The Digital Divide an Age Old Question?

Over the last decade many educational establishments especially further educational colleges have witnessed an unprecedented transformation from traditional library structures toward what are now enthusiastically referred to as Learning Resources Centres which accommodate a wide range of users who expect; indeed demand varied and innovative teaching and learning stimuli. However, this transformation from traditional methods to an active socio-innovation is not without its difficulties, teaching staff have often been heard making comments which appear to suggest little surprise with the so-called 'digital divide' between age defined user groups.

Why is this so? What is the disparity? The common belief is that the digital divide is an age related issue and the mere passage of time would naturally close the split. We suggest that the digital divide is not primarily defined just by ages or when you were born as put forward by Prensky, (2001) we suggest that the influence on the digital divide is significantly more socio-economic, demographic and rather more behavioural and habitual in terms of technology usage, profiles and characteristics, we believe that this separation is further compounded by pedagogically flawed delivery mechanisms. For the purpose of this study we have classified users as digital natives (always on) and digital immigrants (on demand); terms first identified by Marc Prensky (2001a, 2001b) natives are young people born after 1982 that have grown up with technology to such an extent that it has become integrated into their lives, immigrants on the other hand were not born into the technological age but have embraced it even under duress. Prensky suggests that this divide and disparity between natives and immigrants is the 'biggest single problem facing education today''.

This paper aims to provide a perspective from a further educational aspect and suggests that the characteristics of natives and immigrants does in fact add a further layer to the digital divide therefore, we have adapted Rogers (1960) Technology Curve to pinpoint characteristics of digital natives and immigrants in the use of technology and social software. This is a work in progress where we aim to propose a robust theoretical framework that has potential for further investigation and research.

Keywords:
Further Education, Immigrants, Natives, Diffusion, Innovation, Chasm, Technology, Profiles, Characteristics.

Review of the Literature:

Behaviour
Tapscott (2008) believes that "Net Geners" are the "smartest generation ever" and insists that video games, Face book and the constant text messaging hasn't robbed today's young of the ability to think. The experience of parents who grew up watching television is misleading when it comes to judging the 20,000 hours on the internet and 10,000 hours playing video games already spent by a typical 20-year-old American today. "The Net Generation is in many ways the antithesis of the TV generation," he argues. One-way broadcasting via television created passive couch potatoes, whereas the net is interactive, and, he says, stimulates and improves the brain. There is growing neuroscientific support for this claim. People who play video games, for example, have been found to process complex visual information more quickly. They may also be better at multi-tasking than earlier generations, which equips them better for the modern world. Although neuroscience has shown there are fundamental critical periods of development, but like the rest, including acquisition of skills in technology have no such critical periods. Prensky likes to include technology literacy as one of those fundamental critical developments, even though there is no research evidence to support it. More recent discoveries in neuroscience have shown the importance of natural patterns of time (sleep) to all education. These discoveries have important implications for all in education, there have been trials based on 8 minute lessons that speed up and reinforce stronger neural pathways. Tree (2008) reveals some interesting facts about changes of behaviour and adolescence in the brains of young people, the research suggests that rather than battling against adolescent behaviour why not reschedule educational learning around the effects of this synaptic pruning.

Kennedy et al. (2008) surveyed 2000 first year undergraduates in Australia born after 1980 (natives). The results illustrated that most respondents were enthusiastic users of technology, but by no means all. Most (85%) had used the web for study purposes, but only a quarter of respondents had used social networking. Over 93% wanted to use the web to assist with their studies, almost 75% to use instant messaging to assist with their studies, and over 84% to use the web for administration in relation to their courses. Kennedy et al. (2008) concluded that the results revealed a lack of homogeneity and a 'digital divide' even within the first year population. They suggested that a key aspect of the digital native is the ordinariness to them of the multi-tasking, socially networked, permanently connected, media rich environment that they inhabit: as Green and Hannon (2007, p. 16) found: 'young people we spoke to did not find questions around their consumption of digital technologies interesting. Using them was completely ingrained in their lives, and they did so simply to make their lives easier.'

Pedagogy
A recent research report published by Becta (2007) indicates that the pedagogical approach most commonly adopted by education is unlikely to encourage the range of competencies increasingly demanded by employers and the economy more generally. The traditional educational system is evolutionary not the revolutionary pedagogy we all expected therefore, it is unlikely to transform itself any time soon into the collaborative learner-centred paradigm that the radical change in culture, society and technology require.

