The Digital Natives Debate a Critical Review of the Evidence

of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence Sue Bennett, Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin Sue Bennett is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Karl Maton is alecturer in the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney. Lisa Kervin is alecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Address for correspondence: SueBennett, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia. Email: sue_ Abstract The idea that a new generation of students is entering the education systemhas excited recent attention among educators and education commentators.Termed ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net generation’, these young people are said tohave been immersed in technology all their lives, imbuing them with sophisti-cated technical skills and learning preferences for which traditional educationis unprepared. Grand claims are being made about the nature of this genera-tional change and about the urgent necessity for educational reform inresponse.Asenseof impendingcrisispervadesthisdebate.However,theactualsituation is far from clear. In this paper, the authors draw on the fields of education and sociology to analyse the digital natives debate. The paper pre-sents and questions the main claims made about digital natives and analysesthenatureof thedebateitself.Wearguethatratherthanbeingempiricallyandtheoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a‘moral panic’. We propose that a more measured and disinterested approachis now required to investigate ‘digital natives’ and their implications foreducation. The one thing that does not change is that at any and every time it appears that there have been‘great changes’.Marcel Proust,  Within a Budding Grove Introduction Commentators on education are arguing that a new generation of learners is enteringour educational institutions, one which has grown up with information and commu-nication technology (ICT) as an integral part of their everyday lives. It is claimed theseyoung people’s use of ICTs differentiates them from previous generations of studentsand from their teachers, and that the differences are so significant that the nature of  British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008  775–786doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published byBlackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.  education itself must fundamentally change to accommodate the skills and interests of these‘digitalnatives’(Prensky,2001a).Weshallarguethatthoughsuchcallsformajorchange in education are being widely propounded, they have been subjected to littlecritical scrutiny, are undertheorised, and lack a sound empirical basis. There is thus apressing need for theoretically informed research.Inthispaper,webringtogethereducationalresearchandthesociologyof knowledgetoprovideananalysisof thecurrentstateof playinthedigitalnativesdebate.Webeginbysetting out the main claims made in the debate. Second, we explore the assumptionsunderlying these claims and the consequent arguments for educational change, high-lighting the limited nature of the research evidence on which they are based.Third, weconsider why such poorly evidenced claims have gained widespread currency by anal-ysing the nature of the debate itself. This highlights how principal positions havecreated the academic equivalent of a ‘moral panic’ that restricts critical and rationaldebate. Lastly, we argue that the debate as currently formulated is at an impasse, andthe way forward requires a research agenda capable of providing a sound basis onwhich future debate and policymaking can be founded. Claims about ‘digital natives’ The generation born roughly between 1980 and 1994 has been characterised as the‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a) or the ‘Net generation’ (Tapscott, 1998) because of theirfamiliaritywithandrelianceonICT.Theyaredescribedaslivinglivesimmersedintechnology, ‘surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players,video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age’ (Prensky,2001a, p. 1). Social researchers Howe and Strauss (2000, 2003), labelled this genera-tion the ‘millenials’, ascribing to them distinct characteristics that set them apart fromprevious generations. They offer a positive view of this new generation as optimistic,team-oriented achievers who are talented with technology, and claim they will beAmerica’s next ‘great generation’.Immersion in this technology-rich culture is said to influence the skills and interests of digital natives in ways significant for education. It is asserted, for example, that digitalnativeslearndifferentlycomparedwithpastgenerationsof students.Theyareheldtobeactive experiential learners, proficient in multitasking, and dependent on communica-tions technologies for accessing information and for interacting with others (Frand,2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001a, b; Tapscott, 1999). Commentatorsclaim these characteristics raise fundamental questions about whether education iscurrently equipped to meet the needs of this new cohort of students. Tapscott (1998),for example, described education in developed countries as already in crisis with morechallenges to come: ‘There is growing appreciation that the old approach [of didacticteaching] is ill-suited to the intellectual, social, motivational, and emotional needs of the new generation’ (p. 131). This was echoed by Prensky’s (2001a) claim that: ‘ Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educationalsystem was designed to teach ’ [emphasis in srcinal] (p. 1).776  British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.  For those born prior to 1980, Prensky (2001a) has coined the term ‘digital immi-grants’. He claims that this section of the population, which includes most teachers,lacks the technological fluency of the digital natives and finds the skills possessed bythem almost completely foreign. The disparity between the technological skills andinterests of new students and the limited and unsophisticated technology use by edu-cators is claimed to be creating alienation and disaffection among students (Levin &Arafeh, 2002; Levin, Richardson & Arafeh, 2002; Prensky, 2005a). Prensky (2001a)characterises this as ‘the biggest single problem facing education today’ (p. 3). Toaddress this proclaimed challenge, some high-profile commentators are arguing forradical changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and professional development ineducation.The debate over digital natives is thus based on two key claims: (1) that a distinctgenerationof ‘digitalnatives’exists;and(2)thateducationmustfundamentallychangeto meet the needs of these ‘digital natives’. These in turn are based on fundamentalassumptionswithweakempiricalandtheoreticalfoundations,whichwewillexploreinthe next sections. On the distinctive characteristics of ‘digital natives’ The claim made for the existence of a generation of ‘digital natives’ is based on twomain assumptions in the literature, which can be summarised as follows:1. Young people of the digital native generation possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies.2. Asaresultof theirupbringingandexperienceswithtechnology,digitalnativeshaveparticular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of stu-dents.Intheseminalliteratureondigitalnatives,theseassertionsareputforwardwithlimitedempirical evidence (eg, Tapscott, 1998), or supported by anecdotes and appeals tocommon-sense beliefs (eg, Prensky, 2001a). Furthermore, this literature has been ref-erenced, often uncritically, in a host of later publications (Gaston, 2006; Gros, 2003;Long, 2005; McHale, 2005; Skiba, 2005). There is, however, an emerging body of researchthatisbeginningtorevealsomeof thecomplexityof youngpeople’scomputeruse and skills. Information technology use and skills amongst young people One of the founding assumptions of claims for a generation of digital natives is thatyoung people live their lives completely immersed in technology and are ‘fluent in thedigital language of computers, video games and the Internet’ (Prensky, 2005b, p. 8).Frand (2000) claims that this immersion is so complete that young people do not evenconsider computers ‘technology’ anymore. Personal testimonials (eg, McNeely, 2005;Windham, 2005) depicting young people’s online lives as constantly connected appearto confirm such generalisations. Review of the ‘digital natives’ debate  777 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.  Recent research into how young people in postcompulsory education access and usetechnology, however, offers a more diverse view of the role of technology in the lives of young people. For example, a survey of 4374 students across 13 institutions in theUnitedStates(Kvavik,Caruso&Morgan,2004)foundthatthemajorityof respondentsowned personal computers (93.4%) and mobile phones (82%), but a much smallerproportion owned handheld computers (11.9%). The most common technology useswere word processing (99.5%), emailing (99.5%) and surfing the Net for pleasure(99.5%).Theseresultsdodemonstratehighlevelsof ownershipof sometechnologiesbythe respondents and high levels of some academic and recreational activities, and theirassociated skills. The researchers found, however, that only a minority of the students(around21%)wereengagedincreatingtheirowncontentandmultimediafortheWeb,and that a significant proportion of students had lower level skills than might beexpected of digital natives.The general thrust of these findings is supported by two recent studies of Australianuniversity students (Kennedy, Krause, Judd, Churchward & Gray, 2006; Oliver &Goerke, 2007) showing similar patterns in access to ICTs.These studies also found thatemerging technologies were not commonly used, with only 21% of respondents main-taining a blog, 24% using social-networking technologies (Kennedy  et al , 2006), and21.5% downloading podcasts (Oliver & Goerke, 2007). As observed by Kennedy  et al (2006),althoughmanyof thestudentswereusingawiderangeof technologiesintheirdaily lives, ‘there are clearly areas where the use of and familiarity with technology-based tools is far from universal’ (p. 8). Some of this research (Kennedy  et al , 2006);Kvavik  et al , 2005) has identified potential differences related to socio-economic status,cultural/ethnicbackground,genderanddisciplinespecialisation,buttheseareyettobecomprehensively investigated. Also not yet explored is the relationship between tech-nology access, use and skill, and the attitudinal characteristics and dispositions com-monly ascribed to the digital native generation.Large-scale surveys of teenagers’ and children’s use of the Internet (cf, Lenhart,Madden&Hitlin,2005;Livingstone&Bober,2004)revealhighlevelsof onlineactivityby many school-aged children, particularly for helping with homework and for socialcommunication. The results also suggest that the frequency and nature of children’sInternet use differs between age groups and socio-economic background. For instance,Internet use by teenagers is far from uniform and depends on the contexts of use, withwidelyvaryingexperiencesaccordingtochildren’sschoolandhomebackgrounds(Lee,2005). This is further supported by recent research showing family dynamics and thelevel of domestic affluence to be significant factors influencing the nature of children’shome computer use (Downes, 2002).These findings suggest that technology skills andexperience are far from universal among young people.In summary, though limited in scope and focus, the research evidence to date indicatesthat a proportion of young people are highly adept with technology and rely on it for arange of information gathering and communication activities. However, there alsoappears to be a significant proportion of young people who do not have the levels of 778  British Journal of Education Technology Vol 39 No 5 2008 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Labor Digest

Jul 25, 2017
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks