Session Information
16 SES 11 A, ICT in Education: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Paper Session
Contribution
Twenty first century life has become a digital experience but many educational organizations lag behind the propensity for digital immersion as shown by individuals in their leisure time. Recent surveys of technology use report that 99% of teenage boys and 94% of teenage girls play computer games in their leisure time (Lenhart et al, 2008). This predisposition towards digital activity as a leisure pursuit, it has been suggested, has fostered two cultures; one of digital natives, the other of digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001a; 2001b). Commentators claim that prolonged digital immersion can trigger major changes in behaviour and cause individuals to think and learn differently (Donaldson, 2006; Feiertag & Berge, 2008; Prensky, 2001a; Robinson, 2007). Brain malleability (Nisbett, 2001; O’Boyle & Gill, 1998) is identified as the explanation for cognitive differences between digital natives and digital immigrants (Prensky, 2009; 2001a; 2001b; Oblinger, 2004). However, in reality we know little about how digital immersion actually affects cognition or educational experiences (Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008). Some researchers argue that digital immersion, can help to develop visual selective attention, literacy, concentration, comprehension, problem solving, deductive reasoning and academic outcome (Prensky, 2001a; Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield & Gross, 2000) Others argue, to the contrary, that digital natives have decreased attention spans because they spend large amounts of time skipping from one activity to the next activity or multi-tasking (McHale, 2005). It is important that educators understand the effect of digital immersion on their learners, especially if educational establishments, such as schools, are to keep pace with the changing digital culture. If contemporary digital culture is having an effect upon cognitive functioning, learned behaviours and learning behaviours it is imperative that educational establishments adapt to the educational needs of the learners. Our study explored 2 groups of school-aged learners. One group was deemed to be a high digital immersion group and the other group a low digital immersion group. The study’s aim was to study whether cognitive differences and/or educational differences existed between the 2 groups. Specifically this project investigated: 1. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of their attention and concentration. 2. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of their reasoning ability. 3. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of their attainment on a research task. 4. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of their attainment on an Internet fact finding task. 5. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of the way they approach and use resources in a research task. 6. Whether high and low digitally immersed children differ in terms of the way they approach and use the internet in an Internet fact finding task.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Rankin Macgill, A., Evans, C. & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video Games, and Civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9 (6), 1-6. Donaldson, C. (2006).The Millennials are here! PNLA Quarterly 71(1) 21-26. Feiertag, J. & Berge, Z.L. (2008). Training Generation N: How educators should approach the Net Generation. Education & Training 50(6), 457-464. Robinson, M. (2007). Digital nature and digital nurture: Libraries, learning and the digital native. Library Management 29(1/2), 67-76. Nisbett, R.E.,Peng, K.,Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108(2), 291-310. O'Boyle, M. W. & Gill, H.S. (1998). On the relevance of research findings in cognitive neuroscience to educational practice. Educational Psychology Review 10(4), 397-409. Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5 (3).http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 (accessed November 4, 2009). Oblinger, D. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8. Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web. http://www-jime.open.ac.uk [viewed 6th November 2009]. Bennett, S., Maton, K & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(5), 775–786. Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R.E., Greenfield, P. M. & Gross, E. F. (2000). The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development. Children and Computer Technology 10(2), 123-144. McHale, T. (2005). Portrait of a digital native: Are digital age students fundamentally different from the rest of us? Technology & Learning September, 33-34.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.