Theories for the digital age: The digital natives discourse

Is learning in the 21^st Century significantly different to learning in previous years? One of the more controversial theories of the digital age is the claim that technology is changing (or rewiring) our brains (Greenfield, 2009) whilst some also claim that prolonged use of the Web is detrimental to human intellectual development (Carr, 2010). It could be argued that these theories stem back to the seminal claim of Marshall McLuhan (1964) that ‘we shape our tools and thereafter, our tools shape us.’ This belief was also the basis for the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory (Prensky, 2001), a persistent discourse that has greatly influenced the thinking of educators in recent years. A significant body of work has arisen around the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory, including descriptions of younger students as ‘the Net Generation’ (Tapscott, 1998), ‘Screenagers’ (Rushkoff, 1996), ‘Born Digital’ (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008), ‘Millennials’ (Oblinger, 2003), and ‘Homo Zappiens’ (Veen and Vrakking, 2006). The latter theory suggests that younger students learn differently, through searching rather than through absorbing, through externalising rather than through internalising information, are better at multitasking, and see no separation between playing and learning (Veen & Vrakking, 2006).

If these theories are true, and younger students do learn differently, the implications for education are profound, demanding changes to the way formal learning content is developed, delivered and organised, and a reappraisal of our conception of knowledge and what it means for education. There are, inevitably, objections to the Digital Natives position.

All of the above theories tend to characterise younger learners as being different to previous generations in their use of technology. These positions are countered by researchers who maintain that such claims are largely based on anecdotal and intuitive arguments, and that there is no significant difference in the way younger or older students manage their online learning activities (Crook and Harrison, 2008; Ito et al, 2009; Kennedy et al, 2010) and that the current generation of learners is far from homogenous (Bennett et al, 2008; Jones and Healing, 2012). Bennett et al (2008) also assert that there is no clear evidence that multi-tasking is a new phenomenon and exclusively the preserve of younger learners. Jones and Healing (2010) criticise the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory as too simplistic, and point out that a greater complexity exists in the way students of all ages use technology, based not on generational differences, but on agency and choice. There is yet further dissent. Vaidhyanathan (2008) argues that ‘there is no such thing as a digital generation.’ He suggests that every generation has an equal distribution of individuals with low, medium and high levels of technology competency. Vaidhyanathan is uncomfortable with the erroneous misclassification of generations and associated assumptions of technology competency levels, and warns: ‘We should drop our simplistic attachments to generations so we can generate an accurate and subtle account of the needs of young people – and all people, for that matter.’

Perhaps the most sensible advice comes from Selwyn (2009) who argues that contrary to the popularist beliefs expressed in the Digital Natives discourse, young people’s engagement with technology is often unspectacular (Livingstone, 2009). According to Selwyn, accounts of Digital Natives are often based on anecdotal evidence, are inconsistent or exaggerated, and hold very little in common with the reality of technology use in the real world. The Digital Natives discourse tends to alienate older generations from technology, and teachers can make dangerous assumptions about the capabilities of young people (Kennedy et al, 2010). Selwyn counsels: ‘Whilst inter-generational tensions and conflicts have long characterised popular understandings of societal progression, adults should not feel threatened by younger generations’ engagements with digital technologies, any more than young people should feel constrained by the “pre-digital” structures of older generations’ (Selwyn, 2009, p. 376).

Arguably the most useful explanatory framework for current online activities is offered by White and Le Cornu (2011), who have argued that habitual use of technology develops sophisticated digital skills regardless of the age or birth date of the user. They call these users ‘Digital Residents’ and suggest that those who are ‘Digital Visitors’ are less likely to be digitally adept because of their casual or infrequent use of digital tools.

References
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775–786.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.

New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Crook, C. and Harrison, C. (2008) Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning at Key Stages 3 and 4,Coventry: Becta Publications.
Greenfield, S. (2009) The Quest For Identity In The 21st Century. London: Sceptre.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M. and Boyd, D. (2009) Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jones C. and Healing G. (2010) Net Generation Students: Agency and Choice and the New Technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, (3), 344–356.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarnot, B. and Waycott, J. (2010) Beyond Digital Natives and Immigrants: Exploring Types of Net Generation Students, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 332-343.
Livingstone, S.(2009) Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, Gen-xers, and Millennials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review. 38 (4).
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008) Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.New York, NY: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital ImmigrantsOn the Horizon, 9 (5).
Rushkoff, D. (1996) Playing the Future: What we can learn from digital kids. London: Harper Collins.
Selwyn, N. (2011) The Digital Native: Myth and Reality. Aslib Proceedings,61 (4), 364-379.
Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008) Generation Myth.The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Veen, W. and Vrakking, B. (2006) Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a Digital Age London: Network Continuum Education.
White, D. S. and Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitorsand Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16 (9).

Image source

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]


Theories for the digital age: The digital natives discourse by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Hooked

The furore over the 'Net Generation' and the controversy surrounding Marc Prensky's Digital Natives theory prompted me to write a poem about gaming addiction that I actually performed at an ALT-C Conference. If for some perverse reason you ever want to repeat the performance, you need to dress up in a hoodie, and the crotch of your jeans needs to be hanging around your knees so that your boxer shorts are fully exposed (if you are indeed wearing any at all). You also need to strike a pose that is reminiscent of an old man suffering from constipation, and rap the words out loud and proud in a slightly nasal Estuary accent while flinging your hands around. Have fun. Er.... I know I did.

Hooked

I’m a digital immigrant, me
And the digital natives will be
Forever a stigma
Wrapped up in enigma
And shrouded in deep mystery

When he got his Nintendo DS
My son very quickly impressed
He linked with his buddies
And soon the young hoodies
Were wirelessly hooked (more or less)

Over time, his Nintendo obsession
Dragged us down to the depths of depression
Each attempt to suggest
A change or a rest
Was met with a wave of aggression

A Dad-imposed mandatory ban
Merely caused him to ‘go underground’
Soon we had to agree
The Nintendo would need to be
Surgically removed from his hand

I decided to check the Nintendo
And I slowly worked up to crescendo
Then it hooked me as well
And I soon looked like hell
I won’t even try to pretend-o

The brain training software was great
And I found myself staying up late
But I’ve now had my fill
And feel over the hill
With a brain age of 78

Image source

Hooked by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 International License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Cyborg nation?

Here's a continuation of my post-publication review of the highlights of 'Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures' - the book on cybercultures in online learning released last week by Information Age Publishers, USA.

Chapter 12 is called 'Cyber Theory and Learning' and was written by Vasi van Deventer of the University of South Africa. Vasi has written an engaging and stimulating account of how humans integrate new technologies into their lives, thoughts, and in some extreme cases, even into their bodies. The cybernetic organism, or 'cyborg', Vasi claims, is something we are all a lot farther down the road to becoming than we think. Adopting Andy Clark's 'natural born cyborg' thesis, Vasi argues that Net Generation people have a mindset that is:

...a way of engaging with the world that is distinctly different from the mindset of those who grew up in the industrial age. In this mindset, computers are not experienced as technology, but form an integral part of what the world is all about (p 178).

van Deventer also argues that it is the Internet and not TV that becomes the primary source of information, and that the cyborg generation need to create through consumption, even if it is merely copying and pasting from multiple sources to create a new mashup text. There are controversial views here - harking back to Marc Prensky's digital natives and immigrants theory, Mark Bullen's rebuttal, 'net generation nonsense' and even a challenge to the rules that govern what we currently consider to be plagiarism, copyright and intellectual freedom. This chapter is not hard to read, because it is written in an accessible style, but some may find it hard to come to terms with - that we are probably irrevocably marching down a long road which will lead to symbiotic relationships between human and computer that may not only be indistinguishable, but also inextricable. What are your views on this position?

(image source: blog.wired.com)