The Net Generation: Myths, Realities and Implications for Higher Education Mark Bullen TL T, Regina, April 28, 2009

Introduction Net Generation idea firmly entrenched Few are questioning the validity of the claims Major decisions are being made based on hype and self-serving advice pushed by consultants 4/23/09

Net Generation idea firmly entrenched

Few are questioning the validity of the claims

Major decisions are being made based on hype and self-serving advice pushed by consultants

Outline What is it and who cares? Claims about the Net Generation Net Generation literature Contrary evidence Implications Concluding remarks 4/23/09

What is it and who cares?

Claims about the Net Generation

Net Generation literature

Contrary evidence

Implications

Concluding remarks

Introduction What is the Net Generation? Born after 1982 More than a generational label Who cares? Impact on education 4/23/09

What is the Net Generation?

Born after 1982

More than a generational label

Who cares?

Impact on education

Net Generation Hype 4/23/09

Net Gen Hype Don Tapscott 4/23/09

Don Tapscott

Net Generation Hype Tapscott, 2009: “ The current…model of education…is not appropriate for kids who have grown up digital and are used to interacting with people, not just listening. The old educational model might have been suitable for the Industrial Age, but it makes no sense for the digital economy, or for the new generation of learners. We should change the education system to make it relevant to them.” 4/23/09

Tapscott, 2009:

“ The current…model of education…is not appropriate for kids who have grown up digital and are used to interacting with people, not just listening. The old educational model might have been suitable for the Industrial Age, but it makes no sense for the digital economy, or for the new generation of learners. We should change the education system to make it relevant to them.”

Net Generation Hype Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005: “ Only by understanding the Net Generation can colleges and universities create learning environments that optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Technology has changed the Net Generation, just as it is now changing higher education.” 4/23/09

Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005:

“ Only by understanding the Net Generation can colleges and universities create learning environments that optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Technology has changed the Net Generation, just as it is now changing higher education.”

Net Generation Hype Prensky, 2001: “ Digital Natives accustomed to the twitch-speed, multitasking, random-access, graphics- first, active, connected, fun, fantasy, quick-payoff world of their video games, MTV, and Internet are bored by most of today’s education, well meaning as it may be. The cognitive differences of the Digital Natives cry out for new approaches to education with a better fit.” 4/23/09

Prensky, 2001:

“ Digital Natives accustomed to the twitch-speed, multitasking, random-access, graphics- first, active, connected, fun, fantasy, quick-payoff world of their video games, MTV, and Internet are bored by most of today’s education, well meaning as it may be. The cognitive differences of the Digital Natives cry out for new approaches to education with a better fit.”

Net Generation Hype Barone, 2005: “ The arrival of the Net Generation on campus is causing unrest in the classroom. A wave of young people empowered to create knowledge, not merely absorb it, now flows in and out of the classroom, calling into question the convictions and processes that have served as the foundation of traditional higher education. It remains to be seen whether traditional higher education will adjust sufficiently to truly engage the Net Generation. “ 4/23/09

Barone, 2005:

“ The arrival of the Net Generation on campus is causing unrest in the classroom. A wave of young people empowered to create knowledge, not merely absorb it, now flows in and out of the classroom, calling into question the convictions and processes that have served as the foundation of traditional higher education. It remains to be seen whether traditional higher education will adjust sufficiently to truly engage the Net Generation. “

Net Generation Claims Immersion in digital technology makes them fundamentally different than other generations Technologies used How they use technology Profound impact “ today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently than their predecessors. These differences go further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize” – Prensky, 2001 4/23/09

Immersion in digital technology makes them fundamentally different than other generations

Technologies used

How they use technology

Profound impact

“ today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently than their predecessors. These differences go further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize” – Prensky, 2001

Net Generation Claims What are the differences? Sophisticated users of digital technology Different relationship with information and media Think and learn differently Different expectations of school, work and life 4/23/09

What are the differences?

Sophisticated users of digital technology

Different relationship with information and media

Think and learn differently

Different expectations of school, work and life

Net Generation Characteristics Expert multitaskers Need immediate feedback Prefer teamwork, collaboration Experiential learners Social Ambitious Career-oriented Freedom Customization 4/23/09

Expert multitaskers

Need immediate feedback

Prefer teamwork, collaboration

Experiential learners

Social

Ambitious

Career-oriented

Freedom

Customization

Implications for Higher Education Shift from architecture of presentation to architecture of participation Collaborative learning Multimedia Interactive learning Expect to be entertained Personalized learning Digital game-based learning 4/23/09

Shift from architecture of presentation to architecture of participation

Collaborative learning

Multimedia

Interactive learning

Expect to be entertained

Personalized learning

Digital game-based learning

Validity of Claims Claims not based on sound research North American bias Reviews of research do not support claims Research tends to contradict many of the claims 4/23/09

Claims not based on sound research

North American bias

Reviews of research do not support claims

Research tends to contradict many of the claims

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Howe, N. & Strauss. W. (2000). Millenials Rising Based on two surveys: 200 school teachers, 660 students in Fairfax county, VA. Claims: focus on teamwork, achievement, modesty, and good conduct

Based on two surveys: 200 school teachers, 660 students in Fairfax county, VA.

Claims:

focus on teamwork, achievement, modesty, and good conduct

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Oblinger & Oblinger (2005). Educating the Net Generation Mostly speculation or anecdotal observations Claims: unprecedented levels of skills with information technology take technology for granted want more of it in their classes, postsecondary institutions aren't responding fast enough to meet their needs

Mostly speculation or anecdotal observations

Claims:

unprecedented levels of skills with information technology

take technology for granted

want more of it in their classes,

postsecondary institutions aren't responding fast enough to meet their needs

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Tapscott (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation Based on discussions with 300 children Members of an online discussion group Balanced for gender, geography socio-economic status Claims: Force for social transformation Access to interactive, digital technologies is creating a generation of critical thinkers

Based on discussions with 300 children

Members of an online discussion group

Balanced for gender, geography socio-economic status

Claims:

Force for social transformation

Access to interactive, digital technologies is creating a generation of critical thinkers

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Tapscott (2009). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. Sample of 7685 randomly selected Internet users, stratified to avoid gender or socioeconomic bias. Online questionnaire Facebook group of over 200 people. Global online network TakingITGlobal hosted discussions Claims Same claims as Tapscott (1998) Freedom Customization Scrutiny Integrity Collaboration Entertainment Speed Innovation

Sample of 7685 randomly selected Internet users, stratified to avoid gender or socioeconomic bias.

Online questionnaire

Facebook group of over 200 people.

Global online network TakingITGlobal hosted discussions

Claims

Same claims as Tapscott (1998)

Freedom

Customization

Scrutiny

Integrity

Collaboration

Entertainment

Speed

Innovation

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part 1 & 2 Speculation Claims Use of technology is changing the physical structure of the brain Seely-Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital Anecdotal observations of 15 yr. olds working in Xerox Lab Frand, J. (2000). The information-age Mindset Speculation

Speculation

Claims

Use of technology is changing the physical structure of the brain

Anecdotal observations of 15 yr. olds working in Xerox Lab

Speculation

The Literature “ rather than being empirically and theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a moral panic that restricts critical and rational debate ” Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). 4/23/09

“ rather than being empirically and theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a moral panic that restricts critical and rational debate ”

Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008).

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Ipsos-Reid Survey, November 2007, 2,313 Internet users in Canada “ Results belies a common belief that young people are most at ease in cyberspace, with the study suggesting that not only do teens spend less time than their elders online; they are also more conservative in their use of the technology”

2,313 Internet users in Canada

“ Results belies a common belief that young people are most at ease in cyberspace, with the study suggesting that not only do teens spend less time than their elders online; they are also more conservative in their use of the technology”

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Kennedy et. Al. (2006) Survey of 2588 students at three Australian universities Use of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies low. “ To accept the claims of some of the commentators on the changes needed in universities to cater for this generation of students without undertaking further research is likely to be a substantial mistake.

Survey of 2588 students at three Australian universities

Use of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies low.

“ To accept the claims of some of the commentators on the changes needed in universities to cater for this generation of students without undertaking further research is likely to be a substantial mistake.

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments University of Guelph (2008) Survey of 2706 students Reluctant to mix personal and academic use of computers May not use technology the way we expect them to Use of online social networks for academic use is low Rather than trying to find ways to use technologies, should determine what students need and based decisions on those needs

Survey of 2706 students

Reluctant to mix personal and academic use of computers

May not use technology the way we expect them to

Use of online social networks for academic use is low

Rather than trying to find ways to use technologies, should determine what students need and based decisions on those needs

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). Review of literature “ It is apparent that there is scant evidence to support this idea, and that emerging research challenges notions of a homogeneous generation with technical expertise and a distinctive learning style. Instead it suggests variations within this population, which may be more significant to educators than similarities”

Review of literature

“ It is apparent that there is scant evidence to support this idea, and that emerging research challenges notions of a homogeneous generation with technical expertise and a distinctive learning style. Instead it suggests variations within this population, which may be more significant to educators than similarities”

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Literature review “ Most of the popular literature on the subject...appears to rest on limited data, almost always conducted by survey methods characterized by a lack of reliability and validity data."

Literature review

“ Most of the popular literature on the subject...appears to rest on limited data, almost always conducted by survey methods characterized by a lack of reliability and validity data."

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008) Review of literature "The outcomes suggest that although the calls for radical transformations in educational approaches may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change solely in students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use."

Review of literature

"The outcomes suggest that although the calls for radical transformations in educational approaches may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change solely in students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use."

