The+use+of+Social+Tools+by+Digital+Natives+and+Digital+Immigrants

Systematic data analysis 1. WHY are you examining the data? //To determine whether digital natives are moving beyond entrenched technologies to emerging technologies and digital immigrants use entrenched technologies (computer, e-mail, cell, text) and emerging technologies (social media, online discussions) at different frequencies. This may reflect a difference in comfort levels with the two levels of technology. use social media to engage in social interactions in different ways. and a difference in preferences for type of tool, types of use, amount of use. In may then be possible to make inferences on how to better engage both groups using social media in the online classroom.// 2. WHO does each data table/row refer to? 3. WHAT are the variables? Independent variables are age, gender, employment status. Dependent variables are How does the use of Internet social tools vary between the digital native and the digital immigrant? Are there variations beyond this age definition? Such as; is there a variation in type of tool, purpose for use, and frequency-of-use of social tools between working-age adults and retirement-age adults? Is there a variation between decade age-ranges?
 * Hypothesis question:**

There is no difference in the way that digital natives and digital immigrants use Internet social tools; including the type of tool, the reason for using a tool, the frequency of use. There is no impact on the use of social tools, if an adult is of working age or of retirement age. Lastly, there is no change based on decade age ranges or gender. (Gender variations???)
 * Null hypothesis:**

Hypothesis: The digital native, millenial, or net generation grew up with access to computers and the Internet and is therefore inherently technology-savvy. Nul hypothesis: The digital native, millenial, or net generation grew up with access to computers and the Internet; despite this there is no difference in their technology-savvy as compared to other age groups.

Variables that impact the hypothesis questions: Value: 18 - 97 (skew to the right d/t range not including children) Level of measurement: scale
 * Independent –**
 * Age**

I created three additional Independent variables: Digital natives and Digital Immigrants Digital natives, digital immigrants, digital “retirees” Age by decade (ages broken into 10 year ranges) Level of measurement: ordinal Eliminate respondents who refused to state age (2.1% Value: nominal 1=male, 2=female Level of measurement: nominal
 * Gender**

Level of social activity (Q4a-n, Q7a-n) hours/week of social activity (Q14), impact of internet on social activity of group (Q16), (Q17e-j) Participation in social activities on Internet (24a-g, 25, 26, 28), (35a-g) General use of Internet (18a) Visit a website (34c) Use of e-mail (18b)(34b)(34d)text(34i) E-mail from home (19a) E-mail from work (19b) Laptop connectivity (22a-b)(MODEMA) Cell phone for social use (23a-d) Social networking tools: Facebook, etc. (ACT87a) (34e-f) Twitter (ACT112a)(34g-h) Discussion (34a)
 * Dependent –**

computer = 18a, 34c, 34a email = 34b, 34d, 29, 30 email frequency = 19a, 19b (these two have 6 choice likert scale??) cell phone & text = 34i, 18b, 23a, 23b, 23c online discussion
 * Entrenched technologies variable: a new continuous variable will be generated from these Yes/No/Don't know/Refused questions**

ACT87a, 34e, 34f, 344a, ACT 112a, 34g, 34h (new continuous variable will be a continuous 0 - 7 scale)
 * Emerging technologies variable: a new continuous variable will be generated from these questions**

No missing data was found. Eliminate 49 of the respondents (2.1% of the data set) refused to give their age, so their data is eliminated **listwise.** In 2006 the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that more than 73% of adults in the US use the Internet. Online higher education courses are taking on a growing role in educational delivery. Allen and Seaman (2005) found that 2.3 million students attended an online course in 2004 and the growth is tracking at 18% each year. A concern in colleges and universities that offer online instruction is how to best serve adult students with a mix of online experiences and attitudes who aspire to learn via distance. The net generation, also referred to as Y-generation or digital native, make up a component of the mix of adult students entering college. The most accepted age identity in the literature for a "digital native" (the term that this study will embrace) is anyone born since 1980. The digital native has grown up in a lifestyle that includes personal, digital, and mobile technologies (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). Digital immigrants conversely have experienced a transition or evolution of technology during their adult life experience. Prenski (2001a) coined the term "digital native", and in his studies he concluded that the digital native would bring consistent technology skills to the online classroom. Since that time there has been a larger body of research that is indicating otherwise.
 * Data check:**
 * Literature Review**
 * Digital Natives, Immigrants, Retirees**

This study examines individuals who fall into the digital native age range (n = 365 ; 16.2% of adults revealing their age) to determine whether they incorporate new technologies into their social activities at a more significant frequency than digital immigrants and contrasts their online interests and behaviors with those of the "Digital Immigrant" (n= 1685; 74.8% of adults). For further enlightenment an additional age range was identified. Digital immigrants may have additional impetus to embrace new technologies because of workplace training and demands for integration. Adults who entered retirement age at the time of the technology explosion may have had another technology experience than the digital immigrant. Therefore this age group (n = 204; 9.1%) is also evaluated for technology use. Adults born after 1930 would have been retirement age by 1990. This study will uniquely coin the phrase "Digital Retiree" to explore the use of technology of this age group in contrast to digital natives and digital immigrants. Kennedy, et al (2008) studied more than 2000 first-year university students. The study was restricted to students born after 1980 (n = 1973; 25.3% of first year students). The australian digital natives were surveyed about their access, use, and preferences in different types of technology. Kennedy, et al's findings support previous studies that have found a core set of technology skills, however beyond those there is a diverse range of skills. More importantly those skills do not translate into general information literacy or computer literacy that would add benefit to the pedagogical environment. This study will attempt to show a parallel pattern in the general population of digital natives surveyed in a Pew Study (2010) for social tools and technology use. Kennedy, et al established that there is a core preference of tools and technology that is uniform among digital natives. These include; computers, mobile phones for calling and texting, and Internet use for emailing, instant messaging (IM), and information gathering. These will be referred to in this study as "entrenched technologies". Emerging technologies, though the use and preference among the digital natives is diverse of emerging technologies, it does indicate that they are using these tools that include blogs, mobile digital photography, social networking tools, web conferencing, digital file sharing. Students now use the Internet as their primary source for knowledge acquisition, social networking, and entertainment (Jones, 2002). An important feature of effective adult pedagogy is the collaborative and distributed process of student academic communities. Social networks are an important tool in creating a collaborative community and collaborative workspace for students learning 21st century skills.
 * Technology definitions**