Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies
Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
复制
发表时间：
2011-02-01
影响因子：
12
通讯作者：
Vojt, Gabrielle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Margaryan, Anoush;Littlejohn, Allison;Vojt, Gabrielle
这项研究调查了大学生使用数字技术进行学习和社交的程度和性质。调查结果表明，学生使用的主要成熟技术范围有限。协作知识创建工具、虚拟世界和社交网站的使用率很低。与“数字移民”和非技术学科（社会工作）的学生相比，“数字原住民”和技术学科（工程）的学生使用更多的技术工具。这种关系可能是通过以下发现来调节的：工程课程比社会工作课程需要更深入和更广泛的技术接触。然而，这些群体之间对技术的使用只是量上的不同，而不是质上的不同。该研究没有找到证据支持流行的说法，即年轻人采用截然不同的学习方式。他们的学习态度似乎受到讲师教学方法的影响。学生们似乎遵循传统的教学法，尽管很少使用提供内容的工具。研究结果表明，尽管对教育变革的呼吁可能是合理的，但将这种变革的论点建立在学生学习和技术使用模式转变的基础上可能会产生误导。 (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
This study investigated the extent and nature of university students' use of digital technologies for learning and socialising. The findings show that students use a limited range of mainly established technologies. Use of collaborative knowledge creation tools, virtual worlds, and social networking sites was low. 'Digital natives' and students of a technical discipline (Engineering) used more technology tools when compared to 'digital immigrants' and students of a non-technical discipline (Social Work). This relationship may be mediated by the finding that Engineering courses required more intensive and extensive access to technology than Social Work courses. However, the use of technology between these groups is only quantitatively rather than qualitatively different. The study did not find evidence to support popular claims that young people adopt radically different learning styles. Their attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by lecturers' teaching approaches. Students appear to conform to traditional pedagogies, albeit with minor uses of tools delivering content. The outcomes suggest that although the calls for transformations in education may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change in students' shifting patterns of learning and technology use. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.