The Literature 4/23/09 Source Comments University College of London (2008) Comprehensive study of the information-seeking behaviour of the Net Generation (post 1992) Poor information literacy Fail to critically evaluate information found on Internet Lack effective search skills

Comprehensive study of the information-seeking behaviour of the Net Generation (post 1992)

Poor information literacy

Fail to critically evaluate information found on Internet

Lack effective search skills

BCIT Study Communication preferences of students Two part study Part 1: interviewed 69 students Part 2: Survey (442 students in 14 courses) Questions based on Net Gen literature and Part 1 of study Self-reporting 4/23/09

Communication preferences of students

Two part study

Part 1: interviewed 69 students

Part 2: Survey (442 students in 14 courses)

Questions based on Net Gen literature and Part 1 of study

Self-reporting

Net Gen Characteristics 4/23/09 Item Level of Agreement Significance Digitally literate High Not significant Connected Moderately high Small relationship Multitasking Moderately high Small relationship Experiential learning Moderately high Not significant Structured learning Moderately high Not significant

Net Gen Characteristics 4/23/09 Item Level of Agreement Significance Group work Low Small relationship Social Moderately high Not significant Goal oriented Moderate Not significant Preference for text Moderate Small relationship Community minded Moderate Not significant

Communication with Peers 4/23/09 Mode Level of Use Significance BCIT email Moderate Not significant Personal email Moderately high Not significant Instant messaging Moderate Small relationship Text message (phone) Moderately high Small relationship Facebook/ MySpace Moderate Small relationship Talking via phone Moderately high Small relationship Talking in person High Not significant WebCT Low Not significant

Communication with Instructors 4/23/09 Mode Level of Use Significance BCIT email Moderate Not significant Personal email Moderate Not significant Instant messaging Low Not significant Text message (phone) Low Not significant Facebook/ MySpace Low Not significant Talking via phone Low Not significant Talking in person High Not significant WebCT Low Small relationship

Implications Students have a basic level of comfort with many ICTs - not related to generation Limited toolkit (email, texting, cell phones) Driven by ubiquity, self-organizing capabilities, type of communication it provides (distance/proximity), practicality Infrastructure, program specific technologies and software more valued 4/23/09

Students have a basic level of comfort with many ICTs - not related to generation

Limited toolkit (email, texting, cell phones)

Driven by ubiquity, self-organizing capabilities, type of communication it provides (distance/proximity), practicality

Infrastructure, program specific technologies and software more valued

Implications Group work not highly preferred, even though students are highly social and consider themselves to be highly connected because of ICTs Students spend 7-8 hours, 5 days/week on campus Heavy course load Ability to communicate and collaboration is not the problem Motivation for group work? Appropriateness of group work? 4/23/09

Group work

not highly preferred, even though students are highly social and consider themselves to be highly connected because of ICTs

Students spend 7-8 hours, 5 days/week on campus

Heavy course load

Ability to communicate and collaboration is not the problem

Motivation for group work? Appropriateness of group work?

Implications Generation does not explain communication and technology preferences and use BCIT Net Gen students not significantly different than non Net Gen students 4/23/09

Generation does not explain communication and technology preferences and use

BCIT Net Gen students not significantly different than non Net Gen students

Implications Generation does not explain technology use or learning preferences Context matters--nature of programs, program design Decision making based on needs of your learners Co-Researchers: Adnan Qayyum, Tannis Morgan 4/23/09

Generation does not explain technology use or learning preferences

Context matters--nature of programs, program design

Decision making based on needs of your learners

Co-Researchers: Adnan Qayyum, Tannis Morgan

Concluding Remarks Ask the right questions Who are our learners? How are today’s learners different from (or the same as) faculty/administrators? What learning activities are most engaging for learners? Are there ways to use IT to make learning more successful? 4/23/09

Ask the right questions

Who are our learners?

How are today’s learners different from (or the same as) faculty/administrators?

What learning activities are most engaging for learners?

Are there ways to use IT to make learning more successful?

Concluding Remarks Social vs. educational use of technology Educators need to be much more critical Value of academic research Need to differentiate between generational differences and social change 4/23/09

Social vs. educational use of technology

Educators need to be much more critical

Value of academic research

Need to differentiate between generational differences and social change

For More Information 4/23/09 http://netgennonsense.blogspot.com [email_address]

References Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), 775-786. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality. Accepted for publication in the Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology . http://www.box.net/shared/fxqyutottt Frand, J. (2000). The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2000, 15-24. Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation . New York: Random House. 4/23/09

Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), 775-786.

Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality. Accepted for publication in the Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology . http://www.box.net/shared/fxqyutottt

Frand, J. (2000). The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2000, 15-24.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation . New York: Random House.

References Kennedy et. Al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings . Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Singapore. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf Kvavik, R.B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L Oblinger (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation, pp. 7.1-7-20. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Unpublished paper. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrReality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf 4/23/09

Kennedy et. Al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings . Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Singapore. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf

Kvavik, R.B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L Oblinger (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation, pp. 7.1-7-20. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Unpublished paper. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrReality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf

References Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the Net Generation . Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5) Prensky, M. (2001b ). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II; Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6). Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Generational Differences. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology , 295-303. Seely-Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital . USDLA Journal, 16 (2). 4/23/09

Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the Net Generation . Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5)

Prensky, M. (2001b ). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II; Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6).

Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Generational Differences. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology , 295-303.

Seely-Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital . USDLA Journal, 16 (2).

References Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation . Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World . Toronto: McGraw-Hill. University College London (2008) . Information Behaviour of the Research of the Future. http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf 4/23/09

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation . Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World . Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

University College London (2008) . Information Behaviour of the Research of the Future. http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf