You are on page 1of 10

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013).

“Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

“Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates With Web 2.0 Behavior?
Martin Ebner Information Technology Services / Department of Social Learning Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria martin.ebner@tugraz.at Walther Nagler Information Technology Services / Department of Social Learning Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria walther.nagler@tugraz.at Martin Schön Department of Life Long Learning Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria martin.schoen@tugraz.at
Abstract: One of the most important parameter for a successful service is to optimize targeting. Teaching at universities can be seen as a kind of service on students. To meet the needs of students according to e-learning services best an annual questionnaire amongst freshmen is carried out at Graz University of Technology by its Department of Social Learning since 2007. The poll takes a detailed look on digital device usage as well as on IT and Web 2.0 competences of the freshmen. This unique survey in Austria reflects the media behavior of young people aged 18 to 22 and can be compared to bigger reports like the German JIM-study. Special focus of this year´s survey was laid on the question, whether the field of study correlates with any of the polled elements? Is there a need for a specialized e-learning service subject to the field of study? To answer these questions more precisely also a project has been started analyzing special e-learning requirements on base of oral interviews with selected teachers of different faculties. Apart from that, this publication offers all relevant results of this year´s survey.

Introduction
The technological world is growing faster than ever before in the human society. Today Web 2.0 (O' Reilly, 2004) as well as e-learning 2.0 (Downes, 2005) appear to be buzzwords of former e-learning activities. The use of wikis, weblogs, podcasts as well as e-portfolios is not trendy anymore; it has become accepted in technology enhanced learning settings. Furthermore, mobile technologies, for example tablet computers or even smartphones are used in the daily life for different purposes; compare studies like the mobileintentindex1. So it seems to be a logical step to outline that the field of mobile learning is a fast growing one. Bearing in mind that technology is just the enabler for different learning and teaching scenarios it seems to have a great impact and possibility for the next generation learners (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005) (Schön et al, 2011). Prensky already mentioned in 2001 "Our students have changed radically. Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach." However, since then a worldwide discussion raised about our up growing youth and their digital life. Does a so called net generation exist? Does the behavior of the growing generation arbitrarily differ to them of their parents? If technology is an essential part of daily life, how does this influence learning and teaching? All these questions lead in a first step to a number of publication addressing the upcoming generation named "Net-Generation" (Tapscott, 1997), "Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001), "Generation @" (Opaschowski, 1999) or "Homo Zapiens (Pelevin &
1

http://www.intentindex.com/mobile/ [December 2012]

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Bromfield, 2002). Afterwards different publications were written stating that this new generation has different habits like multi-tasking and new ways of communication (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005) (Oblinger, 2005). Green & Hannon (Green & Hannon, 2007) mentioned that "the use of digital technology has been completely normalized by this generation and it is now fully integrated in their daily life." All these initial research reports have one thing in common: They argue that the new technologies influence the behavior of the young learners and that they are not able to live without their digital devices. Nevertheless, all those publications lack on detailed evaluation reports or long term studies as well as empirical analyses. To overcome that missing scientific work a number of different studies have tried to address to this research questions since 2005. For example: Conole (Conole et al, 2006), Bullen (Bullen et al, 2008) and Margaryan (Margaryan, 2008) pointed out that students' daily life is strongly influenced by new technologies, but learning processes occurs very traditional in their educational institutes and mostly without using such technologies. Even more, two meta-studies of Schulmeister (Schulmeister, 2009) (Schulmeister, 2012) summarized that the technological environment of today's learners are changing, but that no effects can be carried out concerning their learning behavior. The use of Web 2.0 technologies is rather low. On the other side, the German JIM-study (JIM Study, 2012) pointed out that in the last year mobile technologies, especially the number of owned smartphones, increased arbitrarily amongst children between 12 and 18 years. More than 50% of the children own a personal smartphone and have mobile internet access. Similar the Swiss JAMES-Study reported that already 79% of our youth are using smartphones and more than 66% have access to mobile internet (James-study, 2012). In general, the discussion is from high interest, especially for educational institutions like universities. Consequently, the Department for Social Learning (DSL) as part of the Information Technology Services (ITS) of Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) is doing a long-term study since 2007 (Nagler & Ebner, 2009) (Ebner & Nagler, 2010) to take a very close look on freshmen’s computer competencies, their technical surroundings, their elearning habits at secondary schools level as well as general Internet and detailed Web 2.0 usage. This year we also took a closer look on student groups separated by their field of studies. Due to the fact that e-learning departments should address exactly the needs of each faculty, one of our research goals is to find out whether there are differences amongst the beginners due to their field of study and how we can react and prepare for it. Apart from the freshmen survey DSL has started investigations on that topic this year. On base of intensive oral interviews with selected representative teachers of the differing faculties we try to find specifics and unique characteristics of their teaching activities such as lecturing and mentoring. The focus is on different methods, media, and didactics but not on the content itself. These interviews are than transliterated and analyzed. The results will have influence on the elearning services offered by DSL and will be topic for further publications.

The Study
Since winter term 2007 freshmen beginning their studies at TU Graz have been invited to join an annual two-day information event called “Welcome Days at TU Graz”. It is special arranged for the freshmen and normally good attended by about 50% of them. TU Graz is a medium-sized university with about 12.000 students and there are 1700 freshmen each year on average. The “Welcome Days” are presented by alumni TU Graz and managed by DSL in cooperation with other departments of the university. Aim of the event is to help freshmen getting along with TU Graz services, service institutions, as well as duties and possibilities coming with their studies. In the end of the event they are requested to go through a paper pencil based form prepared by DSL. For sure the asking could be done in an electronic way but the average response is empirically very low by that. One part of the questionnaire deals with the Web 2.0 behaviour of the freshmen, another one with their technological equipment regarding laptops, mobile devices, and Internet accessibility. For this year´s questionnaire resulted in 715 completed forms. Since 2007 DSL has a sample of n=4205 in total (n2007=578, n2008=821, n2009=757, n2010=702, n2011=632, and n2012=715). In the following the results and findings of this year´s survey are discussed. They are presented in comparison to the results of the former years to analyse changes, progresses, and trends. Because of the fast shifting technological world (as mentioned within the introduction) it has been necessary to adapt the questionnaire year by year a bit. Yet, we tried to keep the thread through the analysis to keep it comparable over the six years of survey.

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Results and Findings of 2012 Survey
Which Trends Can be Seen Towards Technological Equipment? Again the category “technological equipment” results in the most evident outcomes. Comparing to last year´s survey all trends can be approved. The iPods or MP3 players are on their ways down; PC again topped the high part of more than 80%; no changes according to Apple computers but a lower part for laptops and netbooks once again. This decrease can be interpreted at the expense of the clear increase of smartphones slowly replacing functionalities of laptops. The big increase is mostly due to the increase of Android systems (over 55%). iPhones too did put on a bit (18%) but Symbian lost instead whereas the total number on phones approximately remained the same. Nearly the same amount of loss on classic mobile phones was added to smartphones (compare fig. 1). Be sure to notice that the students first were asked according to their mobile phone in principle – whether they possess a classic mobile phone without touch screen or a smartphone with touch screen and apps – and then indicate the operating system additionally. There were only a negligible number of students who did not state the operating system. It is of further interest whether the small but evident increase of iPad (doubled) and other smart tablets may compete against smartphones in the future. E-readers still seem to be no attractive devices for freshmen though the market is constantly on the rise as German statistics quote (Statista, 2012a). Still there is no need for splitting into different ereaders for detailed analysis.

Figure 1: Comparison of devices used by first year’s students at TU Graz between 2007 and 2012; The selection “Other mobile” of 2010 includes the selections “M: Symbian” and “M: Windows” The average freshman of 2012 has a PC and a smartphone – most likely running an Android system – as well as assumable a laptop or netbook and possibly an iPod. The number of those using more than one workstation is little; close to 2% for Mac and Windows PC together, less than 1% running all three systems. It is more common to use Windows and Linux systems (about 7%) than Mac and Windows systems. That means that Linux systems are most often combined with Windows; there is only less than 2% using Linux alone. There is no one using only a Mac and a Linux computer together whereas the usage of iMac and/or iPad is not limited only to Mac users. All in all we can state a slight increase on mobile devices and an increase of digital devices in total.

