Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Millennial engineers: Digital media and information ecology

of engineering students
Aditya Johri ⇑, Hon Jie Teo, Jenny Lo, Monique Dufour, Asta Schram
Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Media significantly shape how and what we learn. To date there is limited understanding of digital media
Available online 15 March 2013 and information use by engineering students. We comprehensively review existing literature and present
findings from a research study investigating digital media and information use of ‘millennial’ engineers
Keywords: who purportedly possess distinctive experience, habits, and perceptions about technology. We adminis-
Media and information ecology tered a multiple-item survey to a cohort of first year engineering students who entered a large public uni-
First year engineering students versity in the United States in August 2009. Self-reported information on the frequency of media device
Facebook
usage, participation in social networking, academic activities and information seeking tendencies, was
Twitter
Social networking
received from 204 participants. Similar to other youth, millennial engineers use technology extensively
Survey study and are frequent users of both commonly used digital devices as well as applications. Students’ device
ownership was marked by a relatively low use of desktop computers and significant use of mobile
devices. Students reported using the Internet extensively for both entertainment and school related work.
Facebook™ use was common but Twitter™ use was limited. Multitasking was common and its self-
reported effectiveness varied across participants. Gender differences were found across several items.
Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
How do media influence cognition and learning? The role of
media in education has been an important area of study for dec-
ades, yet questions about the relationship between media and
learning have remained unsettled (Kozma, 1991; Salomon, 1978).
However, recent studies conclusively show that advances in multi-
media representations do shape learning by affecting our psycho-
logical functioning (Mayer, 2005). In the current era of digitized
information, we are once again witnessing a significant shift in
how we represent information and knowledge, and consequently,
how we teach and learn. Kraidy (2002) argues that the rise of the
digital information is shaping cognition by impacting our ability
to process parallel data, access information in a non-linear order,
and visualize information. In addition, digital media represents
the real world through simulations, which has changed our under-
standing of abstract concepts (Kraidy, 2002). Advances in comput-
ing media are not only shaping learning through practices such as
simulations, but they also fundamentally allow us to alter the dis-
tributed cognition system of learners (Hutchins, 1995; Pea, 1993).
Media allow us to reconfigure who we learn with and when we
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Engineering Education, MC
0218, 616 McBryde Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States. Tel.: +1 540 231 0653.
E-mail address: ajohri@vt.edu (A. Johri).
learn and change the way we collaborate and work in teams
(Johri & Lohani, 2011; Johri, Williams, & Pembridge, 2013). Finally,
media provide a context and motivation for learning (Forte &
Bruckman, 2009; Forte & Guzdial, 2004). They become an environ-
ment in and through which students participate in a different
manner.
Given the multiple ways in which media shape learning, it is
important to understand and document their use as we look to-
wards preparing the engineers of 2020 and beyond (NAE, 2005).
Scholars have also outlined the saturation of the engineering work-
place with information technology and the significant shift in how
engineers work (Schmiede & Will-Zocholl, 2011). To develop com-
plex thinking skills in conjunction with the ability to use digital
technology expertly, we need a better understanding of incoming
students and their experiences with technology. In recent years,
as we review below, scholars have started to build a comprehen-
sive understanding of digital media use of students. Yet, we have
not directly examined digital media use of engineering students.
For the engineering education community, understanding the use
of digital media by students has far reaching potential implica-
tions. By understanding students’ habits, instructors can design a
more responsive learning environment and integrate the use of
technology in a more appropriate manner. An understanding of
media use can also assist in improving inclusiveness by targeting
students to better their technology use and by bridging the ‘digital
divide’.

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.048
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
2. Use of media and information for learning: an ecological
perspective
In the current technology-infused environment, an understand-
ing of media use by students has taken on increased urgency. Stu-
dents and teachers alike are spending more time with and around
digital devices and multimedia services. According to Nielsen
(2010), time spent on social media worldwide has increased 82%
over the previous year, and users spend an average of over 5 h
per day on social media. WordPress (2011), one of world’s premier
blog hosting sites, reports that it hosts over 48 million blogs, which
have almost 300 million monthly viewers. The popularity of elec-
tronic games continues to increase exponentially: according to
Entertainment Software Association (ESA, 2010), almost 70% of
American households now play computer or video games. Users
are exposed ever earlier to digital technologies, which requires a
serious examination of media habits of youth. The ecological per-
spective offers a promising approach because it provides a frame-
work for understanding the use of digital media within a larger
context. The ecological perspective on human development was
first outlined by Bronfenbrenner (1977) who argues that, ‘‘[e]nvi-
ronmental structures, and the processes taking place within and
between them, must be viewed as interdependent and must be
analyzed in systems terms (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 518).’’ There-
fore, what a student does in school inevitably shapes and is shaped
by her activities at home and/or in other settings. Barron (2004,
2006) elaborated Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) perspective by account-
ing specifically for children’s participation in digital media activi-
ties and proposed the ‘‘learning ecologies’’ framework. Her case
studies (Barron, 2004, 2006) track adolescents’ development of
technological interest and expertise across settings and over time.
She identifies different pathways whereby some participants in her
study were first introduced to technology within school settings
and developed an interest within formal technology curriculum
whereas others developed an interest by trying to build websites.
The diversity of new digital devices, platforms, and applications
available to students has changed their ecology profoundly.
Nardi and O’Day (1999) have also advanced an ecological per-
spective to examine technology use, shifting the spotlight from
mere use of technology to the human activities served by technol-
ogy. They conceptualize information ecology as ‘‘a system of people,
practice, values, and technologies in a particular environment
(Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 49)’’, one made up of local habitations of
people who together forge practices and attitudes. An information
ecology is distinguished by conflicting goals and competition for
resources. In addition, it is constantly exposed to multiple levels
of influences, and ‘‘exhibits diversity and experiences continual
evolution (Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 50).’’ Within the ecological con-
text, change is systemic and alterations of significant elements can
cause reverberating effects, whereas unfitting interventions are
promptly diminished. The authors argue that it is crucial to devel-
op an intuitive understanding of principles, practices and values of
significance to the community in order ‘‘to respond with initiative
that is grounded in local understanding and values (Nardi & O’Day,
1999, p. 56).’’ In this framework, emphasis is placed on under-
standing levels of digital media use and behaviors to characterize
the locality, and stakeholders are encouraged to exercise control
over ever-changing parts of the learning environment to ensure
that socially shared and valued activities are not marginalized.
Nardi and O’Day (1999) further argue for a need to continually
evaluate communal motivations, values as well as social linkages
in order to assess if technology uses are adequately supported.
The ecology metaphor has guided research work from several
domains. For instance, it has been leveraged for undergraduate IT
instruction delivery (Kazmer & Thakkar, 2004), design of learning
commons (McMullen, 2008), digital libraries (O’Day & Nardi,
287
2003), weblogs for communication design (Sade, 2005), cross-
national virtual learning environment in K12 education (Ligorio
& Van Veen, 2006) and technology use in schools (Zhao & Frank,
2003). In engineering education research, Moriarty (2001) studied
ethics and suggested that engineering products or services created
for the social and political uses can be understood as ‘‘information
ecologies’’. Given the extensive ecology of students’ lives and the
availability of learning opportunities in an educational institution,
we appropriate the ecologies framework to further our under-
standing of the use of digital media and devices – or digital tech-
nology – by engineering students.
3. Digital media and information ecology of engineering
students
Scholars and practitioners have started to closely study the use
of digital media and device among teens and youth and have
coined various terms to suggest that the current generation of col-
lege students seemingly possesses distinctive habits as well as per-
ceptions about the use of digital media and devices that set them
apart from their predecessors. The terms used to describe this pop-
ulation includes Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001), Generation Y or
Net Generation (Chubin, Donaldson, Olds, & Fleming, 2008;
Tapscott, 1997), Generation M2, Digital Generation (Willett &
Buckingham, 2006) and Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000;
Oblinger, 2003). Despite the claim that these college students are
avid consumers and users of media content and devices, there is
limited understanding about the media use habits of engineering
students of this generation. A representative understanding of dig-
ital media, device use and habits of engineering students should be
of concern to engineering educators interested in using informa-
tion technology – a common practice – to improve engineering
learning and teaching.
The need to innovate in engineering education has led to calls
for integrating information technology, and has resulted in the
adoption of a wide variety of media and Internet-based learning
platforms to enhance engineering learning and teaching (Bourne,
Harris, & Mayadas, 2005). Several studies report the success of
technology in improving engineering learning. For instance, Rutz
et al. (2003) investigated the use of instructional technologies such
as streaming media and interactive videos to improve education in
fundamental engineering science courses, and found that students’
time spent on task and their interest in the educational content can
be improved through media use. Rojas (2002) investigated the use
of web-centric tools in a graduate engineering course and reported
that interactions were enhanced and collaboration efforts were im-
proved. Chen, Whittinghill and Kadlowec (2010) used custom feed-
back system through PDAs in classes and reported that rapid
feedback can positively improve the learning process. Similarly,
Steif and Dollár (2009) examined engineering students’ interac-
tions with the courseware and discovered that learning gains are
increased when they made self-regulated efforts to use related
courseware to complement their learning.
In addition to studies that have examined the use of specific
technologies, review of studies of technology highlight the fre-
quent changes in the range of devices and software available to
students, and illuminate the need to deepen our understanding
of media and Internet usage patterns of engineering students.
According to the latest Horizon Report (Johnson, Smith, Willis,
Levine, & Haywood, 2011), an annual survey conducted by the
New Media Consortium and Educause, six emerging technologies
– electronic books, mobiles, augmented reality, game-based learn-
ing, gesture-based computing, and learning analytics – have the
potential to disrupt learning and education significantly in the near
future. The K-12 edition of the Horizon Report (Johnson, Adams,
288 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
& Haywood, 2011) lists cloud computing, open content and per-
sonal learning environments as further areas for growth in the field
of learning technologies. There is no doubt that college students
are quick to adopt or to start using new Internet tools and media
devices compared to the general population of Internet users
(Jones, Johnson-Yale, Millermaier, & Seoane Pérez, 2009). They per-
ceive media use as a great addition to their lives and believe them-
selves to be skillful at media use and do not require additional
training (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005). Kvavik and Caruso (2005) also re-
ported that students saw Internet use as convenient for school and
connecting with others, but that they preferred a moderate use of
it in their courses. They claimed to be happy with their instructorś
ability to use technology and expected them to use it well. Stu-
dents felt that the primary benefit of technology in their courses
was convenience, followed by connectedness, and they did not
view this technology as transformational but supplemental to their
course work. It was also clear that students in disciplines that use
information technology extensively, like engineering, business and
computer sciences, showed a higher preference for IT in the course
experience. With the gradual transition into an information society
and advancement of mobile technology, multimedia, communica-
tion and computer tools have become ubiquitous and the owner-
ship and use of electronic devices, such as MP3 players, iPods of
various kinds, mobile phones, computers, especially laptops, has
increased exponentially. The most active users of these devices
are young people (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005; Kvavik, Caruso, &
Morgan, 2004) who are ‘‘digitally able, always connected and
desiring contact, social, visual, experiential and needing immediate
responses (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005).’’ Given the extensive use of
technology among students and in order to prepare for the future,
it is important to calibrate and gauge engineering students’ use of
technology in order to leverage information technology for learn-
ing and education. The study presented in this paper targets this
goal.
In the rest of the paper we first review prior literature on the
use of digital media and devices by youth. We focus particularly
on areas reported to be high use such as the Internet, social net-
working, Wikipedia, and use of mobile devices. We follow with a
review of research on multitasking, a habit reported to be common
among youth with implications for learning. Following the litera-
ture review, we list the research questions guiding the survey de-
sign, explain our research design, and present the results of the
survey. We close with a discussion of the findings and a conclusion.
4. Literature review – use of digital technology
The use of technology in education has a strong historical line-
age. Writing instruments and blackboards serve as enduring exam-
ples, but digital information technology has dramatically changed
the landscape. The infrastructure for education and learning has
become significantly digitized, from use of devices such as elec-
tronic whiteboard, laptops, and mobile phones, to web-based re-
sources and activities such as the Internet, online gaming, and
social networking. As Johri (2011) argues, the shift is not just in
the infrastructure but also its use. Digital technology has become
a part of most common educational activities, such as interacting
with content, managing content, facilitating interaction among
students and teachers, grading, and conducting research. Although
this shift has been occurring over the past few decades, it has made
a major impact on youth described as the ‘Net generation’ or ‘Mill-
ennials’, those born between 1980 and the present (Howe &
Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003) and who grew up with computer-
based technology readily available and almost unrestricted access
to the Internet (Tapscott & Williams, 2008). This group of youths is
known to be extremely proficient with digital technology and
proficient at multitasking when using electronic and digital devices
(Foehr, 2006), and they perceive digital technology as omnipresent
in their lives often as means to accomplish desired outcomes (Kva-
vik, 2005). Tapscott and Williams (2008, p. 52) have outlined sev-
eral dimensions of the current generation of college students, and
claim that ‘‘they are not content to be passive consumers and
increasingly satisfy their desire for choice, convenience, customiza-
tion, and control by designing, producing, and distributing prod-
ucts themselves’’ (p. 52). In terms of education and learning,
their learning styles lean towards independence and autonomy,
which then influence their school behaviors, from ‘‘what kind
of education they buy’’ to ‘‘what, where, and how they learn’’
(Carlson, 2005). These authors cautioned that educators must be
aware that young adults are able to utilize online tools to their
advantage and not be restricted by the linearity of traditional com-
munication media. However, while these generalizations about
students offer helpful models, it is also crucial to be aware of the
significant diversity within any population. With this caveat, we
now turn to an extensive review of findings on use of digital media
and devices among youth and their propensity to multitask.
4.1. Digital device ownership
A study of youth media consumption (Yahoo!, 2003) polled a
total of 2618 research participants regarding their Internet use
and found that in an average week, youth reported spending large
amounts of time on activities related to media and the Internet:
16.7 h online (excluding email), 13.6 h watching TV, 12 h listening
to the radio, 7.7 h talking on the phone; 6 h reading books and
magazines that had nothing to do with school (Yahoo!, & Carat
Interactive, 2003). In 2004, ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research) performed a large-scale study involving 4374 respon-
dents, in order to examine students’ experiences with the use of
information technology, and to evaluate learning needs for IT ser-
vices, training and tools (Kvavik et al., 2004). Their mixed-methods
research study included a Web-based survey of a sample of 18,039
students, which was comprised of both Likert-scale items and
open-ended questions, as well as interviews of 82 students. ECAR
expanded this study in 2005 by including additional universities,
and by enlarging their sample population to include graduate stu-
dents (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005). This study revealed much about the
technology device ownership of the Net Generation students,
showing that most of the students had at least one computer and
a mobile phone. The survey findings showed that over 61% of the
survey respondents owned a personal desktop computer, over
55% owned a laptop computer, over 90% owned a mobile phone
and 25% had wireless adapters used to access the Internet. The
respondents reported that these devices were used for the pur-
poses of socializing, studying and entertainment and that they
transported their mobile phones, laptops and PDAs with them
throughout the day. Malaney (2004) conducted a study at the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts, and reported that 98% of college students
owned a computer.
Roberts et al. (2005) of the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted
a media study involving 2002 children or youth, 8- to 18-year-old,
and found that they owned a variety of digital media devices: mo-
bile phone (39%), handheld video game player (55%), MP3 player
(18%), laptop (12%) and portable CD/tape player (61%). Their subse-
quent study, conducted 5 years later (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts,
2010), found significant increases in digital device ownership; mo-
bile phone (66%), handheld video game player (59%), MP3 player
(76%), laptop (29%) and portable CD/tape player (16%). Seemingly,
the marked increase in the MP3 player ownership is coupled with
the decrease of portable CD/tape player ownership, whereas laptop
ownership has more than doubled for the sample population of
youth aged 8- to 18-year-old. Furthermore, Jones et al. (2009) con-
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
ducted a survey study in 29 higher education institutions and re-
ported that 76% of the 7421 students owned desktop computers,
54% owned laptops, over 35% owned both a desktop and a laptop
whereas only 3% respondents do not own personal computers.
Arriving at similar findings, Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, and Zickuhr
(2010) found that amongst 2253 adults, 18-year-old and above,
58% owned desktop computers whereas 46% owned laptops or net-
books. A large number of adults also owned other devices such as
gaming consoles (37%), MP3 Player (43%) and portable gaming de-
vice (18%). The researchers also found that laptop computers have
overtaken the desktop computer in terms of being the choice of
computing needs for adults, with young adults, under age 30, more
likely to own a laptop (66%) rather than a desktop computer (53%).
4.2. Internet use
Internet use has, since its invention in the 1990s, increased faster
than any of us could have imagined. One of the first studies on the
Internet use of college students showed that students used first and
foremost email and course related search on the net, followed by
participation in online groups and playing game, with a total weekly
use of 2.6 h (Wilson, 1999). Slightly more than half the surveyed
students (51%) claimed to use the net, with some of them reporting
that either they did not know how to or did not have easy access to
the Internet (Wilson, 1999). The access to Internet has changed
significantly over the years with Malaney (2004) reporting that
almost every single undergraduate student (99.7%) used the
Internet in 2003 in addition to Kvavik et al. (2004) who found that
almost all the surveyed college students in their study had access to
the Internet with 81% of respondents reporting use of broadband
Internet. It has also been noted that students in chemistry, com-
puter science, engineering, math, and physics spent considerably
more time online than other students (Anderson, 2001). Kvavik,
Caruso, and Morgan (2005) found that 11.9% of college students
accessed the Internet through dial-in services whereas the majority
connected through wired broadband (75.9%). Jones et al. (2009)
replicated and extended their earlier study (Jones, 2002) on college
studentś media use and compared the findings. The study in 2002
showed that about 77% of the students spent at least an hour online
each day whereas the second study showed that over half (53%) of
the students reported being online at least 3 h per day.
Excessive use of the Internet has been associated with Internet
dependence and deterioration of collegiate academic performance.
Scherer (1997) found that 13% of the college students in her study
suffering from Internet dependence, but only a small percent of
these students perceived their online use to have a negative impact
on their lives. However, Anderson (2001) reported that 6% of the
students spent more than 400 min per day using the Internet and
these students were more likely than the other students to indicate
negative influence of Internet overuse. Malaney (2004) studied
Internet use among undergraduate students in a public research
university and found that 29.8% of the survey respondents had
‘‘tried unsuccessfully to control, cut back, or stop using the Inter-
net’’ whereas 10% of surveyed students were experiencing negative
outcomes attributed to Internet use, such as losing sleep. Another
study suggesting that excessive Internet use is tied to decreased
academic performance includes the survey study of 572 students
by Kubey, Lavin, and Barrows (2001), who reported that students
who suffer from impaired academic performance were using Inter-
net at a rate that was almost double as the rest of the sample.
4.3. Participation in online activities
Malaney (2004) found that students spent 4.21 h per week surf-
ing the Internet and 5.16 h per week on the Internet for activities re-
lated to their college coursework. An average of 1.78, 0.31, and
289
0.88 h per week was spent downloading music, software, and mov-
ies, respectively. Furthermore, students spent 0.84, 0.19 and 0.49 h
per week playing web-based interactive games, Web-based fantasy
sports, and multi-user dungeons/dimension and 0.26 h per week on
adult websites (Malaney, 2004). This is comparable to the earlier
findings by Anderson (2001), who surveyed a group of 1302 college
students from seven colleges and reported that the students were
spending an average of 1.33 h per day using the Internet, with an
average of 0.65 h per day browsing the 0.12 h per day using chatting
or instant messaging services and 0.08 h per day using usenet.
The findings from the study conducted by ECAR do not vary sig-
nificantly from the findings of Anderson (2001) and Malaney
(2004). Kvavik et al. (2004) reported that over 99% of the college
students participating in their study used email, over 98% used
the Internet for coursework and writing and over 94% used it for
pleasure. In an subsequent study, Kvavik and Caruso (2005) found
that the most common activities on the Internet were: instant
messenger activities or chatting (2.72 h per week), downloading
or listening to music or videos/DVDs (2.59 h per week), email-re-
lated activities (2.52 h per week), browsing for pleasure (2.54 h
per week), using a library resource to complete a course assign-
ment (1.83 h per week) and online shopping (1.54 h per week).
On the other hand, Rideout et al. (2010) found that 8- to 18-
year-olds spend an average of 2.32 h per week listening to music
and 0.2 h on news or talk shows. In their study, the majority of
youth have watched a video on the Internet (81%), downloaded
music (62%) and 43% of the youth engaged in any of the three activ-
ities: listening to music, playing games and watching TV.
Wikipedia, an Internet-based encyclopedia, has been widely
leveraged for teaching (Konieczny, 2007), for improving the writ-
ing experience (Forte & Bruckman, 2009) and to provide resources
for learners of academic research (Head, 2007). In a survey study
conducted by Rainie and Tancer (2007), 36% of 2200 adults, aged
18 and older, reported using Wikipedia whereas on the other hand,
Head and Eisenberg (2010) conducted a study at six different col-
leges in the US to investigate how and why students used Wikipe-
dia, and they found that 91% of the surveyed students use
Wikipedia for course-related research purposes and over half the
students (52%) were frequent Wikipedia users. Lim (2009) ex-
plored college students’ perceptions of their use of Wikipedia
and found that while all students (100%) use Wikipedia (with the
majority of students 53.7% accessed Wikipedia through search en-
gines), only a third of the respondents reported using Wikipedia
more than 15 times per semester.
4.4. Online social networking
Online social networking is a computer-mediated communica-
tion environment which provides access to people to be connected
for cooperative, collaborative and information-based shared Inter-
net activities (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Riley,
Bernoff, Pflaum, & Wise, 2010). Examples of online social network-
ing sites are Twitter, Linked-In, Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook.
One study of American adults suggests that 46% of online adults 18
and older are users of at least one social networking site (Lenhart,
2009). Another study targeted active social networking users and
reports that 73% of the social networking users have a profile on
Facebook and 48% on MySpace (Lenhart et al., 2010). Madden
and Zickuhr (2011) found that 65% of the total sample size of
2277 adults reported the use of social networking sites like My-
Space, Facebook or LinkedIn.
Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, and Purcell (2011) surveyed some
2,255 American adults and 79% of the respondents reported that
they used the Internet and nearly half of adults (47%), or 59% of
Internet users, say they use at least one of social networking sites.
Another study was performed among 165 undergraduate college
290 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
students asking about their use of social networking (Miller,
Parsons, & Lifer, 2010) and found that 88.5% of the respondents
visit social networking sites at least once a day whereas 60% of
respondents visited the sites many times a day. As for the amount
of time they spent on the social networking sites, the majority
reported visits that last less than 10 min (60%) and 35.2% of partic-
ipants spending 10–30 min.
Facebook and Twitter are two online social networking sites
that have gained immense popularity and have attracted much
academic interest (Ross et al., 2009; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin,
2008). Jones et al. (2009) examined a sample size of 7421 and
found that more than one-third of the students reported logging
onto Facebook daily and 21% admitted to logging on many times
a per day although 37% claimed never to have logged onto Face-
book (Jones et al., 2009). Twitter, another social networking site,
is a microblogging service accessible through the Internet browsers
or mobile phones, has gained even in education fields (Parslow,
2009). Hargittai and Lifer (2010) conducted survey study over
2 years which attracted 505 students and found that less than
20% of the college students surveyed were Twitter users. In addi-
tion, they also found that 37% of black students were using Twitter
in 2010 compared to 21% of white students. This is quite similar to
the findings by Lenhart et al. (2010), who reported that 18% of sur-
veyed adults are Twitter users.
4.5. Multitasking
Multitasking – an involvement in more than one media or com-
puter activity simultaneously (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Yahoo &
Carat, 2003) – has emerged as a significant part of Net Generation
behavior (Oser, 2005; Wallis, 2006). Documented evidence of the
academic consequences of multitasking is mixed. Hembrooke and
Gay (2003) investigated the effects of multitasking in a group of
students who were using laptops in a lecture and reported that stu-
dents who multitask perform significantly poorer in immediate
measures of memory. Coming to a similar conclusion, Levine,
Waite, and Bowman (2007) argued that if youths are repeatedly
engaged in tasks that require frequent attention shifts (such as in-
stant messaging), this may lead to ‘‘quick, superficial multitasking
rather than in-depth focus on one task’’ and a preference for fre-
quent task switching over sustained attention during cognitive
tasks. Kraushaar and Novak (2006) investigated student use of lap-
top during lectures and found that when students engage in mul-
titasking in software applications unrelated to coursework, their
academic performance is adversely affected by the amount of dis-
tractive multitasking. Other researchers have argued that instant
messaging (IM) or chatting while working on academic work
may reduce academic performance (Fox, Rosen, & Crawford,
2009; Junco & Cotten, 2011). This is not surprising considering
the observations that researchers have found on instant messaging
(IM) use; Malaney (2004) noted that students spent 10.57 h per
week on IM whereas Jones et al. (2009) found that 24% respon-
dents use IM several times during the day (Jones et al., 2009). On
the other end, others have suggested that listening to music or
watching music videos did not seem to negatively affect their per-
formance negatively (Pool, Koolstra, & Van Der Voort, 2003).
Rideout et al. (2010) investigated computer multitasking be-
tween the age of 8 and 18 reported using multiple media simulta-
neously – using computers and the Internet at the same time as
video games, print media, music, and the phone. In this study,
56% of the survey respondents reported that they use a computer,
watch TV, play video games, text message, or listen to music while
doing their homework some of the time or more frequently. They
argue that as American youth still spent 6.5 h per day with media
– a figure similar to that of an earlier study in 2005 (Roberts et al.,
2005) – but because their consumption of media content had
increased by 2 h per day, the youth are now multitasking. Yahoo
(2003) conducted a study on youth media use and found that
68% of respondents listen to CDs or MP3 and 67% while using the
Internet at the same time. Other types of activities that youth en-
gaged in while online include watching TV (50%), talking on the
telephone (45%), listening to the radio (45%), doing homework
(45%) and reading (21%). These numbers are quite different in
the IM user population, where almost all IM users in a study con-
ducted by Junco and Cotten (2011) engaged in IM or chatting while
doing schoolwork at the same time.
4.6. Millennials
As suggested by the literature, we can not only refer to descrip-
tors (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2003; Prensky,
2001; Tapscott, 1997) of the current generation of students but
look specifically at their media habits, uncovered through media
surveys as cited above. Table 1 summarizes the various attributes
relevant to digital media and device use of millennials synthesized
from the literature.
While these studies both have deepened our understanding of
‘‘millennial’’ students as well as demonstrated that technology tools
can indirectly increase the quality of education for our engineering
students, much work has to be done to increase the understanding
our engineering learners. Through the review of recent scholarly
writings, it became apparent that no studies have been performed
specifically on freshman engineering students; hence, this study
aims to contribute to the growing knowledge of digital use habits
our engineering students, and to better understand how to engage
students through digital technology. We intend to contribute to
the literature discussed above by investigating freshman engineer-
ing students’ use of digital media and devices. In order to achieve
our aims, we used a self-reported survey instrument to establish
the prevalence of specific media habits among the survey popula-
tion. In the next section we discuss the research questions, research
design, data collection process and findings for this study.
4.7. Summary of survey studies of media and device use
As shown in Table 2, only three of the studies cited in the liter-
ature review touch on the three research areas of device owner-
ship, Internet activities and multitasking.
5. Research study
5.1. Research questions
The following research questions guided the design of the sur-
vey instrument and subsequent data collection:
Research Question 1: What digital devices and media character-
ize the freshmen engineering learning ecology?
Research Question 2: In what online activities do freshmen engi-
neering students commonly engage, and what is the frequency
of engagement?
Research Question 3: Do first year engineering students engage
in multitasking, and what is their self-perception of
multitasking?
5.2. Data collection
Given the goal of the study was to understand media use and
perception among the engineering student population, we em-
ployed a survey research design for this study. Our survey instru-
ment design was based on similar prior studies whose
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 291

Table 1
Media related attributes of Millennials.

Attributes of millennials Conceptualized by Corresponding media habit Investigated by

Immediacy – prefer to receive
information quickly
Visual – comfortable with image-rich
and interactive environments
Multitasking – able to handle multiple
tasks simultaneously
Highly connected – comfortable with
extensive networking, socializing and
collaboration
Information seeking – hands on manner
of seeking information and learning
by trial and error
Frand (2000), McGlynn (2008),
Prensky (2001) and Oblinger
(2003)
Dede (2005), Prensky (2001) and
Tapscott (1997)
Frand (2000), McGlynn (2008)
and Oblinger (2003)
Howe & Strauss (2000), Oblinger
(2003), Tapscott (1997) and
Woodall (2004)
Dede (2005), Frand (2000) and
Oblinger (2003)
Multiple device ownership; high speed
Internet use
Ownership of gaming and entertainment
devices; participation in online games;
watching TV
Media multitasking; computer
multitasking
Cell phone ownership; internet access;
chatting use; social networking use
Information seeking preferences;
participation in online activities
Jones et al. (2009) and Rideout et al. (2010)
Jones et al. (2009) and Malaney (2004)
Rideout et al. (2010) and Yahoo! and Carat
Interactive (2003)
Andersen (2001), Head (2007), Lenhart
et al. (2010), Rideout et al. (2010) and
Roberts et al. (2005)
Head (2007), Jones et al. (2009), Malaney
(2004) and Rideout et al. (2010)

Table 2
Summary of surveys cited in the literature review.

Authors Population Research area

N (sample Device Internet Multitask
size) ownership use
Andersen (2001) College students at eight institutions in the US, with freshman excluded 1302 No Yes No
Hampton et al. (2011) American adults age 18 and above 2255 No Yes No
Hargittai and Litt (2011) Freshman college students at University of Illinois, Chicago 505 No Yes No
Head (2007) Six different colleges in the US 178 No Yes No
Head and Eisenberg (2010) Students on six campuses in the US 2318 No Yes No
Jones et al. (2009) Students from 29 two-year and four-year colleges and universities in the 7421 Yes Yes No
continental US
Jones (2002) Students from 27 colleges and universities in US 2054 Yes Yes No
Kvavik et al. (2004) Freshman and senior students at 13 higher education institutions in US 4374 Yes Yes No
Kvavik and Caruso (2005) Students at 63 higher education institutions in 24 states in the US 18,039 Yes Yes No
Lenhart et al. (2010) American youths ages 12–17 935 Yes Yes No
Madden and Zickuhr (2011) American adults age 18 and older 2277 No Yes No
Malaney (2004) Undergraduate students in University of Massachusetts, Amherst 1083 Yes Yes No
Miller et al. (2010) Small private university in midwest US which included sophomores, 165 No Yes No
juniors and seniors
Roberts et al. (2010) 3rd–12th Grade American students, ages 8–18 2002 Yes Yes Yes
Yahoo! and Carat Interactive American teens and young adults, age 13–24, drawn from the Harris Poll 2618 Yes Yes Yes
(2003). Online database

instruments were made publically available (e.g. Hampton et al.,
2011; Rideout et al., 2010). We also made use of an instrument
used in a similar study (Barron, 2004; Barron et al., 2004). Given
the advances in technology, our questions were changed to reflect
both newer technologies as well as new topics that we wanted to
cover. Survey questions were based on a seven-point Likert scale,
coded so that positive outcomes were represented by higher re-
sponse values. Items used in the survey are provided in the Appen-
dix. Two separate groups of students participated in the survey,
which was hosted on a commercial survey-hosting website with
which the host university maintains a license. The study was re-
viewed and approved by the institutional review board at the insti-
tution. Students consented to participating, and their participation
was voluntary.
therefore selected the same cohort of students. A total of 143 stu-
dents responded for the first survey and 136 students responded
for the second survey. Considering that this response rate was rel-
atively high and the number of respondents was sufficient for con-
ducting statistical tests, we did not send follow-up emails. In order
to be consistent with other analyses in the article, we used list-
wise deletion of missing data when computing statistical analysis.
A summary of the survey questions are listed in the Appendix.
5.4. Demographics
The sample size (after list-wise deletion) is n = 204, compared,
with a total sample size of 279. List-wise deletion was used to
remove the responses of 75 participants with missing data,
resulting in 204 students (73%) with complete data. Based on the

5.3. Sample population Table 3

Housing and residence information.

The sample population is comprised of freshman engineering Attributes Female Male %

students enrolled in engineering majors in August 2009. This deci- Housing Live on campus 36 139 85.8
sion was made to ensure that the respondents represented ‘millen- Live off campus 2 11 6.4
nials’ in the sense that they grew up with the Internet. We realize On-campus learning community 9 20 14.2
Others 1 0 0.01
that use of technology varies significantly at the K-12 level and on
Total 43 161 100
socio-economic status. However, we decided to control for age, and
292 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301

MP3 Player

Desktop Computer All the Time

Every hour
Cell Phone A Few times a day
Once a day
Gaming Console Once a week
Once a month
Laptop Do not use

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Fig. 1. Use of digital device.

demographics of our student respondents, descriptive statistics are

provided in Table 3. Of 204 students, nearly 79% (N = 161) were
men and approximately 85.8% of students live on campus
While Eating
(N = 173). These numbers are representative of the overall student
population at the site of study.
Public Study Places
Always
6. Findings Class Most of the time
Sometimes
6.1. Digital device ownership Library
Rarely
Bus Never
6.1.1. Digital device use
The frequency of using digital devices such as MP3 players, mo-
Residence
bile phones, gaming consoles, laptops and desktops is summarized
in Fig. 1. Laptops are also officially required for engineering course- 0 50 100 150 200
work; therefore, their strong presence is not surprising. As indi-
cated, students reported relatively high frequency of using Fig. 2. Location or situations where laptop is used.

laptops (Mean = 6.56, SD = 0.74) and mobile phones (Mean = 6.21,

SD = 1.04). In contrast, students did not report relatively high use
of devices such as gaming consoles (Mean = 2.47, SD = 1.55) and
insightful to explore the type of functions available on their mobile
desktop computers (Mean = 1.63, SD = 1.48). Every student owned
phones. Fig. 4 describes the functions available on students’ phone.
a laptop, but only 33% of students owned a desktop.1
Almost all students’ phones are equipped with functionalities to
The decline in desktop use for engineering students is a clear
make calls (99.5%), camera (95.6%) and text (92.2%), while fewer
indicator of changing preferences among students. An in-class sur-
students reported that their mobile phones have the capability to
vey on device use conducted among a similar population at the
access the Internet (44.6%) and access to games (48.5%).
same institution 3 years before this survey had indicated almost
Data about the frequency with which students use their mobile
70% students had desktop, primarily for gaming and for running
phones and the locations in which they do so are summarized in
computing intensive software. Given the increase in laptop pro-
Fig. 5. It is useful to examine the use of mobile phones across dif-
cessing capabilities and rise in options for gaming consoles, these
ferent locations. ‘‘Class’’ (Mean = 2.48, SD = 1.14), ‘‘library’’
two devices are proving sufficient to replace the desktop computer.
(Mean = 2.46, SD = 1.14), ‘‘auto’’ (Mean = 2.85, SD = 1.14), ‘‘public
study places’’ (Mean = 2.79, SD = 1.15) and ‘‘while eating’’
6.1.2. Laptop use
(Mean = 2.91, SD = 1.10) were five situations or locations where
Fig. 2 allows us to examine the locations where laptops are
students report relatively lower use of mobile phones. This con-
used. As shown in Fig. 2, 96.1% of students reported using laptops
trasts with the usage of mobile phones ‘‘while with friends’’
most of the times and more frequently at their residence with
(Mean = 3.17, SD = 1.01), on the ‘‘bus’’ (Mean = 3.09, SD = 1.15),
Mean = 4.64 and SD = 0.58; 91.1% of students reporting that they
residence (Mean = 4.15, SD = 0.94), while walking (Mean = 3.36,
always use their laptop or most of the time at their residences.
SD = 0.99). 77.0% of the students reported that they always use
One possible explanation: laptops may have replaced the desktop
their mobile phones at home, or most of the time.
computer at students’ residences. On the other hand, students’
use of the laptops in class (Mean = 3.69, SD = 1.15) and in the li-
brary (Mean = 3.75, SD = 0.93) is similar, with 63.7% and 65.2% of 6.2. Internet use
students reporting they use laptops always or most of the time
at these locations. This finding shows that in-class use of technol- 6.2.1. Access to internet
ogy raises concerns about student attention and multitasking. As shown in Fig. 6, our data indicates that most students have
access to the Internet at least most of the time. 33.33% of the stu-
6.1.3. Mobile phone use dents reported that they always access the Internet whereas
As depicted in Fig. 3, almost all the students (97.06%) reported 56.37% of students reported access to the Internet most of the time.
that their mobile phones are switched on most of the time or In contrast, only 10.29% of students reported that they access the
all the time. With the wide use of the mobile phone, it may be Internet sometimes or less frequently. These numbers suggest that
there the majority of students do have access to the Internet, which
1
A caveat: the surveys were completed before Tablets (such as iPad) were mass can be explained by the large percentage of students staying on
marketed and became popular. They were, therefore, excluded in the surveys. campus where Internet access is provided.
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 293

160 140

140 120

100 Never
120 Never
80 Rarely
100 Rarely Sometimes
60
80 Sometimes Most of the time
40
60 Always
Most of the time 20
40 0
Always
20 Fig. 6. Access to Internet.

Fig. 3. Frequencies of using mobile phone.

an activity that students frequently participated in, they did not
purchase the music that they listen to. On the other hand, 77.45%
250 of students reported they participated in the activity ‘‘Reading an
Article/Text for Class’’ weekly or more frequently. This is matched
by self-reported participation in the activities ‘‘Watch Movie’’ and
200
Phone Calls ‘‘Listen to music’’, with 83.33% and 94.6% of students reported par-
ticipation in the respective activities weekly or more frequently.
Texting
150 These figures offer insights into the digital behaviors of the stu-
Access to dents who participated in the study.
Internet
100 Camera
6.2.4. Information seeking with other students
Games When the survey was administered for the second time, three
50 questions were added to the survey. One of the questions asked
whether students looked for information with other students. In
other words, did they use digital media and devices collabora-
0
tively? This question is an emerging area of interest, given the pro-
Fig. 4. Functions available on students’ mobile phones. liferation of handheld devices. As illustrated in Fig. 9, 61% of
students (n = 83) reported that they seek or search for information
with other people every week or more frequently. In contrast,
While with friends 13.79% of students reported that they never sought or looked at
information with other people. 25.28% of students reported that
While eating
they engage in this activity monthly. With high numbers of stu-
Public Study Places Always dents reporting frequent collaborative information seeking, we
Class Most of the time suspect that this may be attributed to the collaborative nature of
Library Sometimes freshman engineering coursework and changing attitudes about
Rarely
privacy and sharing among this user population.
While walking
Bus Never
6.2.5. Visits to popular websites
Auto Table 4 provides a list of websites categorized and ranked by
Residence Alexa (2010) by percentage of visits in the United States. The
0 20 40 60 80 100 respondents were asked how often they visited these sites. As illus-
trated in Fig. 10, the most popular online destinations are Google
Fig. 5. Locations or situations where mobile phones are used. (Mean = 4.97, SD = 1.15), Facebook (Mean = 4.83, SD = 1.58) and
Youtube (Mean = 4.03, SD = 1.15), trailed by Wikipedia
(Mean = 3.40, SD = 1.31) and Twitter (Mean = 1.26, SD = 0.94). Al-
6.2.2. Information sought and read online most 87.7% of respondents reported that they did not use Twitter;
As depicted in Fig. 7, students reported frequencies of seeking or this finding is inconsistent with prior research by Hargittai and Litt
reading for information related to the topics of ‘‘School work’’, (2011) who reported that Twitter is used by 17.8% of a sample pop-
‘‘Sports’’, ‘‘News’’, Health’’, ‘‘Fashion’’, ‘‘Relationships’’ and ‘‘Jobs’’. ulation of 505 students in 2010. It is likely that Twitter, a microb-
Overall, it seem that ‘‘School work’’ is the most frequently sought logging service introduced only in July 2006 was yet to gain
and read topic online (Mean = 4.81, SD = 1.06), followed by ‘‘News’’ popularity at the point of this study.
(Mean 3.30, SD = 1.45) and ‘‘Sports’’ (Mean = 3.02, SD = 1.77). An
interesting finding is that 46.1% of students report that they seek
information related to ‘‘Health’’ at least weekly. 6.3. Gender differences

Our findings indicated significant gender differences across

6.2.3. Participation in online activities
As shown in Fig. 8, students reported the frequency of partici-
pating in various online activities. One finding that stood out was
that the items of ‘‘listen to music’’ (Mean = 4.76, SD = 1.50) and
‘‘buy music’’ (Mean = 1.82, SD = 1.08). While listening to music is
multiple items. We tabulated descriptive statistics, including mean
and standard deviation, and then conducted two-tailed t-tests to
determine. For the two-tailed t-tests, the alpha level 0.05 was se-
lected to denote statistical significance. A difference detected with
a p-value > 0.05 was not deemed as statistically significant.
294 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301

140
Never
120
Monthly
100
Weekly
80
Daily
60
A few times a day
40 Hourly
20 Several times an hour
0

Fig. 7. Information sought and read online.

Online Shopping
Several times an hour
Jobs
Do Online Research for an Academic … Hourly
Use Library Catalogs A few times a day
Reading an Article/Text for Class
Daily
Play Multi- Player Games
Play Single- Player Games Weekly
Buy Music Monthly
Listen to Music
Never
Watch Television Shows
Watch Movies or Video
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Fig. 8. Frequency of participation in online activities.

30 200
180
25 Never
Never 160
Monthly 140 Monthly
20
Weekly 120
Weekly
15 Daily 100
A few times a day 80 Daily
10 Hourly 60 A few times a
Several times an hour 40 day
5 Hourly
20
0 0

Fig. 9. Frequency of searching for or looking at information with other people.

Table 4 Fig. 10. Visits to popular and top-ranked Websites, rankings by Alexa (2010).
Most visited websites of various categories in United States in 2010.
(Mean = 1.49, SD = 1.121), t(204) = 1.843, p < .005., which raises
Website Category in which website is top-ranked Overall rank # the possibility that male students own more digital devices than
Google Search engine 1 females.
Facebook Social networking 2
Youtube Video sharing 3
Wikipedia Encyclopedia 6 6.3.2. Mobile phone use
Twitter Microblogging service 9 Table 6 displays t-tests performed to examine statistically sig-
nificant differences between females and males pertaining to the
use of mobile phone across various locations. Female students used
6.3.1. Digital device ownership the mobile phone more than men. On a seven-point scale that ran-
As depicted in Table 5, t-tests were performed to examine sta- ged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time), female students reported sig-
tistically significant differences in digital media device use about nificantly more use of the mobile phone in the bus (Mean = 3.51,
females and males. On a seven-point scale that ranged from 1 SD = 1.03) than men (Mean = 2.98, SD = 1.16), t(204) = 2.914,
(never) to 7 (all the time), female students reported significantly p < .005. Similarly, female students reported significantly more
more use of the mobile phone (Mean = 6.47, SD = 0.855) than male use of the mobile phone in the library (Mean = 2.79, SD = 1.12)
students (Mean = 6.14, SD = 1.081), t(204) = 1.843, p < .005. On the than men (Mean = 2.37, SD = 1.19), t(204) = 2.078, p < .005. Female
other hand, male students reported significantly more use of the students also used the mobile phone more often for texting than
gaming console (Mean = 2.73, SD = 1.548) than female students men.
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 295

Table 5 Table 6
Use of digital media devices, comparing males to females. Locations or situation of mobile phone use, comparing males to females.

Digital device Gender N Mean SD t Locations or situations Gender N Mean SD t

Laptop Male 161 6.54 0.783 0.868 Residence Male 161 4.12 0.96 1.095
Female 43 6.65 0.573 Female 43 4.28 0.83
Gaming console Male 161 2.73 1.548 4.933a Auto Male 161 2.82 1.13 0.800
Female 43 1.49 1.121 Female 43 2.98 1.14
Cell phone Male 161 6.14 1.081 1.843a Bus Male 161 2.98 1.16 2.914a
Female 43 6.47 0.855 Female 43 3.51 1.03
Desktop computer Male 161 1.69 1.574 1.157 While walking Male 161 3.34 0.99 0.604
Female 43 1.40 1.050 Female 43 3.44 0.96
MP3 player Male 161 4.26 1.886 0.732 Library Male 161 2.37 1.12 2.078a
Female 43 4.02 1.908 Female 43 2.79 1.19
a
Denotes significant difference at a = 0.05. Class Male 161 2.45 1.13 0.669
Female 43 2.58 1.18

6.3.3. Social communication activities Public study places Male 161 2.76 1.14 0.855
Table 7 displays t-tests performed to examine statistically sig- Female 43 2.93 1.18

nificant differences between females and males pertaining to their While eating Male 161 2.93 1.07 0.434
use of online or communication activities. On a seven-point scale Female 43 2.84 1.21

that ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time), female students re- While with friends Male 161 3.18 1.02 0.242
ported significantly more participation on the Wikipedia platform Female 43 3.14 0.97

(Mean = 2.93, SD = 2.17) than men (Mean = 2.503, SD = 1.304), a

Denotes significant difference at a = 0.05.
t(204) = 1.633, p < .005.

6.3.4. Internet use

Table 8 summarizes t-tests analyses performed to examine sta- Table 7
tistically significant differences in online information searches Participation in social communication activities, comparing males to females.
among females and males, based on a seven-point scale that ran-
Social communication activities Gender N Mean SD t
ged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time). Female students reported sig-
Social networking Male 161 4.17 0.120 0.137
nificantly more fashion-related information seeking activities
Female 43 4.21 0.220
(Mean = 2.09, SD = 1.09) than male students (Mean = 1.39,
Email Male 161 4.09 1.145 0.620
SD = 1.081), t(204) = -3.142, p < .005. On the other hand, Table 9
Female 43 4.21 0.861
displays t-tests performed to examine statistically significant dif-
Texting Male 161 4.52 1.437 1.892
ferences between females and males pertaining to their participa-
Female 43 4.98 1.354
tion in a variety of online activities. We found that male students
Chat Male 161 3.92 0.151 0.320
reported significantly more participation in online single-player
Female 43 4.02 0.273
games (Mean = 2.70, SD = 1.32) than female students (Mean = 1.64,
Blackboard/VT scholar Male 161 3.58 0.898 0.581
SD = 1.02), t(204) = 4.170, p < .005 and significantly more participa-
Female 43 3.67 0.944
tion in online multi-player games (Mean = 2.42, SD = 1.43) than fe-
Message boards Male 161 4.33 2.347 0.671
male students (Mean = 1.37, SD = 1.05), t(204) = 6.151, p < .005. On
Female 43 4.61 2.555
the other hand, male students reported significantly more partici-
Wikipedia Male 161 2.50 1.304 1.633a
pation in job-related activities (Mean = 1.98, SD = 0.88) than fe-
Female 43 2.93 2.165
male students (Mean = 1.65, SD = 0.78), t(204) = -3.142, p < .005.
a
Denotes significant difference at a = 0.05.
6.4. Academic disturbance and multitasking

6.4.1. Academic disturbance

As shown in Fig. 11, approximately 47.5% of the respondents re- Table 8
ported that they are occasionally or more frequently bothered Type of information looked for, comparing males to females.
when the Internet access is on, and 49.0% of the respondents re-
Information looked for Gender N Mean SD t
ported that they are occasionally or more frequently bothered
School work Male 161 4.84 1.10 0.896
when music is playing. However, 81.4% reported that they are dis-
Female 43 4.70 0.91
turbed occasionally or more frequently when the people are talk-
Sports Male 161 3.26 1.82 0.032
ing around them, and 65.7% reported that they are disturbed
Female 43 2.12 1.20
occasionally or more frequently when the TV is on. Furthermore,
News Male 161 3.44 1.49 0.805
17.2% of respondents reported that they are always disturbed
Female 43 2.77 1.17
when the television is switched on. Across the board, ‘‘People talk-
Health Male 161 2.39 1.30 1.244
ing around me’’ (Mean = 3.35, SD = 1.08) and ‘‘TV on’’ (Mean = 3.10,
Female 43 2.26 1.05
SD = 1.28) can be deemed as an activity that bothers students the
Fashion Male 161 1.50 0.90 3.142a
most during academic activities. As expected, students reported
Female 43 2.09 1.09
that they were more comfortable working in a quiet environment
Relationships Male 161 1.63 1.08 0.580
(‘‘Quietness’’ (Mean = 1.89, SD = 1.09)).
Female 43 1.40 0.69
Jobs Male 161 2.23 1.00 1.190
6.4.2. Devices or functions turned on during academic activities
Female 43 1.86 0.74
Table 10 provides a list of devices or functions turned on while
a
the students worked on academic activities, which may be useful Denotes significant difference at a = 0.05.
296 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301

to gain deeper insights into how academic activities were carried
out. Most of the survey respondents reported that, while working
on academic tasks, they made calls on mobile phones (Mean = 1.79,
SD = 0.41), used texting on their mobile phone (Mean = 1.83,
SD = 0.38), emailed (Mean = 1.82, SD = 0.39) and used their web
browser on either their computer or phone (Mean = 1.93,
SD = 0.26). 38.7% of the respondents reported that they were in-
stant messaging or chatting while working on academic activities
(Mean = 1.39, SD = 0.49).
6.4.3. Participation in activities while working on academic activities
Our data indicated that chatting was not a function that was
commonly turned on during academic activities. In Fig. 12, the data
describes how frequently students participated in various media
activities while working on academic activities. We used a seven-
point scale that ranged from 1 (about every 5 min), 2 (about every
10 min), 3 (about every 20 min), 4 (about every 30 min), 5 (hourly),
6 (monthly) and 7 (never).
Table 11 compares the level of participation ‘every hour’ or
every ‘30 min or less’ increments. While 3.43% and 2.94% of
students reported that they write email and answer phone calls
every 30 min or less, 42.65% and 44.12% of students reported that
they do so about every hour. On the other hand, 40.20% and 40.69%
of students reported that they text and browse or search every
30 min or less frequently. Similarly, 32.84% and 43.14% of students
reported that they do so about every hour. This item, we believe,
needs to be explored further as it raises several questions about
the frequency of activities like writing email, answering phone
calls, and making calls, and how they interact with task at hand.
For instance, does a longer class lead to higher rates of multitask-
ing? Is there a tacit acceptance of these habits among faculty and
peers? How does multitasking affect learning? And, as we explore
briefly in the section below, what are students’ perception of
multitasking?
6.5. Multitasking
After administering the first survey, we found that more could
be learned more about students’ perceptions of academic distur-
bances. Therefore, we added two items on multitasking to the

Table 9
Participation in online activities comparing males to females.

Participation in online activities Gender N Mean SD t

Watch movies/video Male 161 3.58 1.20 0.6192
Female 43 3.12 1.12
Watch television shows Male 161 3.11 1.29 0.0842
Female 43 2.91 1.19
Listen to music Male 161 4.78 1.55 0.691
Female 43 4.67 1.30
Buy music Male 161 1.89 1.14 1.147
Female 43 1.56 0.77
Play single-player games Male 161 2.70 1.32 4.170a
Female 43 1.65 1.02
Play multi-player games Male 161 2.42 1.43 6.151a
Female 43 1.37 1.05
Reading an article/text for class Male 161 3.14 1.07 0.455
Female 43 2.98 0.89
Use library catalogs Male 161 1.70 0.92 1.562
Female 43 1.86 0.80
Do online research for an academic paper/project Male 161 2.55 1.02 2.047
Female 43 2.44 0.77
Jobs Male 161 1.98 0.88 2.574a
Female 43 1.65 0.78
Online shopping Male 161 2.07 0.95 0.855
Female 43 2.07 0.88
a
Denotes significant difference at a = 0.05.

120

100

80 Never
Rarely
60 Occasionally

40 Most of the time

Always
20

0
Quiet Working in Music People Internet TV On Phone
Environment a Public Playing talking Access On
Place around me

Fig. 11. Situations where disturbance to academic activities is perceived.

 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301 297

Table 10 Table 11
Devices or functions turned on during academic activities. Comparison of number of student participation in activities while working in
academic activities.
Item On Off Mean SD
Activity An hour or more 30 Min or less
Cell phone call 162 42 1.79 0.41
frequently frequently
Email 167 37 1.82 0.39
(% of students) (% of students)
Web browser (on computer or phone) 189 15 1.93 0.26
Chat 79 125 1.39 0.49 Make phone call 28.92 0.49
TXT/SMS 169 35 1.83 0.38 Read email 61.27 21.08
Text 32.84 40.20
Write email 42.65 3.43
Answer phone call 44.12 2.94
Browse or search the web 43.14 40.69
survey. These questions focused on students’ self-perceptions of
their ability to multitask, and the number of tasks perceived to
be manageable at the same time. The survey findings are repre-
sented in Figs. 13 and 14.
According to Fig. 13, approximately 72.0% of the respondents
perceived themselves capable of multitasking. However, as shown
in Fig. 14, more than 53.7% of respondents perceived themselves to
be effective at simultaneously performing two tasks, and 46.6% of
students perceived themselves to be effective at simultaneously
Yes
performing three or more tasks. While 93.9% reported they can
effectively perform 2 or 3 tasks simultaneously, only 72.0% of the No
students perceived themselves to be effective at multitasking. This
suggests that although students do not see themselves at effective
multitaskers, they still perform multitasking for reasons that may
require further investigations to uncover.
Fig. 13. Perceived effectiveness at multitasking.
7. Discussion, implications, and conclusion

Our findings on freshman engineering students’ digital device

ownership echoed that of other researchers. For instance, laptop
ownership was only slightly higher in our sample population as 50
compared to the findings from Kvavik and Caruso (2005), who re- 45
2
ported that 52.7% of college freshman owned laptops and Rideout 40
et al. (2010) who reported that only 29% of the respondents, age 8– 3
35
18, owned laptops. Furthermore, our findings support the finding 30 4
that young adults below the age of 30 are more likely to own a lap- 25 5
top rather than a desktop computer (Lenhart et al., 2010). Video 20 6
game console ownership amongst freshman engineering students 15
was much lower than what Rideout et al. (2010) found, where 7
10
87% of surveyed 8- to 18-year-olds own at least one video game 5 8
console and owned an average of 2.3 game consoles. Findings per- 0
taining to mobile phone ownership are very close to findings that
Kvavik and Caruso (2005), who reported 90.1% out of a sample of Fig. 14. (Y-axis = N; X-axis = Number of Tasks) Number of tasks perceived to be
18,039 in 2005 owned mobile phone and that of findings reported effectively simultaneously performed when doing academic work.

140

120 Never

Monthly
100
Weekly
80
About every 30
minutes
60 About every 20
minutes
40 About every 10
minutes
About every 5
20 minutes

0
Make Read Text Write Answer Browse Chat
Phone Email Email Phone or Search
Call Call the Web

Fig. 12. Participation in activities when working on academic activities.

298 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
by Lenhart et al. (2010). Kvavik and Caruso (2005) also reported
that 38.4% of 18,039 students owned music players, which is al-
most double of what we found, that 13.7% of engineering students
owned did not own music devices. Our finding that female stu-
dents were more likely to own mobile phones than men was sim-
ilar to the conclusion that Kvavik and Caruso came to, as they
claimed that women (92.1%) are more likely to own mobile phones
than males (86.5%).
In the subsequent investigations of students’ Internet use, we
found that engineering freshman’s access to Internet were similar
to that reported by other researchers (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005;
Rideout et al., 2010). We found that engineering students’ use of
Wikipedia was similar to that of Head’s study, who reported that
91% use Wikipedia for course-related work. Students’ use of social
networking sites such as Facebook was similar to findings by other
researchers (Hampton et al., 2011; Lenhart et al., 2010). However,
engineering freshman students’ use of Twitter was relatively lower
when compared to numbers reported by other researchers such as
Hargittai and Litt (2011), who reported Twitter use by 17.8% of 505
respondents with 9.3% of reporting frequent use of Twitter, and
Hampton et al., 2011), who reported Twitter use by 92% of 975
respondents, with 20% respondents reporting use of Twitter
several times a day.
Our findings pertaining to students’ activities in searching and
participation in activities seemed to fit in well with findings of
other researchers. For instance, our finding that 67.6% of fresh-
man engineering students were looking up health information
online were similar to that of Robert and his colleagues, who
found that 55% of the surveyed 7th–12th graders and 62% of
15- to 17-year-olds have used the Internet to look for health
information. While Kvavik and Caruso (2005) found that 86.9%
of the surveyed freshman students (N = 7997) used a library re-
source to complete a course assignment and 65.3% of students
have conducted online shopping, we found that 74.1% and
52.5% of surveyed engineering freshman shopped online and
used a library catalog respectively. Another close match was that
98.1% of freshman students in the study (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005)
used the Internet to look for information to support coursework
whereas in our study, 100% of the students used the Internet to
look for school work related information, with the majority
engaging in the activity every day or more frequently. With re-
gards to gender differences when it comes to online gaming,
we found that male freshman engineering students were spend-
ing significantly more time playing single-player and multi-
player online games than female students. This was quite similar
to what Malaney (2004) found: males spent significantly more
time playing Web-based interactive games, Web-based fantasy
sports, and multi-user dungeons/dimension than females.
Our investigation of freshman engineering students’ percep-
tions of multitasking uncovered an unexpected finding that
some students perceive themselves at effectively simultaneously
doing two or more task but yet reported to be ineffective at mul-
titasking. It seems like their perception of effective multitasking
involve more than juggling between two or three tasks, some-
thing that can gain from deeper qualitative studies. Not surpris-
ingly, while Rideout et al. (2010) reported that 87% of 7th–12th
graders perform computer multitasking at varying frequencies,
our numbers seem to suggest that almost every student perform
multitasking, with the majority working with 2 and 3 tasks
simultaneously, although self-perceptions on their effectiveness
of multitasking vary from person to person. While Yahoo (2003)
has suggested that 45% of surveyed youth, age 13–24, reported
that they do homework while online at the same time, we found
that a significantly larger percentage of engineering students
(95.6%) reported that they browse or search the web while doing
academic activities.
7.1. Device use
Our findings on freshman engineering students’ digital device
ownership can help inform current discussion to improve the engi-
neering learning environment and deliver instruction in synergy
with students’ learning styles. Engineering classes can benefit
through a redesign of curriculum by leveraging the mix of emerg-
ing technologies and pedagogies that encourage individual person-
alization of learning experiences. With the majority of students
owning several multiple devices, students now enter the engineer-
ing classroom with a desire to meet a multitude of needs and
therefore offer plenty of opportunities in addition to challenges
for educators to innovate on curricular designs.
7.2. Internet use
While we learned about students’ use of the Internet by asking
about how student learn through online research, how they seek
information, and in which digital activities outside school work
they participate, we also suggest that further work is needed to
contribute deeper understanding of students’ activities. In particu-
lar, we want to underscore the importance of the need to further
understand why engineering students are attracted to particular
media activities, and the extent of engagement in these activities.
By staying alert to students who were not included in the study,
we are hesitant about jumping to conclusions about students’
behaviors and self-reported frequencies of participation in online
activities.
7.3. Multitasking
It is clear from findings pertaining to multitasking that students
are engaged in multitasking and that they believe that they are
effective in this practice. We have no data that can directly show
whether multitasking affects learning. We caution educators to
be cognizant of students’ behavior related to multitasking and be
able to leverage it if it seems appropriate to the cognitive task at
hand.
7.4. Millennial traits
Our investigations mainly confirm expectations about millenni-
als, and freshman engineering students display media habits that
are akin to what other authors have suggested (Frand, 2000; Howe
& Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Tapscott, 1997). Almost all stu-
dents own multiple devices, with all catering to, but not limited
to, social communication, entertainment, information seeking
and learning activities. Furthermore, all of the surveyed population
perform some form of multitasking, although they may not deem
themselves to be proficient at juggling multiple tasks at the same
time. In our study, freshman engineering students appeared to be
connected as frequently as what was described of millennials but
their participation in online activities vary from person to person.
7.5. Implications for engineering learning
The primary purpose of this study was to understand media use
by engineering students born after 1990 and grew up with the
Internet and in a technology-rich environment, with the specific
intention of understanding the prevalence of digital devices and
media in their lives. There are several implications of these findings
for design of learning practices as this study confirms the satura-
tion of students’ lives with digital media and their use of informa-
tion technology – particularly access to the Internet – for
educational use. The study shows the lack of boundaries between
educational and non-educational activities, and particularly the
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
habit to multitask. This has implications for the design of content
and suggests why short content – such as that available on Khan
Academy™2 – has been so popular among students.
In general, our findings underscore the rich and complex role
that digital technology plays in freshman engineers’ social and
learning activities. Findings presented in this paper may help in-
form further discussion about freshman engineering students’ ten-
dencies in media, Internet and multitasking activities can be better
facilitated in the engineering classroom. This is done in hope of
encouraging educators to be alert and aware of the myriad chal-
lenges to accommodate millennial students’ preferences for infor-
mation immediacy and multitasking habits. Although attention has
been directed on use of technology in engineering education such
as PDAs with functionalities akin to ‘‘clickers’’ (Chen et al., 2010) or
use of videos in engineering education (Rutz et al., 2003), little re-
search has looked at how to leverage the overall technology and
media use of engineering education students and how to maximize
individual potential for learning with a technology-infused
environment.
This study benefited from a pooled adaptation of previous stud-
ies that have been designed and implemented by researchers and
reputable research centers, which allow us to obtain insights
which are vastly more detailed and focused on the engineering
freshman population. With the majority of the studies reporting
demographics more representative of the entire country rather
than the engineering population, this survey study closely examin-
ing data representative of the engineering student population,
which is dominated by males. In addition, we uncovered salient
characteristics of media use for freshman engineering students,
supported by generational descriptors of students, to provide a
context for what we have discussed. The possibility that engineer-
ing students’ Internet use today can offer indications and projec-
tions about what future behavior may be like, when the
freshman engineering students pursue coursework more specific
to future majors in engineering. This paper focuses more specifi-
cally on the freshman engineering student population. We also
note that our sample population has only a quarter of female
respondents and many studies cited have female respondents
making up at least half of valid responses (Hampton et al., 2011;
Jones et al., 2009; Rideout et al., 2010), numbers not representative
of the engineering population.
7.6. Limitations of study
As with most research studies, there are some limitations of this
study. The survey population represented freshman engineering
students from one institution and therefore it might be challenging
to generalize across different institutions. Therefore, there is a need
to account for the fact that the study is situated at a single site and
students may face different or unique circumstances related to this
specific site. But we believe that the institution where the study
was carried out is similar enough to other large state universities
that the findings will at least be relevant in that context. While
we have no reason to believe that our findings will not hold with
freshman engineering students from other institutions, further re-
search conducted in other institutions, with different study popu-
lations or even demographics, can lend to a deeper understanding
of media use across different regions.
And, while our work showcases how engineering students are
consuming and engaged in various digital content and Internet
activities, our data do not provide insight on why and how the stu-
dents are engaging in these online activities and how their digital
device use influence their behavior in relation to consumption of
2
http://www.khanacademy.org/.
299
Table A1
Summary of survey questions.
Survey items
 Participant information
– Gender
– Housing and residence information
 Digital media devices
– Electronic device ownership and frequency of use
– Cellphone use and locations of use
– Laptop use and location of use
 Internet activities
– Access to internet
– Participation in online activities
– Type of information sought online
– Visit to various popular websites
– Seeking information together with other studentsa
 Multitasking and academic disturbances
– Functions or devices switched on during multitasking
– Engagement in activities while working on academic activities
– Situation where academic disturbances are perceived
 Multitasking
– Perceived effectiveness at multitaskinga
– Number of tasks deemed to be effective at doinga
a
Question included only in second survey (n = 83).
media and Internet content, all of which can be examined through
in-depth inquiries of students’ experiences with these phenomena.
Another limitation of the study might be that the data were cap-
tured at one point in time and ideally a longitudinal study might
provide better data on habits. For instance, between the comple-
tion of data collection and data analysis, handheld tablets have
swept the market and increasingly students are using them for
education and leisure. Finally, as is common with most surveys,
we rely on self-reported data from participants and this kind of
data invariably has some biases and uncertainties. One possibility
of improving the study is to have a qualitative component using
interviews and/or focus groups. This kind of data will help under-
stand the nature of technology and media use in depth and help
overcome a deficiency of survey data.
7.7. Conclusion
In conclusion, in this paper we present a study of digital media
and device use among engineering students who can be classified
as ‘millennials’ as they are born after 1990. This generation has
grown up with the Internet and is significantly more comfortable
and used to information technology then previous generations.
Their lives are saturated with digital devices and media, as findings
from our study confirm. This raises significant issues about the way
in which these students are taught and also how they learn.
Acknowledgement
This material is based upon work supported by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. 0835892. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Appendix A
See Table A1.
References
Alexa (2010). Alexa – Top 100 sites in United States. Top Sites by Country. Retrieved
<http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US>.
Anderson, K. J. (2001). Internet use among college students: An exploratory study.
Journal of American College Health, 50(1), 21–26.
300 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development:
A learning ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224.
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and
experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36.
Barron, B., Tackman, J., Martin, C. Mercier, E., Johri, A., Johnson et al. (2004). Equity
and the development of technological fluency. In Proceedings from the sixth
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning
anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131–146.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history,
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 1–19.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–530.
Carlson, S. (2005, October 7). The net generation goes to college. The chronicle of
higher education. Retrieved <http://chronicle.com/article/The-Net-Generation-
Goes-to/12307>.
Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich
feedback to enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering
Education, 99(2), 159–168.
Chubin, D., Donaldson, K., Olds, B., & Fleming, L. (2008). Educating generation net –
Can U.S. engineering woo and win the competition for talent? Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(3), 245–257.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,
28(1).
Entertainment Software Association (2010). Essential facts about the computer and
video game industry. Retrieved <http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_
Essential_Facts_2010.pdf>.
Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and
implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 14–18. 22, 24.
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors
and pairings. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Writing, citing, and participatory media: Wikis as
learning environments in the high school classroom. International Journal of
Learning and Media, 1(4), 23–44.
Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for communication, not calculation:
media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the Hawaiian
International Conference of Systems Sciences, Big Island, HI.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant
messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading
comprehension task? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(1), 51–53.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K., (2011). Social networking sites
and our lives: How people’s trust, personal relationships, and civic and political
involvement are connected to their use of social networking sites and other
technologies. Pew Internet & American Life Project 2011.
Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining
twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society,
13(5), 824–842.
Hargittai, K., & Lifer, D. (2010). Students and social networking sites: The posting
paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 377–382.
Head, A. J. (2007). Beyond google: How do students conduct academic research?
First Monday, 12(8).
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today’s college students use Wikipedia
for scholarly research. First Monday, 15(3).
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of
multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
15, 46–64.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New
York: Vintage.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12
edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon
report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johri, A. (2011). The sociomateriality of learning practices and implications for the
field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 207–217.
Johri, A., & Lohani, V. (2011). A framework for improving engineering
representational literacy through the use of pen-based computing.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 958–967.
Johri, A., Williams, C. B., & Pembridge, J. (2013). Creative collaboration: A case study
of the role of computers in supporting representational and relational
interaction in student engineering design teams. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 29(1), 33–44.
Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future
with today. Pew Internet and American LIfe Project. Pew Internet & American Life
Project, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 710, Washington, DC 20036. Tel.:
202 296 0019.
Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Seoane Pérez, F. (2009). Everyday life,
online: U.S. college students’ use of the Internet. First Monday, 14(10).
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use.
Computers & Education, 56(2), 370–378.
Kazmer, M. M., & Thakkar, U. (2004). Developing technological fluency in
undergraduate IT education. Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 45(3), 229–241.
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2006). Examining the affects of student
multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems,
21(2), 241–252.
Konieczny, P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(1), 15–34.
Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),
179–212.
Kraidy, U. (2002). Digital media and education: Cognitive impact of information
visualization. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3), 95–106.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate
academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication,
51, 366–382.
Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use
technology. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.). Technology (vol. 86,
pp. 7.1–7.20). Educause. Retrieved <www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen>.
Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and
information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection and control. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved <http://www.educause.edu/
LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERS0405>.
Kvavik, R. B., & Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology,
2005: Convenience, control, and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for
Applied Research. Retrieved <http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0506/
ekf0506.pdf>.
Kvavik, R., Caruso, J., & Morgan, G. (2005). ECAR Study of students and information
technology. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network Web sites. Pew Internet and American
Life Project. Retrieved <http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-
Social-Network-Websites.aspx>.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young
adults. Methodology. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved <http://
pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx>.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An
overview. Pew Internet American Life Project. Pew Internet & American Life
Project.
Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and
academic distractibility in college youth. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(4),
560–566.
Ligorio, M. B., & Van Veen, K. (2006). Constructing a successful cross-national virtual
learning environment in primary and secondary education. AACE Journal, 14(2),
103–128.
Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189–2202.
Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). 65% Of online adults use social networking sites.
Young. Retrieved <http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-
Sites.aspx>.
Malaney, G. D. (2004). Student use of the internet. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 33(1), 53–66.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
McMullen, S. (2008). US academic libraries: Today’s learning commons model, PEB
exchange, programme on educational building. PEB Exchange. Programme on
Educational, Building, (4).
McGlynn, A. P. (2008). Millennials in college: How do we motivate them? Education
Digest, 73(6), 19–22.
Moriarty, G. (2001). Three kinds of ethics for three kinds of engineering. IEEE
Technology and Society Magazine.
Miller, R., Parsons, K., & Lifer, D. (2010). Students and social networking sites: The
posting paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 377–382.
Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
Boston: MIT Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (2005). Educating the engineer or 2020:
Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
The Nielsen Company (2010, January 22). Led by Facebook, Twitter, global time
spent on social media sites up 82% year over year. Retrieved <http://blog.
nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter-global-time-spent-
on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/>.
O’Day, V. L., & Nardi, B. A. (2003). An ecological perspective on digital libraries. Digital
library use social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.
65–84.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials: Understanding the new
students. EDUCAUSE Review, 38, 4. July/August, 37–47.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding
the net generation. In D. O. A. J. Oblinger (Ed.), Educating the net generation
(pp. 2.1–2.20). Educause Publication.
Oser, K. (2005). Kids cram more hours in media day. Advertising Age, 76(46), 31.
Parslow, G. (2009). Commentary: Twitter for educational networking. Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology Education, 37(4), 255–256.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In
G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Van Der Voort, T. H. A. (2003). Distraction effects of
background soap operas on homework performance: An experimental study
enriched with observational data. Educational Psychology, 23, 361–380.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. (R. K. Belew & M. D.
Vose, Eds.). On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Rainie, L. & Tancer, B. (2007). Wikipedia users. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
American Life Project. <http://www.pewInternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/
2007/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf.pdf>.
 A. Johri et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 286–301
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of
8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Riley, E., Bernoff, J., Pflaum, C. N., & Wise, J. (2010). The rising potential of social
network sites. Forrester, 1–10.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. J. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of
8–18 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Rojas, E. (2002). Use of web-based tools to enhance collaborative learning. Journal of
Engineering Education, 91(1), 89–95.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 578–586.
Rutz, E., Eckhart, R., Wade, J. E., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student
performance and acceptance of instructional technology: Comparing
technology-enhanced and traditional instruction for a course in statics.
Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133–140.
Sade, G. (2005). Weblogs as open constructive learning environments. Paper presented
at the Blogtalk Downunder, Sydney. Retrieved <http://incsub.org/blogtalk/
?page_id=56>.
Salomon, G. (1978). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Scherer, K. (1997). College life online: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of
College Student Development, 38(6), 655–665.
Schmiede, R., & Will-Zocholl, M. (2011). Engineer’s work on the move: Challenges in
automobile engineering in a globalized world. Engineering Studies, 3(2),
101–121.
301
Steif, P., & Dollár, A. (2009). Study of usage patterns and learning gains in a web-
based interactive static course. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4),
321–333.
Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes
everything. New York, NY: Atlantic.
Wallis, C. (2006). The multitasking generation. Time, 163. March 27.
Willett, R., & Buckingham, D. (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people
and new media. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.). Infant and child
development (18 (book, edited)) (vol. 337). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, R. A. (1999). Revelry, revelation, or research: What are college students
really doing on the Internet. Racing toward tomorrow. Retrieved <http://
www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/pdf/wilsonr99.pdf >.
Woodall, D. M. (2004). Enter the millennials. ASEE Prism, 13(9), 59.
WordPress (2011). Stats – WordPress.com. Retrieved <http://en.wordpress.com/
stats/>.
Yahoo! & Carat Interactive (2003). Born to be wired: The role of new media for a
digital generation. Retrieved <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/promo/
btbw_2003/btbw_execsum.pdf>.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
1816–1836.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools:
An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.