The trip to Colorado couldn't have been any smoother. Everything worked like a well-oiled machine, including the airlines. Surprisingly enough, the return flights were ahead of schedule. While I was away, several interesting tech stories hit the virtual presses.
The Printed Blog: Print is dead they say, long live print! More on this experiment can be found here.
The latest addition to the Twitter family - Bank of America.
A virtual college debate match - St. Johns versus the University of Vermont: February 4 at 8 p.m. ET in Second Life! Go here if you'd like to attend this event.
Interested in elearning? This site includes a bibliography of 2007-2008 articles, and some are available online.
Are young people as tech-savvy as they are portrayed in much of the literature? Some Australian scholars say "No." Go here and here for the details.
The 2009 Horizon Report claims that the latest hot technologies are mobile technology, cloud computing, "geo-everything," and the personal web. In the coming years, watch for semantic applications and smart objects. What about video games and virtual worlds? No info on video games, but virtual worlds are mentioned in the geo-everything and smart objects sections.
A new critical case study also came out this week on social networking sites and electronic surveillance.
Enabling video game players to create games as well as play them. A fad or a new game genre that's here to stay? http://tinyurl.com/cymvrr
No online learning option for individuals taking advantage of the GI Bill. http://tinyurl.com/dz9mce
The mobile computing trend is on the rise, but "the era of the desktop PC is quickly coming to an end." http://tinyurl.com/bb9ab4
It's not just for entertainment anymore! YouTube is now a reference search tool. http://tinyurl.com/8rtver
A few little nuggets from the publishing world: John McMurtrie - editor of the San Francisco Chronicle book reviews - has plans to save it from the "deteriorating" pub. world. http://tinyurl.com/8kzkt9...and "The days of a 'newsmagazine of record'...are long gone." http:// tinyurl.com/a37992
Showing posts with label digital natives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital natives. Show all posts
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
More on the Digital Natives "Myth"
According to the findings of a study conducted by UK researchers, Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008, December 11), digital natives may not be the tech-savvy multitaskers portrayed in the literature. These authors continue by suggesting that moves to integrate technology into the curriculum simply to satisfy this new group of students may be a mistake.
Margaryan and Littlejohn begin by presenting some of the claims made about today's students and their relationship with technology. In the academic literature, as well as the mass media, scholars argue that the adoption of emerging technologies (i.e., the Web 2.0) has created an ever-widening gap between young people and the educational institutions they attend. But as the authors of this report note, the claims have yet to progress beyond the rhetoric. In fact, very little is known about the reported transformations that supposedly occur in young people due to their exposure to and use of technology.
While empirical research on this topic has started to surface, the conclusions are far from clear - some of the findings support the Millennial claims, whereas others run counter to them. Following their review of the research, Margaryan and Littlejohn conclude that evidence to support the digital natives rhetoric is lacking. Thus, the goal of their research is to investigate the ways in which students and instructors use technology to support learning. Students (Year 3 individuals in Social Work and Engineering) completed surveys and a selected group (students and instructors) participated in semi-structured interviews.
First the survey results:
Overall, more males than females participated in the study (39F, 121M), which is not surprising given that there are more males in Engineering than females. What is perhaps more interesting is the upper level age range of the students: the maximum age of the Engineering students was 38; in contrast, the maximum age of the Social Work students was 50. Margaryan and Littlejohn note that most of the Engineering students were around 20 years of age; however, the fact that there was quite an age spread, especially with the Social Work students, suggests that these were not the typical undergrads (age 18-22). It is worth mentioning that the authors do acknowledge that they had both "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" in their study.
In terms of technology, one of the first findings is that the students have home internet access. In addition, the students make use of the internet in the library, labs, and cafes. The top technologies owned by the study participants include: mobile phones, computers (PCs and laptops), portable media players, and digital cameras. When broken down by age, the digital natives owned mobile phones, portable media players, laptops, and game consoles. The digital immigrants owned similar technologies, yet were more likely to own a PC than the digital immigrants. A higher percentage of the digital immigrants owned a digital camera in comparison to the digital natives. Google and websites were the top technologies the Engineering and Social Work students used in the classroom. Course sites and text messaging were near the top as well. A much higher percentage of Engineering students mentioned the use of Wikipedia when compared to the Social Work students - 84% and 47% respectively.
One point that surfaced during the course of the interviews is that the participants had difficulty distinguishing between formal and informal learning situations. When asked about informal learning technologies, once again websites and course websites ranked the highest in use. The use of mobile phones and Google/Google Scholar were also frequently noted. For this question, the Engineering students ranked Wikipedia as a technology they consult for their informal learning activities. When looking at informal learning technology through an age lens, the findings suggest that older students are more likely to use Google Scholar, text messaging, and mobile phones than the younger students.
This study also examined technologies used during personal time. The Engineering students used video sharing, blogging, Wikipedia, and YouTube more than the Social Work students. Recreational access of virtual worlds such as Second Life ranked the lowest among the students as a whole. When comparing the students by age, the main difference is in their use of photo sharing and file sharing sites. Digital natives use photo sharing more; digital immigrants use file sharing more. The least frequently used technologies by the digital natives include virtual worlds, chat rooms, and discussion groups; digital immigrants infrequently used virtual worlds, blogs, chat rooms, and internet gaming. Overall, the difference between the digital natives and the digital immigrants includes the use of virtual worlds and internet games. And, as the data suggest, a small percentage of students is accessing virtual worlds.
And now the interview data:
Almost all of the students owned a mobile phone. Desktop computers appear to be more popular than laptops. (Students mentioned adequate access to computers on campus.) When asked about portable computing devices such as a PDA, several students mentioned that they didn't know what that was. Very few of the students owned game consoles.
In terms of technologies used for learning, virtual learning environments (VLE) such as Blackboard ranked the highest. Many of the students indicated that they use these spaces as content repositories. Lecture slides, notes, and course readings are commonly uploaded to the VLE. While the VLE reports by students were positive, they were puzzled by the inconsistent use of these online repositories by instructors.
Moreoever, when asked about Google, Wikipedia, YouTube and other similar tools, some students were not familiar with them. In fact, some of the Engineering and Social Work students had never heard of Google Scholar or Wikipedia. The terms podcasting and blogging were unfamiliar to a few students as well. Interestingly, those who were familiar with Wikipedia, for example, use it in a passive rather than active manner. In other words, they consult it for information but do not contribute to its content. Further, there was no evidence that digital games were used for learning.
The students were also asked about the advantages and disadvantages of technology in a learning environment. One suggestion was that the students should be taught how to use a particular technology rather than being told to go out an use it for an assignment. Several did suggest that the use of technology to improve course communication would be a positive thing.
What were some of the barriers to the integration of technology into the courses? 1) Students' lack of technological skills; 2) instructors' lack of technological skills; and 3) instructors' lack of engagement in teaching.
In addition to the student responses, the instructors were given a chance to contribute to this study. An interesting finding came from the Engineering instructors who viewed the Web 2.0 as a fad and not worth investing the time and energy needed to integrate these tools into the curriculum. One Engineering instructor admitted that he experimented with technology in his classroom but reported that he received negative feedback from his students. Some of the instructors noted that the Web 2.0 technologies are for "soft" subject areas and for pre-college education. Other barriers included time, reluctance to change, and lack of student/instructor IT skills. Of this group of instructors, handheld devises, wireless networking, texting, and instant messaging were considered to have the most educational potential.
Overall, students are using the Web 2.0 in a very limited manner. In contrast to claims that suggest they are demanding technology in the classroom, these findings suggest that students are content with the more traditional pedagogies. Many students are looking to their instructors for guidance in their use of technology; however, the instructors report that these tools are merely fads or indicate that they are simply unaware of them. Thus, this study provides empirical evidence that not all digital native are demanding an educational revolution - one that involves the integration of technology into the curriculum. Was this group atypical or is the rhetoric wrong/skewed/biased/etc.? If the digital natives (individuals who may not be as tech-savvy as they are portrayed in the literature) are not driving the revolution, then who is?
Margaryan and Littlejohn begin by presenting some of the claims made about today's students and their relationship with technology. In the academic literature, as well as the mass media, scholars argue that the adoption of emerging technologies (i.e., the Web 2.0) has created an ever-widening gap between young people and the educational institutions they attend. But as the authors of this report note, the claims have yet to progress beyond the rhetoric. In fact, very little is known about the reported transformations that supposedly occur in young people due to their exposure to and use of technology.
While empirical research on this topic has started to surface, the conclusions are far from clear - some of the findings support the Millennial claims, whereas others run counter to them. Following their review of the research, Margaryan and Littlejohn conclude that evidence to support the digital natives rhetoric is lacking. Thus, the goal of their research is to investigate the ways in which students and instructors use technology to support learning. Students (Year 3 individuals in Social Work and Engineering) completed surveys and a selected group (students and instructors) participated in semi-structured interviews.
First the survey results:
Overall, more males than females participated in the study (39F, 121M), which is not surprising given that there are more males in Engineering than females. What is perhaps more interesting is the upper level age range of the students: the maximum age of the Engineering students was 38; in contrast, the maximum age of the Social Work students was 50. Margaryan and Littlejohn note that most of the Engineering students were around 20 years of age; however, the fact that there was quite an age spread, especially with the Social Work students, suggests that these were not the typical undergrads (age 18-22). It is worth mentioning that the authors do acknowledge that they had both "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" in their study.
In terms of technology, one of the first findings is that the students have home internet access. In addition, the students make use of the internet in the library, labs, and cafes. The top technologies owned by the study participants include: mobile phones, computers (PCs and laptops), portable media players, and digital cameras. When broken down by age, the digital natives owned mobile phones, portable media players, laptops, and game consoles. The digital immigrants owned similar technologies, yet were more likely to own a PC than the digital immigrants. A higher percentage of the digital immigrants owned a digital camera in comparison to the digital natives. Google and websites were the top technologies the Engineering and Social Work students used in the classroom. Course sites and text messaging were near the top as well. A much higher percentage of Engineering students mentioned the use of Wikipedia when compared to the Social Work students - 84% and 47% respectively.
One point that surfaced during the course of the interviews is that the participants had difficulty distinguishing between formal and informal learning situations. When asked about informal learning technologies, once again websites and course websites ranked the highest in use. The use of mobile phones and Google/Google Scholar were also frequently noted. For this question, the Engineering students ranked Wikipedia as a technology they consult for their informal learning activities. When looking at informal learning technology through an age lens, the findings suggest that older students are more likely to use Google Scholar, text messaging, and mobile phones than the younger students.
This study also examined technologies used during personal time. The Engineering students used video sharing, blogging, Wikipedia, and YouTube more than the Social Work students. Recreational access of virtual worlds such as Second Life ranked the lowest among the students as a whole. When comparing the students by age, the main difference is in their use of photo sharing and file sharing sites. Digital natives use photo sharing more; digital immigrants use file sharing more. The least frequently used technologies by the digital natives include virtual worlds, chat rooms, and discussion groups; digital immigrants infrequently used virtual worlds, blogs, chat rooms, and internet gaming. Overall, the difference between the digital natives and the digital immigrants includes the use of virtual worlds and internet games. And, as the data suggest, a small percentage of students is accessing virtual worlds.
And now the interview data:
Almost all of the students owned a mobile phone. Desktop computers appear to be more popular than laptops. (Students mentioned adequate access to computers on campus.) When asked about portable computing devices such as a PDA, several students mentioned that they didn't know what that was. Very few of the students owned game consoles.
In terms of technologies used for learning, virtual learning environments (VLE) such as Blackboard ranked the highest. Many of the students indicated that they use these spaces as content repositories. Lecture slides, notes, and course readings are commonly uploaded to the VLE. While the VLE reports by students were positive, they were puzzled by the inconsistent use of these online repositories by instructors.
Moreoever, when asked about Google, Wikipedia, YouTube and other similar tools, some students were not familiar with them. In fact, some of the Engineering and Social Work students had never heard of Google Scholar or Wikipedia. The terms podcasting and blogging were unfamiliar to a few students as well. Interestingly, those who were familiar with Wikipedia, for example, use it in a passive rather than active manner. In other words, they consult it for information but do not contribute to its content. Further, there was no evidence that digital games were used for learning.
The students were also asked about the advantages and disadvantages of technology in a learning environment. One suggestion was that the students should be taught how to use a particular technology rather than being told to go out an use it for an assignment. Several did suggest that the use of technology to improve course communication would be a positive thing.
What were some of the barriers to the integration of technology into the courses? 1) Students' lack of technological skills; 2) instructors' lack of technological skills; and 3) instructors' lack of engagement in teaching.
In addition to the student responses, the instructors were given a chance to contribute to this study. An interesting finding came from the Engineering instructors who viewed the Web 2.0 as a fad and not worth investing the time and energy needed to integrate these tools into the curriculum. One Engineering instructor admitted that he experimented with technology in his classroom but reported that he received negative feedback from his students. Some of the instructors noted that the Web 2.0 technologies are for "soft" subject areas and for pre-college education. Other barriers included time, reluctance to change, and lack of student/instructor IT skills. Of this group of instructors, handheld devises, wireless networking, texting, and instant messaging were considered to have the most educational potential.
Overall, students are using the Web 2.0 in a very limited manner. In contrast to claims that suggest they are demanding technology in the classroom, these findings suggest that students are content with the more traditional pedagogies. Many students are looking to their instructors for guidance in their use of technology; however, the instructors report that these tools are merely fads or indicate that they are simply unaware of them. Thus, this study provides empirical evidence that not all digital native are demanding an educational revolution - one that involves the integration of technology into the curriculum. Was this group atypical or is the rhetoric wrong/skewed/biased/etc.? If the digital natives (individuals who may not be as tech-savvy as they are portrayed in the literature) are not driving the revolution, then who is?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Born Digital
Everywhere I turn these days, I find references to a new book titled, Born Digital. At first I dismissed it as yet another book touting the notion that today's young people are tech-savvy multitaskers - individuals who are completely different from older generations. Recent reviews and interviews with the authors, John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, have given me reason to reconsider my decision to ignore this book.
In an interview that appeared in Inside Higher Ed, for example, Palfrey notes that he and Gasser are fans of technology, but also assert that technology is "not a panacea." The technology alone will not change the learning outcomes or the educational experience of students. This statement echos the sentiments of Sir John Daniel, President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning, who stated in a debate with Dr. Robert Kozma, "there is no magic medium and never will be."
Some of professors are banning technologies such as laptops in the classroom, but Palfrey and Gasser argue that an outright ban may not result in better student learning. They do note that there is a time and a place for technology, and some "laptops down" moments may be appropriate. One key advantage the Born Digital authors highlight is that technology in the classroom will help students acquire the digital media learning skills they need. However, as Palfrey and Gasser suggest, an over-reliance on technology at the expense of other methods will not lead to positive outcomes.
One interview response that caught my attention was the idea that the internet does not alter learning. Palfrey and Gasser state that they did not find any evidence of this when conducting the research for their book. I recently read Wolf's Proust and the Squid, which traces the history of reading and the transformations that occurred in the brain. Wolf, a cognitive neurologist, claims that humans were not meant to read, and argues that over the years, the brain has rearranged itself to accommodate this activity. I'm not a neuroscientist, but based on Wolf's work, it seem possible that the brain could rearrange itself once again to accommodate the different ways of reading online information resources.
Another interesting point Palfrey and Gasser mention is related to the critical thinking and digital literacy skills of the digital natives they talked to. Many of these young people had no idea that anyone could edit Wikipedia. They assumed that the content of this reference resource was credible. However, there was evidence that the digital natives were becoming more skeptical online information consumers; they checked more than one resource to verify the information.
When asked about libraries, the response by Palfrey and Gasser was weak and a bit out-of-touch with what is occurring in libraries today. They mention that libraries are good with organizing book content and making it accessible to students and faculty but are not able to effectively handle e-resources. More and more, I think that the problem is not with the way libraries promote or organize their e-resources but rather more of an issue with the way online database vendors design their products. There has yet to be a vendor that has produce a good one-stop shopping type of database. So, when you are scanning the information horizon to see what's available on a particular topic, Google is the more attractive, and less limiting option.
In the interview, Palfrey and Gasser also mention the need to teach digital literacy skills but ignore the role of the library in this process. Librarians work with information tools and resources on a daily basis and are the obvious group to turn to when developing initiatives to close this gap in student learning. To exclude these experts from the conversation is a mistake.
Now I'm curious enough about the book that I'm going to check it out. I want to see if the "hype" matches the message put forth by Palfrey and Gasser.
In an interview that appeared in Inside Higher Ed, for example, Palfrey notes that he and Gasser are fans of technology, but also assert that technology is "not a panacea." The technology alone will not change the learning outcomes or the educational experience of students. This statement echos the sentiments of Sir John Daniel, President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning, who stated in a debate with Dr. Robert Kozma, "there is no magic medium and never will be."
Some of professors are banning technologies such as laptops in the classroom, but Palfrey and Gasser argue that an outright ban may not result in better student learning. They do note that there is a time and a place for technology, and some "laptops down" moments may be appropriate. One key advantage the Born Digital authors highlight is that technology in the classroom will help students acquire the digital media learning skills they need. However, as Palfrey and Gasser suggest, an over-reliance on technology at the expense of other methods will not lead to positive outcomes.
One interview response that caught my attention was the idea that the internet does not alter learning. Palfrey and Gasser state that they did not find any evidence of this when conducting the research for their book. I recently read Wolf's Proust and the Squid, which traces the history of reading and the transformations that occurred in the brain. Wolf, a cognitive neurologist, claims that humans were not meant to read, and argues that over the years, the brain has rearranged itself to accommodate this activity. I'm not a neuroscientist, but based on Wolf's work, it seem possible that the brain could rearrange itself once again to accommodate the different ways of reading online information resources.
Another interesting point Palfrey and Gasser mention is related to the critical thinking and digital literacy skills of the digital natives they talked to. Many of these young people had no idea that anyone could edit Wikipedia. They assumed that the content of this reference resource was credible. However, there was evidence that the digital natives were becoming more skeptical online information consumers; they checked more than one resource to verify the information.
When asked about libraries, the response by Palfrey and Gasser was weak and a bit out-of-touch with what is occurring in libraries today. They mention that libraries are good with organizing book content and making it accessible to students and faculty but are not able to effectively handle e-resources. More and more, I think that the problem is not with the way libraries promote or organize their e-resources but rather more of an issue with the way online database vendors design their products. There has yet to be a vendor that has produce a good one-stop shopping type of database. So, when you are scanning the information horizon to see what's available on a particular topic, Google is the more attractive, and less limiting option.
In the interview, Palfrey and Gasser also mention the need to teach digital literacy skills but ignore the role of the library in this process. Librarians work with information tools and resources on a daily basis and are the obvious group to turn to when developing initiatives to close this gap in student learning. To exclude these experts from the conversation is a mistake.
Now I'm curious enough about the book that I'm going to check it out. I want to see if the "hype" matches the message put forth by Palfrey and Gasser.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Talkin' about my generation
Monday's night's R685 class will be discussing neomillennials and generational learning styles. In my portion of the class, I will be reviewing the outcome of three quizzes that assess the students' digital nativeness, if you will. My job is to tell the students what this all means (good luck with that). So, in preparation, I have been reviewing some of the articles I've collected on the topic of the generational myth for my qualifying. One short piece I was re-reading tonight was written by Siva Vaidhyanathan, a media studies professor at the University of Virginia.
In his article aptly titled, "Generational Myth," Viadhyanathan dismisses the notion of a digital native. He beings his argument by pointing to books that tout the existence of these tech-savvy individuals, and then counters those claims by pointing to his own classroom experiences and interactions with students. According to Viadhyanathan, today's students are not a homogeneous group in terms of technological skills. Sure, they know how to access Google, but how effectively are they really using it? This is not to say that Viadhyanathan has not encountered students who possess multiple gadgets and are adept at using them. He has. But, he has also met students who cannot afford many of these devices or simply prefer a more non-technical option (i.e., instead of reading online, they prefer a printed copy).
Viadhyanathan also points to statistics to support his argument. He notes that most high school graduates do not go on to graduate from a four-year institution with a bachelor's degree. Are college grads more tech-savvy than their non-college degreed peers? What about Bill Gates? He doesn't have a bachelor's degree. Viadhyanathan goes on to suggest that for any generation there are examples of those who embrace technology and those who do not. Sam and Zack are perfect examples of this. Based on some generational charts, both fall in the Generation Y category. Sam is not into technology, but Zack is. The other day, Sam called to say he learned how to scan a file and turn it into a PDF. He also learned how to use a flash drive. His first few weeks as a doctoral nursing students and already he's accomplished a lot.
As the article nears the conclusion, Viadhyanathan mentions scholars who have written about this topic as well. Eszter Hargittai, Susan Herring, and Kathryn C. Montgomery are just a few of the scholars mentioned. Also included in this discussion are Howe and Strauss - authors known for their generational books and their thoughts on the Millennials. As Viadhyanathan points out, the generational categories conveniently carve out target markets for corporatations. However, the dates that differentiate one generation from another are arbitrary. And what does it mean if you're on a Generation Jones according to one timeline and a Generation X according to another? The baby boom was an actual event, but what about Generation X? What event was that - slackerfest?
Not only are the generation dates arbitrary, but so are the quizzes. Based on the results of one quiz, I was a Baby Boomer; however, another one determined that I was a Millennial. The funny thing is that I am neither. Maybe it's because I'm just a misplace zygote.
In his article aptly titled, "Generational Myth," Viadhyanathan dismisses the notion of a digital native. He beings his argument by pointing to books that tout the existence of these tech-savvy individuals, and then counters those claims by pointing to his own classroom experiences and interactions with students. According to Viadhyanathan, today's students are not a homogeneous group in terms of technological skills. Sure, they know how to access Google, but how effectively are they really using it? This is not to say that Viadhyanathan has not encountered students who possess multiple gadgets and are adept at using them. He has. But, he has also met students who cannot afford many of these devices or simply prefer a more non-technical option (i.e., instead of reading online, they prefer a printed copy).
Viadhyanathan also points to statistics to support his argument. He notes that most high school graduates do not go on to graduate from a four-year institution with a bachelor's degree. Are college grads more tech-savvy than their non-college degreed peers? What about Bill Gates? He doesn't have a bachelor's degree. Viadhyanathan goes on to suggest that for any generation there are examples of those who embrace technology and those who do not. Sam and Zack are perfect examples of this. Based on some generational charts, both fall in the Generation Y category. Sam is not into technology, but Zack is. The other day, Sam called to say he learned how to scan a file and turn it into a PDF. He also learned how to use a flash drive. His first few weeks as a doctoral nursing students and already he's accomplished a lot.
As the article nears the conclusion, Viadhyanathan mentions scholars who have written about this topic as well. Eszter Hargittai, Susan Herring, and Kathryn C. Montgomery are just a few of the scholars mentioned. Also included in this discussion are Howe and Strauss - authors known for their generational books and their thoughts on the Millennials. As Viadhyanathan points out, the generational categories conveniently carve out target markets for corporatations. However, the dates that differentiate one generation from another are arbitrary. And what does it mean if you're on a Generation Jones according to one timeline and a Generation X according to another? The baby boom was an actual event, but what about Generation X? What event was that - slackerfest?
Not only are the generation dates arbitrary, but so are the quizzes. Based on the results of one quiz, I was a Baby Boomer; however, another one determined that I was a Millennial. The funny thing is that I am neither. Maybe it's because I'm just a misplace zygote.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Talkin' about my generation
I've been preparing for a very brief talk on digital natives and generational learning that will take place on Monday night (9/29). Prior to class, the students have been asked to take an "Are you a digital natives?" type of quiz. I found three that will work, but none of them really rocked my world. Maybe it's because I fit into the label categories (e.g., Boomer, Gen X, Millennials, etc.) in terms of age but not in terms of technological interest or capabilities. Depending on the quiz, I was labeled a Boomer and even a Millennial. I am neither.
One of the better quizzes I stumbled upon was created by Penelope Trunk. The quiz is based on data Trunk collected from an interview with Margaret Weigel who has worked at MIT and Harvard on digital media engagement. While Margaret has taken a hiatus from her blog postings, an earlier post does refer to an interesting report titled, Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, that attempts to debunk the digital native "myth." This is a British Library/JISC study that reviews the literature (86 papers) to determine "whether today's tech-savvy young people are really different from earlier generations.
Some interesting tid-bits from the report:
One of the better quizzes I stumbled upon was created by Penelope Trunk. The quiz is based on data Trunk collected from an interview with Margaret Weigel who has worked at MIT and Harvard on digital media engagement. While Margaret has taken a hiatus from her blog postings, an earlier post does refer to an interesting report titled, Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, that attempts to debunk the digital native "myth." This is a British Library/JISC study that reviews the literature (86 papers) to determine "whether today's tech-savvy young people are really different from earlier generations.
Some interesting tid-bits from the report:
- There is a lack of literature comparing age groups. (Shock! Seems to be the story with a lot of research these days.)
- Children have been using the web for homework since the late 1990s.
- Downloading music is not a new interesting. Young people have been engaging in these recreational activities since the 1990s. Moreover, concerns about illegal downloading (at least in England) have been present since the early 1980s.
- Young people using natural language queries to find information pre-dates the web.
- No change in recent years in the way young people evaluate information. It's been a problem for 10-15 years.
- Young people have difficulty navigating electronic library resources; thus, they prefer Google, because it's easier to use.
- None of the literature has examined students who do not have/use the tech gadgits.
- Young people are reading!
- Students want convient, easy ways to complete assignments; exploring isn't the focus. "Power browsing and viewing are the norm for all" (p. 19).
- No evidence that young people are better multitaskers than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
