“G2C! TTYL! MYO!” –
What? Communicating/Connecting with Digital Natives in Teacher Education
Jenelle M. O. Hodges, M.S.
University of Alabama at Birmingham
United States of America
jmhodges@uab.edu
Betty Nelson, Ph.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham
United States of America
benelson@uab.edu
Feng Sun, Ph.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham
United States of America
Fs96@uab.edu
Deb Newton, Ed.D.
Southern Connecticut State University
United States of America
newtond2@southernct.edu
Abstract: What are digital natives and digital immigrants saying about their
communication/connecting preferences in teacher education? Is it e-mail, text messaging, blogs,
wikis, Twitter, Facebook, course management system announcement page postings or something
else? We will share the results of a student survey of teacher education students at two different
universities. This will include students who are experiencing traditional, blended, and online
learning environments. Data will be sorted to reveal preferences indicated by age range of digital
natives and digital immigrants. The results provide implications for the need to apply Universal
Design for Learning structure in teacher education with multiple means of representation for
communication within classes. While at the poster session, attendees will have the option to
participate in a "clicker" type of survey. Final results of the survey conducted during the poster
session will be posted on the presentation website.
Introduction
Technology and the innovations that have come from our numerous technological advances have changed
the way we educate, learn, communicate, and connect. The terms digital native and digital immigrant, first coined
by Prensky in 2001, seem to pop up in every aspect of education. Educators and administrators constantly work to
meet the needs of the digital natives that they are finding in their classrooms, while they themselves are most often
classified as digital immigrants. The term ‘digital native’ refers to the generation born in or after the 1980’s. These
generations grew up and were socialized in a technologically advancing society (Prensky, 2001). These generations
embrace new technology and incorporate its use into their daily lives. Those classified as “digital immigrants” did
not grow up with constantly advancing technology and struggle to keep up with the continual growth and change
that today’s technology brings to their environments. Digital immigrants have had to adapt and learn to live in the
digital age in which we now find ourselves (Prensky, 2001).
Technological submersion has not bypassed higher education. Students come to classrooms, whether
traditional, blended, or fully online, and have an expectation of how connectivity and communication should take
place. Conversely those born prior to 1980s (labeling them as digital immigrant) make up the majority of university
faculty. These difference leads to a gap that must be addressed. Every year since 2004, EDUCAUSE’s Center for
Applied Research (ECAR) has conducted a large scale study of the technology use, ownership, interest, and
academic application among college students. Their 2011 study consisted of 3,000 undergraduate students. Their
results found that 87% of students owned a laptop, 81% owned a printer and 70% owned a USB thumb drive. The
study goes on to find that students have a clear preference for small, mobile devises that fit in a pocket or backpack.
Mobile technology that can be taken everywhere with them is something the majority of students prefer.
When the EDUCAUSE study looked into the major academic benefits of technology they found that for
students, technology is mostly about access and efficiency. They discovered that 53% of participants found that
technology gave them access to resources and their progress and 44% of participants used technology to make them
more productive. The study also revealed that 35% of the participating students utilized technology to help them
feel more connected to their learning ie: other students, professors, staff, etc. Technology also aided in making
learning engaging and relevant for 33% of the participating students.
This is a large scope study with more interesting information than can be discussed in this paper. However,
in conclusion to this report, the researchers go on to point out the many technological options students in higher
education of employing in their academic and everyday lives. So the question we asked for this study is not if
students are using technology in higher education, but how they would prefer for professors and instructors to
communicate and connect with them via technology or traditional means.
The Study
Participants for this study came from the undergraduate student body at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham and Southern Connecticut State University. Students were asked to participate on a voluntary basis
with no reward via grade, prize, or incentive. Recruitment focused on the College of Arts and Sciences and the
School of Education undergraduate students at both universities. No student, 19 years of age or older was turned
away from completing the survey. Participants had to be at least 19 years of age or older to participate in this
research survey. Participants from the University of Alabama at Birmingham volunteered from an undergraduate
student population that consists of 58% females and 42% males. When reported by race the population includes:
62% White, 27% Black/African American, 4% Asian, 4% Unknown Race, 2% Non-Resident Alien, and 1% Two or
More Races. Participants were contacted via their school email account and provided with the needed information
and link to the survey.
This study is currently ongoing. An online survey program has been used to collect data. Data will be
concatenated and subsequently analyzed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a
computer program designed specifically for managing quantitative research that enables the researchers to manage
multiple variables and cases to analyze the numbers. Data will be separated by gender, race/ethnicity, and grades as
subgroups, and the data will be computed using means, percentages for each item generating the profile for the
research. Frequency distribution of responses on every item will be used to compare numbers and percentages used
in a listing arranged from most frequent to the least frequent responses in each three categories. ANOVA will be
used to compute and compare the means of the three subgroups for the communicating behavior on digital natives in
teacher education. The detailed results of our study survey will be available at our poster presentation.
Conclusions
The conclusions from this study will better equip educators, administrators, and instructional designers in
the push to effectively and efficiently communicate with the digital natives we find in our higher education learning
environments. The results of this study may provide another small brick in the bridge that is needed to connect the
gap between the digital immigrant educator and the digital native learner. By determining how students choose to
communicate and connect with their professors we can better prepare our classes to meet not only the learners’
needs but also their preferences and thus possibly impacting student retention and engagement.
References
Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P., and Vockley, M. (2011). ECAR National study of undergraduate students
and information technology. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf Retrieved
January 2012
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Retrieved January 2012.