Debunking the
“digital native”:
beyond digital
apartheid,
towards digital
democracy
Cheryl Brown
Laura Czerniewicz
Why this issue?
 Much discussion about age/ generational
aspects of young people today
 Lots of different labels being used
 Net Generation, “digital Natives” Generation Y,
Generation C
 Whatever the terminology the argument is that
this impacts on various aspects of their life
specifically
 That higher education needs to change in
response to this
South African students
 South African universities are dominated by
the millennials BUT there is a wide age range
 54 % of students are under 22 years old
Age
Total (n)
%
< 22 yrs
252837
54%
23-25 yrs
74080
16%
26 -29 yrs
19690
4%
30-34 yrs
42818
9%
35 plus
80723
17%
This paper
 Examine discourse around the “digital native”
 Is this a term we would like to use?
 Is there evidence to support/ reject concept in our
context
 Is age a determining factor in being a “digital native”?
 Are our entire generation of university students “digital
natives”?
 Is the situation getting better or worse?
 Possible opportunities for democracy
The term
“Digital native”
 Problematic concept/ offensive term
 Could give young people false impressions of their
ability
 consequences in how they manage negative/ risky online
situations (Helsper 2008)
 The “native” as the future and in command & the
“immigrant” as old, the past and obsolete (Bayne and
Ross 2007)
 In SA context synonymous with colonialism,
apartheid, domination
and it gets worse … “Digital wisdom”
 Prensky’s new term “homo sapien digitalensis”
 Imbued with digital wisdom because digital
technology not only makes humans smarted but wiser
 Evolutionary metaphor
 reinforces connotation of backwardness and progress
 Natural selection and extinction
 And a future for those who have evolved
 The positioning of some students as better than
other evokes a digital digerati – a cyber elite
Empirically
supported?
Our project
 A research project on ICT access and use for
teaching and learning in SA higher education
 Two surveys of 10 110 students in total
 2004 - 6 universities in Western Cape
 2007 - 6 universities in other parts of South Africa
 mixed-method approach
 quantitative analysis of 58 question survey
 qualitative analysis of the questionnaire’s open-ended
questions
 Student interviews (f2f and phone)
… our project
 2008 survey of 4226 users of LMS at UCT
 Abbreviated 2009 survey of 466 students at 4
diverse universities, followed by 80 phone
interviews
 Drawing on a range of studies spread over time
and space
 not longitudinal or directly comparable
 however they do all focus on the South African
university student and as such are describing and
interpreting the experiences of a specific group
Age a determining
factor?
Our study: ICT experience of millennials
Level of ICT experience of under 22 year olds
30%
26%
20%
19%
17%
16%
10%
14%
7%
0%
< 2 years ago
2-4 years ago
4-6 years ago 6-10 years ago 10-15 years ago >15 years ago
Continuum
Range of experience within age groupings
50%
43%
42%
38%
40%
31%
30%
26%
30%
31%
28%
32%
less than 4 years
4-10
>10
20%
10%
0%
<22
22-25
26-42
Conclusion?
 Not about age, experience is important
 Students born into millennial generation cannot
be assumed to have grown up digital
 homogeneity cannot be assumed in terms of
computer experience
 There are students with low, medium and high levels
of computer experience in all age groupings
A whole
generation?
The“digital native”
 Based on the Prensky’s notion of digital native
as being




A person from the millennial generation
A person who has grown up with digital technology
One who comes to university familiar with computers;
Is purported to learn to use computers informally either teaching themselves or through social networks
such as family and friends - rather than needing to be
taught.
Defining the “digital native” in our data
 Grown up using computers > 10 yrs experience
 Learnt to use a computer by teaching
themselves or through social networks ie family
and friends
 Able to solve ICT problems themselves or by
drawing on supportive social networks
 In 2007 this applied to only 11% - 375 students
Not a generation but an ELITE
About this group




Even gender mix
From high to average socio economic groups
Mostly speak English or Afrikaans speaking (74%)
Have excellent off-campus access at home often
 multiple forms of off-campus access (inlc .portable)
 high practical access
 Are confident of their own abilities
 81% rate their ICTs skills as good or excellent
 Have high social use of ICTs
 Are usually doing courses in science, engineering or
health sciences
Conclusions?
In South Africa digital natives are not a
generation but an elite.
So what about the rest of the students?
Deepening divides
the “digital stranger”
 not just a matter of “natives” or “immigrants”
 there is a significant group of the millennial generation
students who lack experience and opportunity to use
ICTs
 In 2007 (22% - 734 individuals)
 Not had access to a computer before they attended university
 Had less than 2 year experience using a computer
 Relied on formal channels to acquire this knowledge
 Such polarisation indicates that the “the digital natives
and the “digital stranger” are on opposite sides of a
worsening digital divide.
About this group
 More women than men
 Largely South African (95%) with 80% speaking an
African language as a home language.
 90% have no access to ICTs off campus
 Those with off-campus access have very low practical
access
 Low self confidence
Cont …
 Mostly doing business degrees
 Very low social use of ICTs
 Mostly learn in formal structured ways
 Learnt to use ICTs through community training course ss
 The dominant way of acquiring ICT knowledge is through
university training courses; rely strongly on University support
staff for help with ICTs problems
Not unique although largely ignored
 Other studies (eg Helsper in UK) have shown
that people who suffer social disadvantage are
more likely to be disengaged from ICTs
An example: Socio Economic Group
Conclusions?
 If we use these dualistic distinctions we see a
marked gap between “natives” and “strangers”
 Some have called this a dilemma of justice
(Broekman, Enslin et al 2002)
Digital democracy
Cell phones and our students
◦ Ownership is ubiquitous
◦ Ownership is not socially differentiated
◦ Main means of access to Internet off campus for
students from low SEGs
wireless, 24
satellite, 25
cell phone,
191
Type of internet access for low SEG students
Dial up, 68
Broadband,
84
Another case
 A survey of low-income black South African
youth at an urban township (Kreutzer 2009)
 The majority (83%) of the poor young urban South
Africans access the Internet via their phone on a
typical day
 About half of all an individual’s expenses spent on
cell phones
Sample of youth, average age of 17 years
Should we be surprised?
 No, because…..
 South Africa has the third largest mobile internet using
population in the world
 South Africa ranks 6th in the global Top 10 for mobile
internet usage,
 ahead of both the US (7th) and the UK (9th)
 Mobile internet in South Africa is among the least
expensive in the entire world; traditional desktop
access is still among the most expensive
What about mobiles and learning?
60%
50%
40%
40%
37%
35%
No cell phone use
23%
20%
< 40% cell phone use
> 40% cell phone use
15%
0%
"Digital Native"
"Digital Stranger"
% of cell phone time spent for academic purposes
Cell phones and learning: some examples
I use my phone…, especially for accounting, because he's [the
lecturer] very fast. He explains so fast. So I just record
sometimes when I feel that I'm tired.. my brain cannot
concentrate anymore.. I just record. And then I'll come and
listen later.
You can communicate with fellow students and get instant help
with projects and assignments. You can access it [the LMS]
anywhere (even from your cell phone).
You can use your phone via google. Maybe I don't have time for a
computer. Or maybe it's late, and the assignment must be
submitted. Then I use my phone
Cell phones and “digital natives”
 In 2008 UCT students who are active users of
Vula reported
 72% using their cell phones for academic only or
academic and personal use
 6.8 percent (290 students) access the Vula on their
cell phones/PDAs/mobile devices
 They said
 They want better access to Vula via their cell phone,
 They would make more use of the Vula if they could
access it (at all and/or easier) from their cell phones
Cell phones and “digital strangers”
 Cluster from 2009 survey (inclu UCT students)
 A group of 159 students who are
 failing computer literacy assessment
 have fewer than 4 years experience using ICTs
 low reported use of computer-based technologies
 58% never or hardly every use email
 71% never or hardly ever use the internet for social purposes
 Poor access to computers
 52% no access to computers off campus
 32% access through a public facility or through a third party
Yet
 All of this cluster have cell phones
 72% report using texting (sms) often
 34% report using chat often (Mxit)
 Over a third (38%) use their cell phones as their
only form of computer off campus
 Half of these are using their cell phone to
access the internet (n=54)
Redefining the “digital” and the “native”
 Digital presently implies




Computers (a specific object)
Fixed
Have or have-not
On/ off
 Native implies
 Non-native (stranger)
 Better (digital digerati)
 Concepts out of date, excluding & inaccurate?
Thinking differently
 Digital - beyond computers
 Digital artefacts are being “reconfigured”
 Unexpected /unintended uses
 Access is increasingly being determined by
connectivity not by location
 Learning is being reconstituted as students use
cell phones for access and use in unanticipated
ways
Thinking differently
 Reclaiming the digitizen
 All students live in a digitally mediated world
 All students have a digital “identity” and set of
practices
 All students are digital citizens
 Acknowledge the full spectrum of digital
capabilities
 All have a set of capabilities in varied configurations
 New technological habitus
Conclusion




South Africa still grappling with social exclusion
Link between social and digital exclusion
Small minority of digital natives
Until now educators faced with a “dilemma of
justice” simultaneously supporting students’
participation in new global practices without
further marginalising previously disadvantaged
 Mobiles offer an unprecedented opportunity
Conclusion
 Design for increased diversity and new practices
 Design for multiple devices and practices
 Mobile not secondary device
 Leverage the affordances of mobility
 Leverage contemporary literacies, and emergent
cell phone-mediated practices in ways which
strengthen teaching and learning