The Net Generation: Myths, Realities and Implications for Higher Education

Mark BullenTLT, 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

Outline

What is it and who cares? Claims about the Net Generation Net Generation literature Contrary evidence Implications Concluding remarks

4/23/09

Introduction

What is the Net Generation?• Born after 1982

• More than a generational label Who cares?

• Impact on education

4/23/09

Net Generation Hype

4/23/09

Net Gen Hype

Don Tapscott

4/23/09

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net Generation Characteristics

Expert multitaskers Need immediate feedback Prefer teamwork, collaboration Experiential learners Social Ambitious Career-oriented Freedom Customization

4/23/09

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

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

The Literature

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

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

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

The Literature

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”

4/23/09

The Literature

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.

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

The Literature

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”

4/23/09

The Literature

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."

4/23/09

The Literature

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."

4/23/09

The Literature

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

4/23/09

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-reporting4/23/09

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 valued4/23/09

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information

4/23/09

http://netgennonsense.blogspot.com

Mark_Bullen@bcit.ca

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

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

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

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