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Which Trends Can be Seen Towards Communication Behavior? As in difference to the year before (2011) we can see glut on the communication market, so to say. The boom of social networks seems to be over; they became accepted like Facebook or simply ignored like Google+ and others. There is little loss to be recognised in each communicational way (except VoIP). For all of them but Google+ this loss is not meaningful. Google+ did not make it so far. The detailed analysis (compare fig. 5) shows that Google+ is well known but rarely used; it seems not to become a second Facebook or even replace it. Furthermore, we cannot state that any of the communicational ways has an impact on the others as it could have been recognized for the last two years caused by the booming of Facebook. On the other hand it means that Facebook has not displaced Skype according to video communication or chat functionality. All in all, communication in total has gone done for about 7% compared to last year (2011) but still is higher than two years ago (2010).

Figure 2: Comparison of communication behaviour of first year’s students at TU Graz between 2007 and 2012 Values similar to answers given for “often” plus “daily use” Which Trends Can be Seen Towards Internet Access at Study Home?

Figure 3 left: Comparison of Internet access at study home of first year’s student at TU Graz between 2007 and 2012, the selection “All” is new for 2012´s The access to internet at study home again changed since last year´s survey (2011) according to mobile access. ADLS still remains the most popular access to Internet unaffected by the other accessibilities. Modem access is on the rise as it has been since 2010 and already reached “half-way” towards ADSL connection. The trend to multiple

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

access is therefore given, which can be seen in figure 3 displayed by the category “All”. About 7% of the polled students own all three types of access at study home. This goes hand in hand with the slight rise of mobile devices offering internet access to be seen in figure 1 (compare “iPad” and “other smart tablets”). But the number of those who did not answer the question and therefore are to be assumed for having no Internet access stays about 2% (similar to last year). Which Trends Can be Seen Towards the Usage of E-learning Platforms at Secondary School Level? According to the usage of e-learning platforms at secondary school level we can postulate a constant increase of activities overall (compare fig. 4 and fig. 5). The values of figure 4 represent overall summations during the last four years (2009 to 2012) according to the “usage of Moodle as a school´s e-learning platform” and “usage of an elearning platform at school except Moodle”. It is very obvious to see that e-learning activities at secondary school level are slowly but consequently becoming more relevant. We can state that a quarter to nearly a third of all students had often or daily e-learning activities during their secondary schooldays. Be sure that fig. 4 does not contain all selections listed in fig. 5.

Figure 4 left: Overall comparison of usage of e-learning platforms secondary school level for learning efforts of first year’s students at TU Graz between 2009 and 2012 Figure 5 right: Comparison of usage of e-learning platforms and PC in general at secondary school level for learning efforts of first year’s students at TU Graz 2012 If a closer look on that part of the survey is taken, an increase on the usage of Moodle as the most important elearning platform in secondary school system in Austria can be pointed out. Though the increase is mostly caused by an increase of “rarely usage” (from 25% to 33%) at the expense of “no usage” (from 48% to 35%), there is too increase in the categories “often usage” (from 16% to 20%) and “daily usage” (from 7% to 9%). For the selection of any other e-learning platform except Moodle we have no noteworthy differences compared to last year (2011). For all the other selections shown in fig. 5 only little differences according to last year´s results (2011) are shown. A sligth increase of up- and download activities can be recognised, but with no significant evidenve. In other words, computers are fixed parts of secondary school life or used for learning activities in general; if a school offers an elearing platform than it is likely Moodle; learning with the Web in principle still has not become an average way to work with. Which Trends Can be Seen Towards Web 2.0 Activities According to General Usage and for Learning? The final part of the survey explores the Web 2.0 competences. All results of this year´s survey according to Web 2.0 can be seen in fig. 6 and fig. 7. We listed a series of most relevant Web 2.0 platforms and offers structured by similarity of purpose (for instance: applications for communication, applications for online desktop computing …). We adapted last year´s splitting of each element (Web 2.0 tools) into different relations by adding the selection “no use” to the relation “ordinary use” and “use for learning”. So for each element students have to indicate whether they “know” it; in case it is known, how intense the ordinary usage is (“no use”, “rarely”, “often”, or “daily”); furthermore, whether they use it “actively” in the meaning of editing, and how strong they use it for learning

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

purposes (“no use”, “rarely”, “often”, or “daily”). Therefore the values exceed the 100% level because of that multiple answer possibility given for one element. Be aware that the values for not checked elements are not part of the figures 6 and 7. First of all it must be mentioned that it was important to add the selection “no use” to cover the status of knowing a tool but not using it. For the surveys before this year such inputs were to be found either in “not knowing” or “rarely use”. There was no chance of finding out the actual part of students not using a tool but knowing it, which is a strong statement about acceptance of a Web 2.0 tool. As a result of the new selection the parts of “unknown” and “rarely use” often melt down to a little of last year´s results (2011). Furthermore we see that nearly all elements were more often checked “unknown”, “no use” and “rarely used” together than last year´s (2011) checking “unknown” and “rarely used” combined. But on the other hand we have a distinct increase of usage in general as well as for learning activities for a couple of elements (such as Videocasts, Audiocasts, and management tools). All in all we have an increase of often and daily usage for learning of more than 17% since last year, which goes along with the increase of Moodle usage and (mobile) devices as well as approves the trend to intensified Web 2.0 usage for learning (Ebner et al, 2011). Nevertheless this increase is due to a massive growth of “often use for learning” of about 36%. In other words, there is a minus of about 19% according to “daily use for learning”. Well, this can be seen too if we remember a general decrease of communicational behavior (compare fig. 2). Nevertheless it has to be mentioned too that some of the tools (exemplary Facebook, YouTube, Wikis and SMS) are in use by less students than 2011 but those who use it, use it more intensively. Furthermore, it is interesting that the average use and the use for learning does not differ that much according to “often” usage. However, future surveys will show, whether a top of Web 2.0 competences have been reached already for learning efforts or it is just an annual fluctuations. Finally, the selection “active” induced misunderstandings and will be revised for future surveys. It will not be discussed in detail.

Figure 6: Usage of Web2.0 and Internet offers of first year’s students at TU Graz in 2012, part 1 As an example we can pick the first element “Google” and see (compare figure 6) that it is used daily by approximately 83% (nearly everybody uses Google daily or often); even more we see that Google is used by 48% daily for learning (54% in 2011) and 92% for daily or often learning (93% in 2011). Figure 6 and figure 7 point out very impressively which Web 2.0 element is in major use for learning purposes. The difference between using an element for learning daily and using it often is about minus 70% in general, which means that only a very few tools

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

are relevant for daily learning usage. Only Google still is used for learning more often “daily” than “often”. The highest rise we can state for the usage of Dropbox for learning efforts. It nearly tripled from 8% to 22% for often and daily learning usage; so every fourth student uses Dropbox. If we take a further look at other collaborative tools we cannot affirm a significant change; Googledocs keeps its 5% users, Etherpad still is absolutely not in use neither for general use nor learning purposes. But Etherpad stands for a couple of Web 2.0 elements that are even not known by a remarkable part of the students (40%); such as Googledocs, Second Life, bibliographic systems, Google Hangouts, Bookmarking or QR-Codes. Even Adobe Connect and the social network for business purposes Xing is little known. There is another group of elements that are to be mentioned: those who are known but very little used, such as Twitter (2% unknown but 83% no use). This group is joined by international well known and “famous” social networks like Google+ and MySpace as well as the former important social platform for German speaking countries called StudiVZ.

Figure 7: Usage of Web2.0 and Internet offers of first year’s students at TU Graz in 2012, part 2

The PCA HCA Analysis
As for the last two years (2010 and 2011) we undertook a PCA HCA analysis for this year´s survey (2012) too. The “Principle Component Analysis” (PCA) and the “Hierarchical Cluster Analysis” (HCA) are standardized methods for statistical analysis of correlation matrices that recovers deeper relations and interdependency amongst the multiple elements (variables) of the survey (Ebner et al, 2010). Which one of the elements is significant to the others; which one comes along with others? Can we find groups and patterns of students having similar characteristics according to the survey´s topics and elements? With these methods we find out the impact of variables on each other and therefore can find clusters of dependent elements.

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

One result of that factor analysis is that we can slightly differ between four groups of users: • Group 1: rather using wikis, blogs, forums, Twitter, Google applications, management tools (todo-planer and online-calendar), RSS, SIP, QR, Linux PC, and Dropbox • Group 2: rather using Google search engine, word and spreadsheet processing, smartphone, SMS, e-mail, Facebook, e-commerce (such as Ebay, Amazon …), e-banking, YouTube, widgets in general, as well as Dropbox and online-calendar • Group 3: characterized by secondary school level experiences such as MS Office, Moodle, up- and downloading using school equipment • Group 4: is characterized by owning an iMac, iPad but no Windows PC, is less gaming Group 1 is mostly characterized by the usage of distinct software of the Web 2.0 phenomena, we may call them Web 2.0 experts, whereas group 2 represents the so to speak “main-stream behavior” of common people with Internet technologies. Surprisingly, Dropbox also is part of the common group too. When we take a look at fig. 7 we see that Dropbox even is more accepted and used than Videocasts which can be taken for an established learning resource. It also bears a comparison with Skype according to its often usage and often usage for learning. It seems that Dropbox did make it this year and already gains widely spread awareness. Group 3 stands for a more intensive experience with basic e-learning habits at secondary school level. Group 4 can be seen as typical Apple user. In other words, among all students and regardless to the fields of study we have a tendency of general separation into four groups of modern technology comprehension. But what about the different fields of study. Is it possibly to relate divergent behavior to different fields? To answer this question a discriminant analysis has been carried out that will be discussed in the following.

Special Focus on Fields of Study
As argued above, it is important to have a differentiated understanding for services offered to different target groups. In our case it is obvious that one possible differentiation is to split e-learning services by fields of study. The special analysis aimed to find out whether the field of study correlates with Web 2.0 and modern technology behavior or not. In case it does, what is needed to specialize our e-learning services? With the method of “Discriminant Analysis” (DA) it was tried to predict a student´s field of study on base of answers given in the questionnaire. If this can be made possible we can state that fields of study differ according to their technology usage. At TU Graz there are currently (2012) 19 different bachelor studies to enroll for. To prove the method, first it was needed to simplify the amount of studies by grouping them into similar ones. Thereby the 19 studies were accumulated to five major study groups called clusters, which are in detail: • Cluster 1 “Architecture”: containing studies: Architecture • Cluster 2 “Civil and Mechanical Engineering”: containing studies: Civil Engineering with Environment and Construction Management, Mechanical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Business Economics • Cluster 3 “Electrical Engineering and Computer Science”: containing studies: Electrical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Audio Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Telematics, Computer Science, Software Development and Business Management • Cluster 4 “Mathematics and Physics”: containing studies: Mathematics, Technical Physics, Geomatics Engineering, Earth Sciences • Cluster 5 “Chemistry and Biology”: containing studies: Chemistry, Chemical and Process Engineering, Molecular Biology, Environmental Systems Sciences / Natural Sciences-Technology For the next step we used the SPSS Discriminant Analysis. During this procedure every single variable of a defined set of 107 variables was checked for its discriminating quality. We considered for the analysis all variables describing the use of internet (connections, devices), known applications from school experiences and the intensity of usage of different applications. A variable that correlates with another variable but is of lower “discriminating significance” drops out of the process because it has no further individual value for the prediction. In that way the result is a list of variables which can be seen in table 1. It must be mentioned that for describing the Web 2.0 behavior we only used variables on frequency of general usage because they are highly correlated with those used for learning.

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Table 1: Listing of variables resulting from discriminant analysis; residual variant causes the rank list On base of answers given to these 12 variables we can predict the field of study in 41% of all cases. The prediction is best for cluster 1 (61 correct predictions). Cluster 2 and cluster 3 have around 40% correct predictions. Cluster 5 has 31% correct predictions and cluster 4 only 22%. Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the students in a perspective with two dimensions and two discriminant functions. You can recognize a trend in grouping the students. With every additional function the discrimination and separation of the groups are getting better. But be sure that this result does not mean that, for instance, cluster 1, Architecture, has more or less competence in the domain described by the variables in the list. Only further computations indicate that the students of “architecture” over all these variables have less competence and cluster 3, “Electrical Engineering”, has the most. So in case a freshman tends to answer these variables positively he/she most likely belongs to cluster 3.

Figure 8: Graphical illustration of the results of the discriminant analysis; the right sided numbers stand for the clusters 1 to 5

Discussion and Conclusion
Since 2007 the annual survey done by DSL of TU Graz among freshmen has reflected the changing habits of our youth according to their Web 2.0 competence in general and for learning skills. This year´s survey (2012) results in a clear increase of smartphones (first of all android systems) at the cost of classic mobile phones. There is an ongoing trend to more mobile devices as much as to devices in general and to (mobile and modem-based) Internet access as well. Furthermore, we see a stop in the pervasiveness of the boom of social networks. Google+ is no alternative to Facebook yet. Although the usage of Web 2.0 offers has decreased a bit, too it is used more intensive and for more learning purposes by those who use it. With assistance of discriminant analysis we finally can state, that there is a verifiable difference between the technological habits according to the fields of study. But be aware that the polled students are freshmen. Most of them have the prerequisites to use the extensive range of electronic educational offerings of our university. Nevertheless, this analysis is a step forward to optimize our e-learning services.

Originally published in: Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2013). “Architecture Students Hate Twitter and Love Dropbox” or Does the Field of Study Correlates with Web 2.0 Behavior?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 43-53). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

References
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K. & Oayyum, A (2008). The digital learner at BCIT and implications for an e-strategy. EDEN, Paris, France. Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006). LXP:Student experiences of technologies. Final Report: JISC UK. Retrieved from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/learneroutcomes [December 2012] Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. ACM eLearn Magazine, October 2005 (10) Ebner, M. & Nagler, W. (2010). Has Web2.0 Reached the Educated Top? In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010, p. 4001-4010. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Ebner, M., Nagler, W. & Schön, M. (2011). The Facebook Generation Boon or Bane for E-Learning at Universities? In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011, p. 3549-3557. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Green, H. & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation. London: DEMOS. Retrieved from: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf [December 2012] JAMES Study (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.psychologie.zhaw.ch/de/psychologie/forschung-undentwicklung/medienpsychologie/medienumgang-von-kindern-und-jugendlichen/james.html [December 2012] JIM Study (2012). JIM 2012, Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media – Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-jähriger in Deutschland. Retrieved from: www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf12/JIM2012_Endversion.pdf [December 2012] Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile teaching and learning. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning – a handbook for educators and trainers, p. 25-44, LondonNewYork: Routledge Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality? Students’ use of technologies for learning. Draft paper. Nagler, W. & Ebner, M. (2009). Is Your University Ready For the Ne(x)t-Generation? In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009, S. 4344 – 4351. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Pelevin, V. & Bromfield, A. (2002). Homo Zapiens. Penguin Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age for IT: First steps Towards Understanding the Net Generation. li D. D. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Hrsg.). Educating the Net Generation, p. 2.1-1.5. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101b.pdf [December 2012] Oblinger, D. D. & Oblinger, J. L. (Hrsg.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen [December 2012] Opaschowski, H. W. (1999). Generation @, Die Medienrevolution entläßt ihre Kinder: Leben im Informationszeitalter. Hamburg/Ostfildern: Kurt Mair Verlag O’Reilly, T. (2004). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software . Retrieved from: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [December 2012] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, 9 (5), p. 1-6. Schön, S., Wieden-Bischof, D., Schneider, C. & Schumann, M. (2011). Mobile Gemeinschaften. Erfolgreiche Beispiele aus den Bereichen Spielen, Lernen und Gesundheit. Social Media, Vol. 5, Salzburg Research, Austria Schulmeister, R. (2009). Studierende, Internet, E-Learning und Web 2.0. GMW09, p. 129-140. Retrieved from: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v16/i10/paper [December 2012] Schulmeister, R. (2010). Gibt es eine Net Generation? [Does the Net Generation exist?] . Germany: University of Hamburg. Retrieved from: http://www.zhw.uni- hamburg.de/uploads/schulmeister-net-generation_v3.pdf [December 2012] Statista by IBM SPSS (2012a). Welche dieser Geräte und Medien nutzt Du täglich oder mehrmals pro Woche? Retrieved from: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29153/umfrage/mediennutzung-durch-jugendliche-in-der-freizeit/ [December 2012] Statista by IBM SPSS (2012b). Anzahl der E-Reader-Besitzer in Deutschland von Januar 2011 bis Januar 2012 (in 1.000)? Retrieved from: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/202659/umfrage/anzahl-der-e-reader-besitzer-in-deutschland/ [December 2012] Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. McGrwa-Hill, New York