Australian undergraduates' use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net Generation

Studies and commentary from the United States suggest that current undergraduates, part of the so called Net Generation, are high end users of emerging technologies such as mobile devices and new communication tools. This paper reports results from an Australian study of first year undergraduates which confirms these assertions: ownership of laptops, mobile phones and music devices appears to be growing rapidly among this group, along with their use of tools such as instant messaging, blogs and podcasts. Discussion of these results include suggestions as to how teachers of first year undergraduates can incorporate these tools and devices into extramural learning experiences in order to increase engagement and exploit the Net Generation's desire for 'connectedness'.

Introduction

Unlike most of those who teach them, university students today are often "more comfortable working on a keyboard than writing in a spiral notebook, and are happier reading from a computer screen than from paper in hand" (Frand, 2000). Consequently, it is often the more interactive Web 2.0 applications enabled by these devices that younger users find more attractive. Instant messaging, with more recent features such as voice chat, video conversation, shared whiteboard spaces, application sharing, and remote assistance or control of the computer by another (Millea, Green & Putland, 2005), is often preferred by younger users who nowadays tend to consign email to formal contexts such as communications with teachers and parents (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Similarly, the Web 2.0 application generically known as blogs are popular with the young-they are personal, group or corporate web based journals which can be produced from a desktop as well as a mobile phone. Podcasting is also a growing phenomenon. It can be accessed "on the go": any computer user with a microphone can prepare an audio file for podcasting and make it available for search, exchange, and retrieval by other users (Millea, Green & Putland, 2005).

Overall, Web 2.0 is "all about moving beyond content delivery to personal publishing, ease of use, interactivity, collaboration, sharing, and customisation" (Cochrane, 2006). These features are increasingly available on devices which are mobile (in the sense that they can be used on the move): common examples are laptops, handhelds, mobile phones and music playing devices. In this paper, a handheld computer is understood as a personal digital assistant (such as a Palm Pilot) which is "a small, mobile device that provides computing and information storage and retrieval, and that can be easily carried and used" (Deneen, 2001), with the acknowledgement that since this definition appeared in the literature many convergent devices offer these capabilities and more.

Teaching and learning innovations are best implemented when informed by learning theory (Cochrane, 2006). The pedagogical framework based on student achievement of learning outcomes (Huba & Freed, 2000) leads teachers to ask seminal questions about how students can best achieve specific learning outcomes: what are the learning outcomes and how will they be assessed; what type of interactive learning experiences are most likely to engage students and enhance their achievement of the intended outcomes? The answers to these questions can also be guided towards enhancing student learning by encouraging communities of practice (Wenger, 2002). The combination of mobile devices and Web 2.0 social software go some way to assist the development of communities of practice and beyond: learning assisted by sophisticated tools such as those discussed here are closer to a model of communication than a model of dissemination (Heppell, 2002) which go beyond interactive to participative, allowing learners not to just to consume and interact but to truly construct knowledge (Cych, 2006; Heppell, 2002). Potential participative activities using the devices and communications tools discussed here are:

• Instant messaging applications might facilitate discursive on and off campus activities, such as group work, discussion, and collaborative problem solving. The interactive whiteboard feature is particularly suited to problem solving activities. The fact that so many university students are already active users of instant messaging (about 4 out of 5 in the studies reported here) means that this technology could be easily included in suggested learning activities outside the physical classroom, and outside the restrictions of traditional learning management systems such as Blackboard and WebCT.

• Blogs encourage student reading and writing, and can be used to elicit feedback and review learning materials and professional papers as well as enable the exchange of views and opinions (Millea, Green & Putland, 2005). Students involved in artistic, musical or other creative units could also benefit from 'displaying' or sharing their work (especially non-text) in blog spaces. When blogs are made public (as many are), students can interact with "guest contributors" (even published experts in the field) who visit and comment on their posts. This could be an advantage of blogs over discussion boards currently housed behind restricted sites within institutional learning management systems. Public blogs used by groups of students allow joint authorship, and teachers may view progress at anytime. Wikis, like blogs, are web based publishing systems enabling anyone to update or change the content of a site; they can be used to support collaborative learning activities, and enable students to develop content in group situations (Millea, Green & Putland, 2005). Really Simple Syndication (RSS) is likely to be used by bloggers: it enables automatic updates from sites (such as other blogs and news and information resources). It is quickly becoming a "must have" technology for those who need current information ("RSS (file format)", 2005). Lecturers might consider creating RSS feeds for their courses, so that students will be alerted when updates are made.

• Audio technologies such as podcasting tend to continue to be one way communication modes: they enable listening. Nevertheless, podcasting is being embraced by institutions such as Stanford University which now makes aural events (lectures, audiobooks, music) available to the public through free podcasting software (Stanford University, 2005). Students can create their own podcasts and share them online with peers and the wider community.

Method

Because the surveys were administered in different circumstances, the two cohorts were rather different. In 2005, 413 students completed the survey; three quarters (76.8 %) were enrolled in a Business unit and the remainder were enrolled in an Engineering unit. As shown in Table 1, nearly two-thirds were male (62.3%), just over two-thirds (69.5%) said their first language was English and the vast majority (88.6%) were between 17 and 25 years; just over half (55.2%) were between 17 and 20. In 2007, 290 engineering students completed the survey. Once again, the cohort was predominantly male (85.2%), just over three quarters (77.6%) said their first language was English and the vast majority (97.9%) were between 17 and 25 years; most (84.1%) were between 17 and 20.

		2005		2007		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Female	155	37.7	43	14.8	198	28.2
	Male	256	62.3	248	85.2	504	71.8
First language	English	287	69.7	225	77.6	512	72.9
	Other	125	30.3	65	22.4	190	27.1
Age	<20	228	55.3	243	84.1	471	67.2
	20-25	138	33.5	40	13.8	178	25.4
	26-35	36	8.7	5	1.7	41	5.8
	>35	10	2.4	1	0.3	11	1.6

The difference in enrolments is possibly responsible for the difference in cohorts: the 2007 cohort was more predominantly male (chi-square, corrected = 44.261, df = 1, p = .000), younger (chi-square, corrected = 65.675, df = 3, p = .000) and with more students whose first language was English (chi-square, corrected = 5.416, df = 1, p = .020). To annul this difference, Business students can be excluded from the 2005 cohort (leaving a much smaller sample of 387 students-96 students in 2005, 291 in 2007).

		2005		2007
		n	%	n	%
Gender	Female	9	9.4	43	14.8
	Male	87	90.6	248	85.2
First language	English	75	78.1	225	77.6
	Other	21	21.9
Age	<20	76	79.2	243	84.1
	20-25	17	17.7	40	13.8
	26-35	3	3.1	5	1.7
	>35	0	0	1	0.3

The similarity in discipline enrolment (that is, all students commencing Engineering) creates similar cohorts: there are no significant differences in composition in relation to gender (chi-square, corrected = 1.811, df = 1, p = .178), first language (chi-square, corrected = .012, df = 1, p = .912) or age group (chi-square, corrected = 1.945, df = 3, p = .584). Results for both cohort types-the larger one including Business students, and the smaller one excluding them-will be reported in relation to how students' behaviours may have changed between 2005 and 2007.

Access to and use of the Internet for learning

Students were also asked about their use of the Internet for learning, again in items with different wording: 2005 students were asked "Do you frequently use online resources to help your learning?" and 2007 students were asked a slightly different question: "Do you frequently use online resources for study purposes?" Table 4 shows that the vast majority use the Web for learning related purposes, although there were differences in the 2007 cohort: fewer said they used web resources for study-this may be due to change in wording of the item, and again the timing of the survey (chi-square, corrected = 9.968, df = 2, p = .000). It may also be explained by the 4.8% in 2007 who were still unsure about their off campus access (given the early administration of the survey).

Off campus access	2005	2007
	Do you have access to the Internet outside University?	Will you have access to the Internet outside University this semester?
No	21 (5.1%)	11 (3.8%)
Yes	389 (94.4%)	265 (91.4%)
Not sure	2 (0.5%)	14 (4.8%)

Web resources for learning	2005	2007
	Do you frequently use online resources to help your learning?	Do you frequently use online resources for study purposes?
No	14 (3.4%)	23 (7.9%)
Yes	383 (93.4%)	251 (86.6%)
Not sure	13 (3.2%)	16 (5.5%)

When Business students are excluded from the first cohort, there was no difference in Engineering students' access to the Internet off campus (p > .05), but the difference in the use of the web remains - students in 2007 were less likely to say they used the Web for learning (chi-square, corrected = 7.341, df = 2, p = . 025). Nevertheless, it is clear from these results that the vast majority of students in both cohorts had access or believed they would have access to the Internet off campus, and that they would use it for learning purposes. This is reassuring for those teaching these students: the vast majority of students have access and use it for learning.

Ownership of devices

	Year	n	No	Yes	Not sure
Laptop	2005	412	51.9%	47.6%	0.5%
	2007	290	50.0%	48.6%	1.4%
Handheld computer	2005	409	91.0%	8.1%	1.0%
	2007	288	93.1%	5.6%	1.4%
Mobile phone	2005	412	2.2%	97.6%	0.2%
	2007	289	3.1%	96.2%	0.7%
iPod or MP3	2005	409	59.2%	40.6%	0.2 %
	2007	288	28.5%	70.1%	1.4%

These results suggest that teachers of incoming undergraduates, particularly those in Business and Engineering, can assume that the majority of students now own mobile phones and music playing devices such as iPods, about half have laptops, and very few have handhelds.

Use of emerging communications tools

Communications tool	Year	n	No	Yes
Instant messaging	2005	412	17.7%	82.3%
	2007	286	12.0%	87.8%
Blogs	2005	411	79.3%	20.7%
	2007	285	70.2%	29.8%
Podcasts	2005	410	93.4%	6.6%
	2007	284	78.5%	21.5%

As indicated previously, the 2007 students were also asked how often they used these tools and whether they used them for study purposes. Table 7 shows that over half the students (57.4%) were frequent users of instant messaging and 44.4% used it often or occasionally for study purposes; few students (7.3%) were frequent users of blogs and 20% used them often or occasionally for study purposes; and just over one fifth (21.1%) were frequent users of podcasts and 31.8% used them often or occasionally for study purposes.

Communications tool	Frequency of use				Frequency of use for study
	n	Frequ- ently	Occas- ionally	Rarely	n	Often	Occas- ionally	Rarely	Never
Instant messaging	258	57.4	33.7	8.9	259	7.7	36.7	42.1	13.5
Blogs	96	7.3	50.0	41.7	95	2.1	17.9	37.9	42.1
Podcasts	66	21.2	42.4	36.4	63	15.9	15.9	36.5	31.7

These results suggest that many students are amenable to using instant messaging for study purposes, but use of blogs and podcasting for study purposes is less common at this stage.

Discussion

Authors and year	Caruso & Kvavik, 2005	This study, 2005	Kennedy et al., 2006	This study, 2007
Location	United States	Perth, Australia	Melbourne, Australia	Perth, Australia
Sample size	18,039	365	2120	290
Population of interest	College students	Beginning undergrads		Beginning undergrads
Laptop	61.6%	46.0%	63.2%	48.5%
Handhelds	12.6%	8.3%	10.8%	5.5%
Mobile phone	90.1% (cell phone); 1.3% (smart phone)	99.7%	96.4%	95.5%
iPod or MP3 player	38.4%	41.6%	68.9%	69.4%

It would seem that ownership of devices is comparable in the United States given that Caruso and Kvavik's study was conducted in 2005 (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005). In comparison to the study reported here in relation to the 2007 cohort, Kennedy et al. found in 2006 that a higher percentage of respondents had access to laptops and handhelds, and very similar levels of mobile phone and iPod or MP3 players. Kennedy et al. (2006) found that 98.6% of their students had off campus Internet access which was comparable to the 94.4% (2005) and the 91.4% (2007) who had off campus access in this study. Results reported here suggest that this group of Australian undergraduates owns sophisticated portable devices (particularly laptops, mobile phones and music devices), and that many are frequent users of instant messaging, and many access blogs (and podcasts) even though this technology has only recently come to prominence in Australia (Cook, 2005).

It is important to note, in addition, that students are likely to carry with them other devices not mentioned here (gaming devices, for example), and they are likely to use their devices for multiple functions, many of which are not investigated here (listening to music and playing movies, for example). There is also no doubt that much of undergraduates' technology related activity is not directly linked to their education. Many mobile devices listed in this study are primarily for social or entertainment purposes. This is also true of the activities conducted on the emerging communications tools. For example only 6.5% of the incoming students have used blogs for study purposes (either often or occasionally) and the finding was similar for instant messaging (39.5%) and podcasting (11.5%). However, the percentages who used blogging and instant messaging for socialising were significantly higher (29.6% and 86.3% respectively). Nevertheless, it may be that that these primarily social devices and tools (carried by a high proportion of students) might well be used for educational purposes, particularly if their use is suggested as part of course work and learning activities in and beyond the classroom.

However, there is a gap to be bridged in this matter: even though undergraduate students own and use emerging technologies and tools, their university teachers are less likely to do so: the gap between the digital habits of students and teachers has been growing for some time (Smith & Curtin, 1997). This is likely to be exacerbated by an aging workforce in Australian higher education: Hugo reports that "the Australian university teaching workforce is concentrated in the older age groups more than not only the total workforce but also the total professional workforce" and, according to 2001 census figures, over 60% of teaching academics in Australian universities were over 45 years of age (Hugo, 2004). Research shows that ownership and use of information and communication technologies tend to decrease with age (White, 2007); greater use of the Internet in Australian households is highest among the young, and generally decreases with age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005-06). It is feasible to assume, then that current university teachers are likely to be using fewer emerging technologies than their students, and therefore even less likely to want to initiate their use in the classroom. Unlike their 'digital native' students, they are known as 'digital immigrants' (Prensky, 2001), and as such they have had to learn and adapt to using the new technologies rather than seeing them as 'natural' tools that were always a part of their world. Additionally, the teaching and learning styles that middle aged university teachers find intellectually stimulating are unlikely to maintain the interest of today's "Net Genners" (Moore, Moore & Fowler, 2005). In contrast to many of their teachers, the "Net Genners" are typically intuitive visual communicators who can integrate virtual and physical environments, learn better through discovery than by absorption, respond quickly to visual stimulus, and shift attention rapidly, particularly if they feel bored (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). They are 'doers' rather than 'knowledge acquisitors' and they know that knowledge is constantly changing. So, for these students 'results and actions are considered more important than the accumulation of facts' (Oblinger, 2003). Frand claims that the digital natives are more likely to use 'Nintendo over Logic': many apply the techniques of learning computer games to their formal learning-try something and if it fails, try again. He warns that 'until the nature of the educational relationships change in the classroom and at the institutional level, we will not realize the full value of the computer, communication, and information technology investments that we are making today' (Frand, 2000).

One clear solution to bridging this gap is to encourage teaching staff to familiarise themselves with the possible contents of their students' digital backpacks. Staff development seminars, offered in non-threatening and relaxed contexts (and possibly sponsored by emerging technology providers) are one way of having staff explore emerging mobile devices. Such sessions can include pedagogical input and sharing of ideas (among staff and students as well) as to how emerging tools and particularly the interactivity and engagement that they allow might be used to engage students and enhance learning. Key strategies are to review teaching and learning practices, and design experiences to engage the learner (in general, moving away from didactic content delivery and increasing discursive interaction) (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005). This, of course, is at the heart of sound university pedagogy, regardless of the environment (Mentkowski, 2000; Ramsden, 1992). What is expected is that a teacher always aims to create an engaging learning environment and this should not involve adapting to the available technology but vice versa (Hoppe et. al 2003). Learning management systems such as Blackboard and WebCT have gone some way to providing more interactive virtual learning experiences using tools such as quizzes, for example. However, given the Net Generation's experiences in engaging and interacting in electronic communications (particularly in games), low level interactivity in a learning management system is unlikely to stimulate a sense of connectedness for the learner. Emerging, browser based collaborative tools, incorporating synchronous audio, video, chat and data display, such as Elluminate (http://www.elluminate.com/) and Vyew (http://www.vyew.com/) are likely to offer greater engagement.

However, university adoption of institution-wide technologies is rarely a hasty process (Bates, 2000). To circumvent waiting for a whole of institution response to adopting new technologies, university teachers can encourage the use of student-owned devices and student-used modes of communication where they can enhance students' engagement, where access to technologies is equitable for students, and where the use of online applications poses little risk to institutions. Nevertheless, teachers must be mindful that (as found by Kennedy et al. and again in the studies reported here) although the majority of incoming students are techno-literate and are regularly using emerging devices, there is still a significant proportion who are not, and students need to be educated in the proper use (and associated risks) of tools such as blogs and podcasts. Moreover, the fact that students own devices and use social software tools for social purposes does not mean that they will necessarily transfer those behaviours to the learning context. This suggests that teachers who wish to encourage their students to use their personal devices for learning need to do so with some sensitivity, and by providing a structure and rationale for their use.

Conclusion

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005-06). Household Use of Information Technology. Canberra. [verified 6 Apr 2006] http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/acc2d18cc958bc7bca2568a9001393ae?OpenDocument

Bates, A. W. T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caruso, J. B. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control. EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0405/ekf0405.pdf

Caruso, J. B. & Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=8964&bhcp=1

Cochrane, T. (2006). Learning with wireless mobile devices and social software. Proceedings ASCILITE 2006, 3-6 December, Sydney. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p50.pdf

Cook, T. (2005). State-of-play: Blogging and podcasting in Australia today. [viewed 19 Apr 2005] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3307

Cych, L. (2006). Social networks. Emerging Technologies for Learning. [viewed 1 Mar 2007] http://www.becta.org.uk/corporate/publications/

Deneen, L. (2001). Handheld PDAs and wearable computing devices. [viewed 1 Dec 2001, verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0101.pdf

Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE, September/October, 15-24. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0051.pdf

Heppell, S. (2002). Thoughts and follow-ups. [viewed 1 Mar 2007] http://rubble.heppell.net/broadcasting/contents.html

Hoppe, H., Joiner, R., Milrad, M. & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest editorial: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255-259.

Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centred assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hugo, G. (2004). The demography of Australia's academic workforce: Patterns, problems and policy implications. Paper presented at the Monash Seminars on Higher Education, Monash University, 7 September 2004. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.atn.edu.au/docs/Demography_Australias_Academic_Workforce.pdf

Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf

Kennedy, G., Krause, K.-L., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2006). First year experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? BMU, University of Melbourne. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/natives_report2006.pdf

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile teaching and learning. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 25-44). London: Routledge.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Palmer.

Lenhart, A., Rainie, L. & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Washinton DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/vf_pew_internet_teens.pdf

Lenhart, A., Simon, M. & Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Report.pdf

Mentkowski, M. (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Millea, J., Green, I. & Putland, G. (2005). Emerging technologies: A framework for thinking. Canberra: education.au limited. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.det.act.gov.au/publicat/pdf/emergingtechnologies.pdf

Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/

Oliver, B. & Barrett, C. (2004). Comfort + ubiquity = adoption: Enhancing first year students' communication skills with handheld computers. Proceedings ASCILITE 2004, Perth. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/oliver-b.html

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

RSS (file format) (2005). Wikipedia. [viewed 23 Oct 2005] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_%28file_format%29

Smith, R. & Curtin, P. (1997). Children, computers and life online: Education and the cyber-world. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 211-233). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Stanford University (2005). Stanford on iTunes. [viewed 2 Nov 2005] http://itunes.stanford.edu/

Trinder, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and systems. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 7-24). London: Routledge.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

White, D. (2007). Results of the 'Online Tool Use Survey' undertaken by the JISC funded SPIRE project. [verified 7 Apr 2007] http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/survey-summary.pdf

Appendix

What is your sex?	Female     Male	What is your sex?	Female     Male
What is your first language?	English     Other (please specify)	What is your first language?	English     Other (please specify)
What is your age group?	<20       20-25 26-35    >35	What is your age group?	<20       20-25 26-35    >35

Authors: Beverley Oliver and Veronica Goerke Learning Support Network Curtin University of Technology Email: b.oliver@curtin.edu.au, v.goerke@curtin.edu.au Contact author: Dr Beverley Oliver Manager, Teaching Development Unit Learning Support Network Curtin University of Technology GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia Please cite as: Oliver, B. and Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates' use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net Generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171-186. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/oliver.html

Print version errata 28 May 2007: p.183. Add reference Hoppe, H., Joiner, R., Milrad, M. & Sharples, M. (2003) (see above)