Chapter 3: Questioning the Internet savvy rhetoric

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Chapter 3: Questioning the Internet savvy rhetoric"

Melanie Jones
5 years ago
Views:

1 Chapter 3: Questioning the Internet savvy rhetoric Chapter 2 concluded that various national reports and strategies tended portray students as confident and increasingly critical and savvy digital and Internet users. However, this view is increasingly questioned by more recent and more studentcentred research. This chapter presents these views and concludes that, if the Internet savvy rhetoric is prevalent amongst undergraduates and academics in my school, it may have implications for any Internet-related teaching. 3.1 Digital native rhetoric Today s supposedly Internet savvy students have variously been characterised by the media, Government and business as digital natives (Prensky, 2001b), the net generation (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Tapscott, 2009), millennials (Howe and Strauss, 2000; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005), generation Y (Weiler, 2005), the Google generation (Rowlands et al., 2008; UCL, 2008) and more recently the i- generation (Rosen, 2010). Whilst the terms are frequently used interchangeably, each term has its own emphasis (Jones and Czerniewicz, 2010). For example, Prensky emphasises the unique qualities of digital natives when he describes them as students today [that] are all native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet (Prensky, 2001a:1), whilst UCL characterises the unique experiences of the Google generation born after 1993, that is growing up in a world dominated by the internet (UCL, 2008:7). Paraphrasing, these terms describe students who interact with various digital texts in ways that are said to be far removed from the conventional demands of HE, seamlessly integrating digital technologies into their everyday lives, being equally comfortable interacting online as face-to-face and preferring the screen to paper (Naughton, 2006; Goodfellow et al., 2008; Lea, 2009; Jones, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010). To varying extents, some have suggested that these characteristics are not just students preferences, but have become innate. For example, Prensky (2001b) claims that young people s brains are now physically different due to their ongoing exposure twitch-speed, multitasking, random-access, graphics-first, active, connected, fun, fantasy, quick-payoff world of their video games, MTV, and Internet. He claims that digital natives reflect less, have shorter attention spans and are generally bored by their educational experiences that fail to accommodate their learning style. Others have suggested that students are so adept at using digital 45

2 technologies that they struggle with, or even reject, traditional academic activities, such as writing and referencing, leading to increased plagiarism (Davies et al., 2006). According to Lea, there are two implications of the digital native paradigm for HE; firstly, that students engagement in digital technologies in their personal worlds may impair students ability to engage in serious academic study and secondly, that there is pressure on HE to align its teaching and learning with what they see as the students digital worlds (Lea, 2009:2). Both imply a fear of alienating a generation of learners. The latter is seen by Prensky (2001a) and Tapscott (2009) as the solution to the former; formal education should become more like the informal digital worlds our students inhabit, including the use of more computer games and Web 2.0. Implications like this are discounted by Bennett and Maton (2010) and others on the grounds that it implies a misunderstanding of formal education whilst at the same time valorising the proclaimed attributes of the tech-savvy student (Bennett and Maton, 2010:325). 3.2 Digital native critiques More recently, studies have questioned the validity and utility of digital native rhetoric claiming that recent empirical evidence does not fully support the underlying assumptions. Kennedy for example, claims that the digital native paradigm is largely derived from anecdotal accounts or based on untested assumptions (Kennedy et al., 2010:332). Whilst not retracting his claims, Prensky, who is usually attributed with coining and popularising the term digital native, has begun to distance himself from its usefulness (Prensky, 2009). Overall, four overlapping critiques are apparent in the literature. The first relates to the assumption that students are avid users of a diverse range of modern technologies. This has been questioned by Conole et al. (2006), Cox et al (2008), Kennedy et al (2008; 2010), Bennett and Maton (2010), and Jones and Czerniewicz (2010) amongst others. For example, it has been shown in the US (Lenhart et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2009) and UK (Cox et al., 2008; Hardy et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2010) studies that students use a much narrower range of applications (predominantly, social networking) than the digital native rhetoric might suggest, rarely using Web 2.0 applications for content creation (for example, podcasting, blogs, wikis and social bookmarking). 46

3 The second critique of the digital native paradigm relates to the assumption that digital natives welcome and even demand technology in their studies. This has been the premise of several UK quango strategies (for example, JISC, 2006; JISC, 2009c). However, recent studies have shown that students do not always welcome technologies in their learning settings (Ipsos MORI, 2007; Lohnes and Kinzer, 2007; Selwyn, 2007; Hardy et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2009). JISC s own commissioned MORI survey of student expectations found that prospective students imagine and like the idea of the traditional, Socratic, or chalk and talk methods with face to face learning (Ipsos MORI, 2007:26; Smith et al., 2009) and Lohnes and Kinzer s (2007) study found that students use of laptops in class can be seen as antisocial by other students. The third critique of the digital native discourse relates to the assumption that students are confident and competent with modern technologies. This was the view promoted by the extensive 2006 JISC study into students experiences of technologies finding, for example, that students used technologies to satisfy their information needs in sophisticated ways finding and synthesising information and integrating across multiple sources of data (Conole et al., 2006:5). However, this finding contrasts with a more recent UCL study into the Google Generation (UCL, 2008) and previous Ofcom research (Ofcom, 2006) which concluded that although students were confident in their own Internet searching abilities, they relied upon basic search tools and possessed few critical and analytical skills to assess the information found. The fourth critique of the digital native discourse relates to the assumption that digital natives are a homogenous group. However, recent studies have found significant variations amongst students, even of similar ages. For example, Jones et al (2010) found a complex picture amongst first year UK undergraduates. Rather than a homogeneous group of undergraduates, they found small minorities of students displaying alternative characteristics of Internet use. For example, one small minority was found to make very little use of the Internet whereas another slightly larger minority made extensive use of new Internet technologies. In several undergraduate studies, age was found to be linked to the type of Internet use, but not in the simplistic way the digital native rhetoric would suggest (Jones and Ramanau, 2009b; Jones and Ramanau, 2009a; Hosein et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2010; Ramanau et al., 2010). For example, Hosein et al (2010) found that older undergraduates were less likely to use Web 2.0 and social networking sites and 47

4 more likely to be using their Internet access for the purposes related to their degree. Other studies have shown that other factors, such socio-economic status, cultural or ethnic background, gender and discipline studied, may be discriminating factors in how undergraduates use the Internet (Bennett et al., 2008; Kennedy et al., 2010). In Australia, Kennedy found that When one moves beyond entrenched technologies and tools (e.g. computers, mobile phones, ), the patterns of access to, use of and preference for a range of other technologies show considerable variation (Kennedy et al., 2008:117) and in Scotland, Hardy found that There is still a small minority of students who are not confident with technology, or have no access to the internet or do not recognise the value of technology for studying their particular subject (Hardy et al., 2009:4). 3.3 New digital divide If young people s exposure to digital technologies has enabled them to develop a natural aptitude and high skill levels in relation to the Internet, by implication those that are older cannot be natives of the Internet and a new generational digital divide has opened up (Prensky, 2001b; Prensky, 2001a; Lankshear and Knobel, 2003; Madden et al., 2008; Bennett and Maton, 2010). The term digital divide was originally coined to capture policy makers concerns about ensuring equality of access to ICTs, but the term now encompasses multiple new meanings (BECTA, 2001; Gurstein, 2003). Generational digital divides cast students as digital natives, and lecturers, teachers and parents as digital immigrants. Prensky describes the latter as speaking outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), [and] are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language (Prensky, 2001a:2). Disliking the connotations of these terms, Lankshear and Knobel (2003) initially referred to insiders (aka digital natives) and outsiders (aka digital immigrants), later describing them as physical-industrial mindsets and cyberspatial-postindustrial mindsets (Lankshear and Knobel, 2007). They describe outsiders as having not grown up with the Internet as an intrinsic part of their lives and consequently transfer real world attitudes into new Internet spaces. For example, they view the Internet s economics in traditional supply and demand terms, and have concerns about issues of copyright, access and security. In contrast, insiders have grown up with Internet as an intrinsic part of their lives and have the experience and resources to capitalise on its affordances. Various consequences of this native-immigrant or insider-outsider divide are proposed. Prensky stated that this digital divide is the single biggest problem facing education today (Prensky, 48

5 2001a:2) since teaching is far less effective and students become disaffected since their learning style is not being accommodated by their digitally immigrant lecturers and teachers. Others too view this generational digital divide as one of the main challenges of contemporary education (Todd, 1998; Tyner, 1998; Richards, 2000; Kellner, 2002; Lankshear and Knobel, 2003). Paraphrasing, there is an urgent need to overcome what they see as a disconnection between students experiences, subjectivities and interests rooted in the new multimedia cyber-culture, and those found in formal education. 3.4 Conclusion This research was undertaken against a backdrop of largely unsubstantiated claims about the Internet abilities of undergraduates who have grownup since the Internet gained popularity. In contrast, those who teach undergraduates are typically from a generation born before the Internet gained popularity and frequently portrayed as less comfortable using digital technologies and the Internet. More recently, several studies have questioned the dichotomous views of this generational digital divide, claiming it is too simplistic and a more nuanced understanding is required. This research was partly undertaken because I sensed a disparity between the Internet savvy being presented and my own experiences as a University Teacher. This purpose is captured in objective O However, the above discussion raises additional issues: the presence or absence of digital native-immigrant rhetoric amongst academics may impact upon how academics educate for Internet literacy. Arguably, an academic who perceives undergraduates to be inherently more Internet literate, may make certain unsubstantiated assumptions about their Internet abilities. Conversely, it could be argued that the presence digital immigrant rhetoric amongst undergraduates may impact their willingness to accept tuition from those they perceive as less able than them. Hence, an additional question that this research addresses is: RQ5-2011: To what extent is the digital native-immigrant rhetoric prevalent amongst Information School s academics and undergraduates? 49

Open Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs

Open Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs Collaboration and the Net generation: The changing characteristics of first year university students