The Myth: Unlike any other generation before it, the Net Generation (born since 1982) is said to be marked by characteristics that correspond to the technologies they so readily adopt and so proficiently utilize. This technology is described as “personal, multifunctional, wireless, multimedia, [and] communication-centric;” corresponding net gen characteristics or “behaviours” include “multitasking, always-on communication,” and a participatory rather than consumerist “engagement with multimedia” (Hartman, Moskal, and Dziuban, 2005; 6.3). “For the first time in history,” as the originator of the term “net gen” puts it “children are more comfortable, knowledgeable, and literate than their parents about an innovation central to their society. And it is through the use of the digital media that the N-Generation will develop and superimpose its culture on the rest of society” (Tapscott, 1998; 1-2). In the case of education, this generation will shape institutions and practices by “pioneering new ways of knowing and understanding” (Brown, 2004; 16). Schools and universities must take “a forward-thinking posture” in adapting to the ways of this generation (Hartman, Moskal, and Dziuban, 2005; 6.12), or risk being becoming irrelevant to it.
Actually: Recent sociological and governmental studies paint quite a different picture of this same generation. Often focusing specifically on the Internet, they report –similar to the sources above– that “children and young people [are generally] claiming greater online self-efficacy and skills than…their parents” (Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005; 3: emphasis added). However, they do not take these claims at face value, and universalize them to youth in general. Instead, this research emphasizes, for example, that the complex skills needed to effectively utilize the Internet are distributed not only by age, but also by “gender and socio-economic status” (Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005; 3). One of the most important predictors for these differences is class –with middle class children more “likely to experience the Internet as a rich, if risky, medium than less priveged children (Livingston, & Bober, 2004; 415). This source and others also emphasize concerns related to the identity and safety of youth in the online environment, rather than assuming their mastery of it.
This research also provides results that are in general agreement with what has been called the 1% rule: “if you get a group of 100 people online then one [person] will create content, 10 will “interact” with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it” (Arthur, 2006). In other words, the vast majority are consumers of content; only a small minority interact with this content, and even fewer create it. For example, when blogging is mentioned in sociological studies of youth and the Internet, only a small minority of those asked identify themselves as being active bloggers (e.g. M.W.A., 2006). When “participation” is defined in political and civic terms, of those interested, only small minorities use relevant online resources in any other way than as “information consumers” –not as participatory creators, posting messages, signing petitions or joining a related chat rooms (Livingstone & Bober, 2004). (My own recent experience with young university students –although naturally not of the evidentiary status of surveys cited here—indicates something similar: During the 2005-2006 academic year, I taught in different levels and subject-areas at universities in Toronto, Norway, and Austria, generally using blogs and wikis as a part of mandatory assignments. In each case, the technology had to be carefully explained to students. The percentage of students in these classes initially using or understanding these technologies as active participants would be likely be numbered in the single digits.)
A general conclusion that has arisen from research on youth and technologies has emphasized a new class-based divide, in addition to the more familiar digital divide. As Livingston and Bober from the London School of Economics explain,
…not all of the opportunities available to children and young people are being taken up equally. Hence [we chart] the emergence of a new divide, signaling emerging inequalities in the quality of Internet use, with children and young people being divided into those for whom the Internet is an increasingly rich, diverse, engaging and stimulating resource of growing importance, and those for whom it remains a narrow, unengaging if occasionally useful resource of rather less significance.” (Livingston & Bober, 2004; 395)
The implications for educators and technologists seem fairly clear: It is important to address significant inequalities in use, understanding, and facility associated with these new technologies, rather than simply painting all students with the same brush. Indeed, it may be most effective to encourage those who are knowledgeable and active participants in using (and not just consuming) these media to show teach both instructors and peers how these media can shape and inform. It is be also important to at least consider the role of the instructor in guiding and protecting children (if not also youth) from some of the risks presented by these new technologies. Given the evidence, the matter of addressing the digital divide within the so-called net gen is at least as important (if not more so) than any imperative to blindly adapt to the technological orientation that is said to define them.
Unlinked References (i.e. those not openly available online):
Brown, G. (2004) “Getting Real in the Academy,” About Campus 9(4) 10-18.
Livingston, S. & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children’s use of the internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning 1(3) 395-419.
There a number of claims, truisms or clichés that are frequently taken as self-evident in e-learning discussions, presentations, funding proposals and papers. These frequently find pointed expression in buzzwords and catchphrases like “net generation” (e.g. Barone, 2005), “knowledge economy” (e.g. Gandel, Katz, Metros, 2004) or fixed “laws” of technological change (e.g. Bull et al, 2002). The claims entailed by with these phrases play critical and enabling roles in e-learning research and practice. But these claims are all too frequently invoked without being subject to any kind of questioning or scrutiny, and often with little explicit supporting evidence. Closer investigation reveals the phenomena behind these claims to be much less self-evident, and much more controversial and complex than one would initially be led to believe. In fact, careful consideration –often involving sources outside the literatures of e-learning– often shows that behind these truisms or myths, lurk problems and challenges that are in urgent need of educators’ and technologists’ careful attention. 