the digital melting pot_ bridging the digital native-immigrant divide _ stoerger _ first monday

8/10/2019 The Digital Melting Pot_ Bridging the Digital Native-immigrant Divide _ Stoerger _ First Monday

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-digital-melting-pot-bridging-the-digital-native-immigrant-divide-stoerger 1/9

OPEN JOURNALSYSTEMS

Journal Help

USER

Username

Password

Remember me

Login

JOURNALCONTENT

Search

All

Search

Browse

By IssueBy AuthorBy TitleOther Journals

FONT SIZE

CURRENT ISSUE

ARTICLE TOOLS

Abstract

Print this

article

Indexing

metadata

How to cite

item

Email this

article (Login required)

Email the

author (Login required)

ABOUT THEAUTHOR

Sharon Stoerger

Sharon Stoerger is adoctoral candidatein the School of Library andInformation Science

at IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. Hercurrent areas of research includecomputer-mediatedcommunication andcommunities of

HOME ABOUT LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH CURRENT

ARCHIVES ANNOUNCEMENTS SUBMISSIONS

Home > Volume 14, Number 7 - 6 July 2009 > Stoerger

Educational technology advocates claim today’s students aretechnologically savvy content creators and consumers whose mindsetdiffers from previous generations. The digital native–digital immigrantmetaphor has been used to make a distinction between those withtechnology skills and those without. Metaphors such as this one areuseful when having initial conversations about an emerging phenomenon,but over time, they become inaccurate and dangerous. Thus, this paperproposes a new metaphor, the digital melting pot, which supports theidea of integrating rather than segregating the natives and theimmigrants.

Contents

IntroductionDiscussionConclusion

Introduction

Young people are viewed as prolific users of technology. A common

stereotype of today’s student is of an individual who is adept atmultitasking both off–line and online and who is constantly connected —always in touch — anytime, anyplace. Some scholars have suggestedthat information technology is reshaping the mindset of students of allages and creating a “neomillennial” learning style (Dede, 2005a; 2005b).

Similarly, Prensky (2001) took a generational perspective and arguedthat exposure to certain technologies, such as video games and virtualworlds, have altered the minds of these students in such a way thateducational theories that worked in the past do not in the twenty–firstcentury. As Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) proclaimed, “Technology haschanged the Net Generation, just as it is now changing highereducation.” [1] These and similar claims are typically used to fuelarguments in support of modifying school to accommodate more activeand adaptive technology–based educational trends.

But first, the question to be addressed is: Who are these individuals? Thedigital natives (also referred to as the Net Generation and the Millennials)

are defined as individuals who were born between 1980 and 1994.According to Howe and Strauss (2003), these individuals are “smart,ambitious, incredibly busy, very ethnically diverse, and dominated bygirls, to this point.” [2] They also have a close relationship with theirparents — individuals sometimes referred to as helicopter parents,because they hover closely overhead and within reach of their chi ld. Inother words, these are individuals who are unwilling to let go of their

digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant divide | St... http://pear.accc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2474/2243

9 18/11/2014 15:33



practice in virtualworld-basedlearningenvironments.

child. As Brooks (2001) wrote, for today’s parents, “Your child is the mostimportant extra–credit arts project you will ever undertake.” [3]

At present, there are questions about the impact of the recession on thisgeneration of young people. More specifically, these decisions involveeducational choices and living arrangements (Zernike, 2009). To savemoney, for example, some have chosen to attend two–year communitycolleges instead of four–year universities. They are opting to live at homewith their parents, as well.

The purpose of this paper is three–fold: first, the paper investigates thedigital native–digital immigrant metaphor; the next section criticallyexamines some of the claims about these tech–savvy young people; and,

the concluding segment explores a proposed alternative to the digitalnative–digital immigrant dichotomy — the digital melting pot.

Discussion

Unpacking the digital native–digital immigrant metaphor

The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines the term “native” assomething innate, inherent, belonging. In contrast, the term “immigrant” describes something that arrives at a new place to settle. As thesedefinitions suggest, the native (i.e., student) belongs and the immigrant(i.e., instructor) does not. Stated another way, the position of thestudent is privileged and viewed as superior in this technology–drivensociety.

In contrast, the instructor and others who lack these “superior” skills aremarginalized, which is dangerous (e.g., Sandford, 2006). The digitalnative–digital immigrant metaphor segregates the individuals who areassigned these labels and results in an unequal power structure. It alsoimplies that the immigrant can never become a native, which may serveto excuse individuals without tech skills (e.g., I don’t know how to fix thecomputer, because I’m a digital immigrant.).

The field of education has readily accepted the distinction that isaccomplished through the native–immigrant metaphor (e.g., Bayne andRoss, 2007). Moreover, this rhetoric is often used to fuel proposals toradically change education. Through this one–size fits all characterization(Krause, 2007), students are viewed as a similar group of customerswhose needs must be fulfilled. Bayne and Ross (2007) argued that the

needs of these students become a “proxy for market needs.” [4]Instructors, in turn, are informed that they must modify their teachingpractices to accommodate the learning styles and practices of theircustomers — these young, tech–savvy individuals. What is overlooked isthe simplicity of these labels and their inability to address the complexityof the students who enter the physical and the digital classroom.

The tech–savvy “myth”

The digital native generation is often defined in relation to technology.Yet these young people tend not to view what adults consider newtechnologies as high–tech; rather, they see them as tools and devices formaking their lives more efficient (Herring, 2008; Howe and Strauss,2003). For a device to qualify as a technology, it must be “novel,challenging, and fun, not merely useful.” [5] As these statementssuggest, young people are enthusiastic technology users. Recently,however, questions about the actual technological savviness of thisgeneration of students have surfaced. According to Herring (2008), ourimages of youth, new media, and their experiences are described throughan adult lens, which may not reflect the reality of the situation.

For instance, there are numerous claims about the technologicalcapabilities of these students. However, some scholars argue that theempirical evidence to support them is lacking (e.g., Kennedy, et al.,2006). In fact, Bennett, et al. (2008) asserted that there is no evidenceto suggest that this is a “new phenomenon exclusive to digital natives.” [6]

Moreover, scholars are beginning to insist that tech–savviness is moreabout exposure to technology than being affiliated with a particulargeneration (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). Even the tech–savvy skillsthat define a generation such as the so–called digital natives are notuniversal; these individuals come into the classroom with differentcompetencies (Oblinger, 2008). Just because students can open upGoogle in their Web browser does not mean that they know how to find

quality information resources.

Several studies serve to illustrate this point. Hargittai’s (2008) research,for one, revealed that first–year college students lack a basicunderstanding of technical terms such as phishing and tagging. Bennett,et al. (2008) also noted that the skill set of many of today’s studentsdoes not match the media reports. These authors highlight a study


9 18/11/2014 15:33



conducted by Kvavik, et al. (2004) that found that “only a minority of thestudents (around 21 percent) were engaged in creating their own contentand multimedia for the Web, and that a significant proportion of studentshad lower level skills than might be expected of digital natives.” [ 7] Inaddition, librarians have observed that while students may appear to beadept when it comes to computers, they are typically not “geeks” andhave “little understanding of what goes on behind their screen (andcouldn’t care less).” [8]

While all young people are assumed to be proficient technology users,age may not be the only factor to consider. For example, a recent reportof young people, ages 15–25, in four European countries — France,Germany, Spain, and the U.K. — claimed that there are significantdifferences in the digital culture between and among countries (Lusoliand Miltgen, 2009). This research found the following: the usage of socialnetworking sites by participants in Spain was low; France reported moreof a blogging scene; and, youth in Germany were more skilled overall.

The influence of geographic location on technology use was also reportedin a study that included first year students at nine Australian universities(Krause, 2007). This work examined technological capabilities based onsocioeconomic status, age, and gender. In general, Krause (2007) foundthat students come to the classroom with different needs andexperiences.

More specifically, Krause’s results revealed that students in the ruralareas had consistently low levels of Web use for study, recreation, andcommunication purposes; males and younger students used the Webmore for recreational purposes in comparison to female and olderstudents. Like Sandford (2006), Krause concluded that it is dangerous to

assume that students have similar skill sets given that the use of thesedigital tools is far from a universal experience among these individuals.

Also, there is little evidence that students want more technology in theclassroom. Just because students are prolific technology users in theirpersonal life does not mean they want the same or similar experiences inthe classroom. Based on a study conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center forApplied Research (Salaway and Caruso, 2007), students reported thatthey preferred moderate technology use in their courses. This finding isconsistent with previous research. In an earlier study of undergraduatesin the United States, Caruso (2004) stated that only 13 percent of respondents indicated that the most valuable benefit of using technologyin the classroom was improved learning [9]; instead, the most commonresponses by more than half of the study participants suggested that thedevices were convenient and saved time.

Dinkins (2008) pointed to similar evidence and stressed that manystudents believe that “face time with instructors and class time withother students [is] critical to their success in college.” [10] Even Howeand Strauss (2003) asserted that the “Millennials” who go to college wanta “flesh–and–blood rite of passage, a community of peers who really workand play and live together.” [11] In his survey of college students,Roberts (2005) came to similar conclusions. Students in his studyreported that the key to their academic success is faculty who arecommitted to teaching.

Lohnes and Kinzer (2007) conducted an ethnographic study to furtherinvestigate student preferences. They examined the technology practicesof nine students (three women and six men) who were tech–savvy andadept at using video production and editing software, as well as Webpublishing software. With the exception of one student, however, theseindividuals “reviled the idea of using a laptop in the classroom.” [12] Thestudents indicated that a laptop in class was a distraction, served as aphysical barrier to participation and the creation of a classroomcommunity, and was viewed as a way to distance oneself from others in

the class.

This group of students also adopted a conventional definition of teachingand learning. As one student pointed out, “We’re there to get theprofessor’s expertise.” [13] Garcia and Qin (2007) found evidence tosuggest that students have traditional ideas about teaching and learning,as well. In their study, the students “tended to believe thatuniversity–level course content was more effectively learned throughlectures than readings, and through discussions with instructors.” [14]

Perhaps more importantly, there are signs that some students are notacquiring skills that will prepare them adequately for life beyond theclassroom. In a recent report, Education Week outlined its statetechnology grades. These figures showed that California, the home of Silicon Valley, was at the bottom of the list in terms of computer access,use, and capacity (Asimov, 2008).

In addition, some college graduates are having a difficult timesucceeding in the real world (Taylor, 2006). These young people arecriticized for their lack of ambition and their lack of growing up — and theresponsibility is placed on higher education, although parents have alsoreceived some of the blame. While the graduates have technologicalskills, employers complain that they lack basic and applied skills that areessential to job success, such as reading comprehension, writtencommunication, and critical thinking (Cassner–Lotto and Benner, 2006).


9 18/11/2014 15:33



Another point that runs counter to the digital native claims is the factthat the technology the digital natives use did not appear from nowhere.Someone had to design, build, and upgrade the technologies that haveevolved into the electronic spaces that the natives now inhabit.Interestingly, very few educational technology advocates mention thatthe digital immigrants were the creators of these devices andenvironments.

In addition, many of these immigrants have been using technology formore than 30 years, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast arrayof experiences using a variety of products. This includes technologies thatwere typically not very user friendly. If a metaphor must be used, somescholars such as Sandford (2006) and De Saille (2006) argued the term

“digital colonist” might more accurately reflect the characteristics of theimmigrant group.

While the rhetoric asserts that new technologies are responsible for thechange in today’s young people, at least in part, Owen (2004) suggestedthat some of the skills predate these digital devices. In 1944, Lifemagazine published an article — “Teenage girls: They live in a wonderfulworld of their own.” This piece not only pictorially represented the waysin which teenagers used devices such as the telephone, but it alsoshowed that the fascination with the telephone, for example, predatedthe cell phone.

Further, teenagers are not the only ones who are dedicated technologyusers. According to a recent study, a large percentage of older adults aredoing more activities online. In fact, 45 percent of adults 33–54 years of age are online (Jones and Fox, 2009). The difference, according to Jonesand Fox (2009), lies in the type of activities — teens and young adults

are online for entertainment and social networking; in contrast, olderadults access the Internet to conduct research, shop, and to do banking.Even when it comes to digital games, older adults play every day oralmost everyday (Lenhart, et al., 2008). While the media implies thattechnology skills are unique to the new generation of young people, thereis counter evidence to suggest otherwise.

The tech skill–education mismatch

Because the tech–savvy stereotypes associated with today’s studentsappear to be based on misconceptions, educators need to rethinkteaching and learning for the digital age (Brown, 2002). Grush (2008)interviewed Gary Brown, a learning technology strategist, about coursemanagement systems (CMS), ePortfolios, and personal learningenvironments (PLEs). Brown described an initiative at Washington StateUniversity (WSU) that involved bringing in employers to foster the movetoward a more student–centered approach. He insisted that this was not

just about corporations; rather, employers indicated that they wantstudents to engage in better, more active and hands–on pedagogies,similar to those found in training settings. Brown added that in the end,employers cared more about acquired skills than test scores. Overall, thegoal is not simply to acquire knowledge, but rather to be able to use itoutside the classroom setting (Dziuban, et al., 2005).

Educators are beginning to investigate ways to teach information literacy,visual literacy, new media literacy, information fluency, and informationcompetence skills to this new group of students (Lorenzo and Dziuban,2006). Many young people have not learned about the new media literacyskills — play, multitasking, collective intelligence — at school (Jenkins, et al., 2008). Instead, they acquired their knowledge through involvementin informal learning environments, including fan and gamer communities.

But not all students are part of these learning networks and the contentcoverage is not always comprehensive. Therefore, educators must work toensure that students gain these skills (Jenkins, et al., 2008). Rheingold

(n.d.), who as he puts it “fell into the computer realm from thetypewriter dimension,” is also working to change the belief that allstudents are tech–savvy by bringing emerging technologies — blogs,wikis, videos — into the college classroom (Rheingold, 2008; Young,2008). His project is called the “Social Media Virtual Classroom” and isdesigned to expose students to “participatory media” in order to promotecivic engagement.

In an attempt to move its students into the twenty–first century, thestate of Michigan is revamping its high schools (Wallis and Steptoe,2006). The state realizes that the automobile industry can no longeremploy poorly educated and low skilled workers in their plants. At thistime, Michigan has the most rigorous graduation requirements in thenation. Included in the list of requirements is that students mustcomplete at least one online course before they graduate.

But requiring completion of an online course may not be enough.

Duderstadt (2004), for one, advocated for changes to education and theuse of technology in the classroom. At the same time, he admitted that itmight be a good idea for educators to learn more about educationaltechnologies, including virtual worlds, so they understand them.

However, the research presented in this paper calls into questionDuderstadt’s (2004) claim that young people expect and demandtechnology in the classroom. He argued that in order for academia to


9 18/11/2014 15:33



maintain its values and standing, it will have to “transform itself onceagain to serve a radically changing world if it is to sustain theseimportant values and roles.” [15] These sentiments challenged theresults of other studies that suggested that students hold conventionalpositions with regard to teaching and learning (Garcia and Qin, 2007;Lohnes and Kinzer, 2007) and preferred moderate amounts of technologyin the classroom (Salaway and Caruso, 2007). Because of thesecontradictory positions, Bennett, et al. (2008) would like to see a

“disinterested examination of the assumptions underpinning claims aboutdigital natives.” [16] Also, as Wesch (2009) stated, educational changesshould be about the social spirit enabled by new technologies —collaboration, interaction, and participation — not the technologies

themselves.

Conclusion

Digital wisdom or a digital melting pot?

In a recent article, Prensky (2009) proposed the concept of “digitalwisdom.” This form of wisdom, according to Prensky, occurs from and inuse of technology. Unlike the digital native–digital immigrant metaphor,digital wisdom transcends generational boundaries — even though digitalimmigrants can never become digital natives, these individuals canacquire and possess digital wisdom. President Obama was given as an

example of a digital immigrant who has digital wisdom.

Prensky (2009) also stated that the brain is “highly plastic” and that the “brains of those who interact with technology frequently will berestructured by that interaction.” [17] Further, Prensky implied thatknowledge at one’s fingertips equates to wisdom. Other educationalscholars have argued (e.g., Brown and Duguid, 2000; Owen, 2004),however, that information access does not equal knowledge acquisition.As Brown and Duguid (2000) asserted, learning comes from informalsocial interactions between learners and their mentors, not frominteractions with technology alone.

In general, the concept of digital wisdom attempts to integrate thedigital immigrants into the technology areas where the digital nativesreside. But even though they have the opportunity to become digitallywise, the immigrants remain segregated from the natives. In contrast,the metaphor of a “melting pot” brings to mind a less divided anddisconnected vision. Here, the term digital melting pot refers to the

blending of individuals who speak with different technology tongues.Instead of segregating individuals based on their skills or lack thereof,the digital melting pot is a place where all individuals, including thosewith low levels of competency, experience technology in a way thatfosters opportunities without barriers.

The melting pot also symbolizes the bridge between the two cultures thatthe digital native–digital immigrant dichotomy creates. Throughassimilation, individuals who lack the skills could be transformed intomembers of the tech–savvy culture and become incorporated into acommon “life.” More skilled individuals would not be forever slotted into acategory that may have been an inaccurate fit from the beginning.

Educators, as well as their corresponding institutions, could be majorplayers in the digital melting pot assimilation process. Together theycould provide all individuals the chance to acquire, refine, and updatetechnology skills. The digital native–digital immigrant metaphor serves to

place individuals into separate silos based on over–generalized andoftentimes inaccurate characteristics.

Biesta (2006) argued that educators should work to make individualsmore unique and irreplaceable, rather than trying to make them morehomogeneous. Overall, the digital melting pot metaphor redirects theattention away from the “assigned” generational characteristics. Instead,the focus of the melting pot is on the diverse set of technologicalcapabilities individuals actually have, as well as the digital skills theymight gain through experience.

About the author

Sharon Stoerger is a doctoral candidate in the School of Library and

Information Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her currentareas of research include computer–mediated communication andcommunities of practice in virtual world–based learning environments.E–mail: sstoerge [at] indiana [dot] edu


9 18/11/2014 15:33



Notes

1. Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005, 2.16.

2. Howe and Strauss, 2003, p. 4.

3. Brooks, 2001, n.p.

4. Bayne and Ross, 2007, n.p.

5. Herring, 2008, p. 77.

6. Bennett, et al., 2008, p. 5.

7. Kvavik, et al., 2004, p. 4.

8. Lorenzo and Dziuban, 2006, p. 8.

9. Caruso, 2004, p. 5.

10. Dinkins, 2008, n.p.

11. Howe and Strauss, 2003, p. 127.

12. Lohnes and Kinzer, 2007, n.p.

13. Ibid.

14. Garcia and Qin, 2007, n.p.

15. Duderstadt, 2004, p. 29.

16. Bennett, et al., 2008, p. 10.

17. Prensky, 2009, n.p.

References

Nanette Asimov, 2008. “California schools flunk computer access test,” San Francisco Chronicle, B–1 (27 March), and at http://www.sfgate.com

/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/27/BAVHVQG28.DTL, accessed 27March 2008.

Siân Bayne and Jen Ross, 2007. “The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital

immigrant’: A dangerous opposition,” paper presented at the AnnualConference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE)[December], and at http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff

/sian/natives_final.pdf , accessed 16 February 2009.

Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin, 2008. “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence,” British Journal of Educational Technology volume 39, number, pp. 775–786, and athttp://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111

/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x, accessed 23 March 2008.

Gert Biesta, 2006. Beyond learning: Democratic education for a humanfuture. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm.

David Brooks, 2001. “The organization kid,” Atlantic Monthly (April), athttp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200104/brooks, accessed 23 March2008.

John Seely Brown, 2002. “Growing up digital: How the Web changeswork, education, and the ways people learn,” USDLA Journal , volume 16,issue 2, at http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_issue

/article01.html, accessed 26 February 2008.

John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, 2000. Social life of information.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Judith Borreson Caruso, 2004. ECAR study of students and informationtechnology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control . Madison, Wis.:Educause Center for Applied Research, at http://net.educause.edu

/ir/library/pdf/ERS0405/ekf0405.pdf , accessed 16 March 2009.

Jill Cassner–Lotto and Mary Wright Benner, 2006. Are they really ready towork? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skillsof new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Tucson, Ariz.:Partnership for 21st Century, at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org

/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF9-29-06.pdf , accessed 23 March 2008.

