I am often frustrated by buzzwords and phrases. I understand their purpose. They put a catchy name to complex concepts to make them simple to understand and easy to remember. Heck, a lot of the work I do is with a buzzword my advisor made up ("stealth assessment"). But every time I hear someone talk about "digital natives" or the "iPad Generation" or the "Minecraft Generation," it is like nails on a chalkboard. I get irrationally angry and frustrated. However, I've never thought about why I feel this way. Why are some buzzwords ok and other deeply irritating.
As I sit here thinking about it, I am realizing that it is not these buzzwords themselves, but how they get used in both the scientific literature and in casual conversation. When someone says digital natives, for instance, they typically seem to imply that there is this vast difference between students now and students 10 or 20 years ago. I don't know about that. There are differences, no doubt, but how meaningful are those differences in practice? Crook (2012) suggests that they may not be meaningful at all, at least in a formal education context. Thus, these strong statements make me incredibly uncomfortable. We need to be very careful about what we say and be careful not to go too far, too fast. If we aren't careful, we can make statements that simply aren't true.
Now I'm not saying that we should not think about the concept of "digital natives." Nor am I saying that we as educators cannot learn from the rise of iPads and Minecraft. What I'm saying is that we need to very clearly define these buzzwords when we use them so that we don't imply more than we mean. I think we're all probably guilty of making claims larger than we should (I know I have in the past). When we are writing, we need to make a case for why people should care, and that leads us intentionally or unintentionally inflate meaning. But we need to resist this temptation, because, ultimately, we don't want our work to lead our fields down unproductive paths.
I think the Crook (2012) article from this week's readings illustrates my points well, so check it out!
Reference
Crook, C. (2012). The 'digital native' in context: tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 63-80. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577946
Hi EME6414,
ReplyDeleteInteresting concept about overgeneralizing digital natives, etc. I will tell you though, its a hard and true fact. Now, you'd think that the ipad generation, or whatever you want to call it, would make our kids more technologically adept. I can tell you that the opposite in true.
Kindergarteners are so funny! Using a mouse is a skill that I have to teach every year, sometimes all year. But what's even more funny is that many (most?) kindergarteners, when introduced to a computer lab, touch the screen trying to make the computer do something. Really, you have to laugh.
Michelle, I think the problems come in when we make grand assumptions like "they're all on Facebook, so they would prefer learning via Facebook" and "they all have had mobile phones in their hands since they were toddlers, therefore they must all be motivated by mobile learning." It's true that their experiences are shaped by the time in which they grew up and the access they had to different tools (my kid would be lost with a rotary phone and I'm not sure she knows how to use a landline), but that doesn't mean that they actually prefer or need to learn via a particular method or tool or that they learn better that way.
DeleteI agree Vanessa. I think it's interesting that you both mentioned the usability of various forms of technology though. Kids tapping computer screens like tablets; not understanding how a rotary phone works.
DeleteI wonder if tapping is more intuitive than pointing and clicking with a mouse. Or is it just that the childrens' experiences have conditioned them to behave a certain way. I suppose its probably a little of both. Tapping on something is less abstract than using a mouse (direct manipulation). Perhaps this is why young children gravitate towards touch devices. This, in turn, might develop their expectations about how tools work.
I personally find a mouse way easier to use than a touch screen, but that's likely because I've been using one for twenty years. I consider myself an expert user. I wonder if children today will be expert touch screen users in 20 years. What do you think?
A few thoughts ... before kindergarten, where do kids get access to this tech? Home, maybe preschool. So, to what tech do they have access? I think phones and tablets are the primary thing (and some low-end tablets are marketed to young kids, like Kindle Fire + the leapfrog line of electronics). Parents hand them over in stores, restaurants, cars, etc. for a moment of peace.
DeleteJust thinking about my own child, I wondered where she would learn mouse skills. Ours is a tech-rich household. We have 2 smartphones (+2 old ones kicking around), 6 actively used tablets, and 4 laptops (2 old, 2 new). The laptops are our work machines, and we keep our daughter off of them. And they don't have a mouse attached. All of this tech, and no mouse in sight. At preschool they did have a (very old) computer the kids could share. And that would have been her chance to learn mouse skills. I assume she did. Last year, her K classroom may not have had a student computer (which is fine by me! I'm not a fan of computers in the lower grades for a whole host of reasons). But I saw her on a computer at camp this summer, and she does have some mouse skills. [I'll add that we're thinking of buying a family desktop for Christmas this year, to keep in a central location.]
I do think that touchscreen devices are a bit friendlier for young children because they can do everything on screen. Keyboards can be intimidating, and they are part of the regular set-up when you have a mouse. Just this summer my daughter has been using and iPad + keyboard to send email and I've watched her navigate between screen and keyboard. It's a challenge, especially since her ability to spell is questionable and she still needs to learn keyboarding skills. So, she feels most free to do things on there when she doesn't have to type, and pretty much all of her input experience in a non-typing context has been touch screen.
Funny thing, though. At this point, my only mouse is on my desktop in my FSU office. I do so much online, but either with a trackpad or a touchscreen. The trackpad seems so integrated with the keyboard, that I'm not cognizant of the shifts I do between the two. The touchscreens get so much use that when I go back to a non-touchscreen device I find that I sometimes reach out to the screen and swipe, especially on sites/apps that I most frequently use on a tablet/phone. Use it or lose it?