Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-methods study explores predictors of technological fluency in post-secondary students, indicating distinct behavior patterns.
Although the Internet is an increasingly core resource for just-in-time, non-routine problem-solving, the competencies which support leveraging such technology for problem-solving are not well understood. The current mixed-methods study explored individual differences in behavior/performance during an assessment of technological fluency, a trait complex describing individuals’ propensity (i.e., ability/willingness) to leverage technological resources to solve real-world problems. A sample of 133 post-secondary students completed a battery of distal traits (e.g., cognitive ability, personality) and proximal psychological variables (e.g., self-efficacy, technology attitudes). Given open Internet access, they also completed a technological fluency assessment consisting of 21 open-ended problems covering practical domains (e.g., home repair). Cluster analysis of item-level responses identified three emergent patterns: (1) a group that allocated the majority of their time to the first questions, characterized by relatively lower verbal/spatial ability but higher self-reported use of self-regulation strategies, (2) a group that kept a rapid pace throughout the assessment, characterized by positive technology attitudes, and (3) a group with more moderate pacing, characterized by relatively higher cognitive ability and more negative technology attitudes. Qualitative analyses explored potential differences in metacognitive monitoring and control processes favoring participants with higher verbal/spatial ability. In addition to delineation of the technological fluency construct, which constitutes a comprehensive individual differences approach to the study of technology-supported problem-solving, we discuss limitations and implications of our findings for future research on how technology may differentially impact metacognitive processing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lyndgaard et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: