British Journal of Educational Technology (2014)

doi:10.1111/bjet.12161

Technology use and learning characteristics of students in

higher education: Do generational differences exist?
Kwok-Wing Lai and Kian-Sam Hong
Kwok-Wing Lai is professor of Education in the College of Education at the University of Otago. He is also the
director of the Centre for Distance Education and Learning Technologies and editor of Computers in New Zealand
Schools. Kian-Sam Hong is professor of Education in the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development and
Centre for Applied Learning and Multimedia, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia. Address for correspondence:
Professor Kwok-Wing Lai, University of Otago College of Education, 145 Union Street East, Dunedin 9054, New
Zealand. Email: wing.lai@otago.ac.nz

Abstract
As digital technologies form an inextricable part of young peoples everyday lives, some
commentators claim that the current generation of learners think and learn differently
from their predecessors. This study investigated the validity of this claim by surveying
799 undergraduate and 81 postgraduate students at a large research-intensive university in New Zealand to document their use of digital technologies on university and
social activities and comparing three age groups of students (under 20, 2030 and over
30) to see whether there were any differences in their learning characteristics. The
findings of the study showed that while students spent a large amount of time on digital
technologies, the range of digital technologies they used was rather limited. There were
also no practical generational differences in the technology use pattern and learning
characteristics found in this study. The results of this study suggest that generation is not
a determining factor in students use of digital technologies for learning nor has generation had a radical impact on learning characteristics of higher education students.

Introduction
University teachers will agree that a good understanding of the learning characteristics of their
students is a key factor affecting the decision of what and how pedagogies will be employed in
their teaching and that it will ultimately impact on the success of their students learning
(Laurillard, 2002). With the exponential growth of digital technologies in recent years, there is
no doubt that in economically advanced countries, many young people have accumulated a huge
amount of technology experience before they enter university. For example, one survey in the
USA (Rideout, Foehr & Roberts, 2010) reported that in 2009, 818-year-olds spent on average
four and a half hours daily using digital technologies out of school. They used their mobile
phones and computers to do text messaging, talk to peers, listen to music, play games and watch
other media, with the three most popular online activities being visiting social networking sites
(eg, MySpace and Facebook), playing computer games and watching videos on websites (Lai,
Khaddage & Knezek, 2013). These technology experiences undoubtedly will affect the way young
people play, communicate, socialise and learn. Some commentators (eg, Oblinger & Oblinger,
2005; Palfrey, Gasser, Simun & Barnes, 2009; Prensky, 2001a, 2011b; Rosen, 2010; Tapscott,
2009) even go as far as suggesting that as a result of being surrounded by and immersed in
technologies, there is a fundamental difference between how the current generation of young
people learn, as compared with previous generations. These so called digital natives have a
2014 British Educational Research Association

British Journal of Educational Technology

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
The claim that there is a digital divide of technology use based on generations is not
substantiated empirically.
There is an uneven access and use of technology by young people. Not everyone is
immersed in and surrounded by digital technologies.
Skills acquired in social use of digital technologies may not be easily transferred to
academic use.
What this paper adds
Limited range of use of digital technologies by university students.
There is little difference in learning characteristics of technology use between generations. Claims of generation gaps are not well founded.
The instrument developed by Bullen, Morgan and Qayyum (2011) used to measure
learning characteristics of technology use of young people is validated.
Implications for practice and/or policy
There is a need to recognise uneven access and limited diversity of use of digital
technologies by university students.
Policies of digital technology use in higher education should not be formulated solely
on the claims of some technology enthusiasts.
There is a need to provide support for students to acquire skills of using advanced
features of digital technologies to support formal learning.

different learning style (eg, multitasking in learning) and think and access information differently
(Prensky, 2001a, 2001b). As such, teaching in higher education should respond to these learning differences to accommodate the more technology-driven, spontaneous, and multi-sensory
learning styles (Prensky, 2001a). These claims, if substantiated, can have significant implications
on curriculum design, teaching and how technologies are used in higher education. For example,
technologies would have to be tightly integrated into the curriculum to support multimediabased teaching, and on-demand access to learning resources has to be readily available to all
learners.
The term digital natives was coined by Marc Prensky (2001a) to refer to the current generation
of young people who have not just changed incrementally from those of the past . . . [but] a
really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a singularityan event which
change things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back (Prensky, 2001a, p 1).
Following Prensky, in the last decade, there has been a proliferation of terms used to describe this
generation of young people, such as homo zapiens (Pelevin & Bromfield, 2002), millennials
(Howe & Strauss, 2003), generation Y (Horovitz, 2012; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), i-generation
(Rosen, 2010) and net generation (Tapscott, 1998, 2009). The term net generation has gained
popularity and is used to describe people born after 1983 (Tapscott, 1998, 2009). Oblinger
and Oblinger (2005) use the term generation Y, also a popular term, which is used to refer to
people born between 1982 and 1991. More recently, the term generation next is used to
describe people born after 1993 (JISC-Ciber, 2008). For those people who grew up in a world of
analogue technologies, they are being viewed as lacking behind in the ability of using digital
technologies and are labelled immigrants in the new digital world. Bullen and his colleagues
2014 British Educational Research Association