Chris Dede, 2005a. “Planning for neomillennial learning styles,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly , volume 28, issue 1, pp. 7–12, and athttp://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0511.pdf , accessed 31October 2007.

Chris Dede, 2005b. “Planning for neomillennial learning styles:


9 18/11/2014 15:33



Implications for investments in technology and faculty,” In: D.G.Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger (editors). Educating the net generation, pp.15.1–15.22, at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101o.pdf ,accessed 16 March 2009.

James J. Duderstadt, 2004. “Higher learning in the digital age: Anupdate on a National Academies study,” paper presented at the 6thAnnual Meeting of EDUCAUSE, Denver, Colo., (October), at http://www-cdn.educause.edu/upload/presentations/E04/GS01/Educause.pdf ,accessed 24 March 2008.

Charles D. Dziuban, Patsy D. Moskal, and Joel Hartman, 2005. “Highereducation, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power:

No more,” In: J. Bourne and J.C. Moore (editors), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, Mass.: Sloan Centerfor Online Education, at http://www.blendedteaching.org/system/files

/Knowledge_is_Power_Oct27-2004.pdf , accessed 16 March 2009.

Paula Garcia and Jingjing Qin, 2007. “Identifying the generation gap inhigher education: Where do the differences really lie?” Innovate, volume3, number 4, at http://innovateonline.info/?view=article&id=379,accessed 1 March 2008.

Mary Grush, 2008. “The future of Web 2.0,” Campus Technology (1March), at http://campustechnology.com/articles/58872/, accessed 24March 2008.

Eszter Hargittai, 2008. “The role of expertise in navigating links of influence,” In: J. Turow and L. Tsui (editors). Hyperlinked society . AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 85–103, and at

http://www.eszter.com/research/hyperlinkedsociety.html, accessed 16August 2008.

Susan C. Herring, 2008. “Questioning the generational divide:Technological exoticism and adult construction of online youth identity,” In: D. Buckingham (editor). Youth, identity, and digital media.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 71–92.

Neil Howe and William Strauss, 2003. Millennials go to college:Strategies for a new generation on campus. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Henry Jenkins, Ravi Purushotma, Katie Clinton, Margaret Weigel, andAlice J. Robison, 2008. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century . Chicago: John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation, athttp://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF, accessed 16

November 2008.

Sydney Jones and Susannah Fox, 2009. “Generations online in 2009,” Pew Internet & American Life Project (28 January), athttp://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports

/2009/PIP_Generations_2009.pdf , accessed 9 March 2009.

Gregor Kennedy, Kerri–Lee Krause, Terry Judd, Anna Churchward, andKathleen Gray, 2006. “First year students’ experiences with technology:Are they really digital natives?” Preliminary Report of Findings(September), at http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives

/natives_report2006.pdf , accessed 18 March 2008.

Kerri–Lee Krause, 2007. “Who is the e–generation and how are theyfairing in higher education?” In: J. Lockard and M. Pegrum (editors).Brave new classrooms: Democratic education and the Internet . New York:Peter Lang, pp. 125–139.

Robert B. Kvavik, Judith B. Caruso, and Glenda Morgan, 2004. ECARstudy of students and information technology 2004: Convenience,connection, and control . Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSE Center for AppliedResearch, at http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405

/rs/ers0405w.pdf , accessed 3 August 2008.

Amanda Lenhart, Sydney Jones, and Alexandra R. Macgill, 2008. “PewInternet Project data memo: Adults and video games,” Pew Internet &

American Life Project (7 December), at http://www.pewinternet.org /~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Adult_gaming_memo.pdf.pdf ,accessed 9 March 2009.

Sarah Lohnes and Charles Kinzer, 2007. “Questioning assumptions aboutstudents’ expectations for technology in college classrooms,” Innovate,volume 3, number 5, at http://innovateonline.info

/index.php?view=article&id=431, accessed 24 March 2008.

George Lorenzo and Charles Dziuban, 2006. “Ensuring the net generationis net savvy,” ELI White Paper Series, number 2, athttp://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3006.pdf , accessed 24 March2008.

Wainer Lusoli and Caroline Miltgen, 2009. “Young people and emergingdigital services: An exploratory survey on motivations, perceptions andacceptance of risks,” In W. Lusoli, R. Compañ, and I. Maghiros (editors).


9 18/11/2014 15:33



JRC scientific and technical reports. Seville, Spain: Institute forProspective Technology Studies.

Diana G. Oblinger, 2008. “Growing up with Google: What it means toeducation,” Becta: Emerging Technologies for Learning, volume 3, pp.10–29, at http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads

/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies08_chapter1.pdf ,accessed 10 April 2008.

Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger, 2005. “Is it age or IT: Firststeps toward understanding the net generation,” In: D.G. Oblinger andJ.L. Oblinger (editors). Educating the net generation, pp. 2.1–2.20, athttp://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101c.pdf , accessed 1 March

2008.

Martin Owen, 2004. “The myth of the digital native,” Futurelab (June), athttp://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles

/Web-articles/Web-Article561, accessed 16 February 2009.

Oxford English Dictionary , 1989. “Immigrant,” Second edition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Oxford English Dictionary , 1989. “Native,” Second edition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Marc Prensky, 2009. “H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants anddigital natives to digital wisdom,” Innovate, volume 5, number 3, athttp://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705, accessed 4February 2009.

Marc Prensky, 2001. Digital game–based learning. New York:

McGraw–Hill.

Howard Rheingold, n.d. “Howard Rheingold,” athttp://www.rheingold.com/howard/, accessed 11 March 2009.

Howard Rheingold, 2008. “Howard Rheingold one of 17 winners of HASTAC/MacArthur Foundation Competition,” Smart Mobs (23 February),at http://www.smartmobs.com/2008/02/23/howard-rheingold-one-of-17-winners-of-hastacmacarthur-foundation-competition/, accessed 16August 2008.

Gregory R. Roberts, 2005. “Technology and learning expectations of thenet generation.” In: D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger (editors). Educatingthe net generation, pp. 3.1–3.7, at http://www.educause.edu/ir/library

/pdf/pub7101c.pdf , accessed 1 March 2008.

Gail Salaway and Judith B. Caruso, 2007. The ECAR study of undergrad students and information technology, 2007 . Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSECenter for Applied Research, at http://www.educause.edu/ir/library

/pdf/ers0706/rs/ers0706w.pdf , accessed 4 April 2008.

Richard Sandford, 2006. “Digital post–colonialism,” Flux (14 December),at http://flux.futurelab.org.uk/2006/12/14/digital-post-colonialism/,accessed 19 February 2009.

Mark L. Taylor, 2006. “Generation NeXT comes to college: 2006 updatesand emerging issues,” In: Higher Learning Commission of the NorthCentral Association of Colleges and Schools (editor). Collection of paperson self–study and institutional improvement, 2006, pp. 2.48–2.55, athttp://www.taylorprograms.org/images/Gen_NeXt_article_HLC_06.pdf ,accessed 30 March 2008.

Claudia Wallis and Sonja Steptoe, 2006. “How to bring our schools out of the 20th century,” Time (10 December), at http://www.time.com

/time/printout/0,8816,1568480,00.html, accessed 23 March 2008.

Michael Wesch, 2009. “From knowledgeable to knowledge–able: Learningin new media environments,” Academic Commons (7 January), athttp://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/knowledgable-knowledge-able, accessed 15 March 2009.

Jeffrey R. Young, 2008. “Project aims to build online classroom withlatest Web 2.0 features,” Chronicle of Higher Education: Wired Campus(25 February), at http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article

/2768/project-aims-to-build-online-classroom-with-latest-Web-20-features, accessed 25 February 2008.

Kate Zernike, 2009. “Generation OMG,” New York Times (7 March), athttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/weekinreview

/08zernike.html?_r=1andref=weekinreview, accessed 8 March 2009.

Editorial history

Paper received 6 April 2009; accepted 10 June 2009.


9 18/11/2014 15:33



“The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native–immigrant divide” bySharon Stoerger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–Noncommercial–No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native–immigrant divideby Sharon Stoerger.First Monday , Volume 14, Number 7 - 6 July 2009http://pear.accc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2474/2243

A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.

© First Monday , 1995-2014.


the digital melting pot_ bridging the digital native-immigrant divide _ stoerger _ first monday

Documents