E-Learning Myth #1: The “Net Gen” Myth
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.
The major case againt the ‘Net Gen Myth’ is stated in Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005. However, while the authors (such as Tapscott) describe the ‘Net Gen’ in terms of behaviours (as you say, “personal, multifunctional, wireless, multimedia, [and] communication-centric”) the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper study responds to skills of capacities. These are two very different things.
Additionally, the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper methodologically suspect, dividing internet skills into two categories, embracing ‘opportunities’ and avoiding ‘risks’. It is not clear (and not argued) that the opportunities listed are in fact opportunities, nor is it clear that the dangers are dangers. The latter category, in fact, is made up exclusively of access to pornography, revealing information, and having friends.
This does not undermine the main argument of the section, which is to suggest that the net generation is not defined by age group alone. It is in fact defined by access, and hence, will not line up exactly with age.
But is this the myth, that the net generation is not defined exclusively by age? I cannot think of any proponent of the theory who would explicitly say so, nor certainly would they when pressed with questions about, say, net gen behaviours in the developing world.
That said, the definitions used in the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper study mask what constitutes net gen behaviour, even among those classified as being on the wrong side of the digital divide in this section. Access to mobil phones, for example, is near ubiquitous, even in the developing world, and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that associated net gen behaviours - such as ‘thumbing’ and ‘txting’ - would be found wouldwide, as would related attitudes - such as ‘connectivity’ and ’self organization’.
Does it therefore that the conusion is false, that we should not believe that “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.”
Of course not. This remains true. It has probably always been seen as true, save among the most pedagogically naive.
I would be more interested in seeing whether access to technology increases or decreases the differences between children of the privileged and children of the poor.
Compare, for example, the life of the child of a New York doctor with the life of, say, a Colombian orphan. If any such studies were conducted prior to the use of the internet, we can then compare those results with results from today, in the internet age (and for fun, with what the results look like when free interenet access is provided to both children).
My belief is that these children would be less dissimilar today, and that this dissimilarity can be traced to the permeation of ‘net gen culture’ into their two lives respectively.
Comment by Stephen Downes — August 15, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
e-Learning myth: people who write about e-Learning know a lot about it… how about using categories for posts for a change???
Comment by Acar — August 16, 2006 @ 10:03 am
The major case againt the ‘Net Gen Myth’ is stated in Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005. However, while the authors (such as Tapscott) describe the ‘Net Gen’ in terms of behaviours (as you say, “personal, multifunctional, wireless, multimedia, [and] communication-centric”) the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper study responds to skills of capacities. These are two very different things.
Additionally, the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper methodologically suspect, dividing internet skills into two categories, embracing ‘opportunities’ and avoiding ‘risks’. It is not clear (and not argued) that the opportunities listed are in fact opportunities, nor is it clear that the dangers are dangers. The latter category, in fact, is made up exclusively of access to pornography, revealing information, and having friends.
This does not undermine the main argument of the section, which is to suggest that the net generation is not defined by age group alone. It is in fact defined by access, and hence, will not line up exactly with age.
But is this the myth, that the net generation is not defined exclusively by age? I cannot think of any proponent of the theory who would explicitly say so, nor certainly would they when pressed with questions about, say, net gen behaviours in the developing world.
That said, the definitions used in the Livingstone, Bober & Helsper study mask what constitutes net gen behaviour, even among those classified as being on the wrong side of the digital divide in this section. Access to mobil phones, for example, is near ubiquitous, even in the developing world, and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that associated net gen behaviours - such as ‘thumbing’ and ‘txting’ - would be found wouldwide, as would related attitudes - such as ‘connectivity’ and ’self organization’.
Does it therefore that the conusion is false, that we should not believe that “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.”
Of course not. This remains true. It has probably always been seen as true, save among the most pedagogically naive.
I would be more interested in seeing whether access to technology increases or decreases the differences between children of the privileged and children of the poor.
Compare, for example, the life of the child of a New York doctor with the life of, say, a Colombian orphan. If any such studies were conducted prior to the use of the internet, we can then compare those results with results from today, in the internet age (and for fun, with what the results look like when free interenet access is provided to both children).
My belief is that these children would be less dissimilar today, and that this dissimilarity can be traced to the permeation of ‘net gen culture’ into their two lives respectively.
— Stephen
Comment by Administrator — August 16, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Blind adaptation, though popular, never engenders positive outcomes. I think you’re right about the Next Gen myth. It more accurately reflects the anxieties of those who feel like they have to “catch up” to tech than it does reality.
I wonder too about Tapscott’s assertion that “For the first time in history, children are more comfortable, knowledgeable, and literate than their parents about an innovation central to their society.” Really? What about the telephone, tv, and film to name a few examples?
Comment by Lyle Ford — August 21, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Great article. Although part of the 2.0 tip, its rather overstated the next gen idea. I’ve always felt class was more important. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Comment by les — August 25, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
I cannot understand what basis Tapscott has in saying
“For the first time in history, children are more comfortable, knowledgeable, and literate than their parents about an innovation central to their society.”
That is just rubbish. Throughout the history of mankind, it has been the old generation who has taught the young the history and ways of the community, and it has been the new generation that has taken those teachings, and taken society into new areas.
Luther was not an old man, nor was Galileo, Newton, or Darwin, when they made their discoveries or conclusions that shook the foundations of the established society. It has been the 20-30-year-olds who have invented airoplanes, automobiles, and so on. And it is a commonly known fact for example in mathematics that a mathematician over 30 won’t make any groundbreaking advances any more.
It has always been the students, the youth, who have furthered society. They in turn will turn into the “previous generation” and will become conservatist, trying to protect the society they helped create. But the next generation is always there, changing things.
Granted, the Internet provides lots of possibilities, but it’s just a technology that facilitates. We’ve had face to face meetings, written letters, books, and journals, for centuries. The net just makes all of this easier and faster. Maybe.
But it’s always been the children who are most comfortable with the new technologies and ideas.
Comment by Tarmo Toikkanen — December 1, 2006 @ 12:41 pm