Mark Bullen writes an important blog – netgen nonsense – that I encourage educators to follow. He takes a critical look at evidence (or lack of it) that supports the concept of net generation learners. His blog title is obviously intended to be controversial, but his views are well considered. His main message: evidence to date does not support broad assumptions about different traits/characteristics of learners who have been raised in a technologically rich environment. From a recent post (he is quoting a research report from UK): “The findings show that many young students are far from being the epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent digital native who has little patience for passive and linear forms of learning. Students use a limited range of technologies for formal and informal learning. These are mainly established ICTs – institutional VLE, Google and Wikipedia and mobile phones. Students make limited, recreational use of social technologies such as media sharing tools and social networking.”
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
2 Comments
The biggest problem with all of this is that you, like Bullen, are engaging with what I see as mostly a strawman– the most radical idea about generational changes in learners, specifically, a sharp age divide between a previous group and a group that is “epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent digital native who has little patience for passive and linear forms of learning”
How many people make *that* argument other than Prensky? Maybe I don’t put myself in a position to see them, but I don’t see many Prensky-ites. Faculty *I* work with, talk with, and read have a much more nuanced understanding than that.
What none of these studies address is what I *am* seeing, which is a significant number of learners who have had longer-term and/or nearly immersive experience with three related technologies: personal computers, the web, and social networks that are exhibiting very similar characteristics. To a degree that it is worthwhile to consider them as a group or cluster when trying to educate in an environment that goes beyond the one-on-one.
I don’t generally disagree with much of what Bullen says– in that context. But I do have a problem with throwing out all the good (and true) because of some radicaly and misrepresentative view of the bad.
Hi Chris – I think we had a similar discussion on your blog earlier this year. The “what I am seeing” argument is important in this as well. Research is only one way of knowing, but it is one that generally has greater respect than “this is what I’m seeing”.
On a personal level, I see how my children interact with each other through technology. It is a change from what I recall as a kid – not just technology, but process. Ultimately, the question for me is if/how we are to teach people differently today. Many change elements exist that can be a suitable premise for changes to education. Changed learners due to tech use is not the top on my list…yet.
Post a Comment