Understanding Students Who Were 'Born Digital'

[somabc]

The first generation of “Digital Natives” – children who were born into and raised in the digital world – are coming of age, and soon our world will be reshaped in their image. Our economy, our politics, our culture and even the shape of our family life will be forever transformed. But who are these Digital Natives?

 

Born Digital is an initiative of the Digital Natives project, an interdisciplinary collaboration of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and the Research Center for Information Law at the University of St. Gallen. The aim of the Digital Natives project is to understand and support young people as they grow up in a digital age. Within the project, we make use of a variety of methods to investigate a range of themes pertaining to youth and their use of technologies. Our outputs range from academic publications to hands-on legal, educational, and technological interventions.

 

News: Understanding Students Who Were 'Born Digital' - Inside Higher Ed

Born Digital - Understanding the first generation of digital natives

Edited February 18, 2010 by somabc

[Domino]

I'm beginning to despise this overuse of the word digital......especially in the wrong context

[SYNACK]

I completely despise the whole digital native concept also as the only people who care about it generally get it completely wrong. There is somehow the misconception that people born after a certain time have some kind of inate understanding of technology which is true to a very limited extent. They may have a better attitude and mindset to dealing with technology but this does not make them all experts.

 

I get people going on about some 12 year old in their class that they got to change the settings on their phone for them and how they just have a better understanding than the rest of us. My issue is that they include me and all the others with massive indepth knowlage and skills along with the same technical mindset in the same inept basket they put themselves into. All of this they justify away with the digital native concept, which is wrong.

 

There is a social difference and technology usage difference but this does not equate to skill or absolute ability and is more to do with how much they integrate technology into their lives. The whole concept seems to just be a way for people who can't handle technology to absolve themselves of any responcibility by making it a condition that to their minds everyone must suffer from.

 

/rant

[Dos_Box]

Agreed,just beacuse I did not grow up with steam engines, limited air travel and sail boats did not mean I grew up in the 'diesel' or jet age. I can guarentee almost everyone on EduGeek has a far greater understanding of technology, both online or otherwise than a 15 year old 'digital' native.

[somabc]

But the point is surely that when teaching children they will expect to be taught in a 'digital' way, ie with all that modern technology can provide. It's the same as saying in the 1970's that you were not taught with a quill and ink. Of course you could have been but the group are saying that in order to best engage with the youth of today using the latest technology helps (which is good for us the enablers of all that technology).

[localzuk]

It isn't about knowledge of technology, it is about how it is used. Most 40 - 50 year olds won't be happy to whip out their smartphone, and look online for some information when out shopping. They won't be browsing the net for TV content etc...

 

I'd say the difference is augmentation vs inbuilt usage. Older generations augment their lives with technology. Those born in the last decade or 2 don't - technology is their lives.

[srochford]

There are always going to be people who misuse terminology but the I think the idea that there is a group of people who have grown up completely surrounded by IT is important and may change things we do.

 

Just because they're familiar with mobile phones, Facebook, search engines and so on doesn't make them experts in IT but it does mean they expect to find an IT based solution to pretty much any problem (look at the thread about whether we need libraries any more for examples of this)

[Dos_Box]

But the point is surely that when teaching children they will expect to be taught in a 'digital' way, ie with all that modern technology can provide. It's the same as saying in the 1970's that you were not taught with a quill and ink. Of course you could have been but the group are saying that in order to best engage with the youth of today using the latest technology helps (which is good for us the enablers of all that technology).

 

Funny you should mention that. I recall having handwriting lessons at infants/junior school using nibbed pens that you had to dip in ink, and blotting paper. This was about 1978. To this day I have no idea why we were doing this! I wonder what educational techniques and methods are going to be reundant and useless to the people getting being made to learn them today?

[beeswax]

Funny you should mention that. I recall having handwriting lessons at infants/junior school using nibbed pens that you had to dip in ink, and blotting paper. This was about 1978. To this day I have no idea why we were doing this! I wonder what educational techniques and methods are going to be reundant and useless to the people getting being made to learn them today?

 

they made vicious darts though!

[beeswax]

I completely despise the whole digital native concept also as the only people who care about it generally get it completely wrong. There is somehow the misconception that people born after a certain time have some kind of inate understanding of technology which is true to a very limited extent. They may have a better attitude and mindset to dealing with technology but this does not make them all experts.

 

I get people going on about some 12 year old in their class that they got to change the settings on their phone for them and how they just have a better understanding than the rest of us. My issue is that they include me and all the others with massive indepth knowlage and skills along with the same technical mindset in the same inept basket they put themselves into. All of this they justify away with the digital native concept, which is wrong.

 

There is a social difference and technology usage difference but this does not equate to skill or absolute ability and is more to do with how much they integrate technology into their lives. The whole concept seems to just be a way for people who can't handle technology to absolve themselves of any responcibility by making it a condition that to their minds everyone must suffer from.

 

/rant

 

 

There is some new research (can't lay my finger on it ATM) which suggests that children have just as many problems with new technology as older folk.

[SYNACK]

But the point is surely that when teaching children they will expect to be taught in a 'digital' way, ie with all that modern technology can provide. It's the same as saying in the 1970's that you were not taught with a quill and ink. Of course you could have been but the group are saying that in order to best engage with the youth of today using the latest technology helps (which is good for us the enablers of all that technology).

 

While it is good to integrate tech into the curriculum and I fully support it that is not the whole story. There still needs to be a balance, they did not stop teaching how to write because the typewriter came along and they did not stop teaching how to add because the calculator was invented. A balance needs to be struck otherwise they are being taught a defficiency rather than having an advantage.

 

I totally agree that there should be more integration and stuff that enables better learning should be in use but it should be because it actually helps otherwise it is a gimmic and will not work for long.

 

There are always people who use terminology wrong but this one I see as particularly harmful because it either gives people an excuse not to try or an excuse to leave everything to technology and hence not try.

 

The actual term does have merit when viewed correctly as localzuk described it but all of the emphasis on it along with the misunderstandings can be quite problematic. This is not so much a comment of the OPs posted stories but a reaction to the kind of idiocy that this term has caused in certain instances here.

 

Funny you should mention that. I recall having handwriting lessons at infants/junior school using nibbed pens that you had to dip in ink, and blotting paper. This was about 1978. To this day I have no idea why we were doing this! I wonder what educational techniques and methods are going to be reundant and useless to the people getting being made to learn them today?

 

Yes we learnt some truely pointless things too, some things really do need to be removed from the curriculum as long as they don't compromise understanding.

Edited February 18, 2010 by SYNACK

[localzuk]

While it is good to integrate tech into the curriculum and I fully support it that is not the whole story. There still needs to be a balance, they did not stop teaching how to write because the typewriter came along and they did not stop teaching how to add because the calculator was invented. A balance needs to be struck otherwise they are being taught a defficiency rather than having an advantage.

 

Picking up on the handwriting point - what is the value of handwriting now? I was thinking about this the other day and couldn't come up with a reason that handwriting is needed any more. Sure, its nice to get a handwritten letter but why is it *needed* still?

[Dos_Box]

What children do is learn the 'new' technologies as a part of their growing up. We have to 'unlearn' the old technology and educate ourselves in the new ones on a regular basis. Eventually the children will have to do this as well as they get older.

[SYNACK]

@Localzuk - It isn't really needed that much anymore and should be toned down in my opinion but should still be taught. There are times when handwriting is the best or only way to do something. At the moment it is still the best for certain types of note taking and is also useful for notations on stuff like fill in forms which would otherwise require a computer or other such device as every single place that needed forms. Some environments are also harsh and devices (unless specially designed) would be illequiped to survive (writing on measurements to timber at a building site etc.). There are also emergancy situations where writing is the only option (touroque application time etc.) which need to be written even in harsh underresourced conditions.

 

I would be the first to recommend the expultion of handwriting if it was practical but even when every child has a laptop that always goes and lasts a whole day there is still a place for writing, even as a curiosity like long division just to enable its use when nessisary.

 

@Dos_Box - another good description of the actual nature of the digita native concept.

[Jamo]

Picking up on the handwriting point - what is the value of handwriting now? I was thinking about this the other day and couldn't come up with a reason that handwriting is needed any more. Sure, its nice to get a handwritten letter but why is it *needed* still?

 

Its needed because its the foundation of our language. Forming the letters manually gives a much better understanding as you are taught them over and over. Pressing the E key on the keyboard and making the phonetic sound just doesn't cut it imho. It also re-enforces a very important skill which is hand eye coordination.

 

To be quite honest I am against silly gimmick technology in schools. I am very much for, though, teaching people how to use the internet and computers well, showing them how to get information from the web and making sure they understand that not all of Wikipedia is gospel!

[localzuk]

Its needed because its the foundation of our language. Forming the letters manually gives a much better understanding as you are taught them over and over. Pressing the E key on the keyboard and making the phonetic sound just doesn't cut it imho. It also re-enforces a very important skill which is hand eye coordination.

 

To be quite honest I am against silly gimmick technology in schools. I am very much for, though, teaching people how to use the internet and computers well, showing them how to get information from the web and making sure they understand that not all of Wikipedia is gospel!

 

I disagree on your first point. The foundation of our language is the spoken word, not the written word. Humans were talking way before writing! Not to mention, if we focus on the beginnings of things - why aren't we all taught how to kill animals for food? Meat is the foundation of the human diet, after all... Hand-eye co-ordination is also taught by operating a computer, and through sports (sports would actually be a better area to teach it IMO, along with performing arts).

 

Also, what you see as a gimmick might actually be the beginnings of some revolution in life. I'm sure many people thought many aspects of our normal lives now were gimmicks when they were introduced.

 

If we don't teach new things, how are we expected to progress as a people? Limiting the use of tech to 'how to use the internet and computers well' is a little short-sighted isn't it? Let's not forget - when computers came about, they were seen as a device of limited use and IBM didn't expect them to end up in people's homes and everyday lives.

 

Your last comment regarding Wikipedia should apply to all sources, not just Wikipedia. The basis for researching something is comparing and contrasting different sources, to ensure they match up etc... Before Wikipedia, written encyclopaedias were commonly wrong, as were books and magazines also...

[solitaire89]

I think that there is a general deterioration in the English language as a whole. I'm not saying that having handwriting lessons would change that on it's own, but would it be a start? There is so much that is "mangled" in spoken English, that when it's put down on paper (or in "e-form" come to that) it bears no resemblance to what it started life as. As an example:

"Should of" is very often written instead of what it actually should be - "Should HAVE"

Is the loss of handwriting lessons also the loss of learning express oneself correctly in writing??

[Jamo]

I disagree on your first point. The foundation of our language is the spoken word, not the written word. Humans were talking way before writing! Not to mention, if we focus on the beginnings of things - why aren't we all taught how to kill animals for food? Meat is the foundation of the human diet, after all... Hand-eye co-ordination is also taught by operating a computer, and through sports (sports would actually be a better area to teach it IMO, along with performing arts).

 

Also, what you see as a gimmick might actually be the beginnings of some revolution in life. I'm sure many people thought many aspects of our normal lives now were gimmicks when they were introduced.

 

If we don't teach new things, how are we expected to progress as a people? Limiting the use of tech to 'how to use the internet and computers well' is a little short-sighted isn't it? Let's not forget - when computers came about, they were seen as a device of limited use and IBM didn't expect them to end up in people's homes and everyday lives.

 

Your last comment regarding Wikipedia should apply to all sources, not just Wikipedia. The basis for researching something is comparing and contrasting different sources, to ensure they match up etc... Before Wikipedia, written encyclopaedias were commonly wrong, as were books and magazines also...

 

I don't consider an electronic 'Who wants to be a millionaire' style voting system a 'new' way to teach something. Gimmick is definitely the word I would use there.

 

We aren't taught to kill animals for food because we live in a society. Each person does their own tasks, but we ALL talk and write stuff down!

[Jamo]

I think that there is a general deterioration in the English language as a whole. I'm not saying that having handwriting lessons would change that on it's own, but would it be a start? There is so much that is "mangled" in spoken English, that when it's put down on paper (or in "e-form" come to that) it bears no resemblance to what it started life as. As an example:

"Should of" is very often written instead of what it actually should be - "Should HAVE"

Is the loss of handwriting lessons also the loss of learning express oneself correctly in writing??

 

Damn short hand! It comes from writing should've and could've which when spoken are pronounced very similar. Now if only people wrote things down still.....

[localzuk]

I think that there is a general deterioration in the English language as a whole. I'm not saying that having handwriting lessons would change that on it's own, but would it be a start? There is so much that is "mangled" in spoken English, that when it's put down on paper (or in "e-form" come to that) it bears no resemblance to what it started life as. As an example:

"Should of" is very often written instead of what it actually should be - "Should HAVE"

Is the loss of handwriting lessons also the loss of learning express oneself correctly in writing??

 

What does that matter? Languages evolve... Otherwise we'd all be speaking like Chaucer. You're indicating you prefer linguistic prescription rather than linguistic description - which is currently how our language works, and how all academic linguistic research is carried out.

[Jamo]

I think this may be reffering to the txt spk whre we try 2 fit as mny wrds as we can in2 r 180 letr limit......

 

It really annoys me when people post status updates on facebutt like that.

[localzuk]

I don't consider an electronic 'Who wants to be a millionaire' style voting system a 'new' way to teach something. Gimmick is definitely the word I would use there.

 

We aren't taught to kill animals for food because we live in a society. Each person does their own tasks, but we ALL talk and write stuff down!

 

And we all eat... Regarding voting systems, maybe you see it as a gimmick, but consider their usefulness when combined with other tools. Imagine, you're a GCSE student, you have to write a report on your classmate's views on a proposed bypass - and you're going to do this via a multiple choice questionnaire. Traditionally, this would involve the pupil writing the questions, printing them off, handing them out, collecting them back in and then manually entering all the results in a spreadsheet and then analysing them in order to create graphs etc...

 

With a e-voting system this could be done automatically for the pupil. They would be able to set up their questions, hand out the remotes and then go through the questions on the board. The data is instantly there for them, and with many such systems, can produce the graphs straight off. Saving the pupil a fair amount of work.

 

When you try to isolate a single technology and think of a use for it, you will always come up against the 'but what use does it have really?' question. When you combine it with other tools and ideas, that is when you realise its worth.

 

Take the e-voting system to the next level. I know there's a lot of discussion about the usefulness of iphones for all pupils etc... around the country, but what if this was one of the applications built into it? On its own, the iphone looks like a gimmick, but add all the potential tools that schools want in to the device and you have a very useful tool.

 

I think this may be reffering to the txt spk whre we try 2 fit as mny wrds as we can in2 r 180 letr limit......

 

It really annoys me when people post status updates on facebutt like that.

 

But I could read what you said there, so what's the problem?

[sted]

I think this may be reffering to the txt spk whre we try 2 fit as mny wrds as we can in2 r 180 letr limit......

 

It really annoys me when people post status updates on facebutt like that.

 

again spelling is constantly changing and some txt speak does make more sense than the traditional spelling which in the case of certain word makes no sense knight way does it still have a k when its no longer pronounced?

[solitaire89]

What does that matter? Languages evolve... Otherwise we'd all be speaking like Chaucer. You're indicating you prefer linguistic prescription rather than linguistic description - which is currently how our language works, and how all academic linguistic research is carried out.

 

But when it changes the meaning of what is being said? I'll accept that languages will evolve, but to use that as an excuse to be lazy? I worry that I've read science based final year uni dissertations, where there are so many mistakes that the entire context has been changed entrely. Half the time I wonder if it is because people don't read what they've written to see if it actually makes sense.

Let's face it, I'm sure we will all have read things where we've had to re-read it because the grammar changes the context of the piece entirely. At this point please feel free to insert the quotation about the panda.

What I'm trying to say in nut shell is that standards are falling. The standard of the work produced by children today is certainly of a much lower standard than when I was at school.

[localzuk]

What I'm trying to say in nut shell is that standards are falling. The standard of the work produced by children today is certainly of a much lower standard than when I was at school.

 

People always say this but there is never any evidence to back it up. My grand parents used to say it about my dad's school life. My parents said it about my school life. Now people my age are saying it about todays school kids. I'd love to see some evidence of it though.