The Impact of Multidimensionality of Literacy on the Use of Digital Technology: Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives

  • Shahrokh NikouEmail author
  • Malin Brännback
  • Gunilla Widén
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 907)


Considering the speed at which new digital technologies are evolving, it is the aim of this paper to assess the impact of multidimensionality of literacy on intention to use digital technologies. An empirical research, using antecedent factors of adoption, is executed to investigate the relationships between factors influencing digital immigrants and digital natives’ intentions to use digital technology. By using a survey data of 118 and 127 digital immigrants and digital natives, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) are applied. The results of the analyses while show some similarities, reveal that these two groups are different in many aspects and their intentions to use technology are influenced by different factors. Moreover, fsQCA results, while supporting the SEM findings, show that there are multiple configurations of conditions leading to the outcome of interest.


Digital natives Digital immigrants Digital literacy Information literacy Digital transformation Digital technology 



The first author of this paper would like to thank the generous financial support by Säästöpankkien Tutkimussäätiö [Research Foundation of Savings Banks] in Finland. This research was also partially supported by Academy of Finland for DiWIL funded project (No: 295743). We thank our colleagues from Åbo Akademi University who provided comments, feedback and expertise that greatly assisted our research, although they may not agree with all of the interpretations/conclusions of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon 9(5), 1–6 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: do they really think differently? Horizon 9(6), 1–6 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gui, M., Argentin, G.: Digital skills of internet natives: different forms of digital literacy in a random sample of northern Italian high school students. New Med. Soc. 13(6), 963–980 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howe, N., Strauss, W.: Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Vintage, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruce, C.S.: Workplace experiences of information literacy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 19(1), 33–47 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kerka, S.: Consumer education for the information age. Practice Application Brief 4, 12–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eshet-Alkalai, Y.: Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermed. 13(1), 93–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng, W.: Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Comput. Educ. 59(3), 1065–1078 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilster, P.: Digital Literacy. Wiley, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, A.: DigEuLit–a European framework for digital literacy: a progress report. J. eLit. 2(2), 130–136 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenberg, M.B.: Information literacy: essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 28(2), 39–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L.: The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39(5), 775–786 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gu, X., Zhu, Y., Guo, X.: Meeting the “digital natives”: understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 16(1), 392–402 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bingimlas, K.A.: Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 5(3), 235–245 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hew, K., Brush, T.: Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 55(3), 223–252 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teo, T.: Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: model development and test. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2432–2440 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holden, H., Rada, R.: Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43(4), 343–367 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buabeng-Andoh, C.: Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: a review of the literature. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Inf. Commun. Technol. 8(1), 136–155 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rozell, E.J., Gardner, W.L.: Computer-related success and failure: a longitudinal field study of the factors influencing computer-related performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 15(1), 1–10 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., Krause, K.L.: First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 24(1), 108–122 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., Howell, J.M.: Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 15(1), 124–143 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, R.: Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Internet High. Educ. 11(2), 71–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park, S.Y.: An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(3), 150–162 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A.: Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 19(2), 189–211 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Q.E., Myers, M.D., Sundaram, D.: Digital natives and digital immigrants. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 5(6), 409–419 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hargittai, E.: Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 23(3), 371–379 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hargittai, E.: An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 27(1), 130–137 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nikou, S., Mezei, J., Brännback, M.: Digital natives’ intention to interact with social media: value systems and gender. Telemat. Inform. 35(2), 421–435 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S.: Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14(3), 396–402 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W.: Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12(4), 531–544 (1986)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ragin, C.C.: The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley (1987)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woodside, A.G.: Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66(4), 463–472 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ragin, C.C.: The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) und fuzzy Sets. Barbara, Budrich (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ragin, C.C.: Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Anal. 14(3), 291–310 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago University Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ragin, C.C., Fiss, P.C.: Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: an empirical demonstration. In: Ragin, C.C. (ed.) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, pp. 190–212. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 70(2017), 1–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahrokh Nikou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Malin Brännback
    • 1
  • Gunilla Widén
    • 1
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations