Are the NET Geners NET Savvy?

I suspect many of you already have discovered the answer to this blog's question. For those of you who haven't, read on Macduff.
We already know that your students have grown up with the technology; their familiarity with most forms of electronic gadgetry is second nature. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by all of the toys and tools of the digital age (Carlson, 2005). The technology affects everything they do and buy. They expect information to be at their fingertips.
However, (WARNING: Here it comes. Watch out!) they are not necessarily “net savvy” (Lorenzo & Dziuban, 2006). They are exposed to tons of information, but lack an understanding of how to find, evaluate, use, and present that information. They need to be taught information literacy and strong critical thinking skills (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006; Rockman & Associates, 2004). These deficiencies should be addressed in some way by your institution and in your teaching.
As noted in a previous blog, a digital divide exists based on machine vintage, connectivity, online skills, autonomy and freedom of access, computer support, and interest in using the technology (Hawkins & Oblinger, 2006; Oblinger, 2008a). For those students who are neither tech nor net savvy due to class, nationality, or other factors that limit access, special instruction or training sessions should be provided to give them opportunities to be brought up to the same level of their more proficient peers.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC

Is the Net Generation Tech Savvy? Part III: The Digital Divide Internationally

The "native-immigrant dichotomy" and Prensky’s descriptions do not generalize outside the U.S. In developing countries, the technology is less prevalent, electricity often scarce, and literacy rates low (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008).
The birth-based definitions and trends as well as the corresponding technological advances are not applicable to most European, Eastern European, and Asian countries. The 1980s and ‘90s were periods of rapidly falling birthrates. Only Russia experienced an “Echo Boom” similar to that in the U.S. The child poverty rates were still quite high in many Western countries during those years.
In addition, the economies and socio-economic structure in those countries limited the access, purchase, and use of the technologies to middle-class and wealthy families. Probably only a few of the characteristics of the Net Geners reported in most survey results would apply to the students from those families (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). The profile is not international or global as far as the survey evidence collected so far tells us.
So what weight can be attached to the characteristics of the Net Geners? There is value in knowing those charactersitics to help us understand them and their culture. However, the limitations must be acknowledged for those students nationally and internationally who do not have access or interest in the technology. Appropriate caveats should also be given for any conclusions drawn.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC

Is the Net Generation Tech Savvy? Part II: The Digital Divide within the U.S.

As a follow-up to yesterday's blog on Prensky's "digital natives-digital immigrants" categorizations, this blog extends the issue one step further. Jenkins (2007) says that “digital natives” implies all students share a common body of technology knowledge that they have all mastered. In fact, the term masks their different degrees of access to and comfort with the emerging technologies. Also, rather than focusing on the inadequacies of the “digital immigrants,” he argues we should recognize what they bring with them from the old world which is still valuable. Actually, a significant percentage of professionals working in Silicon Valley are “immigrants” who can probably out-compute most of the “natives.” Prensky’s digital and cultural divide between these groups also short circuits thinking about meaningful collaborations across these generations.
Another problem with Prensky’s “digital native” characterization is that it is not typical of all students. There is a digital divide or participation gap within the U.S. For example, Sax, Ceja, and Terenishi (2001) conducted a study 272,821 freshman and found that, after controlling for income, Afro-Americans and Latinos were less lightly to communicate via e-mail than Whites and Asian-Americans. People with lower incomes have lower rates of Internet use and broadband access (Horrigan, 2006; Horrigan & Rainie, 2005). Finally, students with higher incomes are more lightly to use computers to conduct research, create projects, and analyze data than students with lower incomes (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007).
Tomorrow, we'll examine the digital divide internationally. See you there.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC