Scholars refer to individuals who have been immersed in digital environments and who make easy use of digital languages to interact with the world as “digital natives,” and Teo proposed four attributes of digital natives to illustrate their behavioral tendencies. We aimed to expand Teo’s framework and to develop and validate the Scale of Digital Native Attributes (SDNA) for measuring cognitive and social interactive attributes of digital natives. Based on pre-test results, we retained 10 attributes and 37 SDNA items, with 3–4 items in each sub-dimension. We then recruited 887 Taiwanese undergraduates as respondents and conducted confirmatory factor analysis to establish construct validity. Moreover, the SDNA correlated with several other related measurements to demonstrate satisfactory criterion-related validity. Internal consistency was evaluated by McDonald’s Omega (ω) and Cronbach’s α coefficient, showing satisfactory reliability. This preliminary tool is now ready for cross validation and temporal reliability testing in further research.
AdamicL.GlanceN. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (LinkKDD), New York, NY, (pp. 36–43). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134271.1134277
2.
AdedoyinO. B.SoykanE. (2023). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
3.
Amichai-HamburgerY.WainapelG.FoxS. (2002). On the internet no one knows I’m an introvert: Extroversion, neuroticism, and internet interaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 5(2), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770507
4.
AmielT.SargentS. L. (2004). Individual differences in internet usage motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.002
5.
AminJ. N. (2016). Redefining the role of teachers in the digital era. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3), 40–45.
6.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3), 372–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360756
7.
BalamoorthyS.ChandraB. (2023). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on e-WOM behaviour: The role of psychological impact during the time of COVID-19 crisis. Heliyon, 9(2), Article e13270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13270
8.
BardiC. A.BradyM. F. (2010). Why shy people use instant messaging: Loneliness and other motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1722–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.021
9.
BaturayM. H.TokerS. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.081
10.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
11.
BdairI. A. (2021). Nursing students' and faculty members' perspectives about online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 16(3), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2021.02.008
BrownJ. S. (2000). Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601719
15.
BuvatJ.BraunschvigB. (2007). Digital natives: How is the younger generation reshaping the telecom and media landscape?Telecom, Media & Entertainment Insights Journal, 3, 12–19.
16.
ByrgeC.HansenS. (2014). Enhancing creativity for individuals, groups and organizations: Creativity as the unlimited application of knowledge. Frydenlund Academic.
17.
CarrN. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
18.
ChuaT. H. H.ChangL. (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011
19.
CogburnD. L.Espinoza-VasquezF. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2011.540224
CorreaT.HinsleyA. W.De ZunigaH. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
22.
DengL.LiuY.KuK. Y. L.LinL. (2022). In-class multitasking with smartphones and laptops: Exploring student experiences and perceptions. College Teaching, 70(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1973947
23.
DeStefanoD.LeFevreJ. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012
24.
DhawanS. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/004723952093401
25.
DongC.CaoS.LiH. (2020). Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105440
26.
DrodyA. C.PereiraE. J.SmilekD. (2023). A desire for distraction: Uncovering the rates of media multitasking during online research studies. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27606-3
FerrerJ.RingerA.SavilleK.A ParrisM.KashiK. (2022). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education, 83(2), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5
29.
FlaniganA. E.KiewraK. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about student cyber-slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9418-2
30.
Forkosh-BaruchA.HershkovitzA.P AngR. (2015). Teacher-student relationship and SNS-mediated communication: Perceptions of both role-players. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 11, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.28945/2329
31.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
GeorgeM. J.OdgersC. L. (2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(6), 832–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615596788
34.
GilbertD. T.KrullD. S.MaloneP. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601
35.
GilbertD. T.TafarodiR. W.MaloneP. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.221
36.
GobyV. P. (2006). Personality and online/offline choices: MBTI profiles and favored communication modes in a Singapore study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 9(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.5
37.
GoldbergL. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
38.
GoslingS. D.AugustineA. A.VazireS.HoltzmanN.GaddisS. (2011). Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0087
39.
HairJ.TathamR.AndersonR.BlackW. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall London.
40.
HạnhN. T. N. (2021). An investigation into Ho chi Minh city university of Food industry students’ satisfaction of online learning. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(6), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2021.3.6.13
41.
HashimH. (2018). Application of technology in the digital era education. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, 1(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.24036/002za0002
42.
HouY.-H.ChanY.-H. (2011). The learning problems of net-generation and its enlightenment on education innovation. Journal of Professional Teachers, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7054/JPT.201112.0001
43.
HuangF.TeoT.HeJ. (2021). Digital nativity of university teachers in China: Factor structure and measurement invariance of the digital native assessment scale (DNAS). Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570278
44.
HuangY.-T. (2013). A correlative study on technology usage with technology learning style and visual thinking for digital natives: The case study of Tamkang university's students (unpublished Master Thesis). Tamkang University.
45.
HutchinsN.AllenA.CurranM.Kannis-DymandL. (2021). Social anxiety and online social interaction. Australian Psychologist, 56(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2021.1890977
46.
JametE.GonthierC.CojeanS.ColliotT.ErhelS. (2020). Does multitasking in the classroom affect learning outcomes? A naturalistic study. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106264
47.
JansenB. J.ZhangM.SchultzC. D. (2009). Brand and its effect on user perception of search engine performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1572–1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21081
48.
JongS. T.DrummondM. J. (2016). Hurry up and “like” me: Immediate feedback on social networking sites and the impact on adolescent girls. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 7(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2016.1222647
49.
KaufmannR.ValladeJ. (2022). Exploring connections in the online learning environment: Student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(10), 1794–1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670
50.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K.WesterwickA. (2014). Confirmation bias in online searches: Impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12105
51.
KoC.-E.HuangY.-T. (2010). Vision is better than word? A research of concept development of digital net-generation. Journal of Education Research, 193, 15–23.
52.
LakensD.ScheelA. M.IsagerP. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
53.
LawN. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In Voogt,J.KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 425–434). Springer.
54.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). The self-presentation model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 94–112). The Guilford Press.
55.
LeeB. W.StapinskiL. A. (2012). Seeking safety on the internet: Relationship between social anxiety and problematic internet use. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.001
56.
LeeY. P.TsaiH. Y.WuJ. S. (2020). Exploring the impact of user personality and self-disclosure on the continuous use of social media. Journal of Economics and Business, 3(4), 1324–1343. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1992.03.04.284
57.
LemayD. J.BazelaisP.DoleckT. (2021). Transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100130
58.
LenhartA.MaddenM.SmithA.MacgillA. R. (2009). Teens and social media: An overview (pp. 97–119). Pew Internet and American Life.
59.
LeungL. (2004). Net-Generation attributes and seductive properties of the Internet as predictors of online activities and Internet addiction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 7(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291303
60.
LiP.ChangL.ChuaT. H. H.LohR. S. M. (2018). “Likes” as KPI: An examination of teenage girls’ perspective on peer feedback on Instagram and its influence on coping response. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1994–2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.003
61.
LiR. H.ChenY. C. (2016). The development of a shortened version of ipip big five personality scale and the testing of its measurement invariance between middle-aged and older people. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 12(4), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.3966/181665042016121204004
62.
LinS.-J. (2010). Reading in a digital age: Issues and future of reading on the web among young people. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 8(2), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.2010.8(2).029
63.
LiuZ. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040
64.
LoC.-Y. (2017). Teenager’s mobile phone using behaviors and psychological needs and application of E-learning. Journal of Open and E-Learning, 7, 26–48. https://doi.org/10.6748/JOEL.201710_(7).02
65.
MackováA. (2015). Czech politicians go online: Is this e-democracy or just a campaign move? In LorentzR.SmahelD.MetykovaM.WrightM. F. (Eds.), Living in the digital age (pp. 164–180). Masaryk University.
66.
MarkovitzkyO.AnholtG. E.LipsitzJ. D. (2012). Haven't we met somewhere before? The effects of a brief internet introduction on social anxiety in a subsequent face to face interaction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50(5), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.002
67.
MartinF.WangC.PettyT.WangW.WilkinsP. (2018). Middle school students’ social media use. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 213–224.
68.
MattickR. P.ClarkeJ. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6
MishnaF.SainiM.SolomonS. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
71.
MishraL.GuptaT.ShreeA. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012
72.
NedevaV.DimovaE.DinevaS. (2010). Overcome disadvantages of E-learning for training English as foreign language. The 5th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2010, 275–281.
73.
NevesB. B.FranzR.JudgesR.BeermannC.BaeckerR. (2019). Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 38(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817741369
74.
NicholasD.HuntingtonP.JamaliH. R.RowlandsI.DobrowolskiT.TenopirC. (2008). Viewing and reading behavior in a virtual environment: The full-text download and what can be read into it. Aslib Proceedings, 60(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530810879079
75.
OblingerD. G.OblingerJ. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Educause.
76.
PalfreyJ. G.GasserU. (2016). Born digital: How children grow up in a digital age. Basic Books.
77.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. : Penguin.
78.
PereraJ.LeeN.WinK.PereraJ.WijesuriyaL. (2008). Formative feedback to students: The mismatch between faculty perceptions and student expectations. Medical Teacher, 30(4), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590801949966
79.
PierceT. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003
PrenskyM. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II. Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
RosenL. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. Palgrave Macmillan.
84.
SargentS. L. (2007). Image effects on selective exposure to computer-mediated news stories. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 705–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.005
85.
SerdenciucN. (2016). Being a teacher in a digital era. International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation, 3(5), 77–84.
86.
ShyuH.-Y.PernK.-J. (2013). The comparison study of factors influencing information behaviors between undergraduate students and teachers in university. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 50(3), 393–423.
SparrowB.LiuJ.WegnerD. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
89.
SubrahmanyamK.GreenfieldP. M. (2008). Communicating online: Adolescent relationships and the media. The Future of Children, 18(1), 1–27.
TamirD. I.MitchellJ. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(21), 8038–8043. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202129109
92.
TanejaA.FioreV.FischerB. (2015). Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.009
93.
TapscottD. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill.
TeoT. (2016). Do digital natives differ by computer self-efficacy and experience? An empirical study. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1725–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1041408
96.
TeoT.Kabakçı YurdakulI.UrsavaşÖ. F. (2016). Exploring the digital natives among pre-service teachers in Turkey: A cross-cultural validation of the digital native assessment scale. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1231–1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.980275
97.
ThompsonP. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022
98.
ThompsonP. (2015). How digital native learners describe themselves. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9295-3
99.
UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 educational disruption and response.
100.
UrsavaşÖ. F.Kabakçı YurdakulI.TürkM.McilroyD. (2016). Measurement invariance of the digital natives assessment scale across gender in a sample of Turkish university students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(4), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115622959
101.
WagnerV.AcierD. (2017). Factor structure evaluation of the French version of the digital natives assessment scale. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0438
102.
WardA. F. (2013). One with the cloud: Why people mistake the internet’s knowledge for their own (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.
103.
WegnerD. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen,B.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer-Verlag.
WeigelM.StraughnC.GardnerH. (2010). New digital media and their potential cognitive impact on youth learning. In Khine,M.SalehI. (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 3–22). Springer.
106.
WellerA. (2005). Information-seeking behaviour in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2004.09.009
107.
WilsonM. L.HallJ. A.MulderD. J. (2022). Assessing digital nativeness in pre-service teachers: Analysis of the Digital Natives Assessment Scale and implications for practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1846146
108.
WoodE.MirzaA.ShawL. (2018). Using technology to promote classroom instruction: Assessing incidences of on-task and off-task multitasking and learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9185-1
109.
YardiS.BoydD. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011
110.
YaşarS.YurdugülH. (2013). The investigation of relation between cyberloafing activities and cyberloafing behaviors in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 600–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.114
111.
YenJ. Y.YenC. F.ChenC. S.WangP. W.ChangY. H.KoC. H. (2012). Social anxiety in online and real-life interaction and their associated factors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0015
112.
YılmazF. G. K.YilmazR.ÖztürkH. T.SezerB.KarademirT. (2015). Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.023
113.
YouZ.TianY.KongF.ZhouZ.ZhengY. (2016). Development of the preference for online social interaction scale for Chinese adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(6), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.6.1005
114.
ZhangW. (2015). Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic performance: A path analysis. Computers & Education, 81, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.012
