Evidences of the Never Ending Discussion of Digital Natives
We've been tracking the developments on something still isn't probed scientifically:The myth of the digital native. About a year now, we cited an article written by G. Siemens and his Digital Natives vs Digital Immigrants. We are still in a level where there is not enough empirical evidence to support the notion of netgen, digital natives, or millennial learners.
A study conducted by Anoush Margaryan and Allison Littlejohn at Glasgow Caledonian and Strathclyde Universities in the UK concludes among other things " that students’ attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by the approaches adopted by their lecturers. Far from demanding lecturers change their practice, students appear to conform to fairly traditional pedagogies, albeit with minor uses of technology tools that deliver content." See PowerPoint presentation for more on The Myth of Digital Native: Students' Use of Technologies.
If this were educational research we should go a bit deeper and on more findings. However, it seems still things haven't changed in a way that we can conclude as many, included myself can say that net-gen is a group which is globally, connected, socially-networked and technologically-fluent.
That's why we have to go back to June, during the 2008. Was in this month that George wrote a post saying that he was in support of changing education for two different reasons (differing from the 'changing learners' of Mark Bullen):" 1) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and create information, and 2) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and connect to each other."
We haven't heard more discussion on this topic. Chris Lott was the only one who wrote a post on this Net-Gen Nonsense:
"The two points with which you [G.Siemens] conclude your post... are changes in learners, and they are changes that happen as a result of living in a very different and quickly changing technologically mediated environment than others. Fight it all you want, but those learners are different. It has nothing to do with age and the biological origins are at best unclear… but it is immaterial. Anyone who pays attention to their students can see this in the divide they face within their classes between the haves and knows and the have not/know nots. Whatever the label, a host of educators nod in recognition of the characteristics regardless of the question of the origins, which has always been my central point in this debate: I don’t care about the reasons as much as I care about the solutions, and I won’t discount what I see and experience because the research (which hasn’t been an enviable guide when it comes to education so far, but that’s a different discussion) isn’t there or isn’t unclear. A refutation would make a difference, but there’s an obvious reason why there isn’t one, and I don’t mean the philosophical bit about proving a negative."
Looking forward to hear or read what had been your empirical findings.
If you want to receive my future posts regularly for FREE, please subscribe in a reader or by e-mail. If you have concerns, Contact Me at anytime.
A study conducted by Anoush Margaryan and Allison Littlejohn at Glasgow Caledonian and Strathclyde Universities in the UK concludes among other things " that students’ attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by the approaches adopted by their lecturers. Far from demanding lecturers change their practice, students appear to conform to fairly traditional pedagogies, albeit with minor uses of technology tools that deliver content." See PowerPoint presentation for more on The Myth of Digital Native: Students' Use of Technologies.
If this were educational research we should go a bit deeper and on more findings. However, it seems still things haven't changed in a way that we can conclude as many, included myself can say that net-gen is a group which is globally, connected, socially-networked and technologically-fluent.
That's why we have to go back to June, during the 2008. Was in this month that George wrote a post saying that he was in support of changing education for two different reasons (differing from the 'changing learners' of Mark Bullen):" 1) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and create information, and 2) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and connect to each other."
We haven't heard more discussion on this topic. Chris Lott was the only one who wrote a post on this Net-Gen Nonsense:
"The two points with which you [G.Siemens] conclude your post... are changes in learners, and they are changes that happen as a result of living in a very different and quickly changing technologically mediated environment than others. Fight it all you want, but those learners are different. It has nothing to do with age and the biological origins are at best unclear… but it is immaterial. Anyone who pays attention to their students can see this in the divide they face within their classes between the haves and knows and the have not/know nots. Whatever the label, a host of educators nod in recognition of the characteristics regardless of the question of the origins, which has always been my central point in this debate: I don’t care about the reasons as much as I care about the solutions, and I won’t discount what I see and experience because the research (which hasn’t been an enviable guide when it comes to education so far, but that’s a different discussion) isn’t there or isn’t unclear. A refutation would make a difference, but there’s an obvious reason why there isn’t one, and I don’t mean the philosophical bit about proving a negative."
Looking forward to hear or read what had been your empirical findings.
If you want to receive my future posts regularly for FREE, please subscribe in a reader or by e-mail. If you have concerns, Contact Me at anytime.
Post a Comment