explanatory synthesis essay

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW Vol. 6•No. 2•April-June 2013J E R

© Serials Publications

NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW METHODOLOGY: THE “DIGITAL NATIVES” AND “DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS” DEBATE

Oriji, Abraham & Efebo, Prince Itonye Department of Curriculum Studies & Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Technology is part and parcel of today’s world. There has been a popular argument in the field of education concerning “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. Some professionals in Nigerian education enterprise are however not too familiar with these thoughts. While those that are familiar with them are not in full agreement with the advocates of the ideas, which they say is superfluous, mundane, self-fulfilling prophecy, harsh, ill informed; etc. Hence, this paper attempts to examine the idea and bring to limelight the concepts of the terms - “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. The authors also tried to trace the origin of the terms, and critically examine the idea behind the generations divide, and consequently enumerated the distinctive differences between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. The relevance of these terms as it relates to the field of education was not left out. Finally, the authors opined that there should be a paradigm shift in the current instructional method to accommodate the learning styles of the digital natives. Keywords: Technology, Methodology, Digital, Natives, Immigrants.

INTRODUCTION The advents of computers, Internet and other new technologies in our era have a lot to teach us. These technologies have come to stay with us, and they will continue to change the way we teach and learn, work and generally live. The extent to which these changes will continue will depend on us. There have been serious ongoing debates on the terms “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” in the field of education for about ten years now. Although a lot has been written on the terms, but many individuals or educationists are yet to grasp with and agree to these terms. It is now pertinent to ascertain the meaning of thes terms and their relevance in education industry. Firstly, what actually do we mean by “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”? How did the terms emerge in the field of education? Consequently, what is the rationale behind this generations divide?

The terms have been variously defined and/or described by professionals in the filed. Zur and Zur (2011) defined “digital natives” as people born in the digital era, i.e. generation X and younger.

This group, he continued, is also referred to as the “igeneration”. The author further described them as born before 1964 and who grow up in a pre-computer world. The term “digital natives” are persons who were born during or after the general introduction of digital technology and through interacting with digital technology from an early age, have a greater understanding of its concepts. It could also be described as people born during or after the latter 1960s. The term can also be ascribed to people who grew up with the technology that becom e pr eval en t i n t h e l at er par t of t h e 20th

century and continue to evolve today (Harding, 201 0). Sp ear ( 2001) during his ser ies of presentations on May 2001 referred to it as people “born digital”. Harding (2010) stressed that other experts refers to it as persons who understand the value of digital technology and use it to seek opportunities for implementing it with a view to make an impact. The term “digital immigrants” refers to individuals who were born before the existence of digital technology and adopt it to some extent latter in life. Digital natives are people who

238 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(2) 2013 © Serials Publications

have grown up in the digital world using technology as a way to communicate, record, educate, and understand society. (O’Donnell, n.d.).

THE IDEA BEHIND THE GENERATIONS DIVIDE

(Harding, 2010), observe that the single biggest problem facing education today is that our “digital immigrants” instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. The idea, “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” were invented by Marc Prensky, an internationally acclaimed thought leader, speaker, writer, consultant, and game designer in the critical areas of education and learning. Prensky (2001) popularized his thought in two-part series seminar presentation titled: “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. The author employed a comparison of native speakers and immigrants to illustrate the generation gap separating today’s students, the “digital natives” from their teachers, the “digital immigrants”.

The aut hor obser ved t hat t her e i s a const ant decl i ne of educat i on i n t he U S and r eveal ed t hat gover nment i gnor ed t he most fundament al of i t s causes. The cause, he st at ed i s t hat our students have changed radically; that today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. In fact, he claimed that a really bi g di scont i nui t y has taken place due to the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century. The author further stressed that the single biggest problem f ac in g e du c at i on t o da y i s th at o ur d i gi ta l immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated l an gu a ge ( tha t o f th e p re -d i gi ta l a ge ) , ar e struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. But digital immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the digital natives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice. These skills are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned and so choose to teach slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously. Digital immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the immigrants) can’t. This looks strange of course, because they didn’t practice these skills constantly for all of their formative years. Digital immigrants think learning can’t (or shouldn’t) be fun (Prensky, 2001).

Marc Prensky thought was born out of his professional focus to helping teachers change their pedagogy in ways that are more effective for the 21st century students, by advocating for a change to a passion-led problem-solving methodology-based curriculum to accommodate their new learning techniques. The author claimed to have re-invented the learning process based on the premise that the children of today are experiencing life and education very different than the generation past. He further stated that he hopes to motivate children through games, Internet, and cell phones. He as well believes that through technology, we can reach out to children and help them to enjoy learning. Marc Prensky and his advocates claim that “digital natives” have a natural aptitude to use networked technologies, process new and exciting skills, such as the ability to multitask, and hold sophisticated knowledge and information literacy because of the contemporary web culture in which they live. This unique ability is attributed to lifelong exposure to computers - the first generation to be born into the web (Harding, 2010). Prensky (2001) stressed that the digital natives are surrounded by digital media to such an extent that their very brain structures may be different from those of previous generations. He posits that the digital natives are used to receiving information very fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task, and they prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite.

Marc Prensky states that today’s students from Kindergarten through colleges represent the first generation to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by computers, and using computers, video games, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. They prefer hypertext and function best when networked. Also, they thrive on frequent gratification and rewards (Vanslyke, 2003).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN “DIGITAL NATIVE” AND “DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS”

However, it is imperative at this point to make a clear distinction between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. Based on the works of Prensky (2001), the proponents of these terms, and the likes of Rosen (2010), and other scholars, it becomes pertinent to enumerate their stand on the issue. Outlined hereunder are their views on how different groups view work, pleasure, relationships and their preferred mode of interaction, learning and processing information. This is how Prensky (2001)

NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW METHODOLOGY: THE “DIGITAL NATIVES”… 239

and the like of Rosen (2010) and other advocates view the older “digital immigrants” thus:

1. Digital immigrants prefer to talk on phone or in person

2. Do not use text or use it sparingly and reluctantly

3. Prefer synchronous communication, in real- time, such as in face-to-face lor phone communication

4. Accustomed to and prefer instructional materials with clear sequential steps. As “reflective learners”, they like a logical and leaner process of discovery.

5. Pr e fer r e ceivin g info rmatio n slow ly; linearly, slowly, logically and sequentially

6. Prefer singular processing and singular tasking

7. Prefer reading text (i.e. books) on processing pictures, sounds, and video

8. Inclined to read book from cover to cover 9. See high value on deferred gratification and

rewards 10. Hierarchical approach to workplace, rather

than a democratic or egalitarian approach 11. Rely on traditional 5 day work week,

followed by off-work weekend 12. Assume they will work their way up the

ladder in the workplace, and in a leaner fashion, in one career with one company, leading to a ‘gold watch’, retirement and pension

13. Value loyalty and consistency in workplace 14. Prefer central brick and mortar workplace,

distrust telecommunication, need to control when and where a people work

15. Exclusive focus on work related mattes during work hours

16. Hang out on persons, club, dinners, etc. 17. Value ‘proper English 18. Tell friends about a trip on the phone, or

with an in-person conversation or at-home slide show

19. Use the Internet to gather information 20. Think of the Internet in passive terms of

what they can read, review or learn. 21. Think young people waste their lives online 22. Think of the Internet and the virtual world

as not part of the “real life”

23. One task or pleasure at a time 24. Prefer privacy and limit self disclosure to

small circle of friends. 25. Prefer more knowledge and “just in case”

approach 26. Lear ning is a nec essary and is often

unavoidable drudgery 27. Get their news via traditional news sites

(New Yor k Tim es, logic al paper s) or hardcopy newspapers

28. Prefer to have equality interaction with one or few people rather than many

29. Quality interactions can only occur with a tight circle of friends, who have known each other a long time and earned trust

30. Traditional safety c oncerns; physic al kidnapping, assaults, and robbery (Zur and Zur, 2011).

Prensky and his cohorts also have the following views about the younger “digital natives”:

1. Prefer to connect via text, chat, facebook, online games, etc.

2. Text more than calls. Almost half of all teens can text with their eyes closed

3. Pr e fer sy nchro nistic or s equenti al communication, such as in email, facebook, or chat.

4. Cannot relate to manuals. Solve problems “intuitively”. As “intuitive learners”, they are engaged in rapid ‘trial and error’ actions and refer discov ery vi a ac ti ons, experimentation and interaction rather by reflection.

5. Prefer receiving information quickly and simultaneously from multiple multimedia and other sources.

6. Prefer parallel processing, multitasking or task switching

7. Prefer processing and interacting with pictures, graphs, sounds and video before texts

8. Inclined to read texts in short bursts, one paragraph at a time, hopping to other activities, such as texting or facebooking, in between paragraphs.

9. Prefer instant gratification and rewards, do not see value in waiting

10. view the workforce more in egalitarian terms and less in hierarchical (top down) terms.

240 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(2) 2013 © Serials Publications

11. Wor k inte rmitt ently 7 day s a we ek; alternates among play, work, socialize, etc. No end to the week, continuous flow and natural rhythm.

12. Try many career during lifetime and switch work places and work settings fairly easily and fluently. Stability, security, and person are not highly valued as variety, experience and experimentation, which natives see as essential to vocational satisfaction.

13. Are more c onc er n ed wit h pers onal satisfaction, self in foc us r ather than company. May change jobs often as they develop personality, add to skill set and change area of interest.

14. Prefer telecommunicating and flexible hours, op portunity to mak e up work remotely, i.e. from a café on a weekend or while on vacation.

15. Prefer to switch focus and alternate among work, play, social networking, etc. and are more productive and happy working this way.

16. Hang out on both online (facebook, texting) and also offline (concert and parties)

17. Use texting and instant message shorthand: cu tomorre, luv ya ru going to the game?

18. Tell friends about a trip by posting pictures on Facebook (visual versus verbal or text stories)

19. Use the Internet to socialize, play, have fun, watch videos, shows, etc.

20. View the Internet in terms of interaction and participation rather than as passive or one-directional

21. Many aspects of life are happening only online

22. Int ernet is as r eal, and o ften m ore pleasurable tangible than offline life

23. Like multitasking and task switching. Prefer several tasks or recreation activities at a time:- watch a show, socialize, text, study, play, etc.

24. Put highly personal information on social networking sites, where they may have hundreds or even thousands of friends who can view. Also put personal videos on YouTube - not afraid to be known, not especially concerned with privacy

25. Prefer to learn “just-in-time” and what is minimally necessary

26. Learning should be fun and knowledge is often acquired via fun activities, such as gam ing, surfin g the web o r soc ial networking.

27. Get their news from friends via Facebook (political discussions on walls), Twitter, and political blogs. Traditional news sites are a part of, but not the central piece of news for this group

28. Interact/network simultaneously with many, even hundreds of others, as well as with best few friends

29. Quality i nter ac tions can o cc ur wi th complete strangers, in public, on Facebook, via Twitter and especially online gaming (some games have millions of players around the world). Natives are constantly meeting each other and getting to know one another, even when they never met face- to-face.

30. Safety concerns: sending inappropriate pictures online, c yber stalking, cyber bullying, privacy invasions (hijacking of email accounts, social networking sites).

However, as lucid as this idea may appear, many educationists have started conducting researches opposing this singular idea, especially the claim made about “digital natives” that they are able to multitask effectively. Some experts in this ar e a have star ted de bunkin g thi s thou ght propounded by Marc Prensky. They argue that the ide a was c onsi der ed base d on o bser v ing young persons frequently doing many th ings simultaneously – texting, chatting on mobile phones and the Internet, and surfing the Internet while studying.

On multitasking issue, recent studies by Bennett, Maton, Kervin (2008); Jones and Czerniecz (2002), Palfrey and Gasser (2008); Topscott (2002), and others refuted the idea that “digital natives” multitask effectively. They argued that when people undertake more than one complex task at a time, they do so less effectively than when they do the task serially. This statement they say is true, esp ec iall y whe n stud ying f or sc hool . The authors further opined that various emerging tec hnolog ies ha ve the poten tial t o impr ove education in specific ways because they enable new modes of thought, new paths of discovery and rich new engagements between people and the content, not because of special new attributes of today’s students.

NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW METHODOLOGY: THE “DIGITAL NATIVES”… 241

The authors affirmed that it is misguided to adopt classroom technologies simply because “digital natives” find comfort there; rather, when technological goals (such as performing a close reading of text or object, interacting directly with complex relations among concepts in order to understand them better, or general experiential knowledge by allowing students to make mistakes in a safe, simulated space) educators can find many new teaching and learning success that would have not been possib le in the pa st. In the s ame development, the authors argued that the “digital natives” debate is shaped by “moral panic” rather than empirical evidence, and that there has not been a general break from the past.

However, the authors admitted that there are new issues (e.g. concept of identifying privacy, and addition) and this generation will use digital tools to do terrifying, and perhaps, fundamentally, “different things”. The authors claimed to have empirical evidenced against or disputing the use of laptop in the classroom, which is one of the strong reasons for “digital natives”. They argued that they have discovered its negative impact when used for multitasking on lesson retention and understanding.

In as much as people criticize this idea to be over simplistic, other see it to have value on the grounds that there is a clear difference between people who use these technologies easily, naturally, flexibly, and people for whom everything has to be translated into kind of another language. The thought allows us to see things clearly and blinds us to other things. Hence, we should constantly look into the idea for what it makes us see (Jenkins, 2007). Mc kenzie (2007) while criticizing the proponents of “digital naives” described their point of view as harsh and ill informed. They further pointed out that their stance is unsubstantiated by evidence, and is little more than digital delusion (mi rage), and they a re gui lty o f “ar c ade scholarship”- analysis that is superficial and cartoonist. Additionally, the author stated that Marc Prensky’s proposition is simple-minded.

EDUCATIONAL RELEVANCE

In a society increasingly filled with new generation students (digital natives), it becomes pertinent to change the education system (the instructional methodolo gy) to match their digit al w or ld. Increasingly, digital learners call for increased digital teaching. Education paradigm need to adjust to accomm odate digit al natives lear n ing styles. Isbouts and Ohler (n.d) in their discussion

mapped out some fundamental ways in which education can shift to accommodate these changes as follows:

Teachers must shift education away from text-centrism to and towards new media college. The new media college is a term the authors used to describe “new kind of literacy represented by our web pages, movies, digital stories mashups and other types of multi-media narrative. In their words, teachers must let go off text to a degree and adopt a multimedia web-based teaching. They stated further that text plays important role, moving beyond it can provide educational opportunities in digital literacy, and video “school train” is perfect example of this.

We m ust in cr ease our f ocus o n digi tal citizenship. That is, those who engage in literacy must embrace understanding of new media, which is the means in which the individual explore community through electronic means of community and society.

Blau (2011) stated that these are known benefits derivable from the terms if we become more Internet literate. This is because when the child gets email address or logs on to the internet, especially to one of the many pre-facebook (social network) sites geared to kinds, we need to know what they are doing online. They need guideline and assurance that we are paying attention. He advised, we should try and understand how his video games work, the skills needed, the levels, the kind of thinking it encourages. We need to sit by the kids at the computers or while playing with a hand-held device; ask questions and try to see it from the digital natives’ perspectives. All these will be possible if we become internet literate.

Blau further pointed out that we will enter their world, and advised parents to become acquainted with their child’s “second family” (cyberspace) that aggregate force of the pop culture and peer group that can seduce a vulnerable kids away from their first family. The authors states that tooling online with a child opens a door to what they are into, what attracts them, what obsesses them, who they meet online and where they go as a result of those interests.

Also, as we enter the wor ld r uled by the internet, we’ll begin to develop internet etiquette. Internet has a special language that is particular to it. People must know how to communicate online. As the author said, we need to understand what is polite, civil, and moral online and on cell phones. We need to know the appropriate language

242 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(2) 2013 © Serials Publications

and context for email and online communication devices, especially the type of information you post to social networks; how to get new relationships and how to reject someone. We need to guide our children on how not to post downright offensive materials or information to the public. The author asserts that we can seize the digital futur e ironically by joining for ces and sharing the experience with digital natives (children and teens, who have grown up with the net (if not your own, a friend’s or neighbour’s kids). He further advised that both generations need help and in some instances the kids know more than we do.

There is no doubt that young people appear more comfortable with digital devices, which is fuelling instructional methods today. This shows that these digital devices, especially computers can play vital roles in transforming teaching and learning. Also, the intent of this idea is to inspire adults (digital immigrants) to develop the new skills for the benefits of the young people. It also connotes that the young people are less afraid of the new technologies than the digital immigrants.

Being labeled “digital immigrants” is a very good excuse for teachers who are innovative to rethink in order to meet the demands of the “digital natives”. In fact, it is impossible for the adults to approach technology the way the young ones do, because their brain are wired differently, that is, in compliance with modern world. Educating today’s students’ means teaching the use of computers. Today we talk or advocate for collaboration, teamwork or team teaching which never was, and this is made more possible by newer technologies.

The use of blogs can give shy students a voice in class discussions. It also allows students who are not physical in the class to participate online, which nev er hap pened in the time of the “digi tal immigrants. Technology has rekindled the hopes of stu dents who m igh t h ave be en le ft beh ind (Martinez, 2011).

The “digital natives” are more comfortable with the use of technology than the “digital immigrants” because they grew up with digital technology. It is estimated that about 90% of US kids has grown into the digital culture, and more and more in the developed world. But most of the developing/ underdeveloped countries are still striving to belong (Martinez, 2011).

Despite the fact that the digital natives are more receptive to digital technologies, they need teachers and parents to guide them to use these tools wisely and purposely. It is the responsibility of the adults

to teach young people appropriate and thoughtful uses of technology by modeling values through words and actions, so that they will not silly and inappropriately use the technology.

Adults need to partner with the young ones not only to help them use the technology but by giving students a role in decision making using technology in education. Also, to empower them think beyond the enjoyment of their moment by sharing the “why” of educational technology with them, therefore, advocating in the effort to improve teaching and learning.

Finally, the term digital natives and digital immigrants cannot just be merely dismissed, if for no other thing, it will help a good number of people to understand an important part of the 21st century reality ((Martinez, 2011).

CONCLUSION

The generations divide of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” will continue to be for a long time until we subsume into or exclude ourselves from the digital generation. Today’s teachers must adapt the new technologies (21st century tools) and bring them into their classrooms in order to meet the needs of the 21st century generation. It is normal with the adoption of new technologies, while some individuals adapt quickly to changes, others lag behind and a hug gap is usually created. The truth is that those who are digitally literate will definitely excel in today’s increasingly digital world. They will enjoy the use of computers and other digital devices. Consequently, those who prefer more analog technologies will race behind time. Prensky (2001) refers to those digital literates as “digital Natives”, while those of them that prefer analog technologies are referred to as “digital immigrants”. “Digital natives” differ in what they do, the ways and how they do things. They learn differently and process inf or mati on in fun dam ental diffe rent ways (Prensky, 2001). Therefore, there is need for technological infusion at all levels of education system that will bring broad changes in institutions that will provide learning opportunities and environments that will suit “digital natives” or the 21st century education.

References Carrier, L. M; Cheever, N. A; Rosen, L. D; Benitex, S;

and Chang, J. (2009), Multitasking Acr oss Generations: Multitasking Tasks and Difficulty Rating in Three Generation of America. Computers in Human Behavior, Vo. 25 (2), pp. 483-489.

NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW METHODOLOGY: THE “DIGITAL NATIVES”… 243

Bax, S. (20011), Digital Education. Beyond the wow Factor in Digital Education: Opportunities for Sic ial C ollab or ati o n. Ed-M i c hael Thom as, Palgrave: Macmillan.

Bennet, S; Maton, K. and Kervin, L (2008), The ‘Digital Natives Debate: A Critical Review of Evidence”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5) pp. 775-786.

Britt, M. A. and Aglinskas. C. (2002), Improving Students’ Ability to Identify and Use Source Information. Cognition and Instruction, 20 (4), pp. 485-522.

Dig ital Nati ves a nd Ed uc ation: Ar r ow of Design. Retrieved 10 January, 2013 from https:// sites.google.com/sites/jed724e/unit1/digital- natives-education

Harding, Tucker (2010), Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Retrieved 8 January, 2013 from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/enhanced/primers/ digital_natives.html

Isbouts, J. P. and Ohler, J. (n.d.), In Digital Natives and Education: Arrow of Design. Retrieved 28 June, 2011 from https://sites.google.com/sites/ jed724e/unit1/digital-natives-education

Mckenzie, J. (2007), Digital Activism, Digital Delusion and Digital Deprivation. Retrieved 10 January, 2013 from http://fno.org/nov07/nativism. html

Jekins, H. (2007), Digital Natives Under Attack (as a Metaphor). Retrieved February 3, 2011 from http://blog.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/ 2007/12/19/digital-natives-under-attack-as-a- metaphor/

Jones, C; Shao, B. (2011), The Net Generation and Digital Natives. Implication for Higher Education. Higher Education Academy. York: UK.

Laura, L; Bowman, L, E; Levine, B. M. and Gandron, M. (2010), Can Students Really Multitask? An Experimental Study of Instant Messaging While Reading. Computer and Education, 54 (4), pp. 297-931.

Blau, M. (2011), Learning from Digital Natives: 6 Surprising Benefits. Retrieved 14 January, 2013 from http://www.psychology.today.com/blog/ consequential/str an ger s/201101/learning- digital-natives-6-surprising-benefits?page=2

Jamie Mckenzie (2007), Digital Activism, Digital Delusion and Digital Deprivation. Retrieved 10 Janu ar y, 2013 fr om http://fno.or g/nov07/ nativism.html

M ar tinez, S. (2011), International Soc iety for Technology in Education – Teaching and Learning: Points Counterpoint. Is the Digital Natives or Myth? Retrieved 3 January, 2013 from http:// www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and- teaching/issues/point_counterpoint

O’Donnel, J. (n.d.), Definition of Digital Natives. Ret eir v ed 2 Oc to ber, 2012 fr o m http :// tweenparenting. about.com/od/tweenculture/g/ DigitalNative.htm

OECD (2008), New Millennium Learner: Initial Findings on the Effect of Digital Technologies on School Age Learners. OECD/CERI International Conferenc e. Learning in the 21 st Centur y: Research Innovation and Policy, 15-16 May, 2008, Paris.

Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. Basic Books. Retrieved 12 June, 2012 from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/enhanced/ primers/digital_natives.html

Prensky, M. (2001a), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9 (5) Retrieved 10 January, 2013 from http://depd.wisc.edu/ htm/TSarticles/Digital%20Natives.htm

Prensky, M. (2001b), Digital Natives, “Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9 (5) Retrieved 12 December, 2012 from http://depd.wisc.edu/ htm/TSarticles/Digital%20Natives.htm; http:// loki.stockton .edu/~intech /spotlight-dig ital- denizens.htm

Rosen, L. (2010), Rewir ed Un derstanding the Igeneration and the Way they Learn. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Topscot, D. (2002), Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Nets Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ret riev ed 7 Janu ary, 2013 fr o m http :// c c nm t l .c o l u mb i a .e d u / e n h a nc e d / pr i me r s / digital_natives.html

Van slyke , T. (200 3), D igita l Nati ves, Digi tal Immigrants: Some Thoughts from the Generation Gap. Retr ieved 12 D ecemb er, 2 012 f r om http://depd.wisc.edu/htm/TSarticles/Digital %20Natives.htm.

Zur, A. and Zur, O. (2011), On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institution s, and the Workplace. Zur Institute. Online Publication. Ret riev ed 10 Janu ary, 2013 fr o m http :// www.zurinstitute.comdigital_divide.html

Copyright of Journal of Educational Review is the property of Higher Education Research & Policy Network and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.