The Myth of the Digital Generation: Experiences from everyday coaching

“Digital Natives” are widely assumed to be naturally tech-savvy and competent. Everyday coaching experience tells a different story. A gap exists between usage and genuine proficiency. Digital competence does not emerge automatically from availability; it requires deliberate development and guidance.

Between attribution and reality

Since 2023, we have been supporting students at the Bern University of Applied Sciences through the Digital Skills Coaching program in a peer-to-peer format. Students help students. As a joint team of student coaches and program coordinators, we work at eye level (with coordinators acting as servant leaders). This article grew out of our shared practice.

In our day-to-day coaching work, we see constantly how large the gap is between attributed and actual digital competence. The notion that the so-called digital generation is naturally confident in its use of technology persists stubbornly [Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017]. Our experience, however, reveals a more nuanced picture.

Students have grown up with smartphones, social media, and digital platforms. This quickly gives rise to the assumption that they automatically possess strong digital skills. Universities frequently take for granted that foundational competences are already in place, such as structured information retrieval, clean documentation using digital tools, reflective use of office applications, or critical engagement with AI.

In practice, however, many students can operate tools without being able to plan their use strategically. They know where to click, but not always what goal they are pursuing with a tool, or which alternative might be more appropriate. There is a meaningful difference between technical use and deliberate decision-making.

The myth of the digital generation rests on a confusion. Digital socialization is equated with digital judgment. But daily use does not substitute for structured competence development. That is precisely where our coaching begins.

Usage is not competence

Digital competence consists of several layers. The first is technical operation. The second is strategic application. The third is critical reflection.

This distinction becomes particularly visible with generative AI. Texts can be produced in seconds. But when is its use actually appropriate? Where does academic responsibility begin? How transparently must its use be disclosed? These questions frequently go unanswered.

Many students use AI as an accelerator without engaging with questions of transparency, authorship, or ethical implications. Availability is confused with ability. Digital sovereignty only emerges when decisions are made consciously.

Peer Coaching as a mirror

In peer coaching, the gap becomes especially visible. When students accompany other students, the threshold for showing uncertainty drops. Questions get asked that often go unspoken in seminars or lecture halls.Im

The issues at stake are not only technical. They concern ways of thinking: Why am I choosing this tool? What do I want to achieve with it? How do I organize my own learning process?

Particularly in the area of AI, the importance of critical thinking becomes clear. Not every quick answer is a good answer. Not every efficiency gain leads to sustainable learning. Learning at eye level, as peer-to-peer coaching makes possible, creates reflection rather than mere instruction.

Organization as an underestimated factor

Our coaching practice also reveals that self-organisation is a central factor in academic success. Moodle, office applications, and AI tools are used, but rarely integrated systematically into a learning strategy.

Digital tools can help secure knowledge over the long term, for example through structured planning or regular review. Without conscious structure, however, their potential remains untapped.

Having grown up in a digital environment does not mean being able to process information meaningfully or place it in an academic context. Between consumption and competence lies a considerable distance.

Conclusion: a design challenge for universities

The myth of the digital generation obscures a central task. Digital competence does not emerge on its own. It must be accompanied, reflected upon, and practiced.

Universities should therefore assume less and enable more. What matters is not the number of tools deployed, but the quality of the decisions made in using them.

Having grown up in a digital world does not automatically mean being capable of everything. Because genuine digital competence requires guidance and support.

References

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001