Introduction  

What is already known about this topic? 

The term was popularised in the early 2000s  

The ‘digital native’ debate is a contested field  

What this report adds 

The term ‘digital learners’ is more appropriate  

The importance of understanding the nature of digitally mediated learning  

Implications for practice or policy 

Learners are different and cohort context is key. Avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach  

Explicitly scaffold digital literacy practices  

The ‘digital native’ became popularised in the early 2000s by technologist, Marc Prensky. Other terms like the ‘net generation’ were similarly used to describe the new generation of young people entering higher education. These young people were said to learn differently due to their immersive upbringing with technology. However, research has since contested most of these unfounded claims and instead, recognises that there tends to be more diversity of technological skills within age groups than there is between them. Prensky’s dichotomy presents challenges for educators, who may conflate the frequent use of technology with capability and assume that students are well-versed in using technology for learning. It is critical that educators investigate the profile of their students, scaffold digital literacy and embed these practices in pedagogy to ensure technology and digital skills are leveraged appropriately. Future developments should consider how students are instead, digital learners, to avoid unhelpful generational divides. Similarly, there is space for further research to consider the adoption of newer technologies, the Global South, and the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the concept of the ‘digital native’.  

Current Trends  

Popularised by technologist Marc Prensky in 2001, the term ‘digital native’ characterised a new generation of young people immersed in technology. Prensky, (2001) argued that young people, at the time of writing, were immersed in technology from birth. The characteristics of the digital native included “a high level of digital aptitude, the ability to multitask, literacy in multiple media, constant connectivity, the need for speed in delivery of information, a culture of sharing information and a unique attitude towards education” (Corrin et al., 2010b, p. 644). In contrast, ‘digital immigrants’ were those who did not grow up immersed in technology and in the context of education, are the teachers of young people. The claim made by Prensky and others was for educators to rethink their teaching approaches to a new generation of ‘digital natives’. Prensky’s ideas gained significant traction, having over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar as of January 2020 (Smith et al., 2020). However, despite the significant interest in both academic and popular discourse, Prensky’s claims remained unfounded.  

Subsequent research in the field of education and beyond has contested and refuted Prensky’s original claims of a digital native/digital immigrant dichotomy. Instead, the research has found that age is not a determining factor for use of digital technologies (Bennett, 2012; Brown and Czerniewicz, 2010; Kirschner and De Bruyckere, 2017; Creighton, 2018). Rather, the diversity within age groups is often wider than between them (Bennett, 2012). Accessibility, familiarity, and experience, played more of a factor and the gap between educators and students is not nearly as wide as predicted (Bennett, 2012; Kennedy et al., 2008a; Creighton, 2018). While some young people have extensive experience with technology, they make up a small minority (less than 15%) of the broader group (Kennedy et al., 2010; Bennett, 2012). Similarly, some technologies are ubiquitous, such as computers, mobile phones and email (Kennedy et al., 2008a; Bennett, 2012; Judd, 2018) but use of other technologies beyond this is varied (Kennedy et al., 2008a; Bennett, 2012; Judd, 2018). Other key findings from the literature suggest that:  

• Frequency of technology use was often mistaken for competency (Creighton, 2018).  
• “Living” versus “learning” technologies were often conflated (Waycott et al., 2010; Corrin et al., 2010a). That is, technologies used in everyday life, like mobile phones were assumed to then be useful for learning, despite the gap in use for two different purposes.  
• The wide diversity of technology and differences can explain digital divides, highlighting concerns about equity and justice in education (Bennett, 2012).  

Despite extensive evidence to suggest that the digital native is a myth, there has been an ongoing interest both in the academic literature and in the public domain (Judd, 2018). This interest has resulted in a range of studies that question and challenge the discourse of the ‘digital native’. These include reifying assumptions that students are tech-savvy (Creighton, 2018; Kennedy et al., 2010) or that their skills from “living” technologies, such as regularly using Facebook, are replicated in their learning practices, like content creation (Kennedy et al., 2010; Corrin et al., 2010a). Beyond the deterministic nature of the digital native/digital immigrant dichotomy (Selwyn, 2009; Brown and Czerniewicz, 2010; Judd, 2018), recent research poses new challenges. Firstly, the skills associated with the digital native, like multi-tasking, may negatively impact on learning (Kirschner and De Bruyckere, 2017; Smith et al., 2010) and secondly, there is difficulty in determining how to cater for such a diverse group of students (Bennett, 2012).  

While the digital native stereotype was problematic for a number of reasons, there are emerging studies suggesting that technology can change the way that people learn (Bavelier et al., 2010, cited in Smith et al., 2020). Similarly, Prensky’s claims and subsequent research from academics highlighted the need to understand what technology young people are using and how this is used for learning, specifically. It is clear then that there is a need to focus on the pedagogical underpinnings of technology, rather than the use of technology itself.  

Technologies and Practices  

A series of practices and principles have emerged in the research since Prensky’s original claim of the digital native.  

• Investigate the profile of the student in their own context (Bennett and Corrin, 2019). That is, being aware of the diverse and varied characteristics of the student cohort (Creighton, 2018) and considering this when applying the following principles.  
• Deliberately scaffold digital literacy (Smith et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2008b). Rather than assuming there is innate ability to engage with technology, it is important to recognise that these skills are purposefully developed (Smith et al., 2020). For example, scaffolding digital literacy as a part of learning activities and assessments, beyond the broader learning environment (Bennett and Corrin, 2019; Smith et al., 2020). This allows not only customising to context, but also the flexibility to consider the diverse needs of students.  
• Embed practices in pedagogy to avoid using technology “for technology’s sake” (Bennett and Corrin, 2019, p. 361; Kennedy et al., 2008a; Kennedy et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2020). Smith et al., (2020, p. 3) argue that “the challenge is to leverage these affordances in a way that is grounded in sound evidence, theory, and design”.  

Using the example of citation management, Glauberman, (2019) highlighted some best practices that coincide with the principles above:  

• Consider the current need  
• Be aware of cognitive load  
• Don’t assume much prior knowledge  
• Emphasize need to check input/output  
• Be clear about resources for support  
• Structured assignments  

Future Developments  

While a range of future developments were outlined in the 2010-2012 research, many of the recommendations hold true and have yet to be fully realised in light of newer technologies. Firstly, Bennett, (2012) noted that research on student’s use of technology primarily relied on survey-data and was situated predominantly in the Global North. In addition, Bennett (2012, Bennett and Corrin, 2019) has continued to argue for qualitative research to account for the ways technology is used by students and their individual context and further research from the Global South. Similarly, there remain concerns about the digital divide and equity in access to technology.  

Despite these concerns, drawing on students’ adoption and use of emerging and innovative technologies can help guide embedding technology into university curricula (Kennedy et al., 2008a; Bennett, 2012; Bennett and Corrin, 2019). Considering young people as ‘Digital Learners’ or ‘Learners of Digital Era’ (LoDE) (Gallardo-Echnique et al., 2015, cited in Creighton, 2018; Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010b, cited in Creighton, 2018) focuses on the learners, rather than pre-defined learner characteristics that imply generational divides. Both approaches foreground pedagogy and highlight the complexity of learner’s technology experiences rather than a deterministic binary of digital native/immigrant.  

Finally, the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic are unclear in the digital native literature, with almost all literature post-COVID assuming that the digital native exists, without further interrogation. Future research in the field must consider the context in which students learn, avoiding a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach (Kennedy et al., 2008a; Judd, 2018). For example, there must be a consideration of whether the concept of the ‘digital native’ has been revitalised, particularly when students worldwide were forced to learn online for extended periods of time and how this narrative has progressed or changed over the course of the pandemic.   

References  

Bennett, S. (2012). Digital Natives. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior (pp. 212-219). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0315-8.ch018   

Bennett, S., & Corrin, L. (2019). From Digital Natives to Student Experiences With Technology. In D. B. A. M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Modern Education Delivery (pp. 356-366). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7365-4.ch029   

Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 26 (5), 357-369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x   

Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010a). Technological diversity: an investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning, Media and Technology , 35 (4), 387-401.  

Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2010b, 05/01). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study International Conference on Networked Learning,     https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.531024   

Creighton, T. B. (2018). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Digital Learners: An International Empirical Integrative Review of the Literature. Education Leadership Review , 19 (1), 132-140.   

Glauberman, J. (2019). Citation Management Tools, Undergraduate Research Practices, and the Myth of the Digital Native LibTech, Saint Paul, MN.   

Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 34 (5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3821   

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008a). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 24 (1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1233  

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Judd, T., Gray, K., & Chang, R. (2008b). Immigrants and natives: Investigating differences between staff and students’ use of technology. Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 , 484-492.   

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), 332-343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00371.x   

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education , 67 , 135-142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001   

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5), 1-6.   

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings , 61 (4), 364-379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776   

Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R., & Judd, T. (2020). Not just digital natives: Integrating technologies in professional education contexts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 36 (3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5689   

Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education , 54 (4), 1202-1211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006