DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64782/istlj.3179125-143Keywords:
Educational technology, Teacher technology use, Digital immigrants, Digital natives, Contextual digital identity, conceptual modelHighlights
- The digital native–immigrant dichotomy oversimplifies teachers' complex and situational digital behaviors.
- Digital identity is a dynamic, context-dependent construct shaped by context, individual factors, and perceived purpose.
- Pedagogical digital immigration explains the gap between teachers' everyday digital fluency and instructional technology use.
- Teacher training should prioritize context-specific pedagogical digital competencies over generic digital literacy.
Highlights
Abstract
The widespread use of the digital native–digital immigrant dichotomy has long shaped discussions on technology integration in education. However, this binary classification, originally proposed by Marc Prensky (2001), has been increasingly criticized for its oversimplification and lack of empirical grounding. This conceptual paper argues that the dichotomy fails to capture the complex, situational, and multidimensional nature of teachers’ digital practices. Drawing on critical perspectives in educational technology literature, this study introduces the notion of contextual digital identity as an alternative framework. The proposed model conceptualizes digital identity as a dynamic construct shaped by the interaction between usage context, individual factors (e.g., self-efficacy, attitudes, experience), and perceived purpose. It suggests that individuals may exhibit digital native, digital immigrant, or hybrid behaviors depending on the specific context in which technology is used. The paper further argues that teachers’ challenges in technology integration are not primarily rooted in generational differences, but rather in context-dependent variations—particularly within pedagogical settings. In this regard, the concept of pedagogical digital immigration is proposed to explain the discrepancy between teachers’ everyday digital fluency and their limited use of technology in instructional practices. By reframing digital identity as contextual and fluid, this study contributes to the theoretical advancement of educational technology research and offers implications for teacher education, policy design, and future empirical investigations. The proposed framework provides a foundation for moving beyond deterministic and generational explanations toward more nuanced, behavior-oriented understandings of technology use in education.
Listen to the Podcast
Share
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—Myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776
Stammers, L. (2025). The pedagogical differences between digital natives and digital immigrants: The role of AI-enhanced teaching strategies. International Society That Learn Journal, 2(2), 299–328. https://doi.org/10.64782/istlj.2252299-328
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Society that Learn Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.