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

Table 1: Digital learning characteristics of digital natives

Characteristic
Digitally literate

Connected
Multitaskers
Need for immediacy
Need for experiential learning
Social
Preference for group work
Preference for structure in
learning/goal orientedness
Preference for images over text
Community minded

Elaboration

Able to use intuitively a variety of IT devices and navigate the Internet

Comfortable using technology but may have a shallow understanding
Visually literate
More likely to use the Internet for research than a library
The particular device may change but they are always connected
The move quickly from one activity to another, sometimes performing
several simultaneously
They demand fast responsesmore value on speed than accuracy
Prefer to learn by doing rather than being told what to do
Discovery learners
Gravitate towards activities that involve social interaction
Open to diversity
Social nature aligns with preference for team work
Prefer to learn and work in teams
Depend heavily on peers
Prefer structure over ambiguity
Goal oriented
Prefer images over text
Do not like reading large amounts of text
Prefer to work on things that matter
Believe that science and technology can be used to resolve difficult
problems

Source: Adapted from Bullen et al (2011).

(2011) have reviewed the learning characteristics of these so-called digital natives, as propagated
in the literature (refer to Table 1). A more detailed review was recently provided by Thompson
(2013).
Labelling the current generation of young people as digital natives has been increasingly criticised as lacking conceptual clarity and empirical support (Bennett & Maton, 2010). Conceptually,
treating a whole generation as having homogenous characteristics based on technology use is
problematic, as research has attested to the cultural, social and gender factors that may have
greater effects on behaviours and practices (refer to Jones & Cross, 2009; Kennedy, Krause, Judd,
Churchward & Gray, 2006; Salaway, Caruso & Nelson, 2008; Selwyn, 2008). As pointed out
by Jones (2012), young people in each generation are a mixed group of people with different
interests, motives, [abilities], and never a single generational cohort with common characterises
(p 30). Some educators (eg, Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) also dispute the claim that a generation
of young learners has a particular learning style or learning preference, as learning preferences
should not be viewed as fixed and universally generalisable. Furthermore, according to Biggs
(2003), students may also change their learning approaches based on their perceptions of the
task requirements and past experiences.
Empirical studies have begun to emerge in the last few years to show that even in economically
advanced countries, access to technology for young people is uneven, and it is thus inaccurate to
characterise that all or most young people as being surrounded by and are immersed in digital
technologies (Bullen, Morgan, Belfer & Qayyum, 2009; Bullen et al, 2011; Conole, de Laat, Dillon
& Darby, 2006; Kennedy et al, 2009; Margayan, Littlejohn & Vojt, 2011). These studies also show
that although the so-called net generation students use new digital technologies such as email,
instant messaging, YouTube, Wikipedia and other social media in their everyday life, the use of
2014 British Educational Research Association

British Journal of Educational Technology

advanced features of Web 2.0 technologies for social and recreational purposes and in formal
learning contexts is uncommon. Students also lack critical thinking skills in accessing and
evaluating Internet-based information, indicating that they may not be as net savvy as claimed
(Lorenzo & Dziuban, 2006). There is also growing evidence to show that students mastery of
everyday digital technology skills is not directly transferable to academic tasks (Bennett, Maton &
Kervin, 2008), as general digital technology skills acquired in daily technology use may be of
limited use in tasks that require synthesis and critical evaluation skills.
In higher education, studies conducted by Kennedy et al (2007), Kennedy, Judd, Churchward,
Gray and Krause (2008) and Kennedy et al (2009) found some small differences in technology
use between university students (mostly under age 25) and faculty (mostly over age 25) and in
general, younger people embraced all types of technology while older people avoided it. However,
a further study conducted more recently by Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarno and Waycott (2010) in three
Australian universities, shows that only a small percentage of the students could be categorised
as power users, who used a variety of technologies frequently, whereas the majority of the
students used a limited number of digital technologies. They were limited to using basic mobile
phone features and the web for sending email and looking up information, with very few students
using digital technologies for gaming, creating multimedia content or advancing smartphone
capabilities. A study conducted by Guo, Dobson and Petrina (2008) did not find any significant
differences in university students aged 20 to over 40 on self-perceptions of information technology competence. A British study (University College of London, 2008) reported similar results,
showing that young Internet users were not highly sophisticated in information-seeking techniques and uncritical in evaluating information gathered from the Web. Likewise, a study conducted in UK Open University shows no evidence of changes in students use of and attitudes to
digital technologies around the age of 30 (Jelfs & Richardson, 2013). Jelfs and Richardson (2013)
also suggest that stereotyping digital technology use between younger and older learners should
be rejected. In a similar study, Salaway et al (2008) found that students did not engage extensively
in using technologies in their courses, but rather blend technology use with primarily face-to-face
activities. Studies conducted in the economically less advanced country context reported similar
results. For example, Brown and Czerniewiczs (2008) and Thinyanes (2010) studies reported
that while the majority of their students were exposed to certain digital technologies, in particular mobile phones, the use of technologies for learning was infrequent and was mostly related to
the requirements of courses and focused on course content.
Empirical evidence so far available indicates a need for caution in defining a generation of young
people based on their supposed immersion in digital and networked technologies from a young
age. It is possible for older generations to be comfortable with and skilled in the use of new
technologies, while those from the net generation could be limited to using a narrow range of
digital technologies. As Jones and Cross (2009) pointed out, having been exposed to digital
technologies since an early age does not necessarily make the net generation a single and coherent group.
The study
Bullen and his colleagues (2011) were among the first to develop an instrument to measure the
learning characteristics of young people based on what have been claimed by the digital natives
advocates. Using a Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly
agree), this instrument is designed to measure 10 dimensions of learning characteristics: digital
literacy, connectedness, multitasking, preference for experiential learning, preference for group
work, preference for images over text, need for structure in learning/goal orientedness, social,
need for immediacy and community mindedness (refer to Table 1). Bullen et al (2011) have
conducted a study in a Canadian higher education institution using this instrument, and they
2014 British Educational Research Association

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

found little differences in technology use and learning characteristics between the younger and
older students. The purpose of this study was to replicate Bullen et als (2011) study in the New
Zealand higher education context to contribute to the growing knowledge base of technology use
patterns and learning characteristics of tertiary students, and further investigate the claims and
assumptions of the digital natives phenomenon. New Zealand higher education has undergone
major changes and reforms in the last 25 years (Goedegebuure, Santiago, Fitznor, Stensaker &
van der Steen, 2008), and one of the key challenges of the 21st century is how digital technologies can be utilised to better support teaching and learning and prepare tertiary students to meet
the demands of globalisation and the knowledge society (Gunn & Recker, 2001; Lai, 2011).
Because no New Zealand studies have been conducted on generational differences of technology
use by tertiary studies, findings from this study will help teachers and policy makers to gain a
better understanding of how technology-supported pedagogies can be employed and learning
opportunities be developed in the New Zealand context.
The technology use patterns and learning characteristics of three groups of students from a
research-intensive New Zealand university were compared in this study: Group 1 (under 20, born
after 1992, the so-called generation next), Group 2 (2030, born between 1982 and 1992, the
so-called net generation), and Group 3 (over 30, born before 1982, the so-called digital immigrants). The age groups of students in Groups 1 and 2 are commonly called digital natives in the
literature.
This study addressed two research questions:
1. What technology tools do university students use and how frequently do they use them? Does
the pattern of technology use differ between different age groups of students?
2. What learning characteristics do students have in relation to the use of digital technologies?
Are there any generational differences?
A paper-based questionnaire consisting of 21 items and sub-items was administered to a random
sample of 880 undergraduate and postgraduate students during the orientation week of the new
university year in February 2012. In this questionnaire, 17 items were taken from Bullen et als
(2011) instrument, and the rest adopted from Margayan et al (2011). The demographic information of these three groups of respondents is summarised in Table 2. The respondents were representative of the universitys students demographics in terms of gender and year of study. In

Table 2: Respondents demographic information

Demographics
Gender
Year of
study
Division

Total

Male
Female
Undergraduate first year
Undergraduate above first year
Postgraduate
Commerce
Humanities
Health sciences
Sciences

Group 1
(generation next
under 20)

Group 2
(net generation
2030)

Group 3
(digital immigrants
over 30)

191 (36.8%)
328 (63.2%)
347 (66.9%)
172 (33.1%)
0 (0.0%)
107 (20.6%)
139 (26.8%)
146 (28.1%)
127 (24.5%)
519 (59.0%)

140 (44.7%)
173 (55.3%)
31 (9.9%)
232 (73.9%)
51 (16.2%)
73 (23.3%)
100 (31.9%)
33 (10.5%)
107 (34.2%)
314 (35.7%)

19 (42.2%)
26 (57.8%)
5 (10.6%)
12 (25.5%)
30 (63.8%)
16 (34.0%)
24 (51.1%)
0 (0.0%)
7 (14.9%)
47 (5.3%)

Percentages in brackets are column percentages. Some figures do not add up to the total as some respondents
did not indicate their gender/year of study.
2014 British Educational Research Association

British Journal of Educational Technology

addition, the respondents also came from the four main study disciplines at the university,
namely, commerce, humanities, health sciences and sciences.
Were students immersed in and surrounded by digital technology?
The digital natives advocates claim that the current generation of young people has developed a
set of distinctive learning characteristics as a result of intensive use of technologies. The first
research question of this study was to test this claim: how frequently do digital natives use digital
technologies and do they use them more frequently than the so-called digital immigrants? In this
study, the respondents were asked the amount of time they spent using digital technologies per
week. As can be seen from Table 3, while the majority of students (about 60%) reported having
spent over 10 hours or less per week using technologies on university work, with just over half of
them spending over 20 hours per week, almost 40% of the students only spent 10 hours or less
per week using digital technologies. The respondents were further asked the amount of time they
spent using digital technologies on social or personal activities, and their responses were more or
less evenly distributed, with about one-third of the respondents belonging to each category.
Findings from this study thus suggest that while in general young people nowadays do spend a
large amount of time on digital technologies, high computer usage is by no means universal, with
some students spending a lot more time on digital technologies than others.
Non-parametric tests were conducted to investigate whether there were any differences in the
amount of time spent on digital technologies between the three groups of respondents. The
KruskalWallis tests were used to determine whether there were any overall significant generational differences and the MannWhitney U tests were used to determine significant pairwise
differences with adjusted p-values for Bonferroni corrections. Effect sizes (r = Z/N, refer to
Rosenthal, 1991, p 19) were also computed, with effect size of .1 considered small effect, .3,
moderate effect, and .5, large effect (Cohen, 1988). These tests have detected significant generational differences in the amount of time using digital technologies on university work
(2(2) = 46.419, p < .005), with Group 3 (the 30+ students) spent significantly more time
using digital technologies on university activities than Groups 1 and 2, and Group 2 spent
significantly more time than Group 1 (ZGrp1-Grp2 = 5.424, adjusted p < .0005, effect size = .019;
ZGrp1-Grp3 = 5.022, adjusted p < .0005, effect size = .212; ZGrp2-Grp3 = 2.40, adjusted p = .049,
effect size = .127). However, the effect sizes were small (from .019 to .127), showing a lack of
practical significance in these differences. With regard to social and personal activities, we found
no significant differences in the amount of time on the use of technology (2(2) = 5.345,
p = .069) between the three groups of respondents.
The digital natives advocates argue that the current generation of young people are surrounded
by advanced digital technologies and they use them heavily in academic and social or personal
activities. In this study, the respondents were provided a list of digital tools and applications and
they were asked to indicate on a Likert type scale (4 = daily, 3 = weekly, 2 = monthly or 1 = none at
Table 3: Amount of time spent using digital technologies for university and social/personal activities
>10 up to 20 hours

Up to 10 hours
G1
(%)

G2
(%)

G3 Overall G1
(%)
(%)
(%)

University activities 48.6 28.3 21.3

Social or personal 36.0 29.2 45.5
activities
G, group.
2014 British Educational Research Association

39.8
34.1

G2
(%)

More than 20 hours

G3 Overall G1
(%)
(%)
(%)

38.2 55.3 40.4

47.3 53.2 43.2

29.0
32.0

G2
(%)

G3 Overall
(%)
(%)

13.2 16.4 38.3

16.7 17.6 11.3

31.1
33.4

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

all) how often did they use them in their daily life. Findings from this study show that three digital
tools, namely, laptop computer, mobile phone and MP3/iPod, and three applications, namely,
Internet browsers, Google and Facebook/MySpace, were used by the majority (over 50%) of the
respondents on a daily basis (median rank = 4), both for university work and non-universityrelated activities. As for other digital tools and applications such as digital camera, wikis (eg,
Wikipedia), YouTube and email for communicating with friends, they were used on a weekly basis
(median rank = 3). Other digital tools (Skype and file/photo upload or sharing) were used only on
a monthly basis (median rank = 2). The majority of the respondents reported not having used
video conferencing, real-time chat, podcasts, tablet computer, Google Scholar, simulation games,
virtual worlds, message boards, blogging and Twitter at all, either for their university or nonuniversity work (median rank = 1). Figures 1 and 2 summarise the percentages of respondents
engaged in the six most popular digital tools and applications daily.
Non-parametric tests were conducted to investigate whether or not there were any generational
differences in the use of these tools and applications. In using digital technologies for university
work, generational differences were found in the following applications: using mobile phones
for communicating with friends (2(2) = 21.805, p < .0005), MP3 player/iPod (2(2) = 29.823,
p < .0005), Facebook/MySpace (2(2) = 44.613, p < .0005) and Google (2(2) = 6.841,
p = .033). The MannWhitney U tests showed that Groups 1 and 2 (the generation next and net
generation) used these digital tools more often in their university work than Group 3 (digital
immigrants) respondents. In the case of using Google, generational differences were detected
(2(2) = 6.841, p = .033); the MannWhitney U tests indicated that Group 2 respondents (net
generation) used this digital tool more often than Group 3 respondents (digital immigrants).

100
92.3

91.6
90
86.6

89.4
87.0

86.8
82.8

80

76.1

77.0
73.9

76.8

70

66.5 66.3

60

56.9 56.8
Group 1

50.0
50

Group 2
Group 3

40

30

25.5

20

10
2.0
0
Internet websites

Google

Laptop computers

Mobile phone

Facebook/Myspace

MP3/iPod players

Figure 1: Clustered bar chart for daily use of digital tools on university activities in percentage
2014 British Educational Research Association

British Journal of Educational Technology

100
90.0
90

2(2)=22.457,
p<.0005

89.0

84.3
80.4

83.3

84.4

84.3

2(2)=18.940,
p<.0005
78.5

80
73.3

80.9
2(2)=30.264,
p<.0005
70.6
67.6

73.3

70

66.5 66.3

60

55.6
Group 1

50

Group 2
37.0

40

30

Group 3

25.5

20

10

0
Internet websites

Google

Laptop computers

Mobile phone

Facebook/Myspace

MP3/iPod players

Figure 2: Clustered bar chart for daily use of digital tools on non-university activities in percentage

However, the effect sizes of these differences were weak (ranged from .137 to .277) except for one
pairwise difference registering a moderate effect size of .339 (between Groups 2 and 3 in using
Facebook/MySpace).
For non-university-related activities, generational differences were detected for the use of mobile
phones for communicating with friends (2(2) = 22.457, p < .0005), MP3/IPod (2(2) = 30.264,
p < .0005) and Facebook/MySpace (2(2) = 18.940, p < .0005). The MannWhitney U test indicated that Group 1 (generation next) and Group 2 (net generation) used mobile phones for
communicating with friends, MP3/IPod and Facebook/MySpace more often than Group 3 (digital
immigrants). For generational differences in the use of laptop computers (2(2) = 10.007,
p = .007), based on the MannWhitney U tests results, Group 2 respondents used laptop computers more often than digital immigrants. However, again, the effect sizes for the pairwise
differences were in the range of .171 to .259, indicating low effect sizes and little practical
significance in the differences between generations.
Digital learning characteristics
Bullen et als (2011) 17-item instrument was used to measure the respondents learning characteristics of digital technology use. The reliability index for the items was computed and the
Cronbachs alpha ( = .711) was considered adequate (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The learning characteristics of the respondents from this study are summarised in Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 4, there were generational differences on four dimensions of learning
characteristics, but no differences for the other six. Turning first to these six, we can see that in the
digital literacy dimension, almost all the respondents (99%) in this study considered themselves
digitally literate and they felt comfortable using computers, the Internet and other information
and communication technology tools. Likewise, in the connectedness dimension, the respondents
reported a high level of connectedness (92.8%) with friends through digital technologies such as
2014 British Educational Research Association

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

Table 4: Digital learning characteristics of the respondents

n

Disagree
(%)

Agree
(%)

Kruskal
Wallis test

Generational
differences

878

1.2

98.7

2(2) = 6.128;
p = .050

No

879

7.3

92.8

2(2) = 5.488;
p = .064

No

875

9.1

90.9

2(2) = 7.221;
p = .007

Yes

870

9.2

90.1

No

854

21.9

78.1

2(2) = 3.145;
p = .208
2(2) = 1.517;
p = .468

871

17.6

82.4

Yes

871

29.9

70.2

2(2) = 7.430;
p = .024
2(2) = 6.445;
p = .040

861

44.2

55.7

Yes

875

10.0

90.0

2(2) = 17.801;
p < .0005
2(2) = 3.206;
p = .201

Social:
I enjoy meeting new people.

874

4.7

95.3

No

I enjoy talking about myself to people I meet.

864

41.0

59

2(2) = 6.096;
p = .050
2(2) = 3.756;
p = .153

Preference for images:

I do not like reading a large amount of text.

871

46.1

43.9

No

862

30.2

69.7

2(2) = 3.282;
p = .194
2(2) = 3.838;
p = .147

868

30.8

69.2

No

863

18.3

81.7

2(2) = 4.536;
p = .104
2(2) = 3.043;
p = .218

873

10.9

89.1

Yes

869

41.4

58.7

2(2) = 1.788;
p = .409
2(2) = 13.291;
p = .001

Digital literacy:
I am comfortable using computers, the Internet
and other information and communication
technologies for a variety of reasons.
Connectedness:
I feel like I am always connected to friends
because of technologies such as cell phones
and the Internet.
Multitasking:
I am used to doing several tasks at the same
time.
Experiential learning:
I prefer to learn by exploring and trying things
out myself.
I prefer to learn by doing rather than being told
what to do.
Structure and goal-orientedness:
I prefer to get clear instructions and information
before I try something new.
I have clear goals in life.
Working in groups:
I prefer to work in groups when doing my
university/ school work.
I enjoy discussing ideas with peers.

I prefer images, videos and other multimedia

elements over text.
Community mindedness:
I get involved in projects and activities that make
a difference to society.
I believe that science and technology can resolve
problems in society
Need for immediacy:
I expect to be able to get information to answer
my query quickly.
I rely on classmates and lecturers to respond to
my questions within a few hours.

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

cell phones and the Internet. In general, all the respondents showed a preference for experiential
learning, through exploration (90%) and learning by doing (78%). They all preferred to learn by
exploring and trying things out themselves and they also liked to learn by doing rather than
being told what to do. In the social dimension, the respondents enjoyed meeting new people
(95%), but only 60% of them enjoyed talking about themselves to people they met. In general, the
2014 British Educational Research Association

10

British Journal of Educational Technology

respondents (74%) reported that they preferred images, video and other multimedia elements
over text. However, only 54% of them agreed that they did not like reading large amount of text.
Most of the respondents (70%) agreed that they would participate in projects and activities that
made a difference to society. The majority of them (82%) also agreed that science and technology
could resolve problems in society.
Generation differences were found in the dimensions of multitasking, structure and goal orientation, working in groups and the need for immediacy. With regard to multitasking, in general,
the respondents agreed (91%) that they were able to do several tasks at the same time. Generational differences (2(2) = 7.221, p = .007) were found between Groups 1 and 2 (Z = 2.685,
adjusted p = .022), but not between Group 3 and the other two groups.
The respondents showed a preference for having clear instruction and information before trying
something new (82%) and preferred to have clear goals in life (70%). Generational differences
were detected for getting clear instruction and information before trying something new
(2(2) = 7.430, p = .024) and having clear goals in life (2(2) = 6.445, p = .040). For the first
statement, the MannWhitney U tests results showed that Group 1 (generation next) preferred to
get clear instructions and information than Group 2 (net generation). On the other hand, Group
1 (generation next) respondents had less clear goals in life than Group 3 (digital immigrants)
(Z = 6.445, adjusted p = .040).
Although most respondents (90%) agreed that they enjoyed discussing ideas with peers, only
around 56% preferred to work in groups when doing university work. Statistically, significant
generational differences existed in preference for working in groups when doing university
work (2(2) = 17.801, p < .0005). MannWhitney U test results showed Group 1 (generation
next respondents) preferred group work more than Group 2 (net generation; Z = 3.789, adjusted
p < .0005) and Group 3 (digital immigrants; Z = 2.509, adjusted p = .036). There was no significant generational difference in the respondents level of enjoyment in discussing ideas with peers
for these three groups (2(2) = 3.206, p = .201).
For the need for immediacy dimension, the respondents expected to be able to obtain information to answer their queries promptly (89%), yet only 59% of them relied on their classmates
and lecturers to respond to their questions within a few hours. The respondents did not differ in
their expectation to be able to get information to their query quickly (2(2) = 1.788, p = .409).
However, in general, there were generational differences in their responses to the second statement (2(2) = 13.291, p = .001). Groups 1 and 2 respondents relied on classmates and lecturers
to respond to their questions within a few hours more than Group 3 respondents (Z = 3.581,
adjusted p = .001; Z = 2.886, adjusted p = .012).
While generational differences were detected in these four dimensions, the differences represented
very small effect sizes, contributing to a low 0.9% to 2.3% of the variances in the learning
characteristics. As such, there were no practical differences detected between the groups.
Summary
Using Bullen et als (2011) instrument to measure the learning characteristics of digital technology users, we found that all three groups of respondents in this study were digitally literate. They
showed moderate preference for being always connected to friends via digital technologies; being
used to multitasking, experiential learning, structured learning and goal-orientedness in life;
socialising, visualised information; and being active in community-based activities. However, the
respondents did not show a preference for group work when doing university work, although they
enjoyed discussing ideas with friends. Similarly, in the need for immediacy, although the respondents had a moderate expectation for getting immediate response to their queries, they did not rely
2014 British Educational Research Association

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

11

on their classmates or lecturers for the responses. Similar to the findings of Bullen et als (2011)
study, the results of this study indicated no generational differences in learning characteristics on
digital technology use.
Discussion and conclusion
The claim that there is a distinctive new generation of students highly skilled in digital technologies and having radically different learning preferences, which are not adequately supported by
present educational environments, has generated much debate. Supporters of this claim argue
for a dramatic change in how education is delivered to meet the needs of the net generation
students. However, others believe that this claim lacks empirical support. Findings from this study
show that while about one-third of the respondents used digital technologies intensively (more
than 20 hours per week) for their university studies and social/personal activities (an additional
more than 20 hours per week), the remaining two-thirds of the respondents were much less
frequent users, with about 40% and 34% of them only used digital technologies up to 10 hours
per week on university work and for social and personal activities respectively. Also, no practical
differences in terms of the time spent on using technologies were found between the younger (the
under 30s) and the older respondents (over 30s). It is thus difficult to argue that a whole generation of young people, ie, the digital natives, is immersed in digital technologies but the digital
immigrants are not. This study therefore supported findings from previous studies that although
the net generation students use new digital technologies in their everyday life, they do not use
them extensively for learning purposes (eg, Bullen et al, 2009, 2011; Jelfs & Richardson, 2013;
Margayan et al, 2011), and no major differences in technology use between generations were
found.
In this study, the digital technology tools used by students for university and social/personal
activities were rather limited. The most popular tools that the respondents used daily included
laptop computers, Internet website, Google, MP3/iPod, Facebook/MySpace and mobile phone.
Significant generational differences detected for the use of some of the six most commonly used
digital tools for university work and social/personal activities were not practically meaningful,
similar to those found in previous studies. For example, Thompson (2013) found that although
the assumption that the net generation is universally proficient with a variety of digital technology tools, students might actually use a limited range of digital tools. Thinyane (2010) also
found that students who by age qualified as net generation used technologies in different ways as
suggested by the digital natives advocates. Similarly, Jones and Ramanau (2009) reported that
although there were some age differences in digital technologies use, gender and subject disciplines differences could be the attributing factors.
In this study, we found no practical generational differences in the learning characteristics of
the three groups of respondents, although in four dimensions, statistical significant differences
between the older students and younger students were found. Thus, the findings of this study
support the argument of Bennett et al (2008), Bullen et al (2009, 2011), Kennedy et al (2008),
Kennedy et al (2009), Kennedy et al (2010), Reeves and Oh (2007) and Selwyn (2009) that there
is no evidence to back the claim that the current generation of digital learners has a distinctive set
of learning characteristics. It is more likely that students use of digital technologies is driven by
the needs of study programme, familiarity, cost and immediacy (Bullen et al, 2009, 2011).
Although beyond the scope of this study, Selwyn (2008) suggested that gender and subject
discipline differences may be more important than generational differences in determining students use of digital technologies for teaching and learning.
The findings of this study supported findings in the literature that the net generations use of
digital technologies is more complex than it has been characterised. Although digital technologies use is part and parcel of young peoples daily lives, how they are used is not homogeneous.
2014 British Educational Research Association

12

British Journal of Educational Technology

Furthermore, findings from this study do not support the notion of a unique learning style or
preference for the current generation of young people. Although the younger generation of
students may do things and learn slightly differently, their way of using digital technology is
similar to older generations of learners. Undoubtedly, the higher educational environment needs
to change to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, and digital learning technologies
will be at the forefront of such innovation supported by appropriate pedagogical considerations
(Hong & Songan, 2011). However, there is no clear evidence that the environment needs a major
overhaul to suit the needs of the younger generation of students, who are said to be immersed in
bits and bytes (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Tapscott, 2009).
While this study contributes further evidence to support the argument that generational difference is not a determining factor for using digital technologies, it is acknowledged that there are
limitations in using a paper-based questionnaire as the sole data collection method in this study.
The standardised and fixed choice items included in the questionnaire survey does not permit
an in-depth understanding of how and why the participants have used digital technologies in
their university and social activities, although it affords efficient collection of a large random
sample. Future studies should consider using qualitative measures such as interview or observational analysis to complement the questionnaire survey used in this study.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a University of Otago University Teaching Development Grant. The
authors are grateful for the support provided by Fiona Stuart and her team of graduate assistants
during the data collection process. Permission to use Bullen et als (2011) instrument is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors are also thankful for the feedback provided by the three anonymous
reviewers to an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Bennett, S. & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the digital natives debate: towards a more nuanced understanding
of students technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 5, 321331.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: a critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 5, 775786.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: OUP.
Brown, C. & Czerniewicz, L. (2008). Trends in student use of ICTs in higher education in South Africa.
In P. A. van Brakel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of world wide web applications.
Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://
www.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/ResearchOutput/2008_wwwApps_UseTrends.pdf
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K. & Qayyum, A. (2009). The net generation in higher education: rhetoric and
reality. International Journal of Excellence in E-Learning, 2, 1, 113.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T. & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: generation is not the
issue. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 37, 1.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006). LXP: student experiences of technology (final report for
JISC). Bristol: JISC. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2006/
lxpfinalreport.aspx
Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, P., Fitznor, L., Stensaker, B. & van der Steen, M. (2008). OECD review of tertiary
education. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/38012419.pdf
Gunn, C. & Recker, M. (2001). New Zealand higher education in the age of the global virtual university.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 2, 107116.
Guo, R. X., Dobson, T. & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: an analysis of age and ICT
competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 3, 235254.
Hong, K. S. & Songan, P. (2011). ICT in the changing landscape of higher education in Southeast Asia.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 8, 12761290. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/hong.pdf
Horovitz, B. (2012). After gen X, millennials, what should next generation be? USA Today. Retrieved March 1,
2013, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-05-03/naming-the-next
-generation/54737518/1
2014 British Educational Research Association

Technology use and learning characteristics of students

13

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Jelfs, A. & Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). The use of digital technologies across the adult life span in distance
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 2, 338351.
JISC-Ciber (2008). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Bristol: Joint Information Systems
Committee, & the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. Retrieved March 1,
2013, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/ggworkpackageii.pdf
Jonassen, D. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In
L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson & D. McConnell (Eds), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of
networked learning (pp 2741). New York: Springer.
Jones, C. & Ramanau, R. (2009). The net generation enters university: what are the implications for
technology enhanced learning? In M-2009: Proceedings of the 23rd ICDE World Conference on Open
Learning and Distance Education including the 2009 EADTU Annual Conference. Maastricht, the
Netherland, June 710.
Jones, S. & Cross, S. (2009). Is there a net generation coming to university? In: ALT-C 2009 in dreams begins
responsibility: choice, evidence and change, Manchester, UK, September 810.
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2006). First year students experiences with
technology: are they really digital natives? Melbourne, Vic: Melbourne University. Retrieved March 1, 2013,
from https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/39266/NativesReport.pdf
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S. et al (2007). The net generation are
not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: preliminary findings from a large cross-institutional study.
In Providing choices for learners and learning: proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp 517525). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.ascilite.org
.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krause, K. (2008). First year students experiences
with technology: are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 1,
108122.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S. et al (2009). Educating the net generation:
a handbook of findings for practice and policy. Melbourne, Vic: Melbourne University. Retrieved March 1,
2013, from http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/handbook/NetGenHandbookAll.pdf
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B. & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of
net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 5, 332343.
Lai, K.-W. (2011). Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher education.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 8, 12631275.
Lai, K.-W., Khaddage, F. & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and
informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 414425.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of technologies (2nd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lorenzo, G. & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the net generation is net savvy. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved
May 27, 2007, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3006.pdf
Margayan, A., Littlejohn, A. & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? Students use of
technologies for teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 56, 2, 429440.
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. Philadelphia, PA:
Basic Books.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U., Simun, M. & Barnes, R. F. (2009). Youth, creativity and copyright in the digital age.
International Journal of Learning & Media, 1, 2, 7997.
Pelevin, V. & Bromfield, A. (2002). Homo zapiens. New York: Penguin.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5, 12.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Immigrants part 2: do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9, 6, 26.
Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Generational differences. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer &
M. P. Driscoll (Eds), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp 295303). New
York: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G. & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo
Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.kff.org/
entmedia/upload/8010.pdf
2014 British Educational Research Association

14

British Journal of Educational Technology

Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B. & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology 2008. In Vol. 8 Research study. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research.
Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers0808w.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2008). An investigation of differences in undergraduates academic use of the internet. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 9, 1, 1122.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native: myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives,
61, 4, 364379.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: how the net generation is changing your world. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.
Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African
first-year students use and experience with technology. Computers & Education, 55, 1, 406414.
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: technology use patterns and approaches to learning.
Computers & Education, 65, 1233.
University College of London (2008). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Retrieved
March 1, 2013, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote
_11012008.pdf

2014 British Educational Research Association