Incoming! Who will be on campus this year?


Published on

Identifies NetGen attitudes to ICTs in their learning and implications for educators.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Incoming! Who will be on campus this year?

  1. 1. INCOMING! Who will be on campus this year? Megan Poore
  2. 2. <ul><li>Statistics and expectations </li></ul><ul><li>ICT proficiency and literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Learning needs </li></ul><ul><li>The Net Generation </li></ul>COVERAGE
  3. 3. SOME STATS: Incoming students Access University of Melbourne (2006) Mobile 93% Desktop 90% Broadband 73%
  4. 4. Computer use University of Melbourne (2006) SOME STATS: Incoming students Emailing 94% Creating documents 88% Info searching 83%
  5. 5. University of Melbourne (2006) Main activities on computers ‘ Overwhelmingly positive’ SOME STATS: Incoming students Study 94% Info Searching 93% Course admin 84% SMS 84% IM 75%
  6. 6. University of Melbourne (2006) STUDENT EXPECTATIONS <ul><li>International students use more tech </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering students more likely to use tech than Arts students </li></ul><ul><li>Reasons for use: convenience and control – not learning </li></ul>
  7. 7. JISC (2007) <ul><li>Preference for using technology </li></ul><ul><li>Ubiquitous internet is normal </li></ul><ul><li>Cautious about publishing their work for public scrutiny </li></ul><ul><li>Tech is not an end in itself </li></ul><ul><li>Face-to-face is seen as core </li></ul>STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
  8. 8. JISC (2007) <ul><li>Uncertain about how to map current learning experience onto uni study </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot see how ICT and learning can work together outside of school </li></ul>STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
  9. 9. <ul><li>Are personalised </li></ul><ul><li>Are visual </li></ul><ul><li>Have links to the community </li></ul><ul><li>Are rigorous </li></ul><ul><li>Use individualised feedback </li></ul>INFORMAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Pletka (2007)
  10. 10. <ul><li>Working with info </li></ul><ul><li>Creating and sharing info </li></ul><ul><li>Using ICT responsibly </li></ul>MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
  11. 11. <ul><li>‘ Challenging but reasonable ’ expectation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Year 6: 49% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Year 10: 61% </li></ul></ul>MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
  12. 12. <ul><li>Patterns: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low socio-economic bkgnd </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indigeneity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remote locality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gender not an issue </li></ul></ul>MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
  13. 13. <ul><li>Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication is a frequent use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less use of applications for creating , analysing , transforming information </li></ul></ul>MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
  14. 14. <ul><li>Skills gap between using media to create and how to create meaningful content </li></ul>CRITICAL CHALLENGE Horizon Report, EDUCAUSE (2007: 4-5)
  15. 15. <ul><li>Facility does not mean ICT literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Need to be careful about assumptions we make </li></ul>IMPLICATIONS MCEETYA (2007)
  16. 16. <ul><li>Competent or just confident ? </li></ul><ul><li>How to find the right info, then assess, validate, interpret, analyse, synthesise, critique, evaluate, put in context </li></ul><ul><li>The need to apply problem-solving and critical thinking skills </li></ul>Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) IMPLICATIONS
  17. 17. <ul><li>Renewed emphasis on collaborative learning </li></ul><ul><li>Growing expectations for higher ed to deliver services , content and media to mobile and personal devices </li></ul>Horizon Report, EDUCAUSE (2007: 4-5) IMPLICATIONS
  18. 18. <ul><li>You need to be ICT literate, too. </li></ul>IMPLICATIONS
  19. 19. <ul><li>What’s important will not change: good pedagogy is good pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Content: Shift away from rote learning and memorisation to creation of understanding and meaning </li></ul>IMPLICATIONS
  20. 20. <ul><li>Need to build ICT literacy through “ systematic teaching rather than incidental use ” </li></ul><ul><li>More personalised assessment </li></ul>LEARNING NEEDS MCEETYA (2007)
  21. 21. <ul><li>Dynamic </li></ul><ul><li>Experiential </li></ul><ul><li>Learning by doing </li></ul><ul><li>Problem-solving </li></ul>Pletka (2007) LEARNING NEEDS
  22. 22. <ul><li>Want to engage and be engaged </li></ul><ul><li>Learn through doing </li></ul>Veen and Vrakking (2006) LEARNING NEEDS
  23. 23. <ul><li>I am no longer the sole repository of information </li></ul><ul><li>BUT </li></ul><ul><li>I have to teach them how to </li></ul>YOUR NEW MINDSET <ul><li>Assess </li></ul><ul><li>Critique </li></ul><ul><li>Validate </li></ul><ul><li>Analyse </li></ul><ul><li>Interpret </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesise </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>Also called ‘millennials’, ‘Digital Natives’ </li></ul><ul><li>In the UK, 1 in 3 children aged between 5 and 9 owns a mobile phone </li></ul><ul><li>Average age of first phone ownership is 8 </li></ul>Vision (2005: 11) THE NET GENERATION
  25. 25. <ul><li>Parallel process and multi-task </li></ul><ul><li>Have ‘ hypertext minds’ </li></ul><ul><li>Have always had Web 2.0 at home </li></ul><ul><li>Have little patience for step-by-step logic (or reasoning?) </li></ul>Prensky (2001) THE NET GENERATION
  26. 26. <ul><li>Information-rich </li></ul><ul><li>Non-linear and associative </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-media, visual and graphical </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate/instantaneous </li></ul><ul><li>Immersive and abundant </li></ul><ul><li>Relevant and meaningful </li></ul>INFORMATION FOR THE NET GEN Pletka (2007)
  27. 27. <ul><li>Community-oriented and team-based </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative , co-operative, participatory </li></ul><ul><li>Communication-rich </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive and dialogical </li></ul><ul><li>Customised , personalised, individualised </li></ul>COMMUNITY, CHOICE COLLABORATION Pletka (2007)
  28. 28. <ul><li>Are active processors of information </li></ul><ul><li>Filter info all the time </li></ul><ul><li>Are used to getting info immediately </li></ul><ul><li>Are used to controlling info flows </li></ul>CHARACTERISTICS Veen and Vrakking (2006)
  29. 29. <ul><li>Get bored if the information flow is poor or too slow </li></ul><ul><li>Use non-linear resources </li></ul><ul><li>Do not complain of information overload! </li></ul>Veen and Vrakking (2006) CHARACTERISTICS
  30. 30. <ul><li>Absorb discontinuous information and make meaning of it </li></ul><ul><li>Cope with complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Increase or decrease their attention levels , depending on need </li></ul>COMPLEXITY Veen and Vrakking (2006)
  31. 31. <ul><li>Can work with sub-optimal knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Make sense of bits </li></ul><ul><li>Accept uncertainty </li></ul>Veen and Vrakking (2006) COMPLEXITY
  32. 32. <ul><li>Are effective communicators </li></ul><ul><li>Prefer communicating through images </li></ul><ul><li>Use their networks </li></ul><ul><li>Are used to controlling communication </li></ul><ul><li>Are collaborative </li></ul>COMMUNICATION Veen and Vrakking (2006)
  33. 33. <ul><li>‘ Net Gen’ communication is </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimodal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative and interpretive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comes easily to them </li></ul></ul>Johnson (2006: 73) COMMUNICATION
  34. 34. <ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Openness </li></ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul>VALUES Veen and Vrakking (2006: 47)
  35. 35. <ul><li>Speak with an ‘ accent ’ – or a different language entirely! </li></ul><ul><li>Misunderstand the new ways in which the Neg Gen learns </li></ul>Prensky (2001) ‘ DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’
  36. 36. <ul><li>We work in a linear fashion </li></ul><ul><li>We read the instructions first before using </li></ul><ul><li>We are used to working alone </li></ul><ul><li>We believe in doing things 'right ' </li></ul><ul><li>We believe in doing things one thing at a time </li></ul>Veen and Vrakking (2006: 32 ) ‘ DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’
  37. 37. <ul><li>Students are feeling as though they are ‘ powering down ’ when they enter the school gates </li></ul>Vision (2005: 4) NET GENERATION AT SCHOOL
  38. 38. Source:
  39. 39. <ul><li>Lecture-based </li></ul><ul><li>Isolating </li></ul><ul><li>Segmented </li></ul><ul><li>Uniform </li></ul><ul><li>Responsive-deficient </li></ul><ul><li>Didactic </li></ul><ul><li>Irrelevant </li></ul>INDUSTRIAL-AGE LEARNING Pletka (2007)
  40. 40. EDUCAUSE. 2007. The Horizon Report . New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Accessed 10 October 2007 . JISC. 2007. Student expectations study: Findings from preliminary research. (Joint Information Systems Committee) . Accessed 12 February 2008. Johnson, Larry. 2006. The sea change before us. EDUCAUSE Review , March/April 2006: 72-3. . Accessed 10 October 2007 MCEETYA. 2007. Information and Communication Technologies Literacy Years 6 and 10 Report 2005. Accessed 12 February 2008 . Accessed 12 February 2008. Oblinger, Diane G. and Brian L. Hawkins. 2006. The myth about student competency. EDUCAUSE Review , March/April 2006: 12-3. Accessed 10 October 2007 . Accessed 12 February 2008. REFERENCES
  41. 41. Pletka, Bob. 2007. Educating the Net Generation. How to engage students in the 21 st century. Santa Monica Press. Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5): 1-6. University of Melbourne. 2006. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really Digital Natives? Accessed 12 February 2008 . Veen, Wim, and Ben Vrakking. 2006. Homo Zappiens. Growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum. Vision. 2005. The future of mobile technology: learning ‘on the run’? Vision 1: 11-3. . Accessed 10 October 2007. REFERENCES
  42. 42. MORE INFO
  43. 43. LICENCE