AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON LEARNERS IN THE DIGITAL ERA

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on the state of knowledge in education related to the concept of the "digital native" and affiliated concepts, as well as on how the literature was identified, analyzed, synthesized, and reported. To address the research aim, an integrative literature review was performed. In all, 355 articles (both qualitative and quantitative) published between 1991 and 2013 were reviewed. On the basis of the findings, the literature review revealed 46 terms related to the notion of this "new generation" of students, some similar, others quite different, and many redundant. The three most common terms in circulation are: digital natives, net generation, and millennials. The author recommends moving beyond the superficial dichotomy of "natives" and "immigrants", focusing on the implications of being a learner in a digital era, and taking into account factors such as age, gender, education, culture, experience, institutional context, learning design, social inclusion and exclusion, subject discipline, and socio-economic background.

Headnote

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on the state of knowledge in education related to the concept of the "digital native" and affiliated concepts, as well as on how the literature was identified, analyzed, synthesized, and reported. To address the research aim, an integrative literature review was performed. In all, 355 articles (both qualitative and quantitative) published between 1991 and 2013 were reviewed. On the basis of the findings, the literature review revealed 46 terms related to the notion of this "new generation" of students, some similar, others quite different, and many redundant. The three most common terms in circulation are: digital natives, net generation, and millennials. The author recommends moving beyond the superficial dichotomy of "natives" and "immigrants", focusing on the implications of being a learner in a digital era, and taking into account factors such as age, gender, education, culture, experience, institutional context, learning design, social inclusion and exclusion, subject discipline, and socio-economic background.

Keywords

digital learner, digital era, digital technologies, higher education, integrative literature review

Introduction

The increase in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT ), especially the Internet, has had a significant impact on societ y and on many aspects of daily life (Acilar 2011; Jelfs & R ichardson 2012). ICT entered our lives relatively recently and plays an increasingly important role in our work and personal lives. In most developed countries, students use digital technologies and the Internet in all facets of their daily l ife (school, work, and leisure) (Kol ikant, 2010; see also Levin & Arafeh, 2002). However, the same cannot be said for many developing countries where access to digital technologies is much more limited (Acilar, 2011; Hilbert, 2011; Miah & Omar, 2012), e.g., inadequate access to ICT infrastructure such as computers and the Internet.

The world that young people grow up in prior to their arrival at university is now filled with new technology that is integral to the way they live, think, communicate, and work (Jones & Healing, 2010; Simoneaux & Stroud, 2010). Most of these students, who were born roughly between 1980 and 1994, represent the first generation to grow up with this new technology, and they are characterized by their familiarity and confidence with ICT. This generation has been given several nicknames to emphasize its affinity and tendency to use digital technology, such as "generat ion Y" (Howe & Strauss, 1991), "mil lennials" ( Howe & Strauss, 1991), "net generation" (Tapscott, 1998), "digital learners" ( Brown, 2000) "digital natives" (Prensky, 2001), "new mil lennial learners" ( Pedró, 2006), "learners of the digital era" (Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010), and "digital nerds and digital normals" (Thirunarayanan, Lezcano, McKee & Roque, 2011).

Discussions about digital nat ives are usually based on the assumpt ion that students born roughly between 1980 and 1994 are proficient users of digital communication technologies because they have grown up in an age when computers, mobile phones, and the Internet are part of mainstream culture and society. Discussions about digital natives, usually centered around an assumption about the existence of a homogeneous generation of prolific users of technology, have been accepted uncritical ly by many educators. Despite the considerable attent ion focused on digital natives (Prensky's term applies to developing countries), remarkably few studies have carefully invest igated the characteristics of this group. Most of the studies that were used to support the digital nat ive concept were either methodologically suspect or relied excessively on anecdotal data. L ittle empirical evidence was provided to support claims about the presumed digital nat ives and their implications for higher education (Bullen, Morgan & Qayy um, 2011). This changed in 2007 as researchers began to take a more critical look at this issue and a number of methodologically sound studies were published ( Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Kennedy, Krause, Judd, Churchward & Gray, 2008; Nicholas, Rowlands & Huntington, 2008; Bullen & Morgan, 2011; Bullen, Morgan & Qayyum, 2011a; Kennedy, Dalgarno, Gray, Judd, Waycott, Bennett & Churchwood, A., 2007; Nicholas, Rowlands & Huntington, 2007; Morgan & Bul len, 2013; Rapett i & Cantoni, 2013; Romero, Gu itert, Sangrà & Bullen, 2013). These authors assert that the new generation of learners who are entering the higher education system have grown up in a technologically enhanced environment that has fundamentally influenced their preferences and skills in a number of key areas related to educat ion.

Aim and research question

The aim of this paper is to report on the state of knowledge in education related to the concept of the digital nat ive and affiliated concepts, as well as on how the literature was identified, analyzed, synthesized, and reported. We also want to provide a crit ique of past research related to the term "digital natives", because this term seems inappropriate for describing the population of current learners. The study was guided by the following research questions: (a) How many terms are used to characterize learners in the digital era? ( b) How is the new student generat ion in higher educat ion described in contemporary research findings? and (c) What kind of experiences do they have?

Methodology

To address the research aim, an integrative l iterature review was performed. This method "reviews, crit iques, and synthesizes representat ive literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated" ( Torraco, 2005, p. 356). To Hamilton & Torraco (2013, p. 311), "this methodolog y is particularly appropriate when existing research is scattered across disparate areas and has not been systematically analyzed and integrated". There is a misconception with respect to literature reviews that integrat ive literature reviews are less rigorous or easier to write than other ty pes of research articles (for example quantitative meta-analysis). On the contrar y, the integrat ive literature review "is a sophist icated form of research that requires a great deal of research sk ill and insight" (Torraco, 2005, p. 356). This is consistent with the aim of the art icle to examine the literature as a means of providing researchers and educators with new ways of thinking about this topic ( Hamilton & Torraco, 2013).

