generation is Net savvy. EDUCAUSE Learning
Initiative Paper 2. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://
www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3006.pdf
McHale, T. (2005). Portrait of a digital native. Technology and Learning,26, 2, 33–34.
McNeely, B. (2005). Using technology as a learning tool, not just a cool new thing. In D. Oblinger
& J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation (pp. 4.1–4.10). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Retrieved March 31 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Mityata, Y. & Norman, D. A. (1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In D. A.
Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds), User centred design (pp. 265–284). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection and interactivity in an agent-based
multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology,97, 1, 177–128.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials: understanding the new students.
EDUCAUSE Review,38, 4, July/August, 37–47.
Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media
in Education,8. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/8/oblinger-
2004-8-disc-t.html
Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: first steps towards understanding the net
generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation (pp. 2.1–2.20).
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/
educatingthenetgen
Oliver, B. and Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging
technologies: implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the
Net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,23, 2, 171–186. Retrieved June
27, 2007 from, http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/oliver.html
Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon,9, 5, 1–6.
Prenksy, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II. Do they really think differently?
On the Horizon,9, 6, 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2005a). Engage me or enrage me. EDUCASE Review,40, 5, September/October,
61–64.
Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate 785
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Prensky, M. (2005b). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership,63, 4, 8–13.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D. E. & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task
switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,27, 4, 763–
797.
Selwyn, N. (2006). Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net-savvy students and their
schools. Learning, Media and Technology,31, 1, 5–17.
Skiba, D. J. (2005). The millennials: have they arrived at your school of nursing? Nursing Educa-
tion Perspectives,27, 3, 370.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: changes in reading from page to screen.
The Reading Teacher,55, 7, 662–669.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science,
12, 2, 257–285.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the Net generation. Educational Leadership,56, 5, 6–11.
Thompson, K. (1998). Moral panics. London: Routledge.
Windham, C. (2005). Father google & mother IM: confessions of a net gen learner. EDUCAUSE
Review,40, 5, 42–59.
786 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
