So-Called "Digital Natives" Not Media Savvy, New Study Shows
"In Google we trust." That may very well be the motto of today's young online users, a demographic group often dubbed the "digital natives" due their apparent tech-savvy. Having been born into a world where personal computers were not a revolution, but merely existed alongside air conditioning, microwaves and other appliances, there has been (a perhaps misguided) perception that the young are more digitally in-tune with the ways of the Web than others.
That may not be true, as it turns out. A new study coming out of Northwestern University, discovered that college students have a decided lack of Web savvy, especially when it comes to search engines and the ability to determine the credibility of search results. Apparently, the students favor search engine rankings above all other factors. The only thing that matters is that something is the top search result, not that it's legit.
"I Googled It"
During the study, one of the researchers asked a study participant, "What is this website?" The student answered, "Oh, I don't know. The first thing that came up."
That exchange sums up the overall results from this study: many students trusted in rankings above all else. In fact, a quarter of the students, when assigned information-seeking tasks, said they chose a website because - and only because - it was the first search result.
Only 10% of the students made mention of the site's author or that author's credentials while completing tasks. However, in reviewing the screen-capture footage of those respondents, the researchers found that even in this supposedly savvy minority, none actually followed through to verify the identification or qualifications of the site's authors.
Google was not the only search engine used in the study, but it was one in which the students put a lot of trust. The students felt emotionally tied to the service in some cases, noting how much they loved it and depended on it. (Those who used Yahoo! said they merely "liked" it.)
Regardless the choice of search engine, though, the first step in information-seeking was always the use of such a service, which was typically referred to as a verb. And yes, in addition to "google it," some even said they would "yahoo it."
Wikipedia Not Trusted as Much
Another interesting finding from the study involved the use of Wikipedia. Perhaps because of teachers' insistence over the years that the user-generated encyclopedia is not a credible source of information, only a third of the students used Wikipedia to search for answers when given particular tasks. This is a drop from earlier studies (like Raine & Tancer, 2007) which showed Wikipedia use at 46% among students.
Other popular trusted sources included SparkNotes (a study guide site), WedMD, Planned Parenthood, CNN, BBC, Microsoft (specifically Encarta and Office-related resources) and those sites with a .gov or .edu extension. Some students even thought that .org domain name meant a site was inherently trustworthy - they weren't aware that the .org extension can be freely registered just like .com and is not for nonprofit use only, as may have originally been intended.
Students Need Media Literacy Education
Over 1,000 students were surveyed and then the researchers randomly sampled 102 students from 1,060 students who had participated in the survey. The demographics of the group were both ethnically and racially diverse, reaching a representative sample of first-year college students at the University of Illinois, Chicago.
In summary, the findings showed that students are not always turning to the most relevant clues to determine the credibility of online content, said the researchers Eszter Hargittai, Lindsay Fullerton, Ericka Menchen-Trevino and Kristen Yates Thomas. Further initiatives that help educate people in this domain are needed, they claim.
Note: This article was corrected to read "University of Illinois, Chicago," not "University of Chicago." The original student count details were also clarified: 1,060 students were surveyed, but 102 were activity monitored. We apologize for the error and confusion.
Image credit in original article: flickr user Paulo Fehlauer
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Wikipedia is great to get oriented on a subject but I agree that it should not be considered an academic source.
And perhaps this group with the tag "Digital Natives" is just more spin by those people who are trying to sell services to people who want to market to them.
"The size of the study was only 102 students,"
too small, conclusions cannot be drawn. we can find 102 people who will say the exact opposite. also, ethnic and racial diversity is nice, but socioeconomic diversity is far more important. and the fact that they all go to university of chicago.....
Indeed. 102 students? Sounds very informal and I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions at all.
Please, guys. Don't criticize the methodology -- this is the interwebs, not an academic journal. We just need some diversion and a few page views until the next Apple announcement... ;-)
They must use much (500 or more) students (other people) for the best precise result aproximation.
However Wikipedia best online enciclopedia, but sime times it lies. You can find more info about it at GOOGLE (reques "Wikipedia Lies") search.
P.S. "Everybody lies" (c) Dr. Greg House from House MD :)
I agree with the comments - the size of this study doesn't really seem representative. I can't deny that people (of any age) could probably use new media classes. It's so dynamic that just because we've grown up with it doesn't necessarily mean we're pros at it.
I can add that the reason they thought .org websites were more credible is likely because that's what was hammered into them at school most of their lives. I know I was told at school to always trust a .org website before a .com website. Never made sense to me why they would do that.
Well, This is the interwebs, not an academic journal. We just need some diversion and a few page views until the next Apple announcement.
I'm definitely not in that demographic so I'm not gonna try to take a stab at nakedly dissing the results.
I AM generally familiar with web habits of all age groups, however, due to working as an on call on site IT guy. My clients include residential and small business folks of literally all ages.
Sure, the 'digital' generation can get around much faster than their genX or Jonesie counterparts, but it seems to me in my empirical adventures that gen-D(igital) folks don't always apply critical skills while searching the web for info .
In that, the study is accurate as far as I can tell.
Still, it doesn't necessarily address the skillset used when searching for personally relevant information. The motivation is the thing and in that, the generational divide appears to disappear.
argh. that sentence should read,
Sure, the 'digital' generation can get around much faster than their genX or Jonesie counterparts, but it seems to me in my empirical adventures that gen-D(igital) folks don't always apply critical skills while searching the web for info they really could care less about.
I think one could argue that research concluding that students need media training, coming from people who actually train people in communication studies is somewhat suspect.
As a librarian, I've seen this sort of research alot. The error is that the research is largely reflexive. In the library field, I see 'Hey! Our study shows that students do not behave like professional librarians. We need more librarians so we can fix them.'
A broader look at the issue would notice that students may not need or want to behave the same way that media experts do. In fact, they may be very good at finding great sources on the things that matter to them personally or professionally. Further, they may be better off not accumulating huge student loans to pay for a university education that self-servingly calls for more resources to cover such things as 'more media training'(or information literacy training, or critical thinking skills, or clear writing, or communications, or creativity, or psychological services, or health education etc etc etc.) based on pretty flawed studies.
Posted by: otherlibrarian.wordpress.com
|
July 29, 2010 11:03 AM
I can't deny that people (of any age) could probably use new media classes. It's so dynamic that just because we've grown up with it doesn't necessarily mean we're pros at it.
@Jon - I completely agree. The idea of using random goals, necessarily affects performance by changing the motivation of the participant. I'm amazed that things like this aren't shot down way before they are published.
@otherlibrarian.wordpres.com - that's also a great point. Speaking of motivation, what motivates these researchers.
Overall, seems like a potentially skewed research project: too small & specific of a population, designed without regard for how motivation affects goal-seeking behavior, & potentially being conducted by people that would benefit from these results.
Two thirds of searches are with Google and it seems the “Digital Natives” had the knack of believing what the majority of users use is trustworthy. This is a case of what they trust and not on being tech savvy.
As a recent graduate, I completely agree with this article. My fellow students know how to Google things, but they don't realize what they are really doing with the information online. Here is what I have observed from fellow students:
- Teachers drill the idea into students' minds that Wikipedia is not accurate. Since they can't use it on papers, they tend not to trust it as much (even though it is known to be one of the most accurate sources).
- While they know that sponsored ads are no good, they have no idea how Google decides the rank. They just trust the first few results and go with it.
- Yes, this generation knows how to use computers and technology well. What they don't know is how the web works, making them not understand how media on the web really functions.
Media literacy should be a priority in education right now. Students know now to use Facebook well, but do they know the implications of their actions? This applies to sites across the Internet, and students need to learn how to critically analyze all types of information and media - from print to television to web.
As the lead author of this study, I would like to point out that the participants for the study came from the University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC) NOT the University of Chicago as the write-up here suggests.
For those wondering about the details of the methodology, I invite you to read the paper, we give lots of details about it there. We started with a survey of over 1,000 students and then through stratified random sampling met in person with 102 of them.
To those commenting on the study size, that has been corrected. (See above comment).
I marvel that people assume that just because someone grew up with a tool--digital natives having grown up with nearly ubiquitous internet--assume these people will be adept with it. Simply having a piano in the house and freedom to bang on the keys doesn't equate to virtuosity. Sure, some may master self-taught, but I think that the generation gap here is more an issue of a foolish assumption that "kids today" will automatically "get" everything digital. The fact that they can operate devices intuitively, doesn't remove the need for us to continue to train their minds to make evaluative decisions as they seek information. I fear that some educators let the form fool them and forget their function--to train the mind, regardless of the tool at hand.
Great. Another article to debate who is "better" at the Internet. Pointless.
This doesn't have anything to do with debating about who is better at the internet. It's a matter of information literacy and digital literacy. Unfortunately the Digital Natives meme pops up frequently in higher education (where I work) and from I've seen it's a highly inaccurate concept.
There are a few other studies that have looked into this as well, and many of them find the current student population is hardly homogeneous in their usage of technology. Sure many people have Facebook accounts, but that doesn't necessarily translate to an ability to think critically about the information that we run across online.
I find that the concept of a blog or a wiki is far less understood amongst students than social networking is. So there's a danger, I think, in blanket labels like "Digital Native" that imply a comprehensive understanding about technology, when in most cases it's patch at best.
Ultimately it's not even just the tools that matter, but how they're used or applied to every day life. The highly social or informal sort of interaction we see on Facebook does not imply someone can skillfully interpret or filter the sort of information that they run across online and recognise fact from fiction.
I don't agree with the conclusion of the study. Just because students were not applying critical thinking skills in their research methods doesn't mean that they aren't media/technically savvy. Students need to be taught how to properly conduct research and verify sources whether or not they are using the internet. If the where and how fast a student can obtain information on any given subject is the objective of the study I believe the results and the conclusions drawn would be very different.
This is a bit scary, considering that as I keep smoking, one of them will probably be cutting on my heart someday. The children are our future. YIKES!
As the author of an article on "The Myth of the Digital Native" http://dignatv.notlong.com I have an obvious bias towards believing the study, and there have been many others that make the same point. I was struck by this comment from Jon: "The motivation is the thing and in that, the generational divide appears to disappear." Desire to learn is the key, and if the teacher is not creating opportunities for authentic learning, students won't retain much anyway.
I also agree with Michelle--"some educators let the form fool them and forget their function--to train the mind, regardless of the tool at hand."--although "train" as an ethologist's word is a bit condescending: I prefer education, the process of drawing out what is already there inside of the student.
Clearly someone shouldn't really on Wikipedia for heart surgery but has their been any study to quantify the reliability of say Google or wikipedia? Google ranks are based on the number of people who refer to the source so in a sense that is a form of review just as the Wikipedia readers and editors form a review on that content.
Just because something is posted in a journal is no grantee it is reliable or accurate as I'm sure journal referees don't have the time to thoroughly research every point in every paper. Additionally sometimes the consensus in a field is just wrong.
People can't be doing too bad at finding authoritative sources on the net because according to Matthew Hindman in, "The Myth of Digital Democracy" most blog readership goes to a handful of mainstream, highly educated professionals.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8781.html
Anyway, for personal research I see nothing wrong with using the internet as a source. Additionally, wikipedia provides references for it's content so the information can be further investigated.
I should clarify what I said. While I do think that this kind of research can be self-serving, I see this as a cultural thing, rather than something done with a specific motivation or purpose. It's not a conspiracy.
For instance, I would argue that the degree to which authorship is perceived to be important in the reliability of an article is largely a cultural thing, something that probably carries more weight to someone in media than to someone who lives in the world of file sharing, wikis, anonymous blogging and social media, but does not seek to make money from it. (Using author as authority is a dominant North American thing as well.)
That's not to say that I do not think authorship is important (in fact, I'm using it right now to question the relative value/worth of the article), but that the question of reflexivity needs to be considered when any study calls for more training in a particular field of study.
Posted by: otherlibrarian.wordpress.com
|
July 30, 2010 7:21 AM
When I began my degree course to become a librarian we did a research enquiry using the internet at the beginning of our information retrieval module. I thought as I had used the internet I was a savvy searcher. I was critical of returns given to me after searches and did consider the source but I did not realise I did not have the information retrieval skills. After I completed the module I realised how much I learned on this module but also how much I still had to experience and learn.
ACCURATE REPORTING PLEASE. The peer-reviewed research in the International Journal of Communication is titled, "Trust Online: Young Adults' Evaluation of Web Content." Assessing source credibility when searching for information is an important - but only one of many - ways to measure how savvy someone is when using various digital media for multiple purposes. An exaggerating headline, which implies that (all) "So-called 'Digital Natives' Not Media Savvy" (presumably about anything), is not what the study claims. Failing to note that the study began with survey of 1,060 first-year students in a particularly diverse area of one city was not the only omission. The story also failed to note that the data were collected three YEARS ago in 2007. WIll today's "digital natives" not be any more savvy in 2013?
Further critique, making my point. One of the survey questions asks a hypothetical question:
"You have a strong opinion about an issue and a friend recommends that
you write an email to the chair of the House Judiciary Committee expressing your concerns.
Where do you send the message to reach this person?"
While someone in media communications would understand about House Judiciary Committees, what friend of a young student is going to bother suggesting that? In this day and age, we can write blog posts and create Facebook groups. Depending on the issue, they may be more effective doing so too.
Posted by: otherlibrarian.wordpress.com
|
July 30, 2010 8:09 AM
We at Dulcinea Media conducted our own study of the online research habits of 300 high school students earlier this year, and drew the same conclusions. When I presented the results at the ISTE Conference in Denver, one educator said "these are the results we've been getting for ten years." Students need to be taught Web research skills every year from Kindergarten till their last year in college. I do fear that many student above grade 6 are what a University College of London study called "beyond hope," having developed the ingrained behavior of "getting by with Google." We've created a free tutorial called Ten Steps to Better Web Research (www.SweetSearch.com/TenSteps), and will be developing multimedia lesson plans for it this fall.
When the first Web research tutorial was written in the mid-1990s, it must have said the domain extension was an important clue, and this fallacy has been carried forward in every other Web search tutorial created in the ensuing 15 years. Yet when we created http://www.SweetSearch.com , a custom search engine that only searches 35,000 credible sites, we analyzed the .gov file and decided to include it in its entirety. However, we found that the .edu file was rife with trade schools, apparent for-profit schools, and other marginal entities, and we had to very selectively extract only the credible .edu sites. The .org file was an abomination; I imagine that once it was opened to general availability, the spammers flooded in. Furthermore, it's dangerous to teach students that anything the government publishes is probably OK, but anything motivated by profit is automatically suspect. One librarian told me she taught a class of students how to use three online databases; when she checked on a student ten minutes later, he was searching Wikipedia, because that was a .org, while the online databases were .coms. We've also noticed distinct bias in government sites, as we relay in this piece:
http://blog.findingdulcinea.com/2010/03/top-level-domains-not-as-useful-a-clue-as-commonly-believed.html
Wikipedia lost is shine since posts there can be edited and are not really verified as true content(well I am pertaining to some posts not all of them). As for Google, people is already basing their searches on page ranking or the first results on the first page. People are loosing qualitative factors and just stick with "first thing's first" habit.
@31 Frank as I mentioned above the references in the Wikipedia articles can be checked. Additionally pages which are frequently changed by advocates and crackpots are locked and controlled more tightly. Additionally on wikipedia you can see the history of all changes, who changed it and the discussion regarding the validity of the content. I doubt anyone seriously researching something will stop their search at Wikipedia because aside from the allegations about accuracy, the content isn't usually very in depth.
Wikiepedia is an encyclopedia. It gives you a starting point on a topic. It doesn't teach you a topic. It lets you know what you should learn more about. That is what an encyclopedia is for.
While the methodology of this study may be flawed I think that educators can back these claims up with some accuracy. In my experience, the biggest difference between "natives" and "immigrants" is the level of comfort with which they operate. Naturally, anyone growing up with technology will be more likely to dive right in. This doesn't mean they know what they're doing or how to think critically. It's important we continue to teach research and critical thinking skills in whatever form.
i find it hard to draw conclusions on digital natives, and how media savvy they are, based on this article/posting. I'd have to make too many assumptions, and i have more questions than could easily be answer.
A source is just that, a source. And we all know one source is no source and sources should be checked.
Several years ago there was similar debate about using newspaper articles as sources. Even renowned newspapers had several errors, simplifications or ommisions in their articles. Luckily newspapers are used the day after to sell fish (in), so the impact of one wrong article is limitted. Unfortunatly we still need to find similar alternative use for Internet content.
This study doesn't really have much to do with actual ability to use the internet, more a study on the inability of first year college students to critically analyse sources of information, which is nothing to do with being 'web savvy. Being web savvy involves the useage of various tools on the web, so the ability to upload and create youtube videos would be an example of an activity that would require a certain amount of web 'savvy-ness'...
Unfortunately, even if it is the case that young people are not up to scratch when researching materials, the solution proposed (more media training) has been the recommendation for a long time, with no real effect.
And if we are to be honest, research understanding wasn't so great in the days prior to the internet either. Access to scholarly-level books and journals was almost nil. At least these days, I am able to scrounge up the article off a website and see for myself what they are proposing.
I still have evil thoughts about former teachers that espoused so many urban myths as 'fact' back in the day. Maybe it's better that Google-veted falsehood takes the place of teacher/instructor-veted falsehood.
Posted by: otherlibrarian.wordpress.com
|
August 1, 2010 6:28 AM
The term "digital natives" relates to the fact that this generation has grown up in a digital environment and can "speak" the language. It is also how they relate to information. Those of us who have come to digital world later in life have been termed "digital immigrants" (Prensky). Being termed "natives" doesn't mean that these students come out of the womb totally able to operate any and all technology. Clearly they haven't been taught how to evaluate sources or use the many other sources out there. The author didn't mention any of the Google tools, Google Scholar or Google Directory, which are free and lead one to peer-reviewed, valid sources for information. The title sounds clever, and the article points to a real need for better instruction, but I would agree with the other comments that it's too small a group to make such a generalization.
Technical savvy and research skills are two different things. What the "digital natives" are lacking is research skills. Although, knowing better searching techniques for Google would also help.
I find with young people (I'm a teacher) lack of life experience tends to impede their research skills. If you aren't familiar with different organizations that one might find with a .org account for example, you may not realize the information could be biased or misleading. You may not be familiar with the groups, institutions or organizations creating the websites that are putting up websites. Just as my parents generation trusted anything on TV news, I feel the younger ones are trusting anything they find online, just as long as their teacher hasn't told them not to (aka wikipedia). I don't know as it's so much "research" skills need to be taught, but critical thinking skills in general, and the ability to question the validity of any information - whether it's from an info-mercial selling some new gadget, google search results, or an article in a newspaper.
Yes, in Wikipedia is always false information!
I would agree that many (including adults) think that information found on the web is credible just because it's "out there". This concerns me, not only with research, but with shopping on the web as well. We have so many problems with identity theft because people trust anything that's on the "web". I agree that we need to educate at a young age and continue stressing the dangers of false information as well as safety, safety, safety.
I agree that students as well as adults trust the search engines like google and yahoo to rank the information requested. I always hit the first website on the list when i am searching. I don't stop and read through the list before just clicking on one. In the future I will stop and read through the list after reading this article.
My son first told me about the credibility of Wikipedia. If he used Wikipedia as a resource for any of his school projects, he would receive a failing grade for that project. It was not considered a "reliable source" for information. I give his teacher a lot of credit for informing the students about Wikipedia. As a parent, I am grateful to have teachers work with students on this topic!
The link to the study is broken. What is the correct URL of the study?
Armchair statisticians sounding off on the sample size for this study need to go back to school. 102 students is not statistically significant? Based on what?
Is a sample of 102 people sufficient to accurately estimate the opinions of the entire nation? Probably not. Is it sufficient to accurately estimate the opinions of a few thousand? Hell yes. And if your population is 103 people, then 102 is way the hell beyond overkill.
Did you design the study? No. Did you even go review the original study? No, you didn't, and going back now and reading it doesn't count. You saw the number 102, and decided that MUST be too small, based on some vague notion you have that sample size must be "big" to provide meaningful results.
It's impossible to judge the accuracy of a survey by looking only at the sample size. You need to know the PURPOSE of the survey, the POPULATION being surveyed, the SAMPLING METHODOLOGY. None of you bothered to investigate any of that. Don't bother lying and saying you did, because we both know better.
So STFU about statistics, you don't know squat.
It's so disheartening to see people report something as factual, "according to Wikipedia..."
As far as Wikipedia goes, I spoke to a recent college grad who said they were all told it was strictly verboten to cite a Wikipedia article or use it for research.
Determining authority is a big part of research library practice and was a much talked about subject when I got my masters in information science.
I trust google for search any thing.
But some time i feel very painful when due to some i won't open google website then i face more problem because i totally depend on google.
And never think or remember website address...
I am working in a web design company as webmaster so i totally depend upon and trust on google....thank you google
i think every one using search engines mostly google.
every one trust on google...