Prensky (2001) concurs and believes that today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach and the single biggest problem facing education today is that our 'digital immigrant' teachers speak an out dated language (that of a pre-digital age), and are therefore struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language however, again there is limited empirical evidence to support these statements. Prensky also suggests that digital natives are not just another generational change rather they have absorbed technology to such an extent that it has changed the way these natives acquire information indeed how they think and learn again there is no evidence in support of this claim. According to a recent MORI study (2007) 91 % of students questioned use social sites regularly this figure increases in use as the digital natives find themselves with more demanding and complex educational situations. Although recent data on Facebook indicates that the fastest growing demographic is with women aged over 55 up some 175% over a 120 day period. Quiet a change from its roots as a student social networking tool although further research regarding demographics would be useful. It is usual to find young people learning from their peers, is there now a reversal? Are parents now learning and being influenced by the younger generation?

Green and Hannon (2007) imply that the current generation of young people (digital natives) will reinvent the workplace and consequently the society we all live within and they will use technological tools to impact this change. Although they do concede that this digital generation will not be the first or last to change society.

Barnes and Tynan (2007) suggest that students are dissatisfied with teacher-centred pedagogies and that they have already stepped across the digital divide. The indication is that traditional teaching methods prevail and teachers have traditionally progressed from the experience of learning in the classroom to teaching in the classroom. O'Malley et al (2005) argues that when technology is used in the educational arena it is predominantly within a didactic, teacher-centred paradigm and the teaching reverts back to established pedagogies whilst educators come to terms with these new technologies, referred to by Mioduser et al (1999) as "one step forward for the technology, two steps back for the pedagogy".

The above research literature suggests that educational theory has for the last century been based around the didactic methods of traditionalist behaviourism where the students are the passive receivers of static knowledge this theory of learning is incapable of a transition to a digital learning world. Although studies from Baumgartner (2005), Kolb (1984), Mayer(1998), and Laurillard (2008) advocate cognitivism and socio-constructivism in providing a base line paradigm for digital learning.
Although, the traditional behaviourist paradigm can 'fit' the technological e-learning model, whereby the technology replaces the tutor led experience and the learning material delivered to the student provides the knowledge, stimuli and reinforcement. It could be argued therefore that learning takes place through transmission of information from the tutor (the computer) to the student.

In support of the traditional methods of learning Brabazon (2007) alleges that just because something has made it onto Wikipedia or Google does not make it true and the reason that scholarly articles are trusted is because they have been refereed and checked by experts moreover, Google has flattened expertise, created confusion between finding information and possessing the literacy to evaluate and judge information. The concern is that in the confusion between finding information and building knowledge, we lose not only analogue objects and artefacts, but analogue ways of thinking and that the digital way of thinking has a cost.

The digital world is not without its problems Crie (2004) asks us to consider the issues of safety, privacy and freedom of information, and not all digital natives want to engage with social technologies. There is a very real 'cut and paste' society of students that have issues with study skills, copyright, plagiarism and the evaluation of information without the traditional librarians and learning advisors (digital immigrants) to assist them in these life skills the information could become irrelevant and again learning and thinking will not have taken place it will be merely an action of the Google generation. Clearly there are concerns proposed by students, researchers and practitioners regarding informal and formal learning methods, it is implied that they are outdated and are separated by generational gaps.

Diffusion Curve
We considered technology innovations as specific domains of interest comparing the concept with the basic characteristics of digital natives and immigrants. The modifications are based on Rogers's Technology Curve which has been adapted for the purposes of this study to provide a proposed conceptual framework for identifying acceptance of technologies from two defined user groups (natives and immigrants).

This is very much a work in progress, and methods are being considered to validate the theories. Firstly, we aim to offer a 'mapped' profile of digital users and their innovational adoption of technology. Secondly, to offer more appropriate methods of integrating technology in further education and influencing 'change' within teaching and learning derived from user profiling.

Conclusion
I was born pre 1980 and am therefore according to Prensky defined as a digital immigrant with one foot still firmly embedded in the past although, I embrace technology as a digital native if not more so? Where do I and others like me belong? Are we outcast, technological refugees? Not worthy of either definition? I would argue then that when you were born is irrelevant in the context of technology usage; rather it is a case of behaviour and habit and the physiological 'readiness' of the brain to accept certain stimuli. With that in mind does the difference between digital natives and immigrants rest solely with technology adoption? If we look at Roger's Technology Curve it may be accurate to assume that once the technology has been accepted by the majority will there be any discernable or predictable differences between digital natives and immigrants.

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AN AGE OLD QUESTION? PART 2

Do long term trends and change cycles exist in the constant change, what patterns are emerging, should further education and educationalists respond? AACE (2009).

Re-examination

Rogers (1962) defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.

"The digital divide an age old question?" part 1 proposed an adaptation to Rogers Diffusion of Innovation theory primarily to suggest updated profiles and characteristics of digital natives and immigrants and their adoption criteria for technology and secondly, to develop a theoretical framework for the successful implementation of both social and technological innovations within the further educational sector.

For the purpose of this pilot study mobile ubiquitous technologies (mobile phones, social networks, PDAs, etc) have been applied as the pilot innovation and ownership percentages as the key driver (curve A). In order to evaluate the impact of acceptance and diffusion in further education and subsequently, transpose the results onto a segmented diffusion curve (B) from the context of digital natives and digital immigrants.

NB The social system under study is social media and emerging technologies used by further educational participants.

Research Questions to be answered
1.
Are socio-economics and demographics influencing factors in technology adoption?
2.
Is education pedagogically flawed and therefore, technologically driven?
3.
Does the psychological and social profile of digital natives and immigrants add a further layer to the divide?

Conceptual Theory

Research by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta 2008-2011) suggests that further education has at times been slow to adopt technology in comparison to schools, currently there are only 25% of further educational colleges 'e-enabled' and approximately 50% are developing their capacity and capability. However, there are 25% which are ambivalent or late adopters.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to propose a robust theoretical framework for technology adoption in further education by using Rogers (2003) diffusion of innovation curve labelled (A) 'technology ownership' which will in turn trigger a further curve labelled (B) 'educational adoption lifecycle'

Figure 1-Template

Firstly, the results from the pilot questionnaire with regard to technology ownership were transposed onto an 'S' curve (figure 2) with a corresponding diffusion curve (A) for frequency distribution. Results collected at or above the 16% diffusion threshold indicated by Rogers as the point when diffusion starts to take off would in turn 'trigger' an additional diffusion curve (B) which identifies the stages required for an educational lifecycle and subsequent diffusion of technology with the further educational organisation.(figure 2).

NB consideration must be afforded to Moore's Chasm theory at the 16% threshold.

Figure 2

Curve B uses the communication channels (figure 3) and characteristics from Rogers (1964):
1.
Knowledge (2.5%)
2.
Persuasion (13.5%) (16% diffusion within the organisation)
3.
Decision-evaluation (34%)
4.
Implementation-Pilot/Trial (34%)
5.
Confirmation-development/growth (16%)

Figure 3

Rogers (1983) suggested that each adopter category (innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority and laggards) must work through the communication channels identified above in order to arrive at a decision to adopt or reject an innovation. Which is defined by Rogers as "the process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward an innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject the innovation, to implementation of this new idea, to confirmation of this decision.

Considering the Chasm

Moore (2002) adds a further layer to Rogers Diffusion of Innovation theory and suggests 'gaps' between each of the identified segments in the Technology Adoption Life Cycle. The most significant gap (chasm) is situated between the early adopters and the early majority. Moore attributes this to early adopters who stay ahead of the competition by purchasing innovations that nobody else is using whereas the early majority want reliable and tested innovations that have been used by lots of people. If an innovation 'sits' within the chasm then according to Moore these innovations may be destined to remain in a state of flux with a small scale adoption and may eventually fall by the way side.

The chasm between the early adopters and the early majority is the most significant according to Moore and the expectations of each group are decidedly different. Early adopters are referred to as the change agent with characteristics that empower the need to revolutionise and transform whereas the early majority want stable evolutionary products.

Clearly, the chasm identified by Moore is significant in terms of the adoptions of technologies by particular social groups, Moore identifies the following 6 'stages' of development, target market, whole product concept, positioning, marketing strategy, distribution and finally pricing which if implemented successfully can bridge this chasm and empower the successful fruition of the innovation.

The conceptual theory proposed by this paper accepts the chasm as a genuine entity and therefore recommends that the stages identified by Moore are considered when determining technology ownership at the point where diffusion starts to take off in curve A (16%) as this point is crucial for the acceptance of an innovation and its subsequent 'trigger' for curve B using Rogers communication channels.

By way of an example if we examine the latest version of Microsoft Office 2007 as an innovation we can accept the premise that this upgrade has experienced some significant changes from its predecessor Office 2003 the most noticeable changes are to the menus associated with graphical user interface (GUI). We will assume that the innovation has been purchased by the innovators (2.5%) and has been adopted by the early majority (13.5%) who Moore defines as a group that wants to revolutionise and make significant changes within their organisations as the product is now widely available for purchase.

The question remains however, as to whether the innovation in question has yet to 'cross' the chasm to the early majority stage where it will be accepted as a 'continuous evolutionary innovation'. Is this upgraded product to much of a revolution for the early majority to accept at present? Is more time required for adoption? At present there are only a small minority of further educational institutions that have migrated to Microsoft Office 2007 due to the significant changes and the considerable impact that these changes would have on staff developed teaching resources.

Digital exclusion

A research report by FreshMinds (2007) offers the following empirically evidenced findings:

1.
Despite developments in technology the uptake of ICT has largely plateaued.
2.
Access to ICT is not enough - a proportion of non-users of the internet reside in connected households.
3.
There is a demonstrable correlation between social and digital exclusion.
4.
Digital exclusion is unlikely to be adequately addressed in isolation from other policy areas.
5.
A significant proportion of the digitally excluded is at risk of deepening its exclusion.
6.
Penetration by market forces is unlikely to eliminate digital exclusion.
7.
Digital exclusion is also unlikely to be disappear over time through by demographic developments.
8.
Extending digital inclusion can have tangible beneficial impact for national productivity and GDP (Gross Domestic Product).
9.
All sectors (public, private and the Third sector) must work together to address digital exclusion.
10.
The current focus of private sector organisations is on easy-to-reach groups, while the government policy in this area is spread across several departments. At the same time the leverage of charitable organisations working in this area is limited without additional recognition, funding and support.
11.
A starting point could be to urge the major players to publish their contributions to alleviate digital exclusion. This could serve as a platform for developing a coordinated and measurable action plan for tackling the challenges of digital exclusion.

Psychological and Social Profiles

The existence of a generation of 'digital natives' is based on two main assumptions:

1. The digital native generation possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information communication technologies.
2. As a result of their upbringing and experiences with technology, digital natives have particular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of students. In the seminal literature on digital natives these assertions are put forward with limited empirical evidence Tapscott, (1998) or supported by anecdotes and appeals to common-sense beliefs Prensky, (2001a). Furthermore, this literature has been referenced, often uncritically, in a host of later publications Gaston, (2006); Gros, (2003); Long, (2005); McHale; (2005); Skiba, (2005). There is, however, an emerging body of research that is beginning to reveal some of the complexity of young people's computer use and skills.

Nevertheless it is pronounced that digital natives prefer receiving information quickly and are adept at processing information rapidly they prefer multi-tasking and non-linear access to information; have a low tolerance for lectures; prefer active rather than passive learning, and rely heavily on communications technologies to access information and to carry out social and professional interactions Prensky (2001a, 2001b); Oblinger, (2003); Gros, (2003); Frand, (2000). However, according to Rubinstein, Meyer & Evans, (2001) and Sweller, (1988) multi-tasking may not be as beneficial as it appears and can result in a loss of concentration and cognitive 'overload' as the brain shifts between competing stimuli.

Socio-economics and demographics

Large scale surveys of teenagers' and children's use of the Internet Lenhart, Madden & Hitlin, (2005); Livingstone & Bober, (2004) reveal high levels of online activity by many school-aged children, particularly for helping with homework and for social communication. The results also suggest that the frequency and nature of children's Internet use differs between age groups and socio-economic background. For instance, Internet use by teenagers is far from uniform and depends on the contexts of use, with widely varying experiences according to children's school and home backgrounds Lee, (2005). This is further supported by recent research showing family dynamics and the level of domestic affluence to be significant factors influencing the nature of children's home computer use Downes, (2002). These findings suggest that technology skills and experience are far from universal amongst young people.

Some of this research Kennedy et al., (2006); Kvavik et al. (2005) has identified potential differences related to socioeconomic status, cultural/ethnic background, gender and discipline specialisation, but these are yet to be comprehensively investigated. Also not yet explored is the relationship between technology access, use and skill, and the attitudinal characteristics and dispositions commonly ascribed to the digital native generation. The research evidence to date indicates that a proportion of young people are highly adept with technology and rely on it for a range of information gathering and communication activities. However, there also appears to be a significant proportion of young people who do not have the
levels of access or technology skills predicted by proponents of the digital native idea. Such generalisations about a whole generation of young people thereby focus attention on technically adept students. With this comes the danger that those less interested and less able will be neglected and that the potential impact of socioeconomic and cultural factors will be overlooked. It may be that there is as much
variation within the digital native generation as between the generations.

The concentration of digital exclusion among older age groups is sometimes taken to imply that digital exclusion will be eliminated in years to come with demographic change. To an extent this is true: many of the most excluded people will not be alive in 10 or 20 years' time, leaving behind younger people who are more likely to be digitally included. However, there are two reasons why this demographic effect on digital inclusion is likely to be slower than is often expected:
• Increasing longevity is leading to a lower rate of demographic change. In the next 10 or 20 years, there will be fewer younger people and more older people.
• There are significant numbers of excluded people even among younger age groups: 11% of the 16-24 age group are non-users of the internet, most of them in unconnected households (ONS 2006a).
• Age is not the only significant determinant of digital exclusion.

Flawed Pedagogy or moral panic?
Prensky (2001a) not only pointed to the supposed natural technological affinity and literacy of the Digital Natives, he also expressed concern at an apparent lack of technological literacy among educators. He labelled lecturers in higher education 'Digital Immigrants'; foreigners in the digital lands of the Net Generation. The preferences and skills that characterise the Digital Natives were said to be incompatible with the current teaching practices of the Immigrants. Prensky and other commentators Oblinger, (2003); Frand, (2000) suggest that because of this disparity educators need to adjust their pedagogical models to suit the new kind of learner they are encountering in this new generation of students. Not surprisingly, this argument has gained widespread attention in higher education circles for example Doherty, (2005); Rodley, (2005). However, according to Bennett et al (2008) and Kennedy et al (2008) the comments offered by Prensky et al are again anecdotal at best and lack empirical evidence and they call for further research and critical evaluation in order for educationalists and policy makers to arrive at informed decisions regarding emerging technologies and any impacts on pedagogy.
Preliminary data analysis

According to the Office of National Statistics (2007) digital technology is relatively new, yet it is already approaching the near universal ownership levels of older more established technologies. For example growth in DVD player ownership has been rapid in recent years, with the proportion of British households owning one rising by one-and-a-half-times between 2002/03 and 2005/06 to 79%. In 2005/06, 88 per cent of households had a CD player and 79 per cent a mobile phone. In April to June 2006, 26% of people aged 15 and over owned an MP3 player.

From January to April 2006, 56% of households in Great Britain had a desktop computer, 30 per cent had a portable or laptop computer, and 7% had a handheld computer. During the same period 87% of people aged 16 to 30 had used a computer in the previous three months compared with 45 per cent of those aged 50 and over. By July 2005, 66 per cent of adults in Great Britain had sent a text message and 68% had received one, while 28% had sent a picture or photo using their mobile phone and 27% had received one. While 30% of households possessed a mobile phone that could access the Internet, up from 20% in April 2003.

According to an Oftel Residential Survey (May 2003), 75% of all adults in the United Kingdom owned or used a mobile phone and 21% used their mobile as their main method of telephony, with 8% of homes only having a mobile, and no fixed line phone. Ownership of mobile phones varied with age nearly 90% of people between the ages of 15 and 34 owned or used a mobile phone in February 2003. This proportion declined with age; less than a quarter of those aged 75 and over owned or used a mobile phone. However in the two years between 2001 and 2003, the largest increases occurred among the older age groups, with the proportion of people aged 75 and over with a mobile phone nearly doubling.

There is a strong link between the age of a mobile phone user and the reason for owning a mobile phone, for example adults aged 55 and over are most likely to have a mobile phone for use in an emergency while those aged under 25 are most likely to have a mobile phone to text their friends and family. In 2005, 94% of adults aged from 16 to 24 had sent a text message compared with 17 per cent of those aged 65 and over. Of the four countries surveyed (the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States) it was Americans (49%) and Britons (30%) who were most likely to agree that their mobile phone was now an essential part of their daily life and they'd be lost without it. Almost half of people in Britain (46%) stated they carried their phones with them most of the time - with the 55-64 year olds most likely to do so. Younger respondents (18-34) who were more likely to feel their mobile was an essential part of their daily life and they would be "lost without it".

Mobile phones have evolved with new features such as cameras, games, and internet access and music now common place on basic handsets whilst smart phones offer even more sophisticated applications such as video. Whilst some people may feel these are unnecessary add-ons, the results show that in fact these functions are becoming increasingly popular (figure 4). In the UK the most popular daily function is browsing the web at 9%, whilst on a weekly basis it's taking photos (38% of respondents), followed jointly by browsing the web and playing games (22%) and sending a photo or video (18%).
An interesting result in the survey is that in some markets there are users who never make phone calls from their mobile. In the UK 11% of respondents never make calls; that figure is higher in the US at 13%. 33% of UK and 18% of US respondents make no more than two calls a week. Texting is hugely popular in the UK with half (49%) sending at least one SMS per day and 2% sending a picture or video message (MMS) daily. Women like to send more text messages than men - with 56% compared to 42% sending at least one text per day; men make more daily voice calls 41% compared to 32% of women.
If we look at the relationship between fixed and mobile consumption in the voice market we find that although 70% of mobile users use their mobile phone to make calls within the home, fixed-line use remains resilient; 60% of outbound calls were from fixed lines in 2007, and 88% of households have a fixed line, in the past year mobile operators have entered the broadband supply market, with USB dongle-based consumer services. We find that two-thirds of mobile broadband users also have a fixed-line connection. You only have to look at the relationship between fixed and mobile broadband; The most popular internet activity among older people is 'communication' (using email, instant messaging and chat rooms for example); 63% of over-65s say they communicate online, compared to 76% of all adults.

56% of all UK households had a broadband connection in 2008, up from 51 per cent in 2007 although, 93% of adults under 70 years of age who had a degree or equivalent qualification were most likely to have access to the Internet in their home. 56% of individuals, who had no formal qualifications, were least likely to have an Internet connection in their home.

According to Office for National Statistics women are also notably less likely to have net access than men,. While 29% of women have never used the internet, the same is only true for 20% of men. But the offline numbers are falling. Two million more adults accessed the internet in 2008 than a year earlier and not all the internet "have nots" are unwillingly so. When asked why they didn't have the internet almost 60% said they didn't need it or want. 27% cited the cost of equipment or internet access as too high while 15% thought they didn't have the requisite skills.

Consumers of all ages are showing a growing interest in accessing audio-visual content online; 17% of those with broadband watched TV over the internet, up by 8% on 2006 and this is particularly apparent among younger people. Personal Computers and laptops that connect to the internet using a third generation mobile network are growing in popularity, with over 500, 000 sales of new connections via cards and 'dongles' that support this connectivity in the five months from February 2008. As a result, while the base of consumers adopting this means of connectivity is small, it is growing fast.

Figure 4

6 in 10 adults aged 16-24 said in the first quarter of 2008 that they had access to a games console, these devices are emerging as an exemplar of convergence and 39% of all adult users say they use them to watch DVDs, while 26% use them to listen to CDs.

The continued growth in digital television penetration, which reached 87% in the first half of 2008, this was primarily due to growth in uptake of digital terrestrial television and the emergence of the Internet as an important distribution platform, both for the television industry, with access to online content now offered by all of the major broadcasters, and for consumers, with, for example, 700,000 video streams served daily in May 2008 by the BBC iPlayer.

However, older people generally engage in a narrower range of internet activities than younger people, with the exception of using the internet for transactions (42%), news (22%) and contributing comments to someone else's weblog (21%), where they are just as likely to engage as the population as a whole. However, older people remain much lower users of mobile phones than the general population; only 7% of users aged over 65 make a mobile call every day (50% for all adults), 5% send a text daily (compared to 48%) and nearly nine in ten of these users have a pre-pay phone. Consumer take-up of devices with converged functionality rose significantly in 2007.

Homes with a digital television decoder connected to their main set rose from 80% to 87%; people with access to a digital video recorder increased by 8%, MP3 player ownership stood at 45% of individuals up 5% while consumers with access to a DAB digital radio nearly doubled to 27%. Consumers appear to be responding to this increased supply, 26% of those aged 15-24 claim to use the internet for 'watching TV programmes' in 2008, up by 16% in twelve months.

51% used the Internet for 'watching video clips/webcasts', also up by 16% over the same period. The converged nature of mobile handsets became apparent during 2007, with 41% of mobile phone users claiming to use their handset for taking pictures and 15% uploading photos to their PC. Nearly one in five (17%) also claimed that they used their phone for gaming.

Data from Nielsen Netratings show that there is little difference between the surfing habits of internet users aged over 65, and internet users in general. Fourteen of the top 20 sites (in terms of unique brands) were the same for both sets of internet users. The most noticeable difference between the two sets of websites was the lack of social networking sites in the top 20 sites for over-65s; unsurprising, given that most of these sites are aimed at young people.

Pilot Study

Pilot data was collected from students who ascribe to the category of Digital Native based on age; analyses for this study was restricted to students born after 1982 (n=27) and Digital Immigrants born before 1980. A pilot questionnaire was developed and distributed electronically to the full-time student cohort of 1380, 16-18 age group and 2414, 19 and over using an online survey tool (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was available online from June 22nd - July 10th 2009 which yielded a response of 187 completed returns, approximately 5% which equates to 1 in 20 of the total target group.

110 returns were received from the less than 27 age group (digital natives) and 77 returns for the 28 and above age range (digital immigrants). The results indicate a high return from the native cohort possibly due to the questionnaire only being made available via electronic media is that an indicator that natives are more accepting and comfortable with online submissions?

The pilot questionnaire was initially developed to ascertain the learners' ownership of technologies and how they use them. Important factors within the questioning were centred on the age of the participant, for the purpose of characterising and profiling learners as either digital natives or digital immigrants. Trialling a pilot questionnaire would allow key questions to be answered prior to the full study:
1.
How long to complete the questionnaire?
2.
Were the instructions given clear?
3.
Were any of the questions confusing?
4.
Did any questions cause offence?
5.
Was the questionnaire layout clear?
6.
Was anything missing from the questions that could have provided further data?
The pilot questionnaire was in no way complex, the wording of the questions was as straightforward and non-complex as possible to allow for quick comprehension and thorough completion. Each question had the instructions for completion and these were repeated where necessary. The questionnaire layout was easy to follow and the language was written to be as simple as possible. The pilot questionnaire consisted of 29 easy to understand yes/no tick box and 1 qualitative textual question all considered to be non-threatening.

Data Analysis

Participants were asked about their ownership and usage of technology (mobile phone, laptops, social networking/ web 2.0 devices desktop computer etc). The results from the pilot questionnaire indicate that 100% of individuals aged 28 and over own a mobile phone compared with 97.8% aged 27 and below both of these figures are high and are of no surprise as Prensky suggested natives are born with technology and immigrants adopt technology and secondly, a study by Mintel and Ofcom (2008) reports that the majority of the UK population now own a mobile phone with only the very young or very old missing out. What is of interest is the disparity of features of mobile phones used by natives and immigrants the data collected suggests that natives are the innovators and opinion leaders with regard to the adoption of new technologies and additional product features and as expected if we are to follow Rogers diffusion theory immigrants adopt these additional features when they are more established, reliable and tested. Not surprisingly, a high percentage of natives and immigrants own a mobile phone and are avid users of text messaging.
It would appear from the results that there are limited differences between 1 and 5% in technology ownership between digital natives and immigrants, therefore is it fare to assume that the passage of time is actually assisting with the closure of the digital divide.

However, there are significant differences between digital natives and digital immigrants in the use of emerging technologies which to a certain extent corroborates Rogers (2003) theory of Diffusion of Innovation that innovators are the young and financially affluent and the emerging technologies specified in this questionnaire are in fact services and functions that are available on their mobile devices. Although it could be argued that the younger participants (college students) in this study are far from financially stable, and the low percentages collected for mobile Internet access is low due to the significant costs attached to that particular service.

The over 26 age group (digital immigrants) of which 30% don't regularly use any of the web 2.0 features listed, however only 12% don't have access to a PC at home, therefore we can surmise that 18% of this age group only use the features of web 1.0. the under 25 age group (digital natives) of which 4% don't regularly use any of the web 2.0 features listed, however only 10% don't have access to a PC at home, therefore we can surmise that only 3% of this age group restrict themselves to web 1.0.

Attitudes towards technology between the 2 digital groups are surprisingly similar. This trend is true over the 3 pilot survey questions enquiring about attitude, 88% of the over the 26 age group feel confident or comfortable using the internet to find information, compared to 96% of under the 25 age group. 100% of the over 26 age group feel confident or comfortable using MS Office to produce work, this is in fact slightly higher than the 96% of under 25s.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the results for the over 26s may be artificially high. A larger sample of this age group would be needed. However, the high level of confidence with the over 26s may also be due to their work experience with the widespread need for MS skills in most jobs, or assisting their children with school work. Results from the other two attitudinal questions, indicate that there is little difference between the two age groups, in fact, 26% of under 25s categorised themselves as one of the last people they know to use new technologies, and 26% said they were sceptical of new technologies and use them only when they have to. Considering this age group have grown up with technology this is surprisingly high.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study set out to report on the findings of a pilot study which considered student technology ownership and usage within the further education sector informed and adapted to Rogers Diffusion of Innovation theory. The pilot study although small did provide sufficient data to develop and test the conceptual theory suggested by this paper. The areas for further research and reliable data in terms of age, demographics, characteristics and pedagogy are dependent on a full study of a cross-section of further educational establishments and a relatively equal return for specific age groups in terms of digital natives and digital immigrants.

Rogers Diffusion of Innovation theory allows further education to determine whether a technology innovation embraced by student innovators and early adopters can subsequently be evaluated and trialled with relative low cost implications early in the product lifecycle to enable the FE sector to be at the 'cutting edge' of technology diffusion within the respective organisations. According to Rogers theory if we engage 16% of the college teaching staff (peer communication) this should ensure the continued growth of use of the particular innovation.

The data analysis findings reported in this paper although small do suggest that there may the beginnings of a closure within the digital divide perhaps the mere passage of time has indeed assisted with this closure, the data also indicates that attitudes to technology are similar between both user groups (immigrants and natives) further corroborating the closure of the divide. Although there are significant differences in the adoption of emerging technologies digital natives are as Roger's predicated the young innovators who influence the early majority.

To substantiate our own findings research by Kennedy et al (2008) suggests that educational organisations should evidence the technology that students have access to and what their preferences are as opposed to making assumptions based on what students want. Their research findings also indicate that not all digital natives 'fit' the profile offered by Prensky (2001) in fact they speak a variety of technological 'tongues' and one size does not fit all. Therefore it seems logical that educationalists and educational institutions must continue to cater for a mix of student ability with regard to technology usage and adoption. Their research continues to support the theory that education must still be driven by the pedagogy and not the technology.

Further research

The characteristics of each category, innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards were derived from 'ideal types' what Rogers defined as conceptualisations based on observations of reality and designed to make comparisons possible. Each category is intended to set each apart from the next and formulate a theoretical proposal for the adoption or rejection of an innovation. Therefore, further studies of observational research using ethnographic and action research methods is required to arrive at informed characteristics/profiles of digital natives and immigrants.

Further research is required in the exploration of the relationships between technology access, use and skill, and the attitudinal characteristics and dispositions commonly ascribed to the digital native generation.
References

AACE (2009) Social Media Seminar Series
Http://AACE.org/GlobalU/seminars/socialmedia/

Barnes, C; Tynan, B. (2007) The adventures of Miranda in the brave new world: learning in a web 2.0 millennium (ALT-J volume 15 Routledge).

Baumgartner, P. (2005) The zen art of teaching communication and interactions in eEducation. Available online at: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/extras/pdf/zenartofteaching.pdf (accessed 29.11.2008).

Becta, (2007) Harnessing Technology Review 2007
http://www.publications.becta.org.uk/download.cfm?resID=33979 (accessed 8.1.2009)

Brabazon, T. (2007) The University of Google: Education in the (post) information age. (Ashgate)

Crie, M. (2004) Using blogs to integrate technology in the classroom. Available online at: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/educationupclose.phtml/print/47 (accessed 30.1.2008).

Doherty, L. (2005). Where worlds collide and pupils leave teachers behind. Sydney Morning
Herald, October 1, 2005.

Downes, T. (2002). Blending play, practice and performance: Children's use of computer at home. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2), 21-34.

Family Expenditure Survey (until 2001/02) and Expenditure and Food Survey (2001/02 onwards), Office for National Statistics; Radio Joint Audience Research Limited (RAJAR); Omnibus Survey, Office for National Statistics; 2006 Media Literacy Audit, Ofcom http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1710&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=1000
Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, September-October, 15-24.

FreshMinds (2007). Digital Inclusion a discussion of the evidence base. UK Online

Gaston, J. (2006). Reaching and teaching the digital natives. Library Hi Tech News,
23(3), 12-13.

Green H, and Hannon C., (2007), Their Space: Education for a digital generation, DEMOS, London.

Gros, B. (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday, 8(7).
Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/xyzgros/index.html.

Just Colleges. (2008) How is it different from traditional learning? Available online at ttp:www.justcolleges.com/elearn/difference.htm (accessed 03.12.2008).
Kennedy G.E., Judd T.S., Churchward A., Gray K., Krause K-L., (2008), First year students' experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, (1), 108-122

Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Dalgarno, B. & Bishop, A.
(2006). Questioning the Net generation: A collaborative project in Australian higher
education. In Who's learning? Whose technology? Proceedings ASCILITE 2006 (pp. 413-417).
Sydney: Sydney University Press.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p160.pdf

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K.,
Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward, A. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web
2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings from a large cross-institutional study. In Providing
choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 517-525). Singapore:
Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching: a framework for effective use of learning technologies (London, Routledge).

Lee, L. (2005). Young people and the Internet: From theory to practice. Nordic
Journal of Youth Research, 13(4), 315-326.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M. & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and Technology: Youth are leading the transition to fully wired and mobile nation. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project

Livingston, S., & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children's use of the Internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning, 1(3) 395-419.

Long, S. A. (2005). Whats new in libraries? Digital natives: if you aren't one, get to know one. New Library World, 106(3/4), 187.

Mayer, R.R. (1998) Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving (Instructional science, 26 (1-2), 49-62.

McHale, T. (2005). Portrait of a digital native. Technology and Learning, 26(2), 33-34

Mioduser, D. Nachmias, R. Oren, A. and Lahav, O. (1999) Web-based learning environments (WBLE): Current implementation and evolving trend (Tel-Aviv University, School of Education Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, 69974, Israel).

Mori study (2007) Student expectations. JISC study commissioned by Ipsos 2007.

Moore, Geoffrey K. (2002) Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. New York: HarperBusiness

NetRatings (2005). Kidsonline@home. Internet use in Australian homes. NetRatings Australia Pty
Ltd. [verified 18 Jan 2008] http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aba/about/recruitment/kidsonline.pdf

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials: Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, July/August, 37-47.

O'Malley, et al. (2005) Mobilearn WP 4: Pedagogical methodologies and paradigms. Available online at http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/ public_deliverables /MOBI learn D4.4_Final.pdf (accessed 04.07.2006).

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2006a), 'Internet Access - Households and Individuals', http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_commerce/InternetAccess_Individuals.zip

Prensky M., (2001a) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1, On the Horizon, September/October 2001, 9, (5), 1-6

Prensky M., (2001b) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2, On the Horizon, September/October 2001, 9, (6), 1-6.

Rodley, C. (2005). Meeting the demands of the Net Gen. UniNews, The University of Sydney, 28 October 2005. [verified 18 Jan 2008]. http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=744

Roger, M.E. (2003) Diffusion Of Innovation 5th Ed (Free Press New York)

Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27(4), 763-797.

Skiba, D. J. (2005). The millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing? Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(3), 370.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Tapscott, D. (2008) Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill Professional.

Tree, A. (2008) A brain apart: rethinking our approach to younger learners (Intuition IFL).