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.

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.