Dijital Teknoloji Deneyimi, Medya Ortamlarında Geçirilen Süre ve Çalışan Bellek Kapasitesi İlişkisi

Öz

Günümüz genç nesillerinin dijital teknolojilerle olan yüksek düzey etkileşimleri, bu etkileşimin bireylerin bilişsel yapılarına ne tür etkileri olduğu sorusunu akla getirmektedir. Dijital yerlilik gibi popüler kavramlar çerçevesinde yeni neslin bilişsel yapısının dijital teknoloji kullanımına bağlı olarak değiştiğine ilişkin varsayımlar öne sürülmektedir. Bu araştırmada genç bireylerin dijital teknoloji kullanım deneyimleri, dijital etkinliklerde günlük geçirdikleri süre ile çalışan bellek kapasiteleri arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda 572 lisans öğrencisinin yedi farklı dijital teknolojiye ilişkin kullanım deneyimleri ve 14 farklı dijital etkinlik için günlük harcadıkları süre özbildirime dayalı araçlarla ölçülmüştür. Katılımcıların çalışan bellek kapasiteleri ise Hesaplama Aralığı ve Nokta Matris çalışan bellek testleri ile ölçülmüştür. Hesaplama Aralığı testi çalışan belleğin seslendirme döngüsü, Nokta Matris testi ise görseluzamsal bellek bileşenlerini ölçmektedir. Araştırmada çalışan belleğin seslendirme döngüsü ve görsel-uzamsal bellek bileşenleri ile dijital teknoloji deneyimi ve günlük dijital etkinlik süresi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmemiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, dijital teknolojilerin insan bilişsel mimarisini dönüştürdüğü yönündeki varsayımları desteklememektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Yerliler, Dijital teknoloji deneyimi, Çalışan bellek

The Relationship Between Digital Technology Experience, Daily Media Exposure and Working Memory Capacity

Öz

Today’s youngsters interact with digital technologies to a great extent which leads scholars to question the influence of this exposure on human cognitive structure. Through resorting to digital nativity assumptions, it is presumed that cognitive architecture of the youth may change in accordance with digital technology use. In this regard, the current study investigated the relationship between digital technology experience, daily media exposure and working memory capacity of so-called digital native participants. A total of 572 undergraduate students responded to self-report measures, which addressed years of experience for 7 different digital devices and the daily time spent for 14 different digital activities. Participants’ working memory capacity was measured through the Computation Span and the Dot Matrix Test. While the former was used to measure the phonological loop capacity, the latter was used to address the visuo-spatial sketchpad capacity. Correlational analyses revealed that neither the phonological loop capacity nor the visuo-spatial sketchpad capacity was related to digital technology experience and daily media exposure. Thus, the transformative contribution of digital technology experience to human cognitive architecture could not be observed through the current measures

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital natives, Digital technology experience, Working memory

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. D. (2002). Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(4), 567.
2. Akbulut, Y. (2015). Predictors of inconsistent responding in web surveys. Internet Research, 25(1), 131-147.
3. Bennett, S. ve Maton, K.A. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.
4. Bennett, S., Maton, K.A., ve Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
5. Brown, C. ve Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 357-369.
6. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford university press.
7. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., ve Qayyum, A. (2008). The digital learner at BCIT and implications for an e-strategy. The 2008 Research Workshop of the European Distance Education Network (EDEN), Paris.
8. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K. ve Qayyum, A. (2010). The net generation in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Excellence in eLearning, 2(1),1-13.

9. Callejo, J. (2013). Media time use among adoloscents and young adults: Analysis of differences. Communication & Society, 26(2), 1-26.
10. Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., ve Vieira, S. (2014). Higher education and emerging technologies: Shifting trends in student usage. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 124-133.
11. Colom, R., Martínez-Molina, A., Shih, P. C., ve Santacreu, J. (2010). Intelligence, working memory, and multitasking performance. Intelligence, 38(6), 543-551.
12. Davies, C. ve Eynon, R. (2013). Teenagers and Technology. New York: Routledge.
13. Dindar, M. (2015). Teknoloji destekli öğrenme ortamlarında çoklu görev yapmanın öğrenmeye etkisi (Doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
14. Eynon, R. (2009). Harnessing technology: The learner and their context-mapping young people’s uses of technology in their own contexts – a nationally representative survey. University of Oxford A Report for BECTA. 03 Şubat 2015 tarihinde http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110130111510/http:/research.becta.or g.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/reports/ht_learner_context_survey.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
15. Fitton, V. A., Ahmedani, B. K., Harold, R. D., ve Shifflet, E. D. (2013). The role of technology on youg adoloscent development: Implications for policy, research and practise. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30, 399-413.
16. Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, pairings and predictors. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Stanford Üniversitesi, Cambridge.
17. Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Young people are spending their time in a space which adults find difficult to supervise or understand. London: Demos.
18. Gros, B., Garcia, I., ve Escofet, A.(2012). Beyond the net generation debate: A comparison of digital learners in the face-to-face and virtual universities. The International Review in Open and Disrubuted Learning, 13(4),1-12.
19. Helsper, E. J. ve Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520.
20. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.
21. Kaznowska, E., Rogers, J., ve Usher, A. (2011). The state of e-learning in Canadian universities, 2011: If students are digital natives, why don’t they like e-learning? Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
22. 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). 05 Şubat 2015 tariginde http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html adresinden alınmıştır.
23. Kirschner, P. A. ve van Merrienböer, J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
24. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., ve Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and Technology 2013. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. 02 Şubat 2015 tarihinde http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/ adresinden alınmıştır.
25. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., ve Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.
26. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., ve Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621−640.
27. Oliver, B. ve Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171–186.
28. Ophir, E., Nass, C., ve Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS, 1-5.
29. Powell, W. ve Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30 (1), 199–220.
30. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On The Horizon 9(5). 04 Şubat 2015 tarihinde http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
31. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On The Horizon 9(6). 04 Şubat 2015 tarihine https://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/PRENSKY+- +DIGITAL+NATIVES+AND+IMMIGRANTS+2.PDF adresinden alınmıştır.
32. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., ve Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2 . Media in the lives of 8-to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
33. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H.R., Dobrowolski, T. ve Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 60, 290–310
34. RTÜK. (2013). Türkiye’de çocukların medya kullanma alışkanlıkları araştırması. 02 Şubat 2015 tarihinde http://www.byegm.gov.tr/uploads/docs/RTU%CC%88K%EF%80%A2_Tu%CC%88r kiyede_C%CC%A7ocu_klar%C4%B1n_Medya_Kullanm_a_Al%C4%B1s%CC%A7kan l%C4%B1g%CC%86%C4%B1_Aras%CC%A7t%C4%B1_rmas%C4%B1_Eylu%CC% 88l_2013.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
35. Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., ve Borst, J. P. (2009). Toward a unified theory of multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems içinde (s. 1819-1828). Boston, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri.
36. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., ve van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 389-411.
37. Tandon, P. S. Zhou, C., Lozano, P., ve Christakis, D. A. (2011). Preschoolers’ total daily screen time at home and by type of child care. Journal of Pediatrics, 158, 297- 300.
38. Tapscott, A. (1998). Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
39. Varghese, T., Nivedhitha, D., ve Krishnatray, P. (2013). Teenagers’ use of social networking media in a south Indian state. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(12), 622-636.
40. Veen, W. ve Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London, UK: Network Continuum Education.