The review used inclusion and exclusion criteria to focus on the problem. The inclusion criteria were: (a) empirical and research-based publications; ( b) qua l itat ive, quant itat ive, and mixed research studies; (c) special ized textbooks and peer-reviewed journa l ar t icles; (d) only fu ll-text art icles; (e) reports commissioned by international organizations; (f ); literature reviews (including unpublished/gray literature: government reports, pol icy statements, conference proceed i ngs, t heses, d isser tat ions, and research reports); (g) English lang uage only; and ( h) publ ished bet ween January 1991 and December 2013. It must be highlighted that that the author selected 1991 as the starting point, as the first term referring to students in the digital era was proposed by Howe and Strauss in 1991. The exclusion criteria were: (a) opinion and work ing papers; (b) practice reports; and (c) articles that did not focus on the aim of this study.

Online electronic databases such the ISI Web of K nowledge, ERIC, Social Sciences Citat ion Index®, ScienceDirect, SAGE Publications, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis Online, Emerald Group Publishing, UNESDOC Database, and Google Scholar were systematically searched using combinations of the fol lowing key words: dig ita l nat ives, generat ion net, m il len n ials, and generation Y. According to the literature ( Jones & Czerniewicz, 2010; Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010b), these key words are the four most common terms in circu lation. When a new term or conceptually similar word appeared during the search, it was added to the list. To conduct the most comprehensive search, the reference lists of the found articles were examined for more articles that may not have been found by the electronic databases. Newly published articles were identified by alert notifications on the aforementioned databases using the key words. An online thesaurus (found at some electronic databases) was a helpful tool, providing a select ion of related, narrower, and broader terms for the topic. To facilitate the access to and recovery of information, all the documents were organized using reference management software such as Mendeley, which was a helpful organization tool for keeping track of which articles needed to be read and which were the most important. This soft ware was chosen because Mendeley (2013) is a free reference manager and academic social network that helps the researcher organize the research, collaborate with others online, and discover the latest research.

The search strategy identified 2500 publ ications as potential ly relevant sources of evidence. Consequent ly, a staged review - an initial review of abstracts, followed by an in-depth review (Torraco, 2005) - was employed to review the 2500 publications and identify relevant articles. Titles and abstracts of the papers were scrutinized independently by t wo reviewers. Publications were screened for purposefu l, representat ive, and relevant validity criteria (Torraco, 2005; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). Following this process, 355 of the articles met the inclusion criteria, corresponded to the aim of this review, and were analyzed.

To provide k nowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study, the documents were thematically analyzed, as out lined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Thematic analysis (see Figure 1) is a method for ident ifying, a na lyzing, and report i ng patter ns (t hemes) w ithi n data t hat m i n i mal ly organizes and describes the data set in (rich) detail ( Braun & Clarke, 2006; Cohen, Man ion & Morrison, 2 0 07; Guest , MacQueen & Namey, 2012; Vaismoradi, Turunen & Bondas, 2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis are t wo common ly used approaches in data analysis. They are used interchangeably, and there are many similarities bet ween the approaches, including cutt ing across data and searching for patterns and themes; the main difference is that content analysis offers more opportun it y for data quantification ( Vaismoradi, Turunen & Bondas, 2013). Thematic analysis "moves beyond counting explicit words or phrases and focuses on identifying and describing both implicit and explicit ideas within the data, that is, themes" (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012, p. 10).

The themes emerged through several readings and a theoretical or deductive ("top down") process of condensing ident ified key concepts into major categories by determining the main contribution of the literature source to what is known about the new generat ions of students. The publications were categorized for discussion using three views suggested by Rapetti (2012) characterizing how authors and scholars perceive and define learners using ICTs: (a) enthusiasts, ( b) reactionaries, and (c) critics (see Table 1 for a detailed description). Finally, the researcher reviewed each article in each category mult iple times to identify informat ion that could be compared, contrasted, discussed, crit iqued, and synthesized.

Reliabil ity and validity are very important concepts to take into consideration when conduct ing qual itat ive resea rch, since they help to ma inta in the objectivity of the research in which the researcher determines and checks the accuracy or credibility of the findings through strategies or procedures (Creswel l , 20 03, 2008). T he researcher t r ied to desig n research wh ich is auditable, i.e. transparent and replicable; if another researcher can clearly follow the decision trail used by the researcher in the study, then the results should be the same over t ime and over instruments (Koch, 2006; Cohen et al., 2007 ). An audit procedure (also known as an audit trail) was conducted to ascerta i n if t he study meet the cr iter ion of rel iabi l it y. Accord i ng to A k kerman, Adm iraal, Brekel ma ns, a nd Oost (20 08), t h is procedu re is "the most developed and useful tool for maintaining and evaluating the quality of research that involves complex analyses" ( p. 261). According to Koch (2006) the audit trail concept is based on the idea of the fiscal audit, which requires the auditor to authenticate the accounts of a business to exclude the possibil ity of error or fraud. All of the phases of this study were subject to scrut iny by an external auditor experienced in qualitat ive research methods (Creswell, 2003). Audit trails document the course of development of the completed analysis. Table 2 provides an account of al l of the research decisions and activities throughout the study.

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), val idat ing themes in the early and late stages of data analysis is essent ial. The researcher asked several senior researchers and experts from Commonwealth of Learning (Canada), Rovira i Virgil i University of Tarragona (Spain), and Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany) to conduct a thorough review of the study and report back in order to generate peer support and to find better connections between categories in progress (Creswell, 2003; Saldaña, 2009).

Findings: 46 terms to characterize learners in the digital era

The literature review revealed 46 terms (Fig ure 2) related to the notion of this new generation of students in the digital era with a high affinity and tendency to use digital technology, of which "digital natives" has been the most prominent in the past decade. Whatever the terminology, the assert ion that students who now enter higher education have been exposed to a wide range of digital technologies that did not previously exist is accurate ( Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010). According to the literature, digital nat ives, net generat ion, and m i l lenn ials are the most common ter ms in circulat ion; this will be explained in more detail. Appendix A provides an overview of the wide variety of concepts/terms derived from the literature review used to describe these students. Torraco (2005) emphasized that organizing articles chronologically allows for knowledge about the historical evolution of the phenomenon studied and we have followed this suggestion.

Three most common terms

The term "net generat ion" (also cal led net gen) was originally coined by Tapscott (1998) and includes people born between 1977 and 1997 (Tapscott, 2009). Accord ing to Tapscott (20 09), t he defin ing characteristic of t his generat ion is that they were the first to be "growing up digital" (p. 2) and "the first generation to be bathed in bits" ( Tapscott, 2009, p. 17). The general claim made in the net generation discourse concerns young people developing a natural aptitude and high skill levels in relation to new technologies for formal and informal learning purposes ( Jones, 2010; Jones & Czerniewicz, 2010; Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010b).

Howe and Strauss (2000) refer to "millennials" (students born after 1980 to 2000) as the first generat ion to grow up surrounded by digital media. M illennials are characterized as special, sheltered, confident, conventional, team-oriented, achieving, and pressured (Howe & Strauss, 2000). According to Djamasbi, Siegel, and Tullis (2010), mil lennials are a "very large and economical ly powerful generation" ( p. 307 ), and their generation "is one of the first generations to have technolog y and the Internet from a ver y early age - they are significantly more likely than older internet users to create blogs, download music, instant message, and play onl ine games" ( p. 309).

The term "digital native" was coined by Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and its definit ion has its origins in the work of Tapscott (1998) and Prensky (2001a, 2001b).Prensky uses the terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" to dist inguish between those who were not born into the digital world (Prensky, 2001a) and those who have grown up fami liar with mult iple technologies. Prensky's main point is that this new group of students entering universities is essentially different than previous generations because of their constant and frequent use of digital technologies; they are all "native speakers" of the digital language of computers, video games, and the Internet (Prensky, 2001a). To Prensky (2001a), today's college students are digital natives, whi le most of their teachers are digital immigrants. Digital immigrants-as opposed to digital natives-are people who were not born into and who do not l ive a digital life in any substantial way, but are finding their way in a digital world.

The "enthusiast" authors (from Table 3) have each proposed their own lists of the characterist ics they believe define the new student generation in higher education. Definitions of the these terms have become interchangeable ( Jones, Ramanau, Cross & Healing, 2010) and have influenced one another, the claims made by authors supporting notions of digital natives often overlap between the various lists and share commonal ities (Smith, 2012; Thompson, 2013).

Beyond digital natives

In the l iterature, students are sometimes assumed "to feel empowered with respect to learning because of their familiarit y with and access to ICT" (Kolikant, 2010, p. 1384). In fact, most of the academic research on this topic (Kennedy et al., 2008; Bennett et al., 2008; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010, Li & Ranieri, 2010) shows that digital natives appear to possess a superficial understand ing of the new technologies, using them for ver y limited and specific purposes and having only superficial information-seeking and analysis sk ills. In recent years, empirical research into net geneBulration students' use of, and preferences for, technologies in h igher educat ion revealed "t hat while most students regularly use established technologies such as email and Web searching, only a smal l subset of students use more advanced or newer tools and technologies" (Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarno & Waycott, 2010, p. 333). A research project conducted by the University College London revealed that learners' ICT skills are less advanced than educators tend to think ( Nicholas et al., 2008) and that the characterization of young people as digital natives hides many contradictions in their experiences ( Luckin, Clark, Logan, Graber, Oliver & Mee, 2009; Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2010; Littlejohn, Beetham & McGill, 2012).

The international research project "Digital Learners in Higher Education", wh ich invest igates how post-secondary learners t hink about technology, suggests that there are no meaningful differences bet ween net generat ion and non-net generation students in terms of their use of technology. The research shows that today's learners, regardless of age, are on a continuum of technological access, sk ill, use, and comfort (Bullen, Morgan, Belfer & Qay yum, 2008; Bullen & Morgan, 2011; Bu llen, Morgan & Qayy um, 2011). A study among first-year students at an Australian university demonstrated enough diversity in abi lity, access, and use of technology by the students to suggest that a technological ly homogenous group of students cannot be assumed (Corrin, Lockyer & Bennett, 2010). A meta-analysis of learners' experiences of e-learning by Sharpe (2010) confirmed that we should not make assumptions about learners' digital competencies and literacies when they enter higher educat ion. A survey conducted in 2007 of 3533 students regarding ICT use in six higher education inst itutions in five South African provinces confirmed that new technologies are infrequently used despite the hype associated with Web 2.0 technologies ( Brown & Czerniewicz, 2008). Another study conducted in 2009 of more than 290 first year students at t wo South African universities about their access to and use of technology revealed that the students did not appear to use such technologies and were not interested in using them in their studies, with the exception of tasks involving the mobile phone ( Thinyane, 2010). This study concluded that there are dissim ilarit ies bet ween student experiences in developed and developing countries, such as South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil ( Thinyane, 2010).

An empirical study (Kennedy et al. 2007; Kennedy et al. 2008) conducted in 2006 wit h more than 2 ,00 0 incoming first year Australian university students showed no fundamental d ifference bet ween d igital natives and immigrants and suggested that the digital native characterist ics can be found only among a m i nority of st udents. Research conducted i n Switzerland concludes that it is unreal ist ic to attribute behaviors and characterist ics simplistically basing them on generational "virtues" ( Rapetti & Canton i, 2010a). A nat ionally representative sur vey in the UK by Helsper and Eynon (2010) concluded that their analysis does not support the view that there are unbridgeable differences bet ween those who can be classified as digital natives or digital immigrants based on when they were born. A research project of South African higher education students showed that age is not a determining factor in students' digital lives ( Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010, p. 357). They found that being a digital native was not about age but about experience, access, and opportunity (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Czerniewicz & Brown, 2010), and that the term could only be appl ied to a smal l and elite group of students (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2010).

Despite the widespread acceptance of the concept of the "digital native", the key claims of this definition are not based on empirical research. In fact, in the paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" in which Prensky (2001a, 2001b) proposes these terms, he does not cite any research to support his ideas. Many researchers refute the notion of the digital nat ive and found no empirically sound basis for most of the claims that have been made about the net generation ( Bennett & Maton, 2010; Bullen, Morgan & Qay yum, 2011; Bullen & Morgan, 2011, T h iru narayanan et al., 2011). Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) find the concept of the digital native especially problematic, both empirically and conceptual ly, and likely to be offensive as a term. In his defense, Prensky (2009, 2012) has suggested this distinct ion may no longer be relevant and now talks instead about digital wisdom for the profit of enhancing natural human intellectual capacit ies through digital technology. In addition, Prensky (2011) mentions that many people have been interpreting "very literally - rather than metaphorically - what a 'Digital Native' was" (p. 16). In sum, there is little ev idence to support the dig ital nat ive debate that authentically "maps not only the rapidly shifting technolog y developments, but also the emergent nature of the perceptions and viewpoints informing the learner, educator, and researcher assumptions and beliefs underlying such debates" (Smith, 2012 , p. 14). Digital natives should not be used as a blanket term for an ent ire generation of learners ( Maclean & Elwood, 2009); hence, "It is time to put the digital natives discourse to rest and focus on digital learners" ( Bullen & Morgan, 2011, p. 66).

Conclusion

The integrat ive review research method, used as an init ial stage, can be employed as an important instrument to provide a more comprehensive understand i ng of the lear ner in t he d ig ital era. A lt hough t he body of theoretical l iterature in educat ion that explores concepts and characteristics around learners in the digital era is still growing, research around them is just beginning and may need more critical examination.

The literature review revealed extensive theoret ical and terminological diversity related to the notion of the digital native. A variety of terms have been proposed as well as a multipl icity of definitions: some similar, others quite different, and many redundant. Exposure to technology is a critical element in determining at least some of the characterist ics attributed to these students. A shared element among the numerous and proliferating similar and/or related concepts to describe these students is that all of these concepts suggest somehow the idea of a digital ized/technologized generation ( Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010b).

The term "digital nat ives" seems inappropriate or insufficient to describe the population of current learners because some features of the widespread expression "digital natives" and many associated assumptions have not yet been demonstrated (Rapetti & Marshall, 2010; Rapett i & Cantoni, 2010a). There is no absolute defi n it ion of dig ital nat ives: it w i ll var y among st individuals, societies, regions, and nations, and also over t ime. There are a number of variables other than age that may help us understand the nature of student use of digital technologies. Despite the general bel ief that digital natives show greater will ingness and abil it y to use technolog y, the analysis of the l iterature demonstrates a clear mismatch between the confidence with which claims are made and the evidence for such claims ( Bennett, Maton & Ker vin, 2008). Generalizations based on "generational differences" are not useful for discussions concerning teaching and learning. Thus, as "we can now say with certaint y that generation is not relevant" (Bullen & Morgan, 2011, p. 63), it is necessar y to consider other variables besides age that can help us understand the nature of the use of digital technologies by students.

We recommend further research on the concept of the "digital learner" with the aim of developing a comprehensive understanding of how learners use digital technolog ies, focusing on the impl icat ions of being a learner in a digital era and trying to develop a comprehensive understanding of the issues, taking into account factors such as age, gender, education, cu lture, exper ience, i nst itut iona l context, lear n i ng desig n, social i nclusion a nd exclusion, subject discipl ine, and socio-economic background.

Final ly, we recommend moving beyond the superficial dichotomy of "natives" and "immigrants" toward other authentic understandings of today's learners. How learners use digital technologies is a complex issue that goes much deeper than age. By pushing beyond this dichotomy, "we may create and ut ilize rich, alternative ty pologies and theoretical frameworks that better inform and reflect the complexity of higher education technology issues facing generations today" (Smith, 2012, p. 14).

Limitation of the study

The search was limited to English language sources and relevant publications containing useful information may exist in other languages.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to express her gratitude to Drs. Luis Marques-Molías (URV ), Mark Bullen (COL), and Jan-Willem Strijbos (LMU) for their incredible support and their invaluable feedback, comments, and suggestions.

References

References

Aci la r, A . (2011). Ex plor in g t he aspects of d ig ital d iv ide i n a developi ng cou nt r y. Issues in Informing Sc ience and Infor mation Technolog y, 8(1), 231-24 4.

Akker ma n, S., Ad mi raa l , W., Brekel mans, M ., & Oost, H. (2008). Audit ing qua l it y of research i n socia l sciences. Qualit y & Qualit y, 42(2), 257-274.

Bajt, S . K . (2 011). Web 2 .0 tech nolog ies: Appl icat ions for commu n it y col leges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 11(154), 53 - 62.

Battro, A. M., & Fischer, K. W. (2012). Mind, brain, and education in the digital era. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(1), 49 -50.

Bauerlei n, M . (2 0 08). The dumbest generat ion: How the digital age stupefies young Amer icans and jeopardizes our future (or, don't tr ust anyone under 30). New York: Tarcher/Peng u i n Books.

Bennet t, S., & Maton, K. (2 010). Beyond t he 'dig ita l nat ives' debate: Towa rds a more nuanced understanding of students' technolog y experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Ker vin, L. (2008). The 'digital nat ives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technolog y, 39(5), 775 -786.

Brabazon, T. (2007). The university of Google: Education in the ( post) information age. Aldershot: Ashgate Publ ishing.

Brau n, V., & Cla rke, V. (2 006). Usi ng themat ic a na lysis in psycholog y. Qualitative R esearch in Psycholog y, 3(2), 77-101.

Brown, C. & Czerniewicz, L . (2008). Trends in student use of ICTs in higher education in South Africa. Available at: http://ww w.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/ResearchOutput/2008_wwwApps_ UseTrends.pdf

Brown, C ., & Czern iewicz, L . (2010). Debu nk ing t he 'd ig ita l nat ives': Beyond d igita l apa rt heid, towards d ig ita l democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted L ear ning, 26(5), 357-369.

Brow n, J. S. (20 0 0). Growi ng up d igit al: How t he web changes work , educat ion, a nd t he ways people lea r n. Change: The Magaz ine of Higher L ear ning , 32(2), 11-20.

Brown, J. S. (20 02). Learn ing i n the dig it a l age. I n M. Devl i n, R . La rson & J. Meyerson ( E ds.), The Internet & the University: Forum 2001 (pp. 65 -91). Aspen: Forum for the Future of Higher Education and EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from: http://w ww.johnseelybrown.com/learning_ in_digital_age-aspen.pdf

Bu l len, M ., Morgan , T., Belfer, K ., & Qay y u m, A . (2 0 08). The digital learner at BCIT and im plications for an e -strateg y. Retrieved from: ht tps://app.box.com/shared/fxqy utott t

Bu l len , M., Bel fer, K ., Morga n, T., & Qay y u m, A . (20 09). The net generat ion i n h i gher educat ion: R hetor ic and real it y. Inter national Jour nal of Excellence in E-L ear ning, 2(1), 1-13.

Bullen, M., & Morgan, T. (2011). Digital learners not digital nat ives. La Cuestión Universitaria, 1(7), 60-68.

Bu llen, M., Morg an, T., & Qay y u m, A. (2011). Dig ital learners i n h igher educat ion: Generat ion is not t he issue. Canadian Journal of L earning and Technolog y, 37(1), 1-24.

Ca r lson, S. (2005). T he net generat ion goes to col lege. Chronicle of Higher Education. Ret r ieved f rom: htt p://ch ronicle.com/a r t icle/T he -Net-Generat ion-G oes-to/12307

Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2004). Get ready for the g amer generat ion. TechTrends: L inking R esearch & Pract ice to Improve L earning , 49(3), 22 -25.

Cohen, L ., M a n ion , L ., & Mor r ison, K . (2 0 07 ). Research methods in education (6t h ed.). L ondon: Routledge.

Con naway, L . S., W h ite, D., & L anclos, D. (2011). Visitors and residents: W hat mot ivates engagement with the digital informat ion environment? Proceedings of the American Society for Infor mation Science and Technolog y, 48(1), 1-7.

Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. ( Eds.) (2004). A generational approach to understanding students [Special issue]. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(106), 5 -16.

Corrin, L ., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: An investigation of st udents' technolog y use i n ever yday l ife and academic st udy. L ear ning , Media and Technolog y, 35(4), 87-401.

Creswel l, J. W. (20 03). R esearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method a pproaches (2nd ed.). T housand Oaks: Sage Publ icat ions.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning , conducting , and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle R iver: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Czerniew icz, L ., & Brown, C. (2010). Born i nto t he d ig ita l age i n t he south of Af r ica: T he reconfiguration of the "digital citizen". In L . Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M . de Laat , D. McConnel l & T. Ryberg ( Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Inter national Conference on Net worked L ear ning 2010 ( pp. 859 - 865). Aalborg : A a lborg Un iversit y.

DeBard, R. (2004). Mil lennials coming to college [Special issue]. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(106), 33 -45.

Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2010). Generation Y, web design, and eye track ing. Inter national Jour nal of Human- Computer Studies, 68(5), 307-323.

Downing, K. (2006). Next generation: What leaders need to know about the M illennials. Leadership in Action, 26(3), 3 - 6.

Du nca n-Howel l, J. & L ee, K .T. (2 0 07 ). M-learning: Finding a place for mobile technologies w ithin tertiary educational settings. Retrieved from: http://w ww.ascilite.org.au/conferences/ singapore07/procs/duncan-howell.pdf

Frand, J. L . (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 14 -24.

Ga rdner, H., & Dav is, K . (2 013). The app generat ion: How today's youth navigate ident it y, intimac y, and imagination in a digital World. L ondon: Yale Un iversit y Press.

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

Green, B., Reid, J. A., & Big u m, C . (1998). Teach i ng t he Nintendo generat ion? Ch i ldren, computer cu lt u re a nd popu lar tech nologies. I n S . Howa rd ( Ed.), Wired up: Young people and the electronic media ( pp. 19- 41). L ondon: UC L Press.

Gros, B., G arcía , I., & Escofet, A. (2 012). Beyond the Net generat ion debate: A comparison bet ween digital learners in face-to-face and virtual universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 190 -210.

Guest, G., M acQueen , K . M ., & Na mey, E . (2012). Appl ied Thematic Analysis. T housa nd Oa ks: Sa g e P ubl icat ions.

Gu zd i a l, M., & Soloway, E . (2 0 02). Teach i ng the Ni ntendo generat ion to prog ram. Communications of the AC M, 45(4), 17-21.

Ham i lton, D. W., & Tor raco, R. J. (2 013). I nteg rat ive rev iew of t he l iterature on adu lts w it h limited education and sk ills and the implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 308 -328.

Harel, I. (1997). Clickerati kids: Who are they? Retrieved from: http://w ww.prof2000.pt/users/ lpitta/de-2/clickerati.htm

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: W here is the evidence? British Educational R esearch Journal, 36(3), 503 -52 0.

Hi lbert , M. (2 011). Digital gender div ide or tech nolog ica l ly empowered women in developing countr ies? A t y pica l case of l ies, da m ned l ies, and stat ist ics. Women's Studies Inter national Forum 34(6), 479- 489.

Hol loway, S., & Va lent i ne, G. (2001). Cyberkids: Youth identities and communities in an on-line world. L ondon: Rout ledge.

Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: Children in the information age. London: Rout ledge.

Hol mes, J. (2 011). Cyberk ids or d iv ided generat ions? Character isi ng you ng people's internet use i n t he UK wit h generic, cont inuu m or t y polog ica l models. New Media & Society, 13( 7 ), 1104-1122.

Howe, N., & St rauss, W. (1991). Millennials r ising: The next great generation. New York: Vinta ge Original.

Howe, N., & St rauss, W. (20 0 0). Millennials r ising: The next great generat ion. New York: Vintage Original.

Jelfs, A. & R icha rdson , T., E ., R . (2012). The use of dig ita l technolog ies across t he adu lt l ife span in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technolog y, 44(2), 338 -351.

Jones, C . (2010). A new generation of learners? The net generat ion and d ig ita l natives. Lear ning , Media and Technolog y, 35(4), 365 -368.

Jones, C ., & Czer n iewicz, L . (2 010). Descr ibi ng or debu nk i ng? T he net generation and d i g ital nat ives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 317-320.

Jones, C . & Hea l ing, G. (2010) Net g enerat ion st udents: agency and choice and t he new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5), 344 -356.

Jones, C ., R ama nau, R ., Cross, S., & Hea l i ng, G. (2010). Net generat ion or d i g ital nat ives: Is there a disti nct new generat ion enter i ng u n iversit y? Computers and Education, 54(3), 722 -732 .

Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby boomers, generat ion X and generation Y? Policy implications for defence forces in the modern era. Foresight, 5(4), 41- 49.

Ken nedy, G., D a l g a r no, B., G ray, K ., Judd, T., Waycot t , J., Ben net t , S. J., M aton ,... & C hu rchwood , A . (20 07 ). T he Net Generat ion are not big user s of Web 2 .0 tech nolog ies: preliminar y findings. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds.), Annual Conference of the Australasian Soc iet y for Com puters in Lear ning in Tertiar y Education ( pp. 517-525). Si ngapore: Na nyang Tech nolog y Un iver sit y.

Ken nedy, G., Da lga r no, B., Ben net t, S ., Judd, T., Gray, K ., & Chang, R . (2 0 08). Im mig rants and natives: Investigat ing differences between staff and students' use of technology. In R. Atk i nson & C . McBeath ( Eds.), Proceedings of " Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technolog y?", the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiar y Education ( pp. 484 -492). Melbourne: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tert ia r y Educat ion.

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., Judd, T., & Chang, R. (2009). Educating the Net generation: A handbook of findings for practice and policy. Strawberry Hil ls: Aust ra l i an L ear n in g and Teach in g Cou nci l .

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. D. (2008) First year st udents' exper iences w it h technolog y: Are t hey rea l ly d ig it a l nat ives? Australasian Jour nal of Educational Technolog y, 24(1), 108 -122.

Ken nedy, G., Judd, T., Da l ga r no, B., & Waycott , J. (2 010). Beyond nat ives a nd i mm igra nts: Explor i ng t y pes of net generat ion st udents. Jour nal of Com puter A ssisted L ear ning , 26(5), 332-343.

K itsis, S. M. (2008). The Facebook generation: Homework as social network ing. English Journal, 98(2), 30 -36.

Koch, T. (2006). Establ ish in g r igou r i n qu a l it at ive resea rch: T he decision t rai l. Jour nal of Advanced Nursing , 53(1), 91-10 0.

Koel ler, M. (2012). From baby boomers to generat ion Y m i l len n ia ls: Ideas on how professors m ight struct u re classes for th is med ia conscious generat ion. Jour nal of Higher Education Theor y & Practice, 12(1), 77- 82.

Kol ikant, Y. B. (2010). Digita l natives, better learners? Students' bel iefs about how the internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1384 -1391.

Lancaster, L . C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generat ional puz zle at work. New York: Col l i ns Busi ness.

L en har t , A ., R a i n ie, L ., & L e wis, O. (2 0 01). Teenage life online: The r ise of instant- message generation and the internet's impact on fr iendship and family relationships. Washington: Pew Internet & A merica n L ife Project.

L ev i n, D., & A rafeh , S. (20 02). The digital disconnect: The w idening gap between Inter net-savvy students and their schools. Wash ington: Pew I nternet & A mer ican L ife Project.

L i, Y., & R a n ieri, M . (2010). A re "d ig ita l n at ives" real ly d ig it a l ly competent? A st udy on Ch inese teenagers. Br it ish Journal of Educat ional Technolog y, 41(6 ), 1029 -10 42 .

Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: A review of d i g ital l iteracies i n t heor y and pract ice. Journal of Com puter Assisted L ear ning , 28(6), 547-556.

Littlejohn, A., Margar yan, A., & Vojt, G. (2010). Exploring Students' use of ICT and Expectat ions of Learning Methods. Electronic Journal of e-Learning , 8(1), 13-20. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ880095.pdf

Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do web 2.0 tools rea l ly open t he door to lea r n i n g? Pract ices, percept ions a nd profiles of 11-16 -year- old students. Learning , Media and Technolog y, 34(2), 87-104.

MacLea n, G., & Elwood, J. A. (2 0 09). Di g ital nat ives, lea r ner percept ions and t he use of ICT. Handbook of research on Web 2.0, 156 -179. Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Malhotra, K., Ahouilihoua, N., Eshmambetova, Z., K irungi, F., Glynn-Broderick, K., Ladd, P., & Palat h ing al, A . (20 08). Making globalizat ion work for the least developed countr ies. New York: Un ited Nat ions Development Prog ram me.

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital nat ives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429- 440.

Mar t in, C. A., & Tu lgan, B. (2002). Managing the generat ional mix: From collision to collaboration. A m herst : Hu man Ressource Development Press.

Martin, C. A., & Tulgan, B. (2006). Managing the generation mix: From urgency to opportunity (2nd ed.). A m herst : Hu man Ressource Development Press.

McMahon, M., & Pospisil, R. (2005). Laptops for a digital lifestyle: Millennial students and wi reless mobi le tech nolog ies. In H. G oss, ( Ed.), Bal ance Fidelity, Mobilit y: Mainta ining the Momentum? Proceedings of the 22nd ASCIL ITE Conference (pp. 421-431). Brisbane: Queensland Un iversit y of Tech nolog y.

Mendeley (2013). Get Mendeley. Retrieved from http://ww w.mendeley.com/

M iah, M., & Omar, A . (2012). Tech nolog y advancement in developing countr ies during d ig ital age. International Journal of Science and Applied Information Technolog y 1(1), 30 -38.

M iles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). T housa nd Oaks: Sa ge.

Morg an , T., & Bu l len, M. (2013). Crossing boundar ies: Ex plor ing social and academic uses of technolog y in higher education. Paper presented at The International Perspect ives on TechnologyEnhanced Learning IP TEL 2013. Vancouver.

Nicholas, D., Rowl ands, I., & Hu nt in g ton, P. (20 07 ). Infor mation behaviour of the researcher of the future - Executive summar y. London : Joint Infor mat ion Systems Com m it tee.

Obl inger, D. G., & Hawk ins, B. L . (2 0 05). T he my t hs about st udents. Educause R ev iew, 40 (5), 12-13.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. ( Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington: EDUCAUSE.

Palfrey, J. G., & G asser, U. (2008). Bor n digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Palfrey, J., G asser, U., Simun, M., & Ba r nes, R. F. (2 0 09). Yout h, creat iv it y a nd copyright i n the d ig ita l age. Inter national Jour nal of L earning & Med ia, 1(2), 79 -97.

Paper t, S . (1993). The children's machine: R ethinking school in the age of the computer. Ne w York: Basic Books.

Ped ró, F. (20 0 6). The new millennium lear ners: Challenging our v iews on IC T and lear ning. Ret rieved from http://ww w.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38358359.pdf

Ped ró, F. (20 09). New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and polic y impl ications. Paper presented at the International Conference on 21st Centur y Competencies, Brussels.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part I. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1- 6.

Prensky, M. (20 01b). Digital nat ives, digita l immig rants, Part II: Do they really th ink d ifferent ly? On the Hor izon, 9(6), 1-9.

Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technolog y, and how they do it. New York: Marc Prensky. Retrieved from http://w ww.marcprensky. com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf

Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the Nat ives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.

Prensk y, M . (2 0 07 ). How to teach w it h technolog y: Keepin g bot h teachers and st udents comfort able i n an era of ex ponent i al change. I n S . Crowne, Emer ging Technologies for L earning (pp. 40 - 46), Coventry: Becta.

Prensk y, M. (20 09). H. Sapiens Di g ital: From d ig it a l im m ig rants a nd d igit a l nat ives to d i g it al wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Retrieved from: ht t p://w w w.innovateon l ine. info/index.php?view=article&id=705

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks: Cor win Press.

Prensky, M. (2 011). Digita l w isdom and homo sapiens d i g ita l. In M. T homas ( Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technolog y and the new literacies ( pp. 15-29). New York: Routledge.

Qay yum, A., Bullen, M., Morgan, T. & Belfer, K. (2008). The digital learner at BCIT: The myth and the real it y. Present at ion to t he Canadia n Net work for In novat ion i n Educat ion (C N I E) Conference. Banff.

R apet t i , E . (2 011). T he k nowledge societ y bet ween "smar t dev ices" a nd "d ig ital lea r ners": A pedagogica l-a nt h ropologica l reflect ion about t he impl icat ions of dom i na nt rhetoric i n eLearning field. In L . Cantoni, P. Dillenbourg, & D. Euler (Eds.), Proceedings of the RedConference: Rethinking Education in the Knowledge Society ( pp. 236-253). Ascona: Università della Svizzera it al ia na.

Rapetti, E. (2012). LoDE: Learners of Digital Era ( Doctoral dissertation). Università della Svizzera it al ia na. Ret rieved f rom: ht t p://doc.rero.ch/record/30 474

Rapetti, E., & Cantoni, L . (2010a). "Digital natives" and learning with the ICTs: The "GenY @ work" research in Tici no, Sw itzerland. Jour nal of E-L earning and Knowledge Soc iety, 6(1), 39-49.

R apet t i , E ., & Canton i , L . (2010b). Ex plor in g the added va lue of d ig it a l technolog ies and eLearning in higher education from learners' perspect ive. A research informed by a systematized literature review. In G. L. Chova, D. M. Belenguer, & I. C. Torres, ( Eds.), EDULEAR N10 Proceedings: 2nd International conference on Education and New Learning Technolog y ( pp. 1403 -1412). Barcelona: Internat ional Associat ion of Technolog y, Education and Development.

R apet t i , E ., & Canton i , L . (2012). Reconsider i ng "Gen Y " & Co: From mi nd in g t he gap to overcoming it. In M. F. Paulsen & A. Szücs ( Eds.), Open Learning Generations: Closing the gap from Generation " Y" to the mature lifelong learners. Eden 2012 International Conference (pp. 19). Por to: Eu ropean Distance and E-L earn i ng Net work.

R apett i, E ., & Cantoni, L . (2 013). L ea rners of d ig ital era bet ween data evidence and i ntu it ions. I n D. Parm ig ian, V. Pen naz io, & A. Traverso ( Eds.), L ear ning & Teaching w ith Media & Technolog y. Association for Teacher Education in Europe-SiR EM. (pp. 148 -158). Genoa: Associat ion for Teacher E ducat ion i n Eu rope.

Rapetti, E., & Marshall, S. (2010). Obser ving ICTs in learners' experiences around the world. QWERTY - Interdisciplinary Journal of Technolog y, Culture and Education, 5(2), 61-88.

R ideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8 to 18 year-olds. Men lo Park , C A: K a iser Fam i ly Fou nd at ion.

Rober ts, D., Foeh r, U., & R ideout , V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8 to 18 year - olds. Men lo Park , C A: K a iser Fam i ly Fou nd at ion.

Rocco, T. S ., & Pl ak hotn i k , M. S. (20 09). Literature rev ie ws, concept ua l frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinct ions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120 -130.

Romero, M., Guitert, M., Sangrà, A., & Bullen, M. (2012). Digital learners at the Open Un iversit y of Cat a lon ia : A skept ica l v iew of t he phenomenon of t he net g enerat ion. I n I. Roceanu, ( Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference: eLearning and Software for Education (pp. 294 -299). Bucharest: Editura Universitara.

Romero, M., Guitert, M., Sangrà, A., & Bullen, M. (2013). Do UOC students fit in the net generat ion profi le? A n approach to t hei r habits i n ICT use. The Inter national Review of R esearch in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 158 -181.

Rosen , L . D. (2 007 ). Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generat ion. Hampsh i re: Palg rave Macmillan.

Rosen , L . D., Ca r r ier, L . M., & Cheever, N. A. (2 010). R ew ired: Understanding the I- Generation and the way they lear n. New York: Pa l grave M acm i l la n.

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Will iams, P., Hunt ington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., & Tenopir, C . (20 0 8). T he G oogle generat ion: T he i nfor mat ion beh av iou r of t he resea rcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings 60(4), 290 -310.

Rushkoff, D. (2 0 06 ). Sc reen Agers: L essons in chaos from digital kids. Cressk i l l: Hampton Press.

Russell, C. L . (2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in transplantation, 15(1), 8-13.

Salajan, F. D., Schönwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty interg g ional d ig ital d ivide: Fac t or fict ion? Com puters & Education, 55(3), 1393 -1403.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage Publ ications.

Shar pe, R . (2010). Conce ptualizing dif ferences in lear ners' exper iences of e-lear ning: A review of contextual models ( HEALD Report). Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/node/3022

Simoneaux, S., & Stroud, C. (2010). Bridging the generation gaps in the ret irement services workplace. Journal of Pension Benefits: Issues in Administration, 17(2), 66 -75.

Skiba, D. J. (2010). Digital wisdom: A necessar y faculty competency? Nursing Education Perspectives , 31(4), 251-253.

Smith, E. E. (2012). The digital native debate in higher educat ion: A comparative analysis of recent l iterature. Canadian Jour nal of L ear ning and Technolog y / L a R evue Canadienne de L'apprentissage et de L a Technologie, 38(3), 1-18 .

Soloway, E . (1991). How t he Ni ntendo g enerat ion lea r ns. Communications of the AC M, 34(9), 23-26.

Stoerger, S . (2 0 09). The d ig ital melt ing pot : Br idg i ng t he d ig ita l nat ive-i mm i gra nt d iv ide. First Mond ay, 14( 7 ). Retr ieved from: ht tp://pear.accc.u ic.edu/ojs/i ndex.php/f m/a r t icle/ view/2474/2243

Tapscott , D. (1998). Grow ing up d igital: The r ise of the net generation. New York : McGraw H i l l.

Tapscott , D. (2 0 09). Grown up d igital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw Hill.

Taylor, P., & Keeter, S. ( E ds.) (2010). Millennials: A por trait of generation next. Confident. Connected . Open to change . Washi ng ton: Pew Research Center.

Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital nat ives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students' use and experience with technolog y. Computers & Education, 55(1), 406-414.

T h ir u na raya na n, M. O., Lezca no, H., McKee, M., & Roque, G. (2011). " Digit a l nerds" a nd "digital normal": Not "digital nat ives" and "digital immigrants". International Journal of Instructional Technolog y and Distance Learning, 8(2), 25 -33.

T homas, M . (2 011). Deconstr ucting digital natives: Young people, technolog y, and the new literac ies. New York : Rout ledge.

T hompson, P. (2 013). T he d ig it al nat ives as lea rners: Technolog y use patterns a nd approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65(1), 12 -33.

Torraco, R . J. (2 0 05). Writ ing integ rat ive l iterat u re reviews: Gu idel i nes a nd examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356 -367.

Twenge, J. M. (2 0 0 6). Generation me: Why today's young Amer icans are more confident, assertive, entitled - and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M. (20 09). Generat iona l changes and t heir impact i n t he classroom: Teach i ng Generation Me. Medical Education, 43(5), 398 - 405.

Va ismorad i, M ., Tu r unen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content ana lysis and t hemat ic a na lysis: I mpl icat ions for conduct i ng a qua l itat ive descript ive st udy. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.

Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2010). Cyberk ids? Exploring children's identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Annals of the Association of Amer ican Geographers, 92(2), 302-319.

Veen , W. (20 07 ). Homo Za ppiens and the need for new education s ystems. Paper presented at OEC D seminar on Digital Nat ives and Education. Retrieved from http://ww w.oecd.org/edu/ ceri/38360892.pdf

Veen, W. & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens, growing up in a digital age. London: Net work Continuum Educat ion.

Vi rk us, S. (2 0 08). Use of Web 2 .0 tech nolog ies i n L IS educat ion : Ex periences at Ta l l i nn Un iversit y, Eston ia. Program: Electronic librar y and information systems, 42(3), 262 -274.

Weiler, A. (2005). Informat ion-seek ing behav ior i n generat ion Y students: Mot ivation, crit ica l think ing, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46 -53.

Weinberger, D. (2007). Digital natives, immigrants and others. K MWorld, 17(1). Retrieved from http://w w w.k mworld.com/Articles/News/News-Analysis/Dig ita l-nat ivesimmigrants-and-others-40494.aspx

Wh ite, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new t y pology for onl ine engagement. First Monday: Peer -R eviewed Jour nal on the Inter net, 16(9). Retrieved from ht tp://first monday. org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049

Whittemore, R., & K nafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546 -553.

Zemke, R ., Rai nes, C., & Fi l ipczak , B. (2 0 00). Generat ions at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York: AM ACOM.