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

What Should We Name This Generation?

Educators, authors, and researchers have used a variety of terms to name this generation. In fact, it has become a rather contentious issue. The book titles alone reveal this variation, for example, Millennials, Generation Y, Trophy Kids, Net Generation, and Digital Natives, to cite just a few. This has produced considerable confusion among faculty and administrators and much debate over the most appropriate label. Here are nine proposed names or monikers and brief rationales:

1. Millennials: for the high school graduating class of 2000 as they entered the new millennium.
2. Generation Y: derived simply from the succession of one generation to the next—the demographic cohort following Gen Xers.
3. Echo Boomers: the Baby Boom has an echo and it’s even louder than the original; the offspring of the Boomers.
4. Net Generation: linked directly to the (Inter)net and the emerging digital technology of the 1990s with which this generation grew up.
5. Trophy Generation (or Trophy Kids): derived from competitive sports and the practice where no one loses and everyone receives a “trophy” (actually a certificate) for participating.
6. First Digitals: associated with the Digital Revolution during the 1990s; this generation is the first to grow up immersed in everything digital.
7. Digital Aboriginals: the aborigines’ view of the world that all things are connected; this generation’s behaviors are analyzed from an anthropological perspective.
8. Nexters: might be considered a slang version of Next Generation.
9. Digital Natives: “digital” is their native language; they are “native speakers” of the language of computers, video games, and the Internet and have spent their entire lives surrounded by computers, cell phones, and all the gadgetry of the digital age.

After this review of names, the one name that seems the simplest, most descriptive, least controversial, and easily understood, and reflects the profound influence of the Internet on these students’ lives is: Net Generation or Net Geners. I will use that term in future blogs.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC

Defining the Net Generation by Birth Date

Although the birth dates used to define this generation have varied in different surveys, there seems to be some agreement in the literature—typically between 1982 and 2003 (standard error of ± 2years). Those students are now 6 to 27 years old. That translates educationally into 1st grade through graduate school. However, some authors have lumped them into much narrower (1978–1984) and wider ranges (1976–2003), and everywhere in between.
The birth-date range affects estimates of the size of this generation. Current figures range from 80 to 90 million, about a 3rd of the U.S. population. It is the largest generation in history, even larger than the Baby Boomers. The eldest members have graduated college and are either entering graduate school and/or the workplace in droves. They are "flooding" the workplace, which has presented employers with a whole new set of issues to deal with 4 different generations, working side by side. Hummm. Those issues will be dealt with in a future blog.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC

Can the Net Generation Be Clearly Defined?

Defining (by birth dates) and labeling any group of people and ascribing specific characteristics to them are fraught with problems of misrepresentation and generalization. Several researchers have proffered reasons and particular advantages to identifying this generation as well as others and their distinguishing characteristics. However, the concept of a clear-cut generation, cohort, population, or tribe has also been challenged. Despite the role of technology in their lives, they are infinitely more complex than any single profile can reveal. They comprise a fluid, messy, and diverse group, where a one-size-fits-all mold ignores their variability in skills, abilities, learning styles, experience, socio-economic levels, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and class. Acknowledging those limitations, I still think there is legitimacy to suggesting a set of characteristics and cultural trends derived from sound scientific research that can guide future teaching practices for faculty.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC