Beyond Tech-Fluent Generations: Investigating Cross-Generational Technology Adoption Patterns in Collaborative Online Learning Spaces

Shamim Akhter; Rabindra Dev Prasad P; Mengqiu  Tan; Sehrish  Iftikhar

doi:10.3991/ijim.v20i04.58589

Authors

Shamim Akhter INTI International University, Nilai, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-6973
Rabindra Dev Prasad P INTI International University, Nilai, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7162-9622
Mengqiu Tan Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming, China https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9164-2394
Sehrish Iftikhar University of Southern Punjab, Multan, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5829-6201

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v20i04.58589

Keywords:

Digital native, technology adoption, learning opportunities, educational technology, online collaboration

Abstract

This study challenges the prevailing digital native’s paradigm by examining technology adoption patterns across different generational cohorts in collaborative online learning environments. It investigates how generational differences influence technology acceptance, usage behaviors, and learning outcomes in digital educational spaces. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative surveys (n = 847) and qualitative interviews (n = 32) across four generational cohorts: Generation Z (born 1997–2012), Millennials (1981–1996), Generation X (1965–1980), and Baby Boomers (1946–1964). The study utilized the extended technology acceptance model (TAM2) framework, incorporating social influence and cognitive instrumental processes. Findings reveal significant variations in technology adoption patterns that transcend traditional generational assumptions. While Generation Z demonstrated higher initial technology acceptance rates (M = 4.23, SD = 0.87), Generation X showed superior sustained engagement in collaborative learning activities (M = 4.45, SD = 0.76). Baby Boomers exhibited unexpected adaptability when provided with appropriate scaffolding and support mechanisms. The digital natives concept oversimplifies technology adoption behaviors. Crossgenerational collaboration in online learning spaces benefits from differentiated instructional design approaches that acknowledge varying technological competencies while leveraging the unique strengths of each generational cohort.

References

1] M. Prensky, "Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1," On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

[2] P. A. Kirschner and P. De Bruyckere, "The myths of the digital native and the multitasker," Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 67, pp. 135-142, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

[3] L. Corrin, G. Kennedy, and S. French, "The myth of the digital native: Understanding digital literacy across generations," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 3129-3142, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12835

[4] C. Hodges, S. Moore, B. Lockee, T. Trust, and A. Bond, "The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning," EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 12-23, 2020.

[5] Z. Wang, L. Chen, and T. Anderson, "Post-pandemic online learning: Generational differences and adaptive strategies," Distance Education, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 234-252, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2023.2198765

[6] L. Chen and M. Zhang, "Inclusive design principles for multi-generational online learning environments," Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 445-468, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10298-7

[7] P. Thompson, "The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning," Computers & Education, vol. 65, pp. 12-33, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022

[8] A. Margaryan, A. Littlejohn, and G. Vojt, "Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies," Computers & Education, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 429-440, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

[9] E. E. Gallardo-Echenique, L. Marqués-Molías, M. Bullen, and J. W. Strijbos, "Let's talk about digital learners in the digital era," The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 156-187, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2196

[10] P. P. Thapa, N. M. Zayed, M. N. Alam, V. S. Nitsenko, S. Rudenko, and D. Svyrydenko, "Mediating and moderating role of emotional intelligence between mobile phone use and affective commitment among undergraduate students in academic institutes," Current Psychology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 6610-6626, 2025.

[11] F. D. Davis, "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

[12] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies," Management Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186-204, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

[13] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view," MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425-478, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

[14] M. Al-Emran, V. Mezhuyev, and A. Kamaludin, "Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review," Computers & Education, vol. 125, pp. 389-412, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008

[15] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

[16] X. Wang and Y. Liu, "Intergenerational learning in digital environments: A systematic review of benefits and challenges," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-24, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00361-8

[17] R. Martinez, K. Thompson, and S. Chen, "Bridging generational gaps in online collaborative learning: Strategies and outcomes," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 118, art. no. 106692, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106692

[18] J. Park, H. Kim, and S. Lee, "COVID-19 and cross-generational online learning adaptation: Evidence from emergency remote teaching," Educational Technology & Society, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 89-104, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0008

[19] J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017.

[20] R. L. Thompson, C. A. Higgins, and J. M. Howell, "Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization," MIS Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 125-143, 1991.

[21] I. Ajzen, "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179-211, 1991.

[22] D. R. Compeau and C. A. Higgins, "Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test," MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 189-211, 1995.

[23] V. Braun and V. Clarke, "Using thematic analysis in psychology," Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa