Mark Bullen published on his website a new paper on his website. In the second phase of the Digital Learners in Higher Education project they uncovered some important insights into how learners in higher education are thinking about and using digital technologies for social and academic purposes and how they separate and integrate their uses. The paper is submitted for review, but Mark Bullen already published it online to share the insights.

I think the 3 profiles of students using technology are quite interesting indeed:

Instrumental users (or tool limited, tool specific users) generally used only one or two technology tools, or only one or two functions of a tool. In other words, instrumental users mediated their activity using limited technology resources (tools), or used a technology towards a specific activity or more narrowly defined object (eg., Gaming vs. connecting with others).

Separators consciously or unconsciously separated their academic and social practices. In activity theory terms, the social and academic lives remain as separate activity systems, where boundary crossing is avoided. While the same tools may be part of both systems, for the most part the community and rules mediate the activities differently and therefore these shared tools do not function as boundary objects.

Integrators have overlapping social and academic practices both in the types of tools they use and their practices. In other words, there is evidence of boundary objects and boundary crossing that have been negotiated by the subject. 

And also a not so unimportant paragraph:

“One of the most surprising findings to emerge out of the data from BCIT is that none of the students challenged the dominant academic paradigm. In fact, several students talked about the importance of paying attention in lectures, of limiting distractions, and of the value of notetaking by hand.”

Abstract of the research that can be downloaded here:

The digital natives discourse that suggests today’s learners are becoming impatient with traditional modes of teaching because they have grown up digitally has potentially significant implications for higher education. This discourse implies that younger learners are not only eager to use ICTs for learning but have the technological and learning skills to thrive in eLearning environments. However, our research and research conducted in six different countries and at a range of different institutions, has shown that the key claims of the digital natives discourse are not grounded in the reality of most of today’s learners and that instead of focusing on the mythical “digital native”, we should focus on the digital learner. This chapter reports on the latest findings of the international research project, Digital Learners in Higher Education and discussion the implication for teaching, learning and technology.

This article reports on a study that used third generation Activity Theory as a framework to investigate how postsecondary students think about and use digital technologies in their social and academic lives. The results confirm the fallacy of the digital native stereotype but go further by uncovering important insights into how students at one institution can have quite different approaches to the use of digital technologies and different use profiles. We identified three dynamic and evolving use profiles: instrumental, separator and integrator. The aggregation of these profiles provides a starting point for understanding the nuances of digital learners in higher education.