Digital Generations Paradox in Pre- and In-service Teachers’ Literacy Practices: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study/Hizmet Öncesi ve Hizmet İçi Öğretmenlerin Okuryazarlık Uygulamalarında Dijital Nesiller Paradoksu: Açıklayıcı Sıralı Karma Yöntemler Araştırması Çalışması

Year 2023, , 140 - 164, 31.12.2023

Asiye Demir , Sinem Toraman Turk

https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.1317619

Abstract

Digital practices have become more prominent due to the growing demand in digital exposure in education. While technology has been used as a metaphorical divide between generations in many studies, very few studies include individuals’ definitions of their generational sense of belonging. By administering an online questionnaire (N=111) and conducting semi-structured interviews with pre-service and in-service teachers (n=6), this mixed methods study aimed to capture participants’ self-definitions and changes in these definitions. The results of this study provided evidence about the convergence impact of technology in educators’ personal and professional lives. This study contributes to the field of digital literacy by offering different perspectives about digital generations and discussing the use of technology to create collaborative and cooperative educational settings.

Keywords

Convergence culture, digital generations, digital literacies, in-service teachers, mixed methods research, pre-service teachers

Digital Generations Paradox in Pre- and In-service Teachers’ Literacy Practices: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study/Hizmet Öncesi ve Hizmet İçi Öğretmenlerin Okuryazarlık Uygulamalarında Dijital Nesiller Paradoksu: Açıklayıcı Sıralı Karma Yöntemler Araştırması Çalışması

Abstract

Dijital uygulamalar, eğitimde artan dijital kullanıma maruz kalma ile daha da önemli hale gelmiştir. Pek çok çalışmada teknoloji, metaforik bir ayrım unsuru olarak kuşakları ayırt etmede kullanılsa da çok az sayıda çalışma, bireylerin kendilerini hangi kuşağa ait olarak tanımladıklarına odaklanmıştır. Öğretmen adayları ve öğretmenler ile çevrimiçi nicel soru formu (N=111) ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler (n=6) kullanarak yapılan bu karma yöntemler araştırması çalışmasında katılımcıların dijital kuşaklar kavramına ilişkin tanımları ve bu kavramlardaki değişimler incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, eğitmenlerin kişisel ve profesyonel yaşamlarında teknolojinin birleştirme kültürü etkisini ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışma, dijital kuşaklara ilişkin farklı perspektifleri sunarak ve işbirlikli eğitim ortamları oluşturmada teknolojinin kullanımını tartışarak dijital okuryazarlık alanına katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Birleştirme kültürü, dijital kuşaklar, dijital okuryazarlık, karma yöntemler araştırması, öğretmenler, öğretmen adayları

References

• Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(5), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x
• Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
• Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
• Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research, 87-100. Sage. Buckingham, D. (2006). Is there a digital generation? In Buckingham D. & Willet R. (Eds.). Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media, pp. 1-13. Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645-648. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00077
• Coiro, J. (2020). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302
• Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807299526
• Cozma, R., & Hallaq, T. (2019). Digital natives as budding journalists: College TV stations’ uses of twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 74(3), 306-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695818805899
• Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1-7.
• Dyikuk, J. J. (2019). The Digital Age: Bridging the Communication Gap Between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2943
• Fernández-de-Arroyabe-Olaortua, A., Lazkano-Arrillaga, I., & Eguskiza-Sesumaga, L. (2018). Digital natives: Online audiovisual content consumption, creation and dissemination. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 26(2).
• Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.l l l l/1475-6773.12117
• Gee, J. P. (2014). Literacy and education. Routledge.
• González Martínez, J., Esteban Guitart, M., Rostán Sánchez, C., Serrat Sellabona, E., & Estebanell, M. (2019). What's up with transmedia and education? A literature review. Digital Education Review, 2019, vol. 36, p. 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2019.36.207-222
• Grigoryan, T. (2018). Investigating digital native female learners’ attitudes towards paperless language learning. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1937
• Helaluddin, H., Wijaya, H., Guntur, M., Zulfah, Z., & Syawal, S. (2020). Digital immigrants versus digital natives: A systematic literature review of the “ideal teacher” in a disruptive era. Borderless Education as a Challenge in the 5.0 Society, 1, 212-218.
• Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence?. British educational research journal, 36(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227 Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York University Press.
• Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (p. 145). The MIT Press.
• Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3821
• Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
• Lammers, J., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research.
• Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). EBOOK: New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Li, Y., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2020). Exploring technology professional development needs of digital immigrant teachers and digital native teachers in China. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 16(3), 15-29. https://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-information-communication-technology/1082
• Men, L. K., & Noordin, N. (2019). Senior Meets Junior Digital Natives: TESLians Integrating Technology in their Teaching Practice. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(4), 150-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.4p.150
• Merchant, G. (2007). Mind the gap (s): Discourses and discontinuity in digital literacies. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 241-255.
• Oriji, A., & Torunarigha, Y. D. (2020). Digitized education: Examining the challenges of digital immigrant educators in the face of net generation learners. KIU Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 337-347. https://ijhumas.com/ojs/index.php/kiujoss/article/view/717
• Pew Research Center (2015). The whys and hows of generations research. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/ on June 1, 2023.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?, On the horizon, 9(5),1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
• Prensky, M. R. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Corwin Press.
• Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R., & Judd, T. (2020). Not just digital natives: Integrating technologies in professional education contexts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5689
• Smith, E. (2012). The Digital Native Debate in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Literature/Le débat sur les natifs du numérique dans l'enseignement supérieur: une analyse comparative de la littérature récente. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2F302
• Spiegel, J. (2021). Prensky Revisited: Is the Term “Digital Native” Still Applicable to Today’s Learner?. English Leadership Quarterly, 44(2), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.58680/elq202131529
• Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5(2), 77-91.
• Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
• Thompson, P. (2013). Digital Characteristics Scale. PsycTESTS. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1037/t27901-000
• “The Ways and Hows of Generations Research”, Pew Research Center, Washington D.C. (September 3, 2015). https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/
• Urick, M. J. (2012). Exploring generational identity: A multiparadigm approach. Journal of Business Diversity, 12(3), 103-115.
• VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com. Watson, I. R. (2013). Digital Natives or Digital Tribes?. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010210
• Willyerd, K., & Meister, J. (2010). The 2020 workplace. HarperCollins Publishers.