In my work at the Kurt Hahn School (www.kurthahnschool.org), one of my roles was to help teachers, staff, and students use our online grade book and biographical database programs. Some adults--both those within the D-gen and older--would need only short, targeted instruction on basic functions, at which point I could more or less set them free to explore the system, troubleshooting individual problems as they arose. Other adults--both older than and within the D-gen--required much more significant instruction. They wanted their hands held through every step of the process the first several times that they completed any individual task. They were unwilling, or at the very least, wary of exploring the system beyond the confines of what they had already been shown. I saw the same kinds of trends with my high school students (who were born between 1988 and 1995)--some took to technology like fish to water, while others were starkly phobic and required constant supervision and encouragement--and every level in between.
When thinking of instruction, this range of comfort and fluency reminds me that I can't take technological skill or ignorance for granted in any situation. With every group--whether its an online course, virtual meeting, or face to face walkthrough session, some of my instructional time needs to be devoted to providing an appropriate baseline of technological fluency, as needed by the course. While this could include an option for digital natives to "test out," it needs to be robust enough so that when that initial experience is complete, I can reasonably assume that technical issues will not be the driving factor in determining success from that point on. I also need to be sure that the technology in my instruction supports the learning process--that individuals aren't spending more time learning the technology than learning the content. There are many wonderful technologies out there--but if it takes 3 hours to learn how to use it at even a basic level, it might not be worth it for 15 minutes of instruction.
While I think Prensky is right to say that the world is changing, and that the way we view the world is evolving, I find little evidence to suggest that this gap is either consistent or based only on age. Socioeconomic status, country of origin, access, willingness to experiment, and curiosity seem to be essential factors in determining whether an individual has more in common with the digital natives or the digital immigrants. As an educator, I need to be careful not to assume that all individuals over 30 are digital immigrants--or that those under 30 are digital natives.
Wow! I completely agree with your argument that based on a person's age we cannot assume their digital fluency. I work at a Title 1 school, and while trying to incorporate technology into homework assignments and instruction, I have noticed that even socioeconomic status has an affect on how comfortable some of my students are with technology.
ReplyDeleteSocioeconomic status was a huge influence that I saw in my students (also Title 1 schools), but not the only one. A lot of it came down to whether students had had computers in the home--or had been encouraged by parents to use them at community centers, libraries, etc. Among students who had (or were encouraged to use) computers at home, there seemed to be a strong technological fluency...but not 100%. In the last three years, I've been intrigued by the rise of cellphone internet access...my students consistently had better cell phones than I did...and whether the interfaces are similar enough that someone who becomes extremely fluent on a mobile platform could parlay that into Windows/Mac fluency. Parts of it, I'm sure...but who knows. Thanks for your comment!
ReplyDeleteYes it is true that many of the D-Gen have great technical fluency, many still only use it in certain areas. The D-gen is very comfortable on the internet,downloading music,and playing video games but how many go beyond Facebook,Twitter and You Tube? I noticed that the professional networking site Linked-in still does not have a very diverse age or socioeconomic demographic.I wonder is this because of lack of interest or D-gen people not knowing the benefits of Linked-in. I bring this point up because many employers are now exclusively recruiting on Linked-in while also checking out potential employee Facebook pages for bad content. So the D-gen people tend to be technically fluent but how savvy are we?
ReplyDeleteThe PEW internet studies have some interesting data on who's using what kinds of internet resources based on their generation (http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx). Some of the uses are fairly predictable--while others struck me as unusual or odd. I'm consistently struck by how often these surveys tend to document use of technology, but not also the creation of technologies (although they do talk about blogging and social networking a bit). I'd love to see what the statistics are for individuals creating and actively managing websites, podcasts, youtube channels, etc...but I'd be fairly willing to bet that it's a very small sector of the population.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Linkedin goes, I consider myself to be fairly tech-savvy and I hadn't heard about it until 6 months ago, when a friend who was in the middle of a jobsearch mentioned it to me. I continue to find it awkward to use--it's not as visually organized as Facebook and it can be difficult to find what you're looking for--but I do have a fairly complete profile on it. I think Linkedin could do a lot more to advertise and streamline their site--but also that professionals and schools could do a better job of marketing it to individuals as important tools in the jobsearch process.