Computers in Human Behavior: Aditya Johri, Hon Jie Teo, Jenny Lo, Monique Dufour, Asta Schram
Computers in Human Behavior: Aditya Johri, Hon Jie Teo, Jenny Lo, Monique Dufour, Asta Schram
Computers in Human Behavior: Aditya Johri, Hon Jie Teo, Jenny Lo, Monique Dufour, Asta Schram
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Media significantly shape how and what we learn. To date there is limited understanding of digital media
Available online 15 March 2013 and information use by engineering students. We comprehensively review existing literature and present
findings from a research study investigating digital media and information use of ‘millennial’ engineers
Keywords: who purportedly possess distinctive experience, habits, and perceptions about technology. We adminis-
Media and information ecology tered a multiple-item survey to a cohort of first year engineering students who entered a large public uni-
First year engineering students versity in the United States in August 2009. Self-reported information on the frequency of media device
Facebook
usage, participation in social networking, academic activities and information seeking tendencies, was
Twitter
Social networking
received from 204 participants. Similar to other youth, millennial engineers use technology extensively
Survey study and are frequent users of both commonly used digital devices as well as applications. Students’ device
ownership was marked by a relatively low use of desktop computers and significant use of mobile
devices. Students reported using the Internet extensively for both entertainment and school related work.
Facebook™ use was common but Twitter™ use was limited. Multitasking was common and its self-
reported effectiveness varied across participants. Gender differences were found across several items.
Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction learn and change the way we collaborate and work in teams
(Johri & Lohani, 2011; Johri, Williams, & Pembridge, 2013). Finally,
How do media influence cognition and learning? The role of media provide a context and motivation for learning (Forte &
media in education has been an important area of study for dec- Bruckman, 2009; Forte & Guzdial, 2004). They become an environ-
ades, yet questions about the relationship between media and ment in and through which students participate in a different
learning have remained unsettled (Kozma, 1991; Salomon, 1978). manner.
However, recent studies conclusively show that advances in multi- Given the multiple ways in which media shape learning, it is
media representations do shape learning by affecting our psycho- important to understand and document their use as we look to-
logical functioning (Mayer, 2005). In the current era of digitized wards preparing the engineers of 2020 and beyond (NAE, 2005).
information, we are once again witnessing a significant shift in Scholars have also outlined the saturation of the engineering work-
how we represent information and knowledge, and consequently, place with information technology and the significant shift in how
how we teach and learn. Kraidy (2002) argues that the rise of the engineers work (Schmiede & Will-Zocholl, 2011). To develop com-
digital information is shaping cognition by impacting our ability plex thinking skills in conjunction with the ability to use digital
to process parallel data, access information in a non-linear order, technology expertly, we need a better understanding of incoming
and visualize information. In addition, digital media represents students and their experiences with technology. In recent years,
the real world through simulations, which has changed our under- as we review below, scholars have started to build a comprehen-
standing of abstract concepts (Kraidy, 2002). Advances in comput- sive understanding of digital media use of students. Yet, we have
ing media are not only shaping learning through practices such as not directly examined digital media use of engineering students.
simulations, but they also fundamentally allow us to alter the dis- For the engineering education community, understanding the use
tributed cognition system of learners (Hutchins, 1995; Pea, 1993). of digital media by students has far reaching potential implica-
Media allow us to reconfigure who we learn with and when we tions. By understanding students’ habits, instructors can design a
more responsive learning environment and integrate the use of
technology in a more appropriate manner. An understanding of
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Engineering Education, MC
media use can also assist in improving inclusiveness by targeting
0218, 616 McBryde Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States. Tel.: +1 540 231 0653. students to better their technology use and by bridging the ‘digital
E-mail address: ajohri@vt.edu (A. Johri). divide’.
0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.048
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 287
2. Use of media and information for learning: an ecological 2003), weblogs for communication design (Sade, 2005), cross-
perspective national virtual learning environment in K12 education (Ligorio
& Van Veen, 2006) and technology use in schools (Zhao & Frank,
In the current technology-infused environment, an understand- 2003). In engineering education research, Moriarty (2001) studied
ing of media use by students has taken on increased urgency. Stu- ethics and suggested that engineering products or services created
dents and teachers alike are spending more time with and around for the social and political uses can be understood as ‘‘information
digital devices and multimedia services. According to Nielsen ecologies’’. Given the extensive ecology of students’ lives and the
(2010), time spent on social media worldwide has increased 82% availability of learning opportunities in an educational institution,
over the previous year, and users spend an average of over 5 h we appropriate the ecologies framework to further our under-
per day on social media. WordPress (2011), one of world’s premier standing of the use of digital media and devices – or digital tech-
blog hosting sites, reports that it hosts over 48 million blogs, which nology – by engineering students.
have almost 300 million monthly viewers. The popularity of elec-
tronic games continues to increase exponentially: according to
Entertainment Software Association (ESA, 2010), almost 70% of 3. Digital media and information ecology of engineering
American households now play computer or video games. Users students
are exposed ever earlier to digital technologies, which requires a
serious examination of media habits of youth. The ecological per- Scholars and practitioners have started to closely study the use
spective offers a promising approach because it provides a frame- of digital media and device among teens and youth and have
work for understanding the use of digital media within a larger coined various terms to suggest that the current generation of col-
context. The ecological perspective on human development was lege students seemingly possesses distinctive habits as well as per-
first outlined by Bronfenbrenner (1977) who argues that, ‘‘[e]nvi- ceptions about the use of digital media and devices that set them
ronmental structures, and the processes taking place within and apart from their predecessors. The terms used to describe this pop-
between them, must be viewed as interdependent and must be ulation includes Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001), Generation Y or
analyzed in systems terms (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 518).’’ There- Net Generation (Chubin, Donaldson, Olds, & Fleming, 2008;
fore, what a student does in school inevitably shapes and is shaped Tapscott, 1997), Generation M2, Digital Generation (Willett &
by her activities at home and/or in other settings. Barron (2004, Buckingham, 2006) and Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000;
2006) elaborated Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) perspective by account- Oblinger, 2003). Despite the claim that these college students are
ing specifically for children’s participation in digital media activi- avid consumers and users of media content and devices, there is
ties and proposed the ‘‘learning ecologies’’ framework. Her case limited understanding about the media use habits of engineering
studies (Barron, 2004, 2006) track adolescents’ development of students of this generation. A representative understanding of dig-
technological interest and expertise across settings and over time. ital media, device use and habits of engineering students should be
She identifies different pathways whereby some participants in her of concern to engineering educators interested in using informa-
study were first introduced to technology within school settings tion technology – a common practice – to improve engineering
and developed an interest within formal technology curriculum learning and teaching.
whereas others developed an interest by trying to build websites. The need to innovate in engineering education has led to calls
The diversity of new digital devices, platforms, and applications for integrating information technology, and has resulted in the
available to students has changed their ecology profoundly. adoption of a wide variety of media and Internet-based learning
Nardi and O’Day (1999) have also advanced an ecological per- platforms to enhance engineering learning and teaching (Bourne,
spective to examine technology use, shifting the spotlight from Harris, & Mayadas, 2005). Several studies report the success of
mere use of technology to the human activities served by technol- technology in improving engineering learning. For instance, Rutz
ogy. They conceptualize information ecology as ‘‘a system of people, et al. (2003) investigated the use of instructional technologies such
practice, values, and technologies in a particular environment as streaming media and interactive videos to improve education in
(Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 49)’’, one made up of local habitations of fundamental engineering science courses, and found that students’
people who together forge practices and attitudes. An information time spent on task and their interest in the educational content can
ecology is distinguished by conflicting goals and competition for be improved through media use. Rojas (2002) investigated the use
resources. In addition, it is constantly exposed to multiple levels of web-centric tools in a graduate engineering course and reported
of influences, and ‘‘exhibits diversity and experiences continual that interactions were enhanced and collaboration efforts were im-
evolution (Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 50).’’ Within the ecological con- proved. Chen, Whittinghill and Kadlowec (2010) used custom feed-
text, change is systemic and alterations of significant elements can back system through PDAs in classes and reported that rapid
cause reverberating effects, whereas unfitting interventions are feedback can positively improve the learning process. Similarly,
promptly diminished. The authors argue that it is crucial to devel- Steif and Dollár (2009) examined engineering students’ interac-
op an intuitive understanding of principles, practices and values of tions with the courseware and discovered that learning gains are
significance to the community in order ‘‘to respond with initiative increased when they made self-regulated efforts to use related
that is grounded in local understanding and values (Nardi & O’Day, courseware to complement their learning.
1999, p. 56).’’ In this framework, emphasis is placed on under- In addition to studies that have examined the use of specific
standing levels of digital media use and behaviors to characterize technologies, review of studies of technology highlight the fre-
the locality, and stakeholders are encouraged to exercise control quent changes in the range of devices and software available to
over ever-changing parts of the learning environment to ensure students, and illuminate the need to deepen our understanding
that socially shared and valued activities are not marginalized. of media and Internet usage patterns of engineering students.
Nardi and O’Day (1999) further argue for a need to continually According to the latest Horizon Report (Johnson, Smith, Willis,
evaluate communal motivations, values as well as social linkages Levine, & Haywood, 2011), an annual survey conducted by the
in order to assess if technology uses are adequately supported. New Media Consortium and Educause, six emerging technologies
The ecology metaphor has guided research work from several – electronic books, mobiles, augmented reality, game-based learn-
domains. For instance, it has been leveraged for undergraduate IT ing, gesture-based computing, and learning analytics – have the
instruction delivery (Kazmer & Thakkar, 2004), design of learning potential to disrupt learning and education significantly in the near
commons (McMullen, 2008), digital libraries (O’Day & Nardi, future. The K-12 edition of the Horizon Report (Johnson, Adams,
288 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
& Haywood, 2011) lists cloud computing, open content and per- proficient at multitasking when using electronic and digital devices
sonal learning environments as further areas for growth in the field (Foehr, 2006), and they perceive digital technology as omnipresent
of learning technologies. There is no doubt that college students in their lives often as means to accomplish desired outcomes (Kva-
are quick to adopt or to start using new Internet tools and media vik, 2005). Tapscott and Williams (2008, p. 52) have outlined sev-
devices compared to the general population of Internet users eral dimensions of the current generation of college students, and
(Jones, Johnson-Yale, Millermaier, & Seoane Pérez, 2009). They per- claim that ‘‘they are not content to be passive consumers and
ceive media use as a great addition to their lives and believe them- increasingly satisfy their desire for choice, convenience, customiza-
selves to be skillful at media use and do not require additional tion, and control by designing, producing, and distributing prod-
training (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005). Kvavik and Caruso (2005) also re- ucts themselves’’ (p. 52). In terms of education and learning,
ported that students saw Internet use as convenient for school and their learning styles lean towards independence and autonomy,
connecting with others, but that they preferred a moderate use of which then influence their school behaviors, from ‘‘what kind
it in their courses. They claimed to be happy with their instructorś of education they buy’’ to ‘‘what, where, and how they learn’’
ability to use technology and expected them to use it well. Stu- (Carlson, 2005). These authors cautioned that educators must be
dents felt that the primary benefit of technology in their courses aware that young adults are able to utilize online tools to their
was convenience, followed by connectedness, and they did not advantage and not be restricted by the linearity of traditional com-
view this technology as transformational but supplemental to their munication media. However, while these generalizations about
course work. It was also clear that students in disciplines that use students offer helpful models, it is also crucial to be aware of the
information technology extensively, like engineering, business and significant diversity within any population. With this caveat, we
computer sciences, showed a higher preference for IT in the course now turn to an extensive review of findings on use of digital media
experience. With the gradual transition into an information society and devices among youth and their propensity to multitask.
and advancement of mobile technology, multimedia, communica-
tion and computer tools have become ubiquitous and the owner- 4.1. Digital device ownership
ship and use of electronic devices, such as MP3 players, iPods of
various kinds, mobile phones, computers, especially laptops, has A study of youth media consumption (Yahoo!, 2003) polled a
increased exponentially. The most active users of these devices total of 2618 research participants regarding their Internet use
are young people (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005; Kvavik, Caruso, & and found that in an average week, youth reported spending large
Morgan, 2004) who are ‘‘digitally able, always connected and amounts of time on activities related to media and the Internet:
desiring contact, social, visual, experiential and needing immediate 16.7 h online (excluding email), 13.6 h watching TV, 12 h listening
responses (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005).’’ Given the extensive use of to the radio, 7.7 h talking on the phone; 6 h reading books and
technology among students and in order to prepare for the future, magazines that had nothing to do with school (Yahoo!, & Carat
it is important to calibrate and gauge engineering students’ use of Interactive, 2003). In 2004, ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
technology in order to leverage information technology for learn- Research) performed a large-scale study involving 4374 respon-
ing and education. The study presented in this paper targets this dents, in order to examine students’ experiences with the use of
goal. information technology, and to evaluate learning needs for IT ser-
In the rest of the paper we first review prior literature on the vices, training and tools (Kvavik et al., 2004). Their mixed-methods
use of digital media and devices by youth. We focus particularly research study included a Web-based survey of a sample of 18,039
on areas reported to be high use such as the Internet, social net- students, which was comprised of both Likert-scale items and
working, Wikipedia, and use of mobile devices. We follow with a open-ended questions, as well as interviews of 82 students. ECAR
review of research on multitasking, a habit reported to be common expanded this study in 2005 by including additional universities,
among youth with implications for learning. Following the litera- and by enlarging their sample population to include graduate stu-
ture review, we list the research questions guiding the survey de- dents (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005). This study revealed much about the
sign, explain our research design, and present the results of the technology device ownership of the Net Generation students,
survey. We close with a discussion of the findings and a conclusion. showing that most of the students had at least one computer and
a mobile phone. The survey findings showed that over 61% of the
survey respondents owned a personal desktop computer, over
4. Literature review – use of digital technology 55% owned a laptop computer, over 90% owned a mobile phone
and 25% had wireless adapters used to access the Internet. The
The use of technology in education has a strong historical line- respondents reported that these devices were used for the pur-
age. Writing instruments and blackboards serve as enduring exam- poses of socializing, studying and entertainment and that they
ples, but digital information technology has dramatically changed transported their mobile phones, laptops and PDAs with them
the landscape. The infrastructure for education and learning has throughout the day. Malaney (2004) conducted a study at the Uni-
become significantly digitized, from use of devices such as elec- versity of Massachusetts, and reported that 98% of college students
tronic whiteboard, laptops, and mobile phones, to web-based re- owned a computer.
sources and activities such as the Internet, online gaming, and Roberts et al. (2005) of the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted
social networking. As Johri (2011) argues, the shift is not just in a media study involving 2002 children or youth, 8- to 18-year-old,
the infrastructure but also its use. Digital technology has become and found that they owned a variety of digital media devices: mo-
a part of most common educational activities, such as interacting bile phone (39%), handheld video game player (55%), MP3 player
with content, managing content, facilitating interaction among (18%), laptop (12%) and portable CD/tape player (61%). Their subse-
students and teachers, grading, and conducting research. Although quent study, conducted 5 years later (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts,
this shift has been occurring over the past few decades, it has made 2010), found significant increases in digital device ownership; mo-
a major impact on youth described as the ‘Net generation’ or ‘Mill- bile phone (66%), handheld video game player (59%), MP3 player
ennials’, those born between 1980 and the present (Howe & (76%), laptop (29%) and portable CD/tape player (16%). Seemingly,
Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003) and who grew up with computer- the marked increase in the MP3 player ownership is coupled with
based technology readily available and almost unrestricted access the decrease of portable CD/tape player ownership, whereas laptop
to the Internet (Tapscott & Williams, 2008). This group of youths is ownership has more than doubled for the sample population of
known to be extremely proficient with digital technology and youth aged 8- to 18-year-old. Furthermore, Jones et al. (2009) con-
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 289
ducted a survey study in 29 higher education institutions and re- 0.88 h per week was spent downloading music, software, and mov-
ported that 76% of the 7421 students owned desktop computers, ies, respectively. Furthermore, students spent 0.84, 0.19 and 0.49 h
54% owned laptops, over 35% owned both a desktop and a laptop per week playing web-based interactive games, Web-based fantasy
whereas only 3% respondents do not own personal computers. sports, and multi-user dungeons/dimension and 0.26 h per week on
Arriving at similar findings, Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, and Zickuhr adult websites (Malaney, 2004). This is comparable to the earlier
(2010) found that amongst 2253 adults, 18-year-old and above, findings by Anderson (2001), who surveyed a group of 1302 college
58% owned desktop computers whereas 46% owned laptops or net- students from seven colleges and reported that the students were
books. A large number of adults also owned other devices such as spending an average of 1.33 h per day using the Internet, with an
gaming consoles (37%), MP3 Player (43%) and portable gaming de- average of 0.65 h per day browsing the 0.12 h per day using chatting
vice (18%). The researchers also found that laptop computers have or instant messaging services and 0.08 h per day using usenet.
overtaken the desktop computer in terms of being the choice of The findings from the study conducted by ECAR do not vary sig-
computing needs for adults, with young adults, under age 30, more nificantly from the findings of Anderson (2001) and Malaney
likely to own a laptop (66%) rather than a desktop computer (53%). (2004). Kvavik et al. (2004) reported that over 99% of the college
students participating in their study used email, over 98% used
4.2. Internet use the Internet for coursework and writing and over 94% used it for
pleasure. In an subsequent study, Kvavik and Caruso (2005) found
Internet use has, since its invention in the 1990s, increased faster that the most common activities on the Internet were: instant
than any of us could have imagined. One of the first studies on the messenger activities or chatting (2.72 h per week), downloading
Internet use of college students showed that students used first and or listening to music or videos/DVDs (2.59 h per week), email-re-
foremost email and course related search on the net, followed by lated activities (2.52 h per week), browsing for pleasure (2.54 h
participation in online groups and playing game, with a total weekly per week), using a library resource to complete a course assign-
use of 2.6 h (Wilson, 1999). Slightly more than half the surveyed ment (1.83 h per week) and online shopping (1.54 h per week).
students (51%) claimed to use the net, with some of them reporting On the other hand, Rideout et al. (2010) found that 8- to 18-
that either they did not know how to or did not have easy access to year-olds spend an average of 2.32 h per week listening to music
the Internet (Wilson, 1999). The access to Internet has changed and 0.2 h on news or talk shows. In their study, the majority of
significantly over the years with Malaney (2004) reporting that youth have watched a video on the Internet (81%), downloaded
almost every single undergraduate student (99.7%) used the music (62%) and 43% of the youth engaged in any of the three activ-
Internet in 2003 in addition to Kvavik et al. (2004) who found that ities: listening to music, playing games and watching TV.
almost all the surveyed college students in their study had access to Wikipedia, an Internet-based encyclopedia, has been widely
the Internet with 81% of respondents reporting use of broadband leveraged for teaching (Konieczny, 2007), for improving the writ-
Internet. It has also been noted that students in chemistry, com- ing experience (Forte & Bruckman, 2009) and to provide resources
puter science, engineering, math, and physics spent considerably for learners of academic research (Head, 2007). In a survey study
more time online than other students (Anderson, 2001). Kvavik, conducted by Rainie and Tancer (2007), 36% of 2200 adults, aged
Caruso, and Morgan (2005) found that 11.9% of college students 18 and older, reported using Wikipedia whereas on the other hand,
accessed the Internet through dial-in services whereas the majority Head and Eisenberg (2010) conducted a study at six different col-
connected through wired broadband (75.9%). Jones et al. (2009) leges in the US to investigate how and why students used Wikipe-
replicated and extended their earlier study (Jones, 2002) on college dia, and they found that 91% of the surveyed students use
studentś media use and compared the findings. The study in 2002 Wikipedia for course-related research purposes and over half the
showed that about 77% of the students spent at least an hour online students (52%) were frequent Wikipedia users. Lim (2009) ex-
each day whereas the second study showed that over half (53%) of plored college students’ perceptions of their use of Wikipedia
the students reported being online at least 3 h per day. and found that while all students (100%) use Wikipedia (with the
Excessive use of the Internet has been associated with Internet majority of students 53.7% accessed Wikipedia through search en-
dependence and deterioration of collegiate academic performance. gines), only a third of the respondents reported using Wikipedia
Scherer (1997) found that 13% of the college students in her study more than 15 times per semester.
suffering from Internet dependence, but only a small percent of
these students perceived their online use to have a negative impact 4.4. Online social networking
on their lives. However, Anderson (2001) reported that 6% of the
students spent more than 400 min per day using the Internet and Online social networking is a computer-mediated communica-
these students were more likely than the other students to indicate tion environment which provides access to people to be connected
negative influence of Internet overuse. Malaney (2004) studied for cooperative, collaborative and information-based shared Inter-
Internet use among undergraduate students in a public research net activities (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Riley,
university and found that 29.8% of the survey respondents had Bernoff, Pflaum, & Wise, 2010). Examples of online social network-
‘‘tried unsuccessfully to control, cut back, or stop using the Inter- ing sites are Twitter, Linked-In, Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook.
net’’ whereas 10% of surveyed students were experiencing negative One study of American adults suggests that 46% of online adults 18
outcomes attributed to Internet use, such as losing sleep. Another and older are users of at least one social networking site (Lenhart,
study suggesting that excessive Internet use is tied to decreased 2009). Another study targeted active social networking users and
academic performance includes the survey study of 572 students reports that 73% of the social networking users have a profile on
by Kubey, Lavin, and Barrows (2001), who reported that students Facebook and 48% on MySpace (Lenhart et al., 2010). Madden
who suffer from impaired academic performance were using Inter- and Zickuhr (2011) found that 65% of the total sample size of
net at a rate that was almost double as the rest of the sample. 2277 adults reported the use of social networking sites like My-
Space, Facebook or LinkedIn.
4.3. Participation in online activities Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, and Purcell (2011) surveyed some
2,255 American adults and 79% of the respondents reported that
Malaney (2004) found that students spent 4.21 h per week surf- they used the Internet and nearly half of adults (47%), or 59% of
ing the Internet and 5.16 h per week on the Internet for activities re- Internet users, say they use at least one of social networking sites.
lated to their college coursework. An average of 1.78, 0.31, and Another study was performed among 165 undergraduate college
290 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
students asking about their use of social networking (Miller, increased by 2 h per day, the youth are now multitasking. Yahoo
Parsons, & Lifer, 2010) and found that 88.5% of the respondents (2003) conducted a study on youth media use and found that
visit social networking sites at least once a day whereas 60% of 68% of respondents listen to CDs or MP3 and 67% while using the
respondents visited the sites many times a day. As for the amount Internet at the same time. Other types of activities that youth en-
of time they spent on the social networking sites, the majority gaged in while online include watching TV (50%), talking on the
reported visits that last less than 10 min (60%) and 35.2% of partic- telephone (45%), listening to the radio (45%), doing homework
ipants spending 10–30 min. (45%) and reading (21%). These numbers are quite different in
Facebook and Twitter are two online social networking sites the IM user population, where almost all IM users in a study con-
that have gained immense popularity and have attracted much ducted by Junco and Cotten (2011) engaged in IM or chatting while
academic interest (Ross et al., 2009; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, doing schoolwork at the same time.
2008). Jones et al. (2009) examined a sample size of 7421 and
found that more than one-third of the students reported logging 4.6. Millennials
onto Facebook daily and 21% admitted to logging on many times
a per day although 37% claimed never to have logged onto Face- As suggested by the literature, we can not only refer to descrip-
book (Jones et al., 2009). Twitter, another social networking site, tors (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2003; Prensky,
is a microblogging service accessible through the Internet browsers 2001; Tapscott, 1997) of the current generation of students but
or mobile phones, has gained even in education fields (Parslow, look specifically at their media habits, uncovered through media
2009). Hargittai and Lifer (2010) conducted survey study over surveys as cited above. Table 1 summarizes the various attributes
2 years which attracted 505 students and found that less than relevant to digital media and device use of millennials synthesized
20% of the college students surveyed were Twitter users. In addi- from the literature.
tion, they also found that 37% of black students were using Twitter While these studies both have deepened our understanding of
in 2010 compared to 21% of white students. This is quite similar to ‘‘millennial’’ students as well as demonstrated that technology tools
the findings by Lenhart et al. (2010), who reported that 18% of sur- can indirectly increase the quality of education for our engineering
veyed adults are Twitter users. students, much work has to be done to increase the understanding
our engineering learners. Through the review of recent scholarly
4.5. Multitasking writings, it became apparent that no studies have been performed
specifically on freshman engineering students; hence, this study
Multitasking – an involvement in more than one media or com- aims to contribute to the growing knowledge of digital use habits
puter activity simultaneously (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Yahoo & our engineering students, and to better understand how to engage
Carat, 2003) – has emerged as a significant part of Net Generation students through digital technology. We intend to contribute to
behavior (Oser, 2005; Wallis, 2006). Documented evidence of the the literature discussed above by investigating freshman engineer-
academic consequences of multitasking is mixed. Hembrooke and ing students’ use of digital media and devices. In order to achieve
Gay (2003) investigated the effects of multitasking in a group of our aims, we used a self-reported survey instrument to establish
students who were using laptops in a lecture and reported that stu- the prevalence of specific media habits among the survey popula-
dents who multitask perform significantly poorer in immediate tion. In the next section we discuss the research questions, research
measures of memory. Coming to a similar conclusion, Levine, design, data collection process and findings for this study.
Waite, and Bowman (2007) argued that if youths are repeatedly
engaged in tasks that require frequent attention shifts (such as in-
4.7. Summary of survey studies of media and device use
stant messaging), this may lead to ‘‘quick, superficial multitasking
rather than in-depth focus on one task’’ and a preference for fre-
As shown in Table 2, only three of the studies cited in the liter-
quent task switching over sustained attention during cognitive
ature review touch on the three research areas of device owner-
tasks. Kraushaar and Novak (2006) investigated student use of lap-
ship, Internet activities and multitasking.
top during lectures and found that when students engage in mul-
titasking in software applications unrelated to coursework, their
academic performance is adversely affected by the amount of dis- 5. Research study
tractive multitasking. Other researchers have argued that instant
messaging (IM) or chatting while working on academic work 5.1. Research questions
may reduce academic performance (Fox, Rosen, & Crawford,
2009; Junco & Cotten, 2011). This is not surprising considering The following research questions guided the design of the sur-
the observations that researchers have found on instant messaging vey instrument and subsequent data collection:
(IM) use; Malaney (2004) noted that students spent 10.57 h per
week on IM whereas Jones et al. (2009) found that 24% respon- Research Question 1: What digital devices and media character-
dents use IM several times during the day (Jones et al., 2009). On ize the freshmen engineering learning ecology?
the other end, others have suggested that listening to music or Research Question 2: In what online activities do freshmen engi-
watching music videos did not seem to negatively affect their per- neering students commonly engage, and what is the frequency
formance negatively (Pool, Koolstra, & Van Der Voort, 2003). of engagement?
Rideout et al. (2010) investigated computer multitasking be- Research Question 3: Do first year engineering students engage
tween the age of 8 and 18 reported using multiple media simulta- in multitasking, and what is their self-perception of
neously – using computers and the Internet at the same time as multitasking?
video games, print media, music, and the phone. In this study,
56% of the survey respondents reported that they use a computer, 5.2. Data collection
watch TV, play video games, text message, or listen to music while
doing their homework some of the time or more frequently. They Given the goal of the study was to understand media use and
argue that as American youth still spent 6.5 h per day with media perception among the engineering student population, we em-
– a figure similar to that of an earlier study in 2005 (Roberts et al., ployed a survey research design for this study. Our survey instru-
2005) – but because their consumption of media content had ment design was based on similar prior studies whose
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 291
Table 1
Media related attributes of Millennials.
Table 2
Summary of surveys cited in the literature review.
instruments were made publically available (e.g. Hampton et al., therefore selected the same cohort of students. A total of 143 stu-
2011; Rideout et al., 2010). We also made use of an instrument dents responded for the first survey and 136 students responded
used in a similar study (Barron, 2004; Barron et al., 2004). Given for the second survey. Considering that this response rate was rel-
the advances in technology, our questions were changed to reflect atively high and the number of respondents was sufficient for con-
both newer technologies as well as new topics that we wanted to ducting statistical tests, we did not send follow-up emails. In order
cover. Survey questions were based on a seven-point Likert scale, to be consistent with other analyses in the article, we used list-
coded so that positive outcomes were represented by higher re- wise deletion of missing data when computing statistical analysis.
sponse values. Items used in the survey are provided in the Appen- A summary of the survey questions are listed in the Appendix.
dix. Two separate groups of students participated in the survey,
which was hosted on a commercial survey-hosting website with 5.4. Demographics
which the host university maintains a license. The study was re-
viewed and approved by the institutional review board at the insti- The sample size (after list-wise deletion) is n = 204, compared,
tution. Students consented to participating, and their participation with a total sample size of 279. List-wise deletion was used to
was voluntary. remove the responses of 75 participants with missing data,
resulting in 204 students (73%) with complete data. Based on the
MP3 Player
160 140
140 120
100 Never
120 Never
80 Rarely
100 Rarely Sometimes
60
80 Sometimes Most of the time
40
60 Always
Most of the time 20
40 0
Always
20 Fig. 6. Access to Internet.
140
Never
120
Monthly
100
Weekly
80
Daily
60
A few times a day
40 Hourly
20 Several times an hour
0
Online Shopping
Several times an hour
Jobs
Do Online Research for an Academic … Hourly
Use Library Catalogs A few times a day
Reading an Article/Text for Class
Daily
Play Multi- Player Games
Play Single- Player Games Weekly
Buy Music Monthly
Listen to Music
Never
Watch Television Shows
Watch Movies or Video
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
30 200
180
25 Never
Never 160
Monthly 140 Monthly
20
Weekly 120
Weekly
15 Daily 100
A few times a day 80 Daily
10 Hourly 60 A few times a
Several times an hour 40 day
5 Hourly
20
0 0
Table 4 Fig. 10. Visits to popular and top-ranked Websites, rankings by Alexa (2010).
Most visited websites of various categories in United States in 2010.
(Mean = 1.49, SD = 1.121), t(204) = 1.843, p < .005., which raises
Website Category in which website is top-ranked Overall rank # the possibility that male students own more digital devices than
Google Search engine 1 females.
Facebook Social networking 2
Youtube Video sharing 3
Wikipedia Encyclopedia 6 6.3.2. Mobile phone use
Twitter Microblogging service 9 Table 6 displays t-tests performed to examine statistically sig-
nificant differences between females and males pertaining to the
use of mobile phone across various locations. Female students used
6.3.1. Digital device ownership the mobile phone more than men. On a seven-point scale that ran-
As depicted in Table 5, t-tests were performed to examine sta- ged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time), female students reported sig-
tistically significant differences in digital media device use about nificantly more use of the mobile phone in the bus (Mean = 3.51,
females and males. On a seven-point scale that ranged from 1 SD = 1.03) than men (Mean = 2.98, SD = 1.16), t(204) = 2.914,
(never) to 7 (all the time), female students reported significantly p < .005. Similarly, female students reported significantly more
more use of the mobile phone (Mean = 6.47, SD = 0.855) than male use of the mobile phone in the library (Mean = 2.79, SD = 1.12)
students (Mean = 6.14, SD = 1.081), t(204) = 1.843, p < .005. On the than men (Mean = 2.37, SD = 1.19), t(204) = 2.078, p < .005. Female
other hand, male students reported significantly more use of the students also used the mobile phone more often for texting than
gaming console (Mean = 2.73, SD = 1.548) than female students men.
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 295
Table 5 Table 6
Use of digital media devices, comparing males to females. Locations or situation of mobile phone use, comparing males to females.
6.3.3. Social communication activities Public study places Male 161 2.76 1.14 0.855
Table 7 displays t-tests performed to examine statistically sig- Female 43 2.93 1.18
nificant differences between females and males pertaining to their While eating Male 161 2.93 1.07 0.434
use of online or communication activities. On a seven-point scale Female 43 2.84 1.21
that ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time), female students re- While with friends Male 161 3.18 1.02 0.242
ported significantly more participation on the Wikipedia platform Female 43 3.14 0.97
to gain deeper insights into how academic activities were carried students reported that they write email and answer phone calls
out. Most of the survey respondents reported that, while working every 30 min or less, 42.65% and 44.12% of students reported that
on academic tasks, they made calls on mobile phones (Mean = 1.79, they do so about every hour. On the other hand, 40.20% and 40.69%
SD = 0.41), used texting on their mobile phone (Mean = 1.83, of students reported that they text and browse or search every
SD = 0.38), emailed (Mean = 1.82, SD = 0.39) and used their web 30 min or less frequently. Similarly, 32.84% and 43.14% of students
browser on either their computer or phone (Mean = 1.93, reported that they do so about every hour. This item, we believe,
SD = 0.26). 38.7% of the respondents reported that they were in- needs to be explored further as it raises several questions about
stant messaging or chatting while working on academic activities the frequency of activities like writing email, answering phone
(Mean = 1.39, SD = 0.49). calls, and making calls, and how they interact with task at hand.
For instance, does a longer class lead to higher rates of multitask-
6.4.3. Participation in activities while working on academic activities ing? Is there a tacit acceptance of these habits among faculty and
Our data indicated that chatting was not a function that was peers? How does multitasking affect learning? And, as we explore
commonly turned on during academic activities. In Fig. 12, the data briefly in the section below, what are students’ perception of
describes how frequently students participated in various media multitasking?
activities while working on academic activities. We used a seven-
point scale that ranged from 1 (about every 5 min), 2 (about every 6.5. Multitasking
10 min), 3 (about every 20 min), 4 (about every 30 min), 5 (hourly),
6 (monthly) and 7 (never). After administering the first survey, we found that more could
Table 11 compares the level of participation ‘every hour’ or be learned more about students’ perceptions of academic distur-
every ‘30 min or less’ increments. While 3.43% and 2.94% of bances. Therefore, we added two items on multitasking to the
Table 9
Participation in online activities comparing males to females.
120
100
80 Never
Rarely
60 Occasionally
0
Quiet Working in Music People Internet TV On Phone
Environment a Public Playing talking Access On
Place around me
Table 10 Table 11
Devices or functions turned on during academic activities. Comparison of number of student participation in activities while working in
academic activities.
Item On Off Mean SD
Activity An hour or more 30 Min or less
Cell phone call 162 42 1.79 0.41
frequently frequently
Email 167 37 1.82 0.39
(% of students) (% of students)
Web browser (on computer or phone) 189 15 1.93 0.26
Chat 79 125 1.39 0.49 Make phone call 28.92 0.49
TXT/SMS 169 35 1.83 0.38 Read email 61.27 21.08
Text 32.84 40.20
Write email 42.65 3.43
Answer phone call 44.12 2.94
Browse or search the web 43.14 40.69
survey. These questions focused on students’ self-perceptions of
their ability to multitask, and the number of tasks perceived to
be manageable at the same time. The survey findings are repre-
sented in Figs. 13 and 14.
According to Fig. 13, approximately 72.0% of the respondents
perceived themselves capable of multitasking. However, as shown
in Fig. 14, more than 53.7% of respondents perceived themselves to
be effective at simultaneously performing two tasks, and 46.6% of
students perceived themselves to be effective at simultaneously
Yes
performing three or more tasks. While 93.9% reported they can
effectively perform 2 or 3 tasks simultaneously, only 72.0% of the No
students perceived themselves to be effective at multitasking. This
suggests that although students do not see themselves at effective
multitaskers, they still perform multitasking for reasons that may
require further investigations to uncover.
Fig. 13. Perceived effectiveness at multitasking.
7. Discussion, implications, and conclusion
140
120 Never
Monthly
100
Weekly
80
About every 30
minutes
60 About every 20
minutes
40 About every 10
minutes
About every 5
20 minutes
0
Make Read Text Write Answer Browse Chat
Phone Email Email Phone or Search
Call Call the Web
by Lenhart et al. (2010). Kvavik and Caruso (2005) also reported 7.1. Device use
that 38.4% of 18,039 students owned music players, which is al-
most double of what we found, that 13.7% of engineering students Our findings on freshman engineering students’ digital device
owned did not own music devices. Our finding that female stu- ownership can help inform current discussion to improve the engi-
dents were more likely to own mobile phones than men was sim- neering learning environment and deliver instruction in synergy
ilar to the conclusion that Kvavik and Caruso came to, as they with students’ learning styles. Engineering classes can benefit
claimed that women (92.1%) are more likely to own mobile phones through a redesign of curriculum by leveraging the mix of emerg-
than males (86.5%). ing technologies and pedagogies that encourage individual person-
In the subsequent investigations of students’ Internet use, we alization of learning experiences. With the majority of students
found that engineering freshman’s access to Internet were similar owning several multiple devices, students now enter the engineer-
to that reported by other researchers (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005; ing classroom with a desire to meet a multitude of needs and
Rideout et al., 2010). We found that engineering students’ use of therefore offer plenty of opportunities in addition to challenges
Wikipedia was similar to that of Head’s study, who reported that for educators to innovate on curricular designs.
91% use Wikipedia for course-related work. Students’ use of social
networking sites such as Facebook was similar to findings by other 7.2. Internet use
researchers (Hampton et al., 2011; Lenhart et al., 2010). However,
engineering freshman students’ use of Twitter was relatively lower While we learned about students’ use of the Internet by asking
when compared to numbers reported by other researchers such as about how student learn through online research, how they seek
Hargittai and Litt (2011), who reported Twitter use by 17.8% of 505 information, and in which digital activities outside school work
respondents with 9.3% of reporting frequent use of Twitter, and they participate, we also suggest that further work is needed to
Hampton et al., 2011), who reported Twitter use by 92% of 975 contribute deeper understanding of students’ activities. In particu-
respondents, with 20% respondents reporting use of Twitter lar, we want to underscore the importance of the need to further
several times a day. understand why engineering students are attracted to particular
Our findings pertaining to students’ activities in searching and media activities, and the extent of engagement in these activities.
participation in activities seemed to fit in well with findings of By staying alert to students who were not included in the study,
other researchers. For instance, our finding that 67.6% of fresh- we are hesitant about jumping to conclusions about students’
man engineering students were looking up health information behaviors and self-reported frequencies of participation in online
online were similar to that of Robert and his colleagues, who activities.
found that 55% of the surveyed 7th–12th graders and 62% of
15- to 17-year-olds have used the Internet to look for health 7.3. Multitasking
information. While Kvavik and Caruso (2005) found that 86.9%
of the surveyed freshman students (N = 7997) used a library re- It is clear from findings pertaining to multitasking that students
source to complete a course assignment and 65.3% of students are engaged in multitasking and that they believe that they are
have conducted online shopping, we found that 74.1% and effective in this practice. We have no data that can directly show
52.5% of surveyed engineering freshman shopped online and whether multitasking affects learning. We caution educators to
used a library catalog respectively. Another close match was that be cognizant of students’ behavior related to multitasking and be
98.1% of freshman students in the study (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005) able to leverage it if it seems appropriate to the cognitive task at
used the Internet to look for information to support coursework hand.
whereas in our study, 100% of the students used the Internet to
look for school work related information, with the majority 7.4. Millennial traits
engaging in the activity every day or more frequently. With re-
gards to gender differences when it comes to online gaming, Our investigations mainly confirm expectations about millenni-
we found that male freshman engineering students were spend- als, and freshman engineering students display media habits that
ing significantly more time playing single-player and multi- are akin to what other authors have suggested (Frand, 2000; Howe
player online games than female students. This was quite similar & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Tapscott, 1997). Almost all stu-
to what Malaney (2004) found: males spent significantly more dents own multiple devices, with all catering to, but not limited
time playing Web-based interactive games, Web-based fantasy to, social communication, entertainment, information seeking
sports, and multi-user dungeons/dimension than females. and learning activities. Furthermore, all of the surveyed population
Our investigation of freshman engineering students’ percep- perform some form of multitasking, although they may not deem
tions of multitasking uncovered an unexpected finding that themselves to be proficient at juggling multiple tasks at the same
some students perceive themselves at effectively simultaneously time. In our study, freshman engineering students appeared to be
doing two or more task but yet reported to be ineffective at mul- connected as frequently as what was described of millennials but
titasking. It seems like their perception of effective multitasking their participation in online activities vary from person to person.
involve more than juggling between two or three tasks, some-
thing that can gain from deeper qualitative studies. Not surpris- 7.5. Implications for engineering learning
ingly, while Rideout et al. (2010) reported that 87% of 7th–12th
graders perform computer multitasking at varying frequencies, The primary purpose of this study was to understand media use
our numbers seem to suggest that almost every student perform by engineering students born after 1990 and grew up with the
multitasking, with the majority working with 2 and 3 tasks Internet and in a technology-rich environment, with the specific
simultaneously, although self-perceptions on their effectiveness intention of understanding the prevalence of digital devices and
of multitasking vary from person to person. While Yahoo (2003) media in their lives. There are several implications of these findings
has suggested that 45% of surveyed youth, age 13–24, reported for design of learning practices as this study confirms the satura-
that they do homework while online at the same time, we found tion of students’ lives with digital media and their use of informa-
that a significantly larger percentage of engineering students tion technology – particularly access to the Internet – for
(95.6%) reported that they browse or search the web while doing educational use. The study shows the lack of boundaries between
academic activities. educational and non-educational activities, and particularly the
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 299
habit to multitask. This has implications for the design of content Table A1
and suggests why short content – such as that available on Khan Summary of survey questions.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: Konieczny, P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of
A learning ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(1), 15–34.
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),
experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36. 179–212.
Barron, B., Tackman, J., Martin, C. Mercier, E., Johri, A., Johnson et al. (2004). Equity Kraidy, U. (2002). Digital media and education: Cognitive impact of information
and the development of technological fluency. In Proceedings from the sixth visualization. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3), 95–106.
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate
Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication,
anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131–146. 51, 366–382.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 1–19. technology. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.). Technology (vol. 86,
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human pp. 7.1–7.20). Educause. Retrieved <www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen>.
development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–530. Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and
Carlson, S. (2005, October 7). The net generation goes to college. The chronicle of information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection and control. Boulder, CO:
higher education. Retrieved <http://chronicle.com/article/The-Net-Generation- EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved <http://www.educause.edu/
Goes-to/12307>. LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERS0405>.
Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich Kvavik, R. B., & Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology,
feedback to enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering 2005: Convenience, control, and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for
Education, 99(2), 159–168. Applied Research. Retrieved <http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0506/
Chubin, D., Donaldson, K., Olds, B., & Fleming, L. (2008). Educating generation net – ekf0506.pdf>.
Can U.S. engineering woo and win the competition for talent? Journal of Kvavik, R., Caruso, J., & Morgan, G. (2005). ECAR Study of students and information
Engineering Education, 97(3), 245–257. technology. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network Web sites. Pew Internet and American
28(1). Life Project. Retrieved <http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-
Entertainment Software Association (2010). Essential facts about the computer and Social-Network-Websites.aspx>.
video game industry. Retrieved <http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_ Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young
Essential_Facts_2010.pdf>. adults. Methodology. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved <http://
Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx>.
implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 14–18. 22, 24. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors overview. Pew Internet American Life Project. Pew Internet & American Life
and pairings. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Project.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Writing, citing, and participatory media: Wikis as Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and
learning environments in the high school classroom. International Journal of academic distractibility in college youth. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(4),
Learning and Media, 1(4), 23–44. 560–566.
Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for communication, not calculation: Ligorio, M. B., & Van Veen, K. (2006). Constructing a successful cross-national virtual
media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the Hawaiian learning environment in primary and secondary education. AACE Journal, 14(2),
International Conference of Systems Sciences, Big Island, HI. 103–128.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the
messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189–2202.
comprehension task? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(1), 51–53. Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). 65% Of online adults use social networking sites.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K., (2011). Social networking sites Young. Retrieved <http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-
and our lives: How people’s trust, personal relationships, and civic and political Sites.aspx>.
involvement are connected to their use of social networking sites and other Malaney, G. D. (2004). Student use of the internet. Journal of Educational Technology
technologies. Pew Internet & American Life Project 2011. Systems, 33(1), 53–66.
Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York,
twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13(5), 824–842. McMullen, S. (2008). US academic libraries: Today’s learning commons model, PEB
Hargittai, K., & Lifer, D. (2010). Students and social networking sites: The posting exchange, programme on educational building. PEB Exchange. Programme on
paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 377–382. Educational, Building, (4).
Head, A. J. (2007). Beyond google: How do students conduct academic research? McGlynn, A. P. (2008). Millennials in college: How do we motivate them? Education
First Monday, 12(8). Digest, 73(6), 19–22.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today’s college students use Wikipedia Moriarty, G. (2001). Three kinds of ethics for three kinds of engineering. IEEE
for scholarly research. First Monday, 15(3). Technology and Society Magazine.
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of Miller, R., Parsons, K., & Lifer, D. (2010). Students and social networking sites: The
multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, posting paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 377–382.
15, 46–64. Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New Boston: MIT Press.
York: Vintage. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (2005). Educating the engineer or 2020:
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, D.C.: The
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12 National Academies Press.
edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. The Nielsen Company (2010, January 22). Led by Facebook, Twitter, global time
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon spent on social media sites up 82% year over year. Retrieved <http://blog.
report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter-global-time-spent-
Johri, A. (2011). The sociomateriality of learning practices and implications for the on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/>.
field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 207–217. O’Day, V. L., & Nardi, B. A. (2003). An ecological perspective on digital libraries. Digital
Johri, A., & Lohani, V. (2011). A framework for improving engineering library use social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.
representational literacy through the use of pen-based computing. 65–84.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 958–967. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials: Understanding the new
Johri, A., Williams, C. B., & Pembridge, J. (2013). Creative collaboration: A case study students. EDUCAUSE Review, 38, 4. July/August, 37–47.
of the role of computers in supporting representational and relational Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding
interaction in student engineering design teams. International Journal of the net generation. In D. O. A. J. Oblinger (Ed.), Educating the net generation
Engineering Education, 29(1), 33–44. (pp. 2.1–2.20). Educause Publication.
Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future Oser, K. (2005). Kids cram more hours in media day. Advertising Age, 76(46), 31.
with today. Pew Internet and American LIfe Project. Pew Internet & American Life Parslow, G. (2009). Commentary: Twitter for educational networking. Biochemistry
Project, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 710, Washington, DC 20036. Tel.: and Molecular Biology Education, 37(4), 255–256.
202 296 0019. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In
Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Seoane Pérez, F. (2009). Everyday life, G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge
online: U.S. college students’ use of the Internet. First Monday, 14(10). University Press.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Van Der Voort, T. H. A. (2003). Distraction effects of
Computers & Education, 56(2), 370–378. background soap operas on homework performance: An experimental study
Kazmer, M. M., & Thakkar, U. (2004). Developing technological fluency in enriched with observational data. Educational Psychology, 23, 361–380.
undergraduate IT education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. (R. K. Belew & M. D.
Science, 45(3), 229–241. Vose, Eds.). On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2006). Examining the affects of student Rainie, L. & Tancer, B. (2007). Wikipedia users. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems, American Life Project. <http://www.pewInternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/
21(2), 241–252. 2007/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf.pdf>.
A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 301
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of Steif, P., & Dollár, A. (2009). Study of usage patterns and learning gains in a web-
8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. based interactive static course. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4),
Riley, E., Bernoff, J., Pflaum, C. N., & Wise, J. (2010). The rising potential of social 321–333.
network sites. Forrester, 1–10. Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York, NY:
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. J. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of McGraw-Hill.
8–18 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes
Rojas, E. (2002). Use of web-based tools to enhance collaborative learning. Journal of everything. New York, NY: Atlantic.
Engineering Education, 91(1), 89–95. Wallis, C. (2006). The multitasking generation. Time, 163. March 27.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Willett, R., & Buckingham, D. (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human and new media. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.). Infant and child
Behavior, 25, 578–586. development (18 (book, edited)) (vol. 337). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rutz, E., Eckhart, R., Wade, J. E., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student Wilson, R. A. (1999). Revelry, revelation, or research: What are college students
performance and acceptance of instructional technology: Comparing really doing on the Internet. Racing toward tomorrow. Retrieved <http://
technology-enhanced and traditional instruction for a course in statics. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/pdf/wilsonr99.pdf >.
Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133–140. Woodall, D. M. (2004). Enter the millennials. ASEE Prism, 13(9), 59.
Sade, G. (2005). Weblogs as open constructive learning environments. Paper presented WordPress (2011). Stats – WordPress.com. Retrieved <http://en.wordpress.com/
at the Blogtalk Downunder, Sydney. Retrieved <http://incsub.org/blogtalk/ stats/>.
?page_id=56>. Yahoo! & Carat Interactive (2003). Born to be wired: The role of new media for a
Salomon, G. (1978). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: digital generation. Retrieved <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/promo/
Jossey-Bass. btbw_2003/btbw_execsum.pdf>.
Scherer, K. (1997). College life online: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
College Student Development, 38(6), 655–665. empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
Schmiede, R., & Will-Zocholl, M. (2011). Engineer’s work on the move: Challenges in 1816–1836.
automobile engineering in a globalized world. Engineering Studies, 3(2), Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools:
101–121. An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.