Un petit complément ici:

Le débat sur la pédagogie applicable aux nouvelles générations, s'agissant de l'école en particulier (voir par exemple ici), tend à s'enfermer dans un opposition binaire entre transmission et modernité. Ce qu'exprime très bien le professeur Benton, c'est que dans l'éducation, il s'agit toujours de mettre en couple tradition et modernité:

Un des objectifs de l’enseignement, (..) est de traiter les différences, réelles ou imaginées, entre les générations. Ce qui signifie aujourd’hui rencontrer les "digital natives” où ils sont, mais cela signifie aussi attendre d’eux qu’ils rencontrent les “digital immigrants” - ceux qui n’ont pas été élevés devant un micro-ordinateur - où ils sont.

et, donc, plus précisément de relier les générations.

Cette tâche, constitutive de l'ambition éducative, exige aujourd'hui un souci d'autant plus appliqué que l'effet de l'accélération des évolutions techno-informationnelles se trouve en quelque sorte mis au carré du fait que les nouvelles techniques favorisent l'intégration horizontale intra-générationnelle. Jean-Luc Raymond, sur le site de l'EPN, rend compte des travaux de Dominique Pasquier:

Les technologies ont tendance à renforcer des différences intergénérationnelles et donc des clivages entre les âges. A la différence des générations présentes où les objets technologiques étaient “contrôlés” dans le foyer (exemple du téléphone fixe dans une pièce à disposition de tous), le téléphone mobile (GSM) utilisé par l’adolescent fait qu’il n’y a plus de rupture communicationnelle avec les personnes de son âge à l’issue du temps scolaire et de loisirs. Cette communication générationnelle est renforcée par la continuité d’usages des outils. Dominique Pasquier cite l’exemple de la chambre du jeune devenue de plus en plus un refuge où se trouvent ces outils et où les pratiques se construisent. De ce fait, les adolescents sont dans une sociabilité horizontale et dans un conformisme renforcé.

Ailleurs, je note que l'accent mis sur la coupure générationnelle tend à occulter d'autres déterminations qui entrent dans l'équation d'une stratégie pédagogique, en particulier les classiques déterminatons socio-culturelles. Cependant il faut noter que les déterminations générationnelles ne sont pas indépendantes des déterminations socio-culturelles: selon l'enquête Ithaque de 2007 pour le CNL, par exemple, si les adolescents qui lisent le moins de livres (25%) sont aussi ceux qui passent le plus de temps sur internet, leurs parents n’utilisent jamais un ordinateur, à l’inverse les parents des adolescents qui lisent le plus de livres (8%) utilisent souvent un ordinateur et régulent l’usage de l’internet et des jeux vidéos de leurs enfants (je me recopie). C'est-à-dire qu'on assiste, pour les milieux à fort capital culturel, à une transmission inter-générationnelle de ce qu'on pourrait appeler une méta-compétence informationnelle et qu'il existe une forte corrélation négative entre le capital culturel et la fracture numérique générationnelle.

Il est par suite remarquable et explicable à la fois que les résultats les plus spectaculaires de l'expérimentation Med@tice se montrent dans le "lissage" des inégalités socio-culturelles. En traitant la fracture générationnelle, on traite du même coup la fracture culturelle dans la mesure où les étudiants les plus handicapés par la première sont aussi ceux qui disposent du moindre capital culturel familial. Où l'on voit - tout en gardant en mémoire que l'expérimentation Med@tice vise le public très particulier des étudiants en médecine - que, pour l'enseignement, l'opposition des objectifs d'égalité et de transmission n'est pas irréductible.

L'avenir du cours magistral est-il dans le e-learning?

A l'occasion de la présentation de la plateforme pédagogique Jalon, je découvre Med@tice, l'expérience de réforme pédagogique de la 1ère année de Médecine à Grenoble, mis en oeuvre en septembre 2006. En gros: les cours magistraux sont remplacés par des cours multimédia regroupés sur des DVD-roms, les séances en présence des enseignants sont réservées aux questions /réponses consécutives à l'étude réalisée par les étudiants des cours multimédia. En gros parce que la séquence d'apprentissage est un peu plus complexe et sophistiquée, articulée en 4 semaines et 4 types d'activités pédagogiques, on en trouve la description précise dans un tutoriel disponible sur le site de Med@tice (voir diapo extraite du tutoriel ci-dessous) - mais c'est l'articulation magistral / interactivité, présentiel / multimedia qui me semble particulièrement remarquable.

On trouve sur Canal-U plusieurs exposés de Daniel Pagonis faisant un bilan de cette restructuration pédagogique. Un des élément les plus remarquables est l'effet "lissant" de la nouvelle stratégie
quant aux inégalités socio-culturelles des étudiants. Ainsi le ratio CSP Parents: Cadres vs. Agriculteurs/Artisans/Ouvriers passe de 2,3 pour les années 2001-2006, à 1,1 pour l'année 2007, le ratio Bac série S Maths vs.autres Bacs passe de 6,4 à 1,9, à l'inverse le ration Bourse vs. pas de Bourse passe de 0,8 à 1,1. (Les diapositives ci-dessous proviennent de la présentation de Daniel Pagonis et jean-Paul Romanet au CDME SIFEM 2008).

Si l'on tente une explication de cet effet impressionnant, on se dit que le cours magistral classique, reposant sur un flux d'éloquence dans un français élaboré, va particulièrement avantager les étudiants en possession d'un fort capital culturel. La stricte linéarité de l'exposé expose l'étudiant dont les compétences linguistiques sont imparfaites ou lacunaires au risque de perdre le fil. De disposer de l'exposé sous forme enregistrée permet à l'étudiant de le traiter selon sa propre temporalité, de revenir sur les passages difficiles, en particulier en raison du niveau de langue. De façon complémentaire, la séance de questions / réponses en présence de l'enseignant lui permet de vérifier sa compréhension pour éventuellement revenir sur le cours enregistré.

En quelque sorte le contenu d'un cours magistral est analysé, dissocié entre d'une part un contenu qui est traité de façon documentaire, qui devient un objet manipulable par l'apprenant et d'autre part le "présentiel" qui va être réservée à l'interaction, interaction limitée dans le cadre du cours magistral classique au feed-back de la "salle" vers l'orateur.

L'avenir du e-learning est-il dans le cours magistral?

Paralèlement, dans le Chronicle of Higher Education du mois dernier, le professeur Tomas H. Benton s'interroge sur les manières d'enseigner aux digital natives et en particulier sur la pertinence du cours magistral:

le tabou qui frappe les cours magistraux réduit parfois la liberté des enseignants d’expérimenter à partir d’une méthode traditionnelle d’une manière qui peut répondre aux compétences particulières des “natifs du numérique” - telles que l’interconnectivité et l’intuition - tout en les entraînant à l’usage de la preuve et de l’argumentation rationnelle.

On croirait lire là une introduction à l'expérimentation grenobloise (alors même que la méthode du professeur Benton est très différente - voir les quelques extraits traduits ici - mais partage avec celle de Med@tice le souci de casser la linéarité du cours magistral pour le rendre appréhensible par les nouvelles économies de l'attention).

Les leçons qu'on peut tirer de l'expérience grenobloise et de ce qui apparaît comme son succès sont multiples, en particulier elle montre que développer une offre pédagogique numérique ne peut se limiter à transformer les enseignements en une sorte de supermarché numérique où l'étudiant viendrait "librement" faire ses courses et qu'elle n'est pas un moyen pour dispenser les enseignants d'enseigner (ou pour les pouvoirs publics d'économiser les heures d'enseignement).

Une leçon plus paradoxale serait à tirer de cette constatation que le cours magistral se prête mieux à l'analyse/dissociation du dispositif Med@tice entre un contenu documentarisé et un présentiel réservé à l'interactivité que des formes d'enseignement plus interactives comme le travail en groupe. A se demander si l'avenir du e-learning n'est pas dans le cours magistral ;-)

L'extrait que je donne ici (après le saut) représente la partie de la communication dont je me suis plus particulièrement occupé, il est un peu augmenté par rapport à la communication définitive.

Propositions:

• le modèle de la "fracture numérique générationnelle" ne rend qu'imparfaitement compte de la réalité des pratiques informationnelles en milieu universitaire,
• il tend en particulier à minorer l'impact des déterminations socio-culturelles,
• les enquêtes sur les pratiques informationnelles des étudiants tendent à s'appuyer sur ce modèle et à évaluer ces pratiques en les confrontant à une norme, celle des "bonnes pratiques" selon les médiateurs (bibliothécaires, enseignants, formateurs),
• un modèle non normatif d'évaluation, fondé sur l'efficacité plutôt que sur la légitimité des méthodes et des outils, peut seul permettre de découvrir de nouvelles stratégies informationnelles, visant à concilier les fins et les exigences académiques avec la nouvelle donne techno-informationnelle,
• l'examen des pratiques informationnelles des chercheurs devrait permettre de repérer un usage des nouvelles pratiques du web (web 2.0) où celui-ci est perçu non comme venant impacter le monde universitaire de l'extérieur mais comme une opportunité au service des fins propres de ce monde (Science 2.0).

L'extrait après le saut (une version complète, mais non définitive, de la communication est consultable sur le wiki de l'Urfist de Nice).

Googlisation ?

Un certain nombre d’enquêtes en milieu universitaire (en 2003 aux Etats-Unis (MARCUM & GEORGE, 2003) et au Québec (MITTERMEYER & QUIRION, 2003), en 2005 sur deux universités parisiennes (MARESCA et al. 2005), en 2006 sur une université lilloise (DESPRES-LONNET & COURTECUISSE, 2006) , en 2008 en Belgique francophone (THIRION , 2008) et sur les universités de Bretagne (HENRIET et al., 2008)...) semble confirmer les résultats de notre observation participante : utilisation réflexe des outils hégémoniques du web, méconnaissance de tout ou partie des ressources documentaires et de leur logique d’interrogation, appropriation accrue de l’informatique.

Cette constatation se laisse facilement thématiser selon un modèle qui correspond à une appréhension commune et spontanée des effets de la « révolution numérique », celui de la « fracture numérique générationnelle » qui opposerait les digital natives , nés avec le numérique ou peu avant, spontanément « alphabétisés » dans l’univers numérique et dans l’internet, aux générations plus anciennes et aux compétences et procédures de ces dernières notamment en matière de recherche et de validation de l’information . Caractéristique des digital natives serait une appropriation spontanée, prédiscursive (préconsciente) des outils, ie des interfaces du web. Cette fracture est appréciée de manière ambivalente : les digital natives s’ils sont à l’aise avec le monde numérique, manqueraient des outils de compréhension, d’analyse et de critique d’une information appréhendée sans distance et passivement.

Ainsi la plupart des enquêtes citées ci-dessus confrontent les populations étudiantes (en situation de digital natives) avec les « bonnes pratiques » de la recherche documentaire, telles que fixées, pour l’essentiel, dans la situation documentaire précédant l’irruption du web (usage de la bibliothèque et de son OPAC, interrogation des bases de données), « bonnes pratiques » envisagées si nécessaire dans l’environnement du web mais indemnes des usages spécifiques engendrés par celui-ci. Et avec plus ou moins de nuances, les constats confirment la fracture générationnelle : usage massif et non-critique des outils du web les plus populaires (Google et Wikipedia), délaissement voire ignorance des outils documentaires classiques.

Beyond Google ? Les bonnes pratiques du St Mary’s College

Une enquête présentée dans un article de First Monday (HEAD, 2007) et portant sur les pratiques informationnelles des étudiants de St Mary’s College, en Californie, semble contredire ces constats. Elle fait état de pratiques plus conformes à ce que les médiateurs tendent à considérer comme les « bonnes pratiques » : recherches en bibliothèque, outils spécialisés, recours aux médiateurs...

On peut relativiser ces surprenants résultats car ils sont issus d’une université catholique américaine dans le domaine des SHS et correspondent donc à une stratégie pédagogique délibérée. Ils suffisent cependant à indiquer que la situation n'est pas homogène et un retour, par-delà les synthèses, sur les résultats des enquêtes nous montre que l'apparente homogénéité des constats globaux cache des pratiques diverses et  fait apparaître une contradiction moindre entre les constatations de St Mary's College et ces résultats.

Quelques résultats remarquables de l’enquête rennaise

Prenons par exemple, parmi les enquêtes citées, la plus récente d’entre elles, celle qui porte sur les universités de Bretagne (HENRIET et al., 2008). Si le constat global correspond bien à l’impression générale, certains résultats particuliers viennent cependant nuancer le tableau. S’ils ne contestent pas la pertinence du constat global, ils en limitent la portée au point de mettre en question la valeur explicative du modèle qui le sous-tend.

Nous relèverons quatre points de discussion :
•    Si 96% des doctorants bretons utilisent prioritairement pour leurs recherches les moteurs de recherche et si parmi ceux-ci, c’est à 85% de Google qu’il s’agit, ils sont cependant 37% à utiliser Google Scholar. Or pour porter l’étiquette « Google », Google Scholar est un outil très différent du moteur généraliste. Il est spécifiquement destiné au public universitaire et chercheur et offre accès à une documentation généralement pertinente pour la recherche . Mais les 37% d’utilisation d’un outil spécialisé viennent nuancer le constat massif des 96% d’utilisation d’outils généralistes. D’autant plus que Google Scholar, qui souffre de la méfiance des médiateurs à l’endroit de la maison Google et de la concurrence qu’il vient faire aux outils mis en place par ceux-ci (interfaces « documentation électronique » des SCD en particulier), n’est pas particulièrement promu par ces médiateurs.
•    « 94% des doctorants n’utilisent jamais ou rarement les blogs ». C’est-à-dire que la dynamique « web 2.0 » semble ne pas toucher les doctorants, du moins dans le cadre de leurs activités académiques. Or les caractéristiques essentielles de ce qu’on appelle « web 2.0 » (user generated content, participation, horizontalité, démédiation...) métonymisent une part essentielle des nouvelles pratiques prêtées aux digital natives .
•    L’enquête constate une importante demande de formation à la recherche, l’analyse et l’exploitation de l’information (plus de 60%), constatation qui vient en contradiction avec celles d’enquêtes antérieures qui indiquaient un manque d’intérêt pour la formation documentaire . Ainsi, pour les doctorants bretons au moins, Google n’est pas une évidence auto-suffisante.
•    Enfin l’enquête reflète une forte demande (plus de 60% encore) de sélection de ressources et d’intermédiarisation.

Ainsi il apparaît que si les déficits de compétences informationnelles des doctorants bretons sont réels, ils semblent conscients de ce manque. La situation n’est donc pas celle d’une confrontation binaire entre deux « littératies », l’ancienne et la nouvelle. Tout en apparaissant en moindre contradiction avec le cadre général que les résultats de l’enquête californiens, l’enquête bretonne impose une conclusion somme toute identique.

Une enquête « flash »

Nous avons réalisé en préparation de cet article une enquête « flash » par questionnaire auprès des chercheurs du laboratoire I3M de l’université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis  . La faible population sondée et les conditions de l’enquête interdisent toute généralisation. Elle n’en fait pas moins apparaître, chez des chercheurs trop âgés pour être classés comme digital natives, une grande diversité de stratégies de recherche où l’on pourra cependant reconnaître les caractéristiques des stratégies attribuées aux étudiants digital natives (prépondérance de Google en particulier) mais plus ou moins modulées, parfois par des éléments inattendus (importance du livre acheté en librairie), et donc sans qu’il soit possible d’en rendre compte par l’adéquation à un modèle unique.

Les limites du modèle « fracture générationnelle numérique »

Ces observations nous amènent à remettre en cause la valeur explicative et descriptive du modèle de la « fracture numérique générationnelle ». Une étude réalisée par University College London pour la British Library et le JISC, parue en janvier 2008 (UCL, 2008), si elle souligne bien les carences en compétences informationnelles des jeunes générations, remet en cause la notion de digital natives en montrant que les traits comportementaux censés caractériser ces derniers tendent à se répandre aujourd’hui dans tous les groupes d’âges.

Par ailleurs, si la fracture générationnelle n’est pas absolue, les pratiques ne sont pas homogènes au sein de la Google generation des digital natives. Un article récent de Danah Boyd (BOYD, 2007) montre ainsi que le « choix » d’un réseau social est sociologiquement déterminé. La synthèse de l’enquête sur la lecture et les loisirs multimédias des adolescents réalisée en 2007 pour le CNL et la direction du livre (ITHAQUE, 2007) montre également une forte détermination sociologique des pratiques de l’internet au sein de la « génération numérique ». Si les adolescents qui lisent le moins de livres (25%) sont aussi ceux qui passent le plus de temps sur internet, leurs parents n’utilisent jamais un ordinateur. A l’inverse les parents des adolescents qui lisent le plus de livres (8%) utilisent souvent un ordinateur et régulent l’usage de l’internet et des jeux vidéos de leurs enfants . Les caractéristiques sociologiques discriminantes mises en lumière par ces travaux déterminent vraisemblablement des différences analogues dans l’appropriation des outils du web dans le cadre universitaire.

Recenser les stratégies

Au-delà d'un modèle, certes en grande partie pertinent mais qui tend à réduire unilatéralement la réalité, notamment en occultant les déterminations socio-culturelles, il est nécessaire de reconnaître, d'ordonner et d'évaluer des stratégies diverses. Ce recensement ne peut se contenter d'être descriptif : il y a en perspective de nos investigations des visées pratiques, en particulier l'adaptation des stratégies de formation à l'IST aux pratiques, attentes et besoins des acteurs universitaires. L'évaluation est donc nécessaire.

La plupart des enquêtes citées ci-dessus confrontent les pratiques observées à ce que les médiateurs (enseignants, formateurs, bibliothécaires) considèrent comme les "bonnes pratiques". En somme elles évaluent en mesurant l'écart à une norme. Comme le public visé est principalement celui des étudiants, cet écart peut facilement être interprété en termes générationnels. C'est supposer que les pratiques informationnelles des chercheurs actifs correspondent bien à cette norme et de façon plus générale à un "état de l'art" relativement stable. Tout nous indique au contraire (voir notre enquête "flash" ou l'étude de UCL (UCL, 2008)) que ces pratiques sont en pleine évolution.

Les deux paradoxes d'une approche privilégiant l'observation des apprenants sont de présenter la "révolution numérique" comme un facteur extérieur venant impacter le monde universitaire alors que celui-ci est un des principaux acteurs, voire le principal acteur, à l'origine de cette révolution et de suggérer que les pratiques de recherche évoluent de manière endogène par l'intégration du "donné numérique" : par le passage au numérique des revues scientifiques, par le développement de l'accès ouvert (open access), par l'utilisation des outils du web 2.0 (blogues de chercheurs, wiki de laboratoires...), ce qu'on étiquette sous "open science" ou "Science 2.0". Les enquêtes montrent au contraire une déconnexion entre ce domaine d'innovation et les pratiques des apprenants. Or une approche normative distinguant a priori apprenants et compétents permet mal de percevoir les éventuelles connexions qui permettraient d'étayer l'acquisition des compétences informationnelles sur les pratiques extra-universitaires des apprenants.

Plutôt que sur une norme implicite, nous proposons de baser l'évaluation sur la finalité des pratiques informationnelles, en d'autres termes d'évaluer les stratégies de recherche d'information en se posant la question de leur efficacité au regard des finalités académiques elles-mêmes. Une telle évaluation suppose l'analyse des résultats en termes de bruit et de silence et ne saurait être réalisée sur des échelles comparables à celles des enquêtes normatives. Elle est cependant possible sur des échantillons représentatifs d'une typologie. Cette approche de l'évaluation permettrait de viser dans la même observation apprenants avancés et chercheurs, d'examiner autrement qu'en termes d'écart les rapports entre les compétences académiques et les pratiques extra-universitaires et peut-être ainsi de proposer des pistes pour les enseignants, pour les formateurs à l'IST et pour les bibliothécaires.

Le critère d'efficacité cependant ne peut suffire à articuler une typologie. Comme nous venons de le noter, une typologie, même imparfaite, est plutôt une condition pratique d'une telle évaluation. Pour ordonner les observations sur une typologie, il est nécessaire de proposer des pistes théoriques pour la compréhension des mécanismes cognitifs mis en oeuvre dans les pratiques informationnelles.

"In a little while," my parents assured me. 

Then, what seemed like an hour later--but which was probably eight minutes later--I'd ask again, this time with sing-songy cadence, "when are we going to be there?"  This whining and pestering would continue at least a half a dozen more times.

When they were fed up with the repetitive questioning, my parents would engage me in games of "20 Questions" or "I Spy" until I was spent.  Then I'd sprawl out across the back seat--no seatbelt laws or siblings afforded great comfort--and take a nap until we finally got "there."

Today, with DVD players for those long car trips, SMS for doctors' waiting rooms and CNN at airport gates, Digital Natives never experience boredom.  "Always on" is their way of life.  Life is faster-paced, days are jam-packed and the Internet never sleeps.

At Digital Media Wire's NY Games Conference a few weeks ago, I heard a panel of teens talk about how they play certain video games--mostly the old arcade games like Mario Brothers that we found invigorating and competitive--to relax.  97% of teens game.  It's common for teens to game 2 1/2 hours per day.  They watch less than 1/2 hour of TV per day.  Interactive is their way of life...and their way of rest.  Their brains are wired differently.  Maybe they don't need the "veg" time that we Digital Immigrants still crave.

Today, withister bopping to Hannah Montana on her iPod, brother watching Shrek on the portable DVD player and dad working on his laptop while mom drives, there is no time for--no need for--"passing the time" with the mundane family banter and games that helped us to survive these car trips when we were kids.  Digital Natives' memories of car trips will be neutral, if nonexistent.  They won't remember that "that was the car trip when I watched Shrek," because that was probably the 24th time they watched that movie. 

Though the long car trips that we grew up with were annoying at the time, they were terrific family bonding experiences, just like (well, actually not really at all like) Chevy Chase's movie, National Lampoon's Vacation, and its sequels.  I wonder how today's lack impromptu, undefined cartrip dialogue is changing the connections between family members.  Perhaps it's alienating, perhaps it's a relief from forced togetherness in tight quarters.

But what about the truth of the saying, "it's about the journey, not the destination"?  I feel torn about the rules I create for my own children about the ambient time of the journey.  On one hand, I feel that they should "suffer" like I did and learn to occupy themselves with their own thoughts and time together with me, my husband and each other (and perhaps because I secretly have fond memories of the laughs that my parents and had from reading aloud the sides of trucks on I-95).  On the other hand, why should they pass their time listlessly or with mundane chatter when MP3s and the mobile Web provide more engaging, entertaining and educational ways to occupy themselves? 

Die Youngsters diskutierten intensiv mit diversen Unternehmensvertretern ueber die Areitswelt der Zukunft. Dabei wurde auch wiederholt auf die Initiative DNAdigital Bezug genommen, die sich ganz explizit mit dieser Fragestellung auseinandersetzt und auf einer eigenen Plattform den Austausch zwischen den "jungen Wilden" und den Unternehmen vorantreibt!

Unser besonderer Dank hier nochmals ausdruecklich an die time4you GmbH, die die Fahrkarten fuer unsere Youngsters gesponsort hat!

"It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.

Today‟s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century. Today‟s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.

Today‟s students – K through college – represent the first generations to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Today‟s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives.

It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today‟s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures, “ says Dr. Bruce D. Perry of Baylor College of Medicine. As we shall see in the next installment, it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed. I will get to how they have changed in a minute.

What should we call these “new” students of today? Some refer to them as the N-[for Net]-gen or D-[for digital]-gen. But the most useful designation I have found for them is Digital Natives. Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.

So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them, Digital Immigrants."

To read more, the rest of the article is found here..

After reading this article I agreed with much of what it was saying, such as the ubiquitous nature of technology surrounding youth k-12 and how growing up in an environment composing entirely of computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging could fundamentally alter the way your brain would have normally developed and shaped your thinking and way of processing information. However I disagree with the author when he assumes that there is cut-off in which one could learn the language of a Digital Native, and that if you have not been immersed in Technology from birth you will always be an immigrant with an "accent." Individuals who seek out new ways to do things are often surprised by the simplicity of digital systems, which in turn excites them to learn more and integrate a Digital Native way of life into their own lifestyle. I have witnessed many so called "immigrants" who have mastered c++, java, HTML, and learned new software and fundamentals of computer hardware as well as the ability to find information using different mediums such as the internet. I cannot notice an "accent" because these immigrants learned the language from Digital Natives, in fact once you learn the fundamentals of the N-Generation you realize how easy it is to self educate and figure things out on your own! Suddenly those pop-ups stop popping up because you have successfully downloaded and installed free anti-malware software and cleaned up your own PC. On the other hand there are some students who are not even considered Digital Natives, but rather fit more into what the author thinks older generations are. They are either unwilling to learn or unaware of the advances and new ways to do things. I would define my generation as very connected, adaptable, and accepting. This separates us from older generations who do not share the strengths of learning different ways to do tasks and the ability to share information quickly. Notwithstanding, however, we find specimens of both sides. Those in both the N-Generation and the Older Generation who speak in the digital beeps and whistles and those who do not.

]]> http://henrymik.wordpress.com/?p=3 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:22:38 +0000 henrymik http://henrymik.fr.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/digital-natives-digital-immigrants-response/

The conflict between today’s technology centered existence, and the outdated school curriculum is a real one. Many “digital natives” (including myself), can attest to the complications caused by their educators’ lack of tech savvy.

The author’s background gives him significant authority to speak on the subject, and attest to the frustrations felt by both students and teachers. His personal experiences as an educator, and his research give an alarming assessment of today’s education system.

Pensky claims that a discontinuity of considerable magnitude has taken place, between today’s educators and the “digital native generation.” A change large enough to have changed digital natives’ thought patterns, and possibly, the very physicality of their brains. He then suggests, that the difference in today’s young learners and their “digital immigrant” educators, is large enough to explain the recent decline in the field of education. Finally, Pensky gives a suggestion on how to reform the education system, to fit the way “digital natives” have learned to process information.

As a digital native, I have first hand experience of the kind of conflict the author talks about. However, these problems have not been large enough to hinder my success in a traditional learning environment. In fact, the current problems with education are more multi-faceted than Pensky’s article would suggest.

His particular background as a creator of “edutainment”, causes him to approach this problem through the prism of technology. Initially, he makes the case that technology has resulted in a lack of reading, by citing hours spent on various activities versus reading. Yet he gives us no indication, of how much time earlier generations spent on reading, in relation to other activities. Activities which may have simply been replaced by technology. Also, much of today’s technology is reading-based. Text messages, blogs, e-mails, social networking sites all center around reading and writing. This would contradict his implied notion that lesser amounts of reading is at the source of the problem. In fact, by his own reasoning, the advent of radio and television, should have caused a discontinuity, decades before the introduction of today‘s technologies.

Pensky chooses to focus on the last few decades of the 20^th century, without considering the complex societal changes occurring at that time. Globalization, huge tax cuts for the rich and increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, should also be analyzed in relation to the decline in education. We do not get any information about a possible technology disparity, between different social groups. Instead “digital natives” are seen as an identical group of people.

His own admission to the failures of his field, suggests that there is more complexity to the problem than he realizes. “Although most attempts to ‘edutainment’ have essentially failed from both the education and the entertainment perspective, we can - and will, I predict - do much better.” (pg. 5). We do not get any explanation, as to why “edutainment” will eventually succeed. Suggesting that the software-creators, have an insufficient understanding of the problem, to actually solve it.

Pensky’s ambition and passion for saving the state of our education system should not be questioned. However it is impossible to create a one-size fits all solution for the “digital native generation“. A hugely diverse population, with different levels of access to the “digital native” lifestyle.

 

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired’s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace  anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

Anecdotes alone don’t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits , conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:

 

 It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

 

Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We arehow we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.

Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

 

His article makes sense that many people felt the same as he is. After that,  James Bowmen from The New Atlantis wrote an article as a response for Carr, Is Stupid Making Us Google? which gives an explanation and alternatives for this problem among digital people.

In brief, I believe this is one of the challenge for the digital natives as a process to evolve into a more completed form method of online reading and thinking. Maybe one day, we will develop a new way of thinking that makes us much more superior than generation before, which they used traditional sense when reading.

"Die meisten Jugendlichen haben bis zu ihrem 20. Lebensjahr Tausende Computerspiel-Stunden hinter sich und eignen sich dadurch Fähigkeiten und Denkmuster an, die der älteren Generation völlig fremd sind." Der veränderte, natürliche Umgang mit Technologie zieht Rappoport zufolge große Auswirkungen auf etablierte Unternehmen und Wirtschaftszweige nach sich. Analog zu Computerspielen, wo man mit Risikoverhalten schnell zum Ziel komme bzw. nach einem "Game Over" einfach neu beginne, zeichne sich die junge Generation durch Risikobereitschaft und schnelles Handeln aus. "Heute sind 25-Jährige, die bereits sechs bis sieben Firmengründungen hinter sich haben, keine Seltenheit mehr.

Diese Denkweise spiele auch bei der Akzeptanz und Integration neuer Technologien in Unternehmen eine wichtige Rolle. Sobald diese Digitale Natives in die Führungsebenen der Unternehmen hineinwachsen, müssen sich auch Unternehmen wie IBM darauf einstellen, "um ihre Kunden weiterhin mit den gewünschten Services und Innovationen versorgen zu können."

Dass diese Informationsflut für immer mehr Menschen schlichtweg eine Überforderung darstellt, meinte hingegen der Rostocker Universitätsprofessor Clemens Cap bei seinem Vortrag in Zürich. "Wir werden daher die Frage lösen müssen, wie der Informationsraum, der einen in bestimmten Lebenssituationen und Kontexten umgibt, gestaltet und limitiert werden muss, damit der Einzelne überhaupt einen persönlichen Nutzen daraus ziehen kann."

Zur Meldung: IBM ortet gespaltene Technologie-Gesellschaft, PTE 23.9.2008

Rapid social and technological change has had a big impact on the way that the world works. We find technology of various sorts everywhere today - in cars, fridges, ovens, television sets and telephones. Computers control the design and manufacture of everything from jet aircraft to bicycles. We use computers increasingly to shop on line, to watch television, to download and listen to music and watch films. The world wide web is our store of information and, increasingly, the place where we meet, communicate, share and manage information and compete with others, using applications like Facebook, Flickr and Del.icio.us and fast, online multiplayer games like World of Warcraft.

Amongst the biggest digital consumers in this world are young people who have never known a non-digital world. Prensky (2001:1) calls these people digital natives, young people who "have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age." As such, their view of the world and the way they interface with it is different to those of us who were born before computers were readily available. Prensky (page 2) says that "Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to 'serious' work. "

Prensky (2001) believes that the world of formal education does not really cater for this generation, given that it tends to be highly structured, linear and slow moving. He suggests (page 4) that it is important for teachers to "learn to communicate in the language and style of their students. This doesn’t mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills. But it does mean going faster, less step-by step, more in parallel, with more random access, among other things. "

Others have also written about the different way young people view life and work. According to Oblinger (2008:24) "today's students use their computer as their notebook, locker, backpack and organiser. They expect technology to provide solutions for their wants and needs. Students say they want more 'learning-on-the-go' options and mobile device services to align with their mobile lifestyle." Those of you who have recently finished degrees at university will be able to associate with these issues.

Recent research by Creanor and Trinder (2006) looked, inter alia,  at the nature of effective e-learners. Amongst other things, they believe that (page 26) "technology should be used to enhance their learning and are clear that they will not engage with it if they feel it is not to their advantage." For many,  "technology is an integral part of their lives and they feel particularly strong attachments to their personal gadgets such as Internet enabled mobile phones, MP3 players and laptops, which they use to support their learning, often experimenting with innovative usage."  They also take advantage of technology to fit learning into their daily lives, and are good at multi-tasking, with "the boundary between using technology for learning and leisure is becoming increasingly blurred."

While much of the literature on digital natives has been focused at higher education institutions, it is important to keep in mind that primary school children are also digital natives. They are users of the same tools, with many having their own camera phones, X-boxes, iPods and computers. We need to reflect on the relevance of ICT for primary pupils and contrast this with the level of accessibility in the average classroom.

To what extent do primary schools and teachers understand the changing nature of the world we are living in and the impact of information and communications technology on society, learning and teaching? Do they know that many pupils in their classes are used to having broadband access and that they play fast paced games? Would they agree that the issues we are discussing are relevant to primary pupils and schools, or do they think that they apply only to teenagers? What are teacher's beliefs about learning and do they understand that social and technological change must of necessity impact on the way we learn?

The importance that government places on the use of ICT suggests that they believe ICT is important for all school goers. However, while industry and business has been quick to embrace the power of information and communications technology, schools have not. This is not to say that they have rejected it out of hand. Schools have bought  computers, interactive white boards and other equipment and ICT is a required course for trainee teachers. Generally speaking, however, educators are always playing catch up as the potential of these technologies as educational tools slowly becomes apparent. There are a number of reasons for this, which I will discuss under the broad headings provision and placement and resistance to change.

Provision and placement.

Notwithstanding the support of government, computers and other ICTs remain expensive for schools as non-profit making institutions. A high level of personalisation is necessary for computers and other ICT equipment to be effectively used - basically, the equipment needs to be available as and when the user needs it. Ownership is an important aspect of technology use and ideally each child should have a computer. Instead, we have the situation where many schools still place computers in shared difficult-to-use suites, which need to be booked out in advance. This does not fit with the always-on always-available nature of ICT use in society, even with more and more schools are investing in portable and shareable laptops.

Resistance to change.

A large proportion of teachers are digital immigrants - the antithesis of digital natives. Born in a world before computers, digital immigrants tend to do things in traditional ways, even when using powerful technologies. As Prensky (2001:2) puts it - "As all Digital Immigrants learn - like all immigrants, some better than others - to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree their 'accent,' that is, their foot in the past. The digital immigrant accent can be seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first, or in reading the manual for a program rather than assuming that the program itself will teach us to use it." Other immigrant habits include things like printing out emails to read and file, printing out a word-processed document to edit by hand rather than directly on screen, and bringing people into the office to show them an interesting website.

However, these people are at least are using information and communications technology. Some teachers do not, cannot and simply will not, mainly because they are embarrassed by their lack of knowledge of ICT and believe that they are too old to learn about complicated new technologies.

We need to have some sympathy for these teachers. The pace of change in the field of ICT is extremely rapid, and even so-called experts battle to keep up with every change and new development. In addition, there has never been an effective programme for training teachers. They have been expected to pick the knowledge up as they go along, which is difficult given the bureaucratic and other demands of the job.

There is another aspect of resistance to change which is important to look at, this one considering our understanding of what teaching and learning is about. Notwithstanding the lip service paid to the importance of using constructivist, socio-constructivist and constructionist approaches for learning, many teachers behave in a way which suggests that they are behaviourists at heart. As such, they see themselves as disseminators of information rather than facilitators of learning. Those who use ICT use it narrowly and in a prescriptive fashion which minimises the power of the technology. Smeets (2005) looked at the extent to which the potential of ICT was used by to develop powerful learning environments in 31 primary classrooms in Holland. He concluded that while many teachers applied several elements of powerful learning environments in their classrooms, the use of ICT generally showed characteristics of traditional approaches to learning. However, this is not too surprising given that, as far back as 1988 David Cohen and Larry Cuban argued that computer technology would have little effect on schools, predicting that "to the degree that technology is flexible, it will be bent to fit existing practice and that, to the degree that it cannot be bent to fit existing practice, it will not be used" (Collins, 1991:28).

Prensky (2008:3) makes the point that for too many teachers, education is "a backup of old methods - ones that are useful only in unlikely emergencies" rather than one which prepares them for the world of the future. The irony is that schools seem incapable of understanding, let alone embracing, the Information Age paradigm which is the common currency of modern society. Too often, the information age stops firmly at the school gate, with pupils forced to power down and step back into an irrelevant past age where the pencil, paper and rote learning predominates and where powerful new technologies capable of facilitating children's writing, problem solving, research, presentation, creativity and investigative skills are the exception rather than the rule.

Where do we go from here?

While many teachers may feel threatened by these rapid changes and the different needs and attitudes of today's students, new technological developments characteristic of the so called Web2 environment, provide us with many of the tools we need to make education more exciting and meaningful for young people. More importantly, these are becoming cheaper (many are free), easier to access and easier to use. These applications, falling under the broad 'social software' label, are web based, making them available from anywhere at any time, given access to the Internet. Bryant (2007:9) states that we are starting to see "innovation on the consumer Internet translating into a new approach to the use of on-line technology in supporting both work and education..." with students and teachers "moving away from passive consumption of e-learning content to becoming active participants in their own relationship with technology..." This, he believes, will enable us to make educational systems "less prescriptive, target driven and centralised."

Social Software includes blogs, wikis, podcasts, photo sharing, bookmarking, podcasting, vidcasting, micro-blogging and social networking applications. These Web2 applications have been embraced by young and old alike outside of school and have been shown to support more exciting learning and more effective teaching. Schools, however tend to be wary of them given the perceived need to protect children on the net.

Twist and Withers, (2007:35) say that "the shadowy perceived threats which follow in new technologies' wake" include things like copyright infringement, identity theft, Internet fraud, and the dangers of grooming by predators who target children. This notwithstanding, Twist and Withers (page 28) point out that change is inevitable: "Traditional gatekeepers and hierarchies are losing grip as the only controllers of knowledge flows, communication, creativity and opinion. Blogs, podcasting and social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube have given people space to be creators of content in ways that are more innovative, direct and social."

The biggest challenge for schools is recognising that the world has changed dramatically over the past decade and that they need to change with it if they are to remain relevant. This change will involve recognising the potential of ICT and embracing the learning potential that (mainly) online applications offer. The future lies largely with creative and imaginative young teachers like yourselves, who are are either digital natives or flexible enough to become successful digital immigrants. It is your responsibility to lead in schools as change agents, demonstrating the power of information technologies, supporting older teachers and working with parents to ensure that children can use the internet responsibly and safely, recognising the dangers which are there and combat them.  As regular users of ICT, you should understand the potential of technology to provide a more interesting, relevant, powerful and meaningful learning environment for pupils. It will be largely up to you to ensure that it does.

The video below comes from the Transforming Teaching Through Technology site, which has a number of useful tips about podcasting.

A vision of students today, from Kansas State University

References:

Bryant, L. (2007) Emerging Trends in Social Software for Education. Becta, Coventry.

Collins, A. (1991) The Role of Computer Technology in Restructuring Schools. Phi Deta Kappan, Sepember.

Creanor, L., Trinder, K., Gowan, D. & Howells C. (2006) LEX. The Learner Experience of e-Learning. Final Project Report. Glasgow Caledonial University.

Oblinger, D. (2008) Growing up with Google. What it Means to Education. Becta. Coventry.

Prensky, M (2001) Digital natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001)

Prensky, M. (2007) How to teach with technology: keeping both teachers and students comfortable in an era of exponential change. Becta, Coventry.

Prensky, M. (2008) Backup Education? Too many teachers see education as preparing kids for the past, not the future. Educational Technology (48:1) 1-3.

Puttnum, D. (2007) In class I have to power down. Education Guardian.

Smeets, E. (2005) Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers and Education (44) 343-355.

Twist, J. & Withers, K. (2007) The challenge of new digital literacies and the 'hidden curriculum. Becta, Coventry.

See also this link.

The first generation of “Digital Natives” – children who were born into and raised in the digital world – are coming of age, and soon our world will be reshaped in their image. Our economy, our politics, our culture and even the shape of our family life will be forever transformed.

But who are these Digital Natives? How are they different from older generations – or “Digital Immigrants” – and what is the world they’re creating going to look like? In Born Digital, leading Internet and technology experts John Palfrey and Urs Gasser offer a sociological portrait of these young people who can seem, even to those merely a generation older, both extraordinarily sophisticated and strangely narrow.

Based on extensive original research, including interviews with Digital Natives around the world, Born Digital explores a broad range of issues, from the highly philosophical to the purely practical: What does identity mean for young people who have dozens of online profiles and avatars? Should we worry about privacy issues – or is privacy even a relevant concern for Digital Natives? How does the concept of safety translate into an increasingly virtual world?  Are online games addictive, and how do we need to worry about violent video games? What is the Internet's impact on creativity and learning? What lies ahead – socially, professionally, and psychologically – for this generation?

A smart, practical guide to a brave new world and its complex inhabitants, Born Digital will be essential reading for parents, teachers, employers and the myriad of confused adults who want to understand the digital present – and shape the digital future.

[paraphrasing]

We see a coming culture war where kids are pawns. What is it about how children are using technologies that we want to celebrate and what are excesses?

Because we are the beginning of a revolution, but in fact there is already a big divide between who has access to tools and who do not. The other divide is one of skills - a participation gap.

What are the attributes of those born after 1980 with access to the tools and with the skills to use them?

• Identity: did not distinguish between their Facebook profile and their offline life.
• It's not distraction, it's interaction: multi-tasking.
• Presumption that information will be digital, malleable. More about YouTube than Hollywood; P2P music. A social and public thing. Example: logo design contest -- moving from consumers of information to creators -- 15 yo British boy won the contest. "Lightweight" collaboration. "CouchSurfing" (example from the audience).
• Security: are kids really less safe? Data do not support that meme, but the context is different. Bullying is in the news -- it's clearly more visible (recorded) but I'm not convinced that there is more bullying.
• Privacy: Information is going to stick-around ... very sophisticated kids may realize that these are like tattoos, but most do not. We have a sense that we have not thought through the implications of living cradle to grave with your entire life recorded.
• Intellectual Property: copyright is an everyday issue with young people. Do we want to encourage it? Remix issues! Extraordinarily complex. (Joke about fair use.)
• Credibility: kids are presented with a challenge between what they can trust and what they can't. If you were assigned a topic, how would you go about learning this? The first thing, type in topic, hit return, look for Wikipedia entry. The divergence was this: were they sophisticated enough to judge the credibility of the article? (Joke about library as field trip.)
• In each of these instances there are positive things, opportunities. Just as we worry about security, we need to think about expression and identity. When it comes to intellectual property, there is something extraordinary going on as they remake their culture (semiotic democracy). Just as credibility is a concern, there are opportunities .. how do you act skeptically in society?
• This book is for parents and teachers. It's not for lawyers and academics. There is a wiki, a blog, a Facebook page.
• Only a very small number of kids were using these technologies as part of their civic life.
  Lance Bennett: thinking about how mind-numbing civics in school is ... kids who take field trips often coming away feeling worse about politics than when they went. Kids who takes civics in a democratic classroom where they can use media that they are interested in ... prosper. We need to change the way we communicate about politics, not just in the US. Open communications base, let kids create and share media, then they prosper. We're building a digital commons and they are beginning to come.

Q&A

• The technologies can flatten the difference between disadvantaged and elite kids. With a great teacher. The fear is when teachers and parents don't want to be part of this game -- then there's a gulf.
• Mass communications online - easier to spread a lie or is it more easily exposed? No one wanted to answer this.
• Cognitive development question : concentrated reading is not really happening. I have concerns about democracy because of that. (Based on Atlantic "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" argument.)
• Libraries: public spaces, becoming more important, not less important.

Closing: The Ballad of Zack McCune - Part 2
Us Kids And The RIAA

Underage kids flock to social networks
'They keep signing up and we keep chasing them,' says Nexopia's Chris Webster

DAVID HUTTON
Globetechnology.com
September 15, 2008 at 11:27 PM EDT

According to a recent study, more than 750,000 kids between the ages of 8 and 12 have set up a profile on the big social-networking sites. Most simply enter a false birth date when they register; others get a friend or sibling to help them circumvent the age-restriction policies.

. . . Attorney-General Michael Mukasey has commissioned an Internet safety task force to find better ways to verify the age of users.

The task force is looking at implementing age-verification technology from Microsoft and IBM on several sites and even opening the process of enshrining age restrictions in law, said John Palfrey, . . .  who chairs the task force. But determining the age of users is a complex problem without clear answers, Mr. Palfrey said. "There's no way to stop people from getting on to the site at the front end, when they sign up," he said. "But I think there are ways we can improve the systems that work behind the scenes to find the underage kids and deter them from using sites where they shouldn't be."

CNET

Harvard professor sees answers to nagging Web-youth issues

John Palfrey, one of Harvard's leading thinkers on the Internet, has recently finished a study on kids raised in the digital age. He now has a few tips to share about Web porn, online piracy, and Sen. John McCain's lack of tech know-how--Palfrey, who wrote a book about the study called Born Digital, was fairly upbeat about the Web's affects on young people. That's not going to surprise too many people as Palfrey is a recognized Internet booster. But after completing 100 "in-depth interviews" with young people, ages 13 to 22, Palfrey sees some possible solutions to problems confronting Web-connected youth.

Source: Source:  Harvard Law School's News@Law - September 17, 2008

The term "Digital Natives" is used, generally,to refer to people born after 1980. This book is about the issues surrounding Digital Natives and their intensive use of digital media and other digital technologies. They were born into a world that was already pervasively digital. Assuming they were born into an advanced industrial economy - and are not the ones at the low end of the participation or technological gap, they did not transition from an analog world to a digital world as most of us have.

The book is especially focused on the issues surrounding Digital Natives' intensive use of the Internet and online social networks (like Facebook and MySpace) and other digital tools and media they use on a daily basis (such as instant messaging, texting, online chat rooms, video games, YouTube, etc.). We are no longer living in an analog world. The world - especially as experienced from the viewpoint children and young adults who have access to these technologies - is now - but more importantly has been for them since they were born - digital. They were born digital. We had better learn to understand this age group (or cohort) to deal with it effectively and to craft policies and incentives that maintain and foster the good aspects of these technologies, while minimizing their risks - or at least not arrest the positive aspects of their use and involvement with ill-suited policies based on fear.

The organization of the book is excellent. It was organized tightly into coherent chapters dealing with a single overarching category or theme. It then elucidated some of the more pressing issues in each category or theme, and then provided specific guidance and suggestions to parents, teachers, lawmakers, librarians, etc.

Being an attorney who was deeply interested during and immediately after law school in what was called at the time "Internet law" and intellectual property issues implicated by activities on the Internet, only to lose interest after the dot-com bubble burst, this book has reignited my interest in studying the technical, social, and legal aspects of the Internet.

Born Digital has also spurred me to dive deeper and study in more depth social media and online social networks, as well as intellectual property law as applied to the increasingly digitized information environment or ecosphere. To this end, besides an excellent book covering Digital Natives and the issues they and we face as their parents, teachers, lawmakers, librarians, and as members of society, I also commend the authors for the excellent notes and bibliography. I look forward to reading some of the key works that the authors of Born Digital found most helpful in their research and analysis and exploring these issues further.

I have recommend it to my friends in the technology sphere as well as my friends who are parents and who have children who are at the age where they are beginning to use the Internet and other digital technologies, such as cell phones, or video games, intensively. I also highly recommend it to teachers, educators, counselors, librarians, law enforcement officers, lawmakers, policy-makers, or anyone interested these issues.

A friend of mine was a closed beta tester and let me use his account.

I made a shaman and jumped into the game.  From the moment I started lag was pretty bad.  I turned down all my video settings for maximum framerate.  Crashes were frequent as were times when the game just lagged out.   My computer isnt state of the art, but it's not an old clunker either.  Wow runs pretty smooth.

So after running through some of the lowbie quests and jumping into the RVR instance that's available starting at level 1 its pretty clear that if you've played similar games, like EQ or WoW you know what to expect.  WAR is certainly an evolution from these other games.  Thing that were hard in the past, such as grouping are almost effortless.

Part if this is because of the limited classes.   There are only 3.  Tank, healer and dps.  So finding what you need is easy.   The groups can be fairly large so it's really not an issue grabbing nearby people and adding them to your group.   I have to say this is very nice.

The way the rvr instances work is clean too.   You just zone in when it starts and when it's done you're plopped right back where you were before it began and you can continue whatever you were doing.

Skill trainers are also easier.  They work for all classes and they are all over the place.  No more spending an hour going to some distant trainer every time you level up.

The class balance may need some looking into.  As a shaman I was able to top the charts on both healing and damage done fairly easily.  This pretty much makes the dps class useless.   Perhaps this will change at higher levels.

It appears there wont be a linux client.   This makes me sad, but I've really given up on anyone trying to make a go of linux gaming, although it would be the shit.

My guild will probably not be playing this game as it stands, so sorry you digital natives wont see the squid 3 in here.   digital immagrants dont know what I'm talking about, so bite me.

In the end I bring one thing away from the WAR open beta.  While it's a great game on paper the implementation is sloppy.   Wow is best described as polished.  WAR: sloppy.  The graphics arent that good, the interface is alittle clunky, it crashes and it lags.

Auszug aus dem SchoolNetGuide der Swisscom

Was macht die Net Generation aus? (Jahrgang 1980 und jünger)

Die Net Generation zieht es vor, etwas zu tun, statt etwas gesagt zu bekommen. Die Angehörigen der Net Generation sind nicht nur Konsumenten, sondern Content Creators (engl. Produzent von Inhalten). Sie gestalten aktiv Inhalte im Internet, entwickeln das Internet sogar weiter. Sie verbringen ihre Zeit online mit dem Schreiben von Blog-Einträgen (engl. Internet-Tagebuch), dem Tauschen und Erstellen von Musik, Kunst und Videos. Sie nutzen das Internet zum Lesen, Durchforsten und Überprüfen von Inhalten sowie zum Austausch mit anderen. Die Net Generation fordert sich so privaten Raum ein, der in der Schule oder zu Hause in dieser Form nicht gegeben ist. Die Net Generation lebt eine neue Form von Mitteilsamkeit, Partizipation und Interaktivität. Sie arbeitet in Netzwerken mit Gleichgesinnten zusammen, bewertet Services und Produkte von Firmen, bietet Dienstleistungen an oder tauscht sich über eigene Unterhaltungsformen wie Foren, extra gegründete Newsgroups oder persönliche Internetseiten aus. Das Internet ist für sie Experimentierfeld, soziale Anschlussstelle und Bühne der Selbstdarstellung zugleich.

Die Multitasker

Am Computer kann man mehrere Aktivitäten gleichzeitig ausführen. Der Anteil der Multitasker (engl. multitasking = mehrere Dinge gleichzeitig tun) ist bei der Net Generation höher als bei Erwachsenen, die arbeiten. Das liegt daran, dass Jugendliche meist vertrauter mit dem Computer und dem Internet umgehen als Erwachsene und wohl auch über mehr Freizeit verfügen. Allerdings ist Multitasking an sich kein neues Phänomen und nicht nur auf die Computer-Nutzung beschränkt. Auch mit dem Handy telefonieren und gleichzeitig chatten ist Multitasking – allerdings über das Medium Computer hinaus.

Eigenschaften der Net Generation

Don Tapscott, Autor mehrerer Bücher, schreibt in seinem 1998 erschienenen Werk «Net Kids. Die digitale Generation erobert Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft»1 den Jugendlichen der Net Generation ausserdem folgende Eigenschaften zu: Sie seien besonders tolerant gegenüber ethnischen Minderheiten, verfügten über eine speziell ausgeprägte Neugierde, entwickelten mehr Selbstbewusstsein, seien selbstständiger und hätten mehr Mut zum Widerspruch. Nicht alle dieser Aussagen kann man eindeutig belegen. Tapscott bekräftigt fast zehn Jahre später in «Wikinomics. Die Revolution im Netz»2 einige seiner Behauptungen. Die Net Generation gehe kritisch mit Autoritäten und der Informationsflut um. Ausserdem setze sie sich für die Rechte des Einzelnen in Bezug auf Privatsphäre und Meinungsfreiheit ein. Sie zweifle nicht an sich selbst, sondern an ihrer Umwelt – also der Welt der Erwachsenen – und wehre sich gegen Bevormundung und Zensur durch Regierungen, aber auch durch die eigenen Eltern. Viel wichtiger als all diese Aussagen aber ist, dass Kinder und Jugendliche sich zum ersten Mal in der Menschheitsgeschichte in einem gesellschaftlich sehr wichtigen Bereich zu kompetenten Spezialisten entwickeln: Sie sind die Experten der digitalen Revolution.

Erkenntnisse der Wissenschaft

In den letzten Jahren wurden auch kritische Stimmen laut. Jugendlichen der Net Generation wird häufig eine kurze Aufmerksamkeitsspanne nachgesagt. Auch berge die grössere Selbstständigkeit die Gefahr einer gewissen Orientierungslosigkeit, ja sogar einer Identitätsproblematik. Rolf Schulmeister, Autor der Studie «Gibt es eine Net Generation?»3, kommt jedoch zum Schluss, dass auffälliges Verhalten aus der gesamten Lebenssituation und der sozialen Lage entstehe und nicht eine Begleiterscheinung der Net Generation sei. Tatsache ist jedoch, dass sich die Prozesse im Gehirn beim Verarbeiten von Informationen bei der Net Generation verändert haben. Die neue Generation lernt als Folge des hohen Medienkonsums und der Interaktivität grundlegend anders. Diese Erfahrungen haben auch Jennifer Corriero und Michael Furdyk, Gründer von takingitglobal.org, einem Social Network für engagierte Jugendliche, gemacht: Auswendiglernen und Repetieren von Schulstoff sei nicht mehr zeitgemäss. Jugendliche wollten etwas erleben und z.B. im virtuellen Klassen zimmer gemeinsam mit anderen länderübergreifend Projekte erarbeiten und die Ergebnisse im Internet präsentieren. 

Gruppeninteraktion

Die Nutzer schaffen Inhalte und wollen teilhaben: Sie suchen nach Informationen, lesen, arbeiten mit anderen zusammen und organisieren – sie wünschen sich Interaktion. Ein Beispiel dafür sind Flashmobs, am besten zu übersetzen mit engl. flash für Blitz und mob für Gruppe: Über das Handy oder Internet organisieren sich einander unbekannte Leute für ungewöhnliche – meist unpolitische – Aktionen. Auch in der Schweiz fanden schon Flashmob-Aktionen statt. In Genf erstarrten am 15. März 2008 um 14 Uhr am Bahnhof Cornavin für fünf Minuten Hunderte Menschen zu Statuen. Diese Aktionen, organisiert auf Websites wie z.B. improveverywhere.com, beweisen, dass der Kontakt mit Gleichgesinnten, die das gleiche Ziel vor Augen haben, das fortschreitende Netz immer mehr zu einem sozialen Netzwerk macht. 

Neue Geschäftsmodelle

Einzelkämpfer gehören im Internet zu einer aussterbenden Art, da sind sich Experten einig. Dies gilt sowohl für Individuen als auch für Unternehmen. Konsumenten wollen mehr als konsumieren, sie wollen mitproduzieren. Die Möglichkeit, Angehörige der Net Generation zu wirtschaftlichen Zwecken in Unternehmen einzubinden, gilt als grösster Motor von Veränderung und Innovation in der Wirtschaftswelt der Zukunft. Unternehmen sollten sich die Gelegenheit nicht entgehen lassen, die sprudelnde Kreativität der Net Generation in den Prozess der Produktentwicklung und -bekanntmachung mit einzubeziehen. Denn das Engagement vieler Einzelpersonen für eine gemeinsame Sache steigert die Aussicht auf Erfolg (vgl. S.10 Peer Production). Ein gutes Beispiel dafür ist Procter & Gamble: Das Unternehmen, das weltweit unter anderem Haushaltwaren, Kosmetik und Hygieneartikel vertreibt, arbeitet mit InnoCentive zusammen – einem Netzwerk für Forscher und Entwickler. Gegen Geldprämien suchen mehr als 145 000 Tüftler und Wissenschaftler nach Lösungen für schwierige Aufgaben. Doch Content Creators handeln nicht nur, wenn es sich um kommerzielle Zwecke handelt. Current TV ist solch ein Beispiel: Das landesweit in den USA ausgestrahlte Kabel- und Satellitennetzwerk arbeitet fast ausschliesslich mit unbezahlten Amateurmitarbeitern. Die Beiträge sind überwiegend von sehr guter Qualität. Die Zuschauer stimmen ab, welche Beiträge interessant sind und in der Hauptsendezeit ausgestrahlt werden sollen.

PeerGroups und PeerProduction

Noch vor wenigen Jahren war der Mainstream (engl. Hauptrichtung; frei übersetzt: Massengeschmack) das Mass aller Dinge. Heute kann jeder als Mitglied von Peergroups (engl. Gruppe von Gleichgestellten) selbst neue Trends schaffen und Produkte mitgestalten. In diesem Zusammenhang beschreibt Peer Production die Produktion von Gütern und Dienstleistungen durch eine sich selbst organisierende Gemeinschaft von Einzelpersonen. Diese kommen freiwillig zusammen, um gemeinsam an einem Produkt zu arbeiten. Die Mitarbeit ist meist unentgeltlich. In der Realität zeigt sich jedoch, dass selbst in Peergroups meist eine Hierarchie entsteht. Die qualifiziertesten und erfahrensten Mitglieder übernehmen in der Gemeinschaft eine Führungsrolle und helfen anderen Teilnehmern beim Erstellen von Beiträgen.

Wie funktioniert Peer Production?

Am besten funktioniert Peer Production, wenn drei Bedingungen erfüllt sind: 

1. Niedrige Beteiligungskosten, dies ist vor allem im Informations- oder Kulturbereich der Fall.

2. Die Produktion muss in Portionen aufteilbar sein, sodass auch kleine Beiträge möglich sind und Beachtung finden. Ist dies der Fall, so ist die Differenz zwischen investierter Zeit und Energie in Bezug zum möglichen Ertrag am geringsten.

3. Niedrige Kosten für die Integration der jeweiligen Beiträge in das Endprodukt, einschliesslich Koordination und Qualitätskontrolle.

Hat Peer Production eine Zukunft? Das Phänomen Peer Production ist sicher mehr als nur eine kurzlebige Erscheinung. Diese neue Form der Produktion ist DIE Zukunftsperspektive für Innovation und Wertschöpfung. Experten sind sich einig, dass Unternehmen, die sich gegen Peer Production wehren, sich gleichzeitig die Chance für Innovation und Kostensenkung entgehen lassen. In Zukunft werden sie kaum gegen Unternehmen ankommen, die Peergroups für ihre Zwecke nutzen. 

Orientierung in sozialen Netzwerken

Es gibt verschiedene Arten von sozialen Netzwerken. Alle zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass sie dynamische Online-Gemeinschaften sind. Sei es, um sich mit Freunden zu vernetzen, Links zu sammeln oder Musik, Videos und Fotos auszutauschen. Soziale Netzwerke als lebendige Interaktionsnetze können sehr schnell entstehen und wachsen. Je mehr Leute einem sozialen Netzwerk angehören, desto attraktiver ist es für andere, auch dazuzugehören. Doch wie orientiert man sich in einem sozialen Netzwerk? Das Zurechtfinden in diesen riesigen Gebilden ist einfacher, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint. 

Schwarmbildung

Innerhalb von bestehenden Diensten kann man eine sogenannte Schwarmbildung beobachten. Einfacher ausgedrückt: die Entstehung von Interessengruppen. So zum Beispiel beim Internetradio lastfm – gemäss eigener Website «das grösste soziale Musiknetzwerk» – mit inzwischen über 20 000  Nutzergruppen. Die Suche nach Gleichgesinnten und der Austausch mit ihnen ist kennzeichnend für die Net Generation und das Instrument, das die sozialen Netzwerke zusammenhält. Zur gleichen Zeit ist ein anderes Phänomen zu beobachten: Während sich innerhalb grosser Social Networks Interessengruppen bilden, entstehen vermehrt kleine Social Networks für Spezialinteressen. Vom Online-Treffpunkt für Katzenliebhaber wie mycat.de über Netzwerke für Mütter (z.B. mamacommunity.de) bis zur Online-Gemeinschaft für Jogger, Läufer und Walker wie www.jogmap.de. Abseits von Trends bilden sich so Netzwerke für Nischeninteressen, deren Nutzer sich für die gleichen Themen interessieren und im Vergleich zu grossen Social Networks eine gewisse Exklusivität schätzen. 

Orientierungshilfen

Im unendlich erscheinenden Dschungel von Informationen leisten uns Tags (engl. Markierungen) und Bookmarks (engl. Lesezeichen) nützliche Dienste. Ein Tag ist ein Stichwort oder die Kombination mehrerer Wörter. Jeder Nutzer kann für Fotos, Videos und sonstige Dokumente Tags vergeben. Je mehr Inhalte mit Tags versehen sind, desto umfangreicher fällt ein Suchresultat aus. Wer z.B. ein Foto des Matterhorns auf ein Fotoportal stellt und will, dass andere Nutzer es finden, kann zu diesem Zweck Tags eingeben wie «Matterhorn», «Berg», «Schweiz», «Schnee» und «Alpen». Sucht man nicht nach einzelnen Beiträgen, sondern speziell nach einer Website, so sind Social Bookmarks, wörtlich übersetzt «soziale Lesezeichen», eine gute Lösung. In Social-Bookmark-Netzwerken wie mister-wong.de oder linkarena.com ordnen die Nutzer ihren Lieblingswebsites Schlagworte zu und speichern sie in ihren Lesezeichenlisten. Je häufiger also Nutzer eine Site in ihrer Lesezeichenliste speichern, desto beliebter ist sie und desto weiter oben erscheint sie in der Trefferliste. 

Knotenpunkte und linking value

Soziale Netzwerke sind ein junges Phänomen und noch wenig erforscht. Trotzdem gibt es bereits wissenschaftliche Ausführungen zur Struktur von sozialen Netzwerken. Sie unterscheiden sich durch ihre Grösse, ihr Wachstum, ihre Dichte und Stärke: All diese Kriterien misst man anhand von «Knoten». Der Begriff Knoten bezeichnet Nutzer, die mindestens zwei Personen verbinden, die sich nicht kennen. Social Hubs Menschen mit sehr vielen Verbindungen nennt man Social Hubs (engl. sozialer Knotenpunkt). Sie sind vergleichbar mit Superknoten. Wer über eine grosse Anzahl Verbindungen verfügt, dem fällt es immer leichter, neue Bindungen einzugehen. Bestes Beispiel dafür ist, dass 80% aller Links auf gerade einmal 15% der verfügbaren Websites verweisen. 

Starke und schwache Links 

In Netzwerken unterscheidet man zwischen starken und schwachen Links. Zu den starken Links gehören enge Freunde und Familienangehörige. Bekannte und entfernte Familienangehörige zählen zu den schwachen Links. Erstaunlich ist, dass wir von den schwachen Links mehr profitieren als von den starken. Das mag paradox klingen, aber der Soziologe Mark Granovetter1 zeigte bereits 1973, dass der Tipp zur Traumwohnung oder ein neues Jobangebot selten von starken Links kommt. Interessant ist folgende Tatsache: Unterbrechen wir eine starke Bindung, hat das auf unser Netzwerk als Ganzes keine grossen Auswirkungen, da starke Links uns sowieso zu Menschen führen, denen wir nahestehen. Bei schwachen Bindungen allerdings, die als brückenbildend gelten, zerfällt durch eine Unterbrechung ein grösserer Teil des Netzwerks. Für den Zusammenhalt eines sozialen Netzwerks fallen starke Links nicht so sehr ins Gewicht wie schwache Links.

Linking Value

Der Linking Value (engl. Verbindungswert eines Knotens) ist umso grösser, je mächtiger und vernetzter der Knoten ist. Je grösser der Linking Value eines Knotens im eigenen Netzwerk ist, desto mehr steigt der eigene Wert. Wer die richtigen oder sehr mächtige Freunde hat, dem genügt ein kleines Netzwerk mit wenigen, aber starken Knoten. Viele einflussreiche Menschen lassen z.B. nur wenige, dafür aber hochrangige Personen an ihrem sozialen Netzwerk teilhaben. Man geht davon aus, dass sich die meisten persönlichen Netzwerke auf ca. 150 Personen beschränken, da man nicht mit unbegrenzt vielen Menschen in nahem Kontakt stehen kann. Soziale Netzwerke im Internet und Schwarmbildungen innerhalb dieser Netzwerke schaffen so grosse soziale Dimensionen, dass 150 Kontakte keinen Grenzwert darstellen. Das Profil von Popstar Madonna ist auf dem Social-Networking-Portal Facebook gar mit den Profilen von mehr als 110 000 «Freunden» verlinkt.

Netzwerke schaffen Sozialkapital

Sozialkapital ist auch ein Tauschmittel, das man gewinnbringend für unterschiedliche Zwecke einsetzen kann. Sozialkapital stärkt z.B. den sozialen Zusammenhalt, vermittelt Bestätigung, stiftet Identität, schafft Vertrauen und verschafft Menschen Zugang zu den Informationen und Ressourcen anderer. Oftmals erreicht man mit Hilfe von Sozialkapital etwas, das man selbst mit Geld nicht bewirken könnte. Sozialkapital sind die «Früchte» von Beziehungen, die wir zu anderen Menschen unterhalten. 

Erfolgreich dank Sozialkapital 

Wer Sozialkapital richtig einsetzt, kann sich dadurch erhebliche Vorteile verschaffen. Viele erfolgreiche Menschen besetzen nicht nur aufgrund ihrer Fähigkeiten hochrangige Positionen, sondern aufgrund eines ihnen vertrauten und intakten Beziehungsnetzes, auf das sie jederzeit zurückgreifen können. Der Aufbau und die kontinuierliche Pflege des sozialen Netzwerkes können sehr lohnend sein. Ein funktionierendes Netzwerk ist das Ergebnis vergangener Investitionen in Beziehungen. 

Wandel sozialer Beziehungen

Immer häufiger hört man, die zunehmende Individualisierung schwäche vor allem in städtischen Gebieten den Gemeinsinn. Westliche Gesellschaften unterliegen zudem einem deutlichen demografischen Wandel: Die Verwandtschaft, die früher das soziale Netz eines Menschen ausmachte, wird immer kleiner. Trotzdem schrumpft das Sozialkapital nicht. Im Gegenteil: Es erfährt lediglich eine Verschiebung. Heute ersetzen Freunde und Bekannte aus dem Beruf oder dem Verein, aus der Freiwilligenarbeit und vermehrt auch aus Online Communities (engl. Gemeinschaften im Internet) die Tanten, Cousins, Neffen und Schwäger von früher. Das bestehende Sozialkapital pflegen und vermehren ist dank dem Internet einfacher denn je. Ob beruflich oder privat: Man findet unter den Milliarden Internetnutzern immer jemanden mit den Spezialinteressen oder -kenntnissen, die man sucht. Social Networks sind nämlich nicht nur Mittel und Zweck zur Beziehungspflege, sie sind gleichzeitig riesige Informationsquellen: Denn jeder Nutzer verfügt über sein persönliches Know-how, das er den Kontakten seines Netzwerks sowie deren Kontakten zur Verfügung stellt.

I live north of New York City, As I travel to and from the city, cell phone service is intermittent at best on the parkways northbound out of the city. These parkways wind through some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation.  Why is it that cell phone service can not be facilitated through these corridors of capitalism? I mean Scarsdale(!), Westchester(!), and Greenwich(!) all have serious problems holding a cell signal.

Perhaps people don't like ugly cell phone towers in their nice neighborhoods?  Perhaps too much investment in legacy infrastructure?  Perhaps most of these residents are Digital Immigrants. Many made their fortunes the old fashioned way; Ivy league school, fortune 500 company, put your head down for 40 years and get a place in the burbs free from the conveniences of modern life.  Who knows, but it is maddening for someone like myself to use copytalk or Jott.com as I travel through this digital wasteland, a place which chooses not to speak the native tongue of the 21st century. (on a side note - when I moved to the NY area seventeen years ago, these same neighborhoods were JUST getting cable tv. In the Western US, cable had been going for 15 years at that time)

Another recent encounter with a Digital Immigrants. I recently sat down with the entire faculty of a communications department at a major Southern university.  Most of the faculty did not have blogs, many did not know know the term 'podcast'. Many looked down their nose at Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc, and yet these are the ones called to serve the students who 'speak' these digital technologies in a native tongue.  This was the COMMUNICATIONS department! Like me schlepping through legacy neighborhoods Westchester NY, our student's literacy in digital things gets 'dropped' or 'tuned' out when they commute through the legacy neighborhoods of academia, teathered together by tenure.  This certainly is not the case in every school or every wealthy neighborhood, but I found it striking.

The digital native, digital immigrant thing is a spectrum, not a hard and fast pigeon holeable phenominon. I know 65 year old software coders. I also know 22 year-old Luddites. Look around. Are you a native or an immigrant? The contrast can be startling.

Convenience Trumps Quality: How Digital Natives Use Information is about Marc Prensky's concept of digital natives and how Librarians of the older generations need to consider how we can manage information and access to it and not simply store it.

Both are well worth reading.

EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1 (January-March 2008), pp. 42-50 and was written by Meredith Weiss and Dana Hanson-Baldauf

An exploration of e-mail communication between faculty and students at UNC Chapel Hill identified issues surrounding the use of e-mail to advance instructional outcomes

"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate," claimed theologian and educator Joseph Priestly.¹ Born in 1733, Priestly could hardly have imagined the Internet, e-mail, and instant messaging, although his prophetic statement presaged a dilemma now faced on college campuses worldwide. The popularity of and reliance on emergent computer-mediated communication technologies such as instant messaging, blogs, and social networks have arguably widened the generation gap between faculty and traditional undergraduate students. Marc Prensky defined this generational technology divide by coining the terms digital natives and digital immigrants. He wrote,

The single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.²

The purpose of the study reported here was to explore differences between professors (digital immigrants) and undergraduate students (digital natives) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill regarding their expectations and use of e-mail and its perceived impact on instructional outcomes and student success. The ubiquitous nature of e-mail presents an ideal opportunity to investigate its use along this generational divide. Additionally, the study of e-mail practice and perception in the context of higher education might foster more meaningful scholarly communication between teacher and student and, in turn, positively impact instructional outcomes and student success.

Literature Review

Regardless of the context and medium, the process of communication is complicated and multifaceted. Over the years, many have sought to better understand and explain the phenomenon. Ernest Pascarella, for example, has spent much of his career exploring faculty and student communication and its impact on academic achievement and the college experience. Although not set within the context of the digital environment, his studies reveal a strong association between student outcomes and the degree and quality of one-on-one communication between teacher and student.³ These outcomes reflect positive trends in academic achievement, personal growth (both intellectual and developmental), the degree of effort extended to studies, student connection and satisfaction with academic coursework and the institute, attrition, and attainment of educational and career goals.⁴

How does Pascarella's work fit within the context of a digital instructional environment? Recently, Robert Duran, Lynne Kelly, and James Keaten⁵ investigated faculty use and perception of communication via e-mail in correspondence with students. They found that faculty (n = 257) received more than two times the number of e-mails they produced (faculty received an average of 15.15 e-mails per week compared to 6.72 e-mails per week they sent). Excuses for late work or missed class sessions were the most cited reasons for student-initiated e-mail communication. Despite some faculty dissatisfaction (n = 13, or 21 percent) with the amount of time and effort spent on e-mail communication, faculty overall perceived benefits (a mean of 3.05 on a 5-point scale) and liabilities (2.95) as roughly equal. Faculty found they could communicate better with reticent students (3.25) and relay pertinent and timely course information to classes using e-mail.

A 2003 study conducted by Michael Russell and his colleagues found that teachers use technology, including e-mail, more for preparation and work-related communication, and less often for instructional purposes.⁶ Interestingly, this finding seemed especially true among less experienced teachers, despite their self-reported high levels of comfort using technology. In John Savery's 2002 study, however, 90 percent of faculty surveyed reported using e-mail five times or more per semester for instructional use.⁷

Unfortunately, terms such as "instructional purposes" and "instructional use" are not consistently defined across studies. Studies in 2001 and 2004 identified the concept of cognitive presence in computer-mediated instruction,⁸ which we propose should be present for an instructional use of e-mail. Cognitive presence is defined as an atmosphere of inquiry and higher-order learning that supports critical thinking, reflection, knowledge construction, collaboration, and discourse.

Numerous studies further address the general use of e-mail, particularly in the corporate environment. These studies focus on e-mail etiquette,⁹ appropriate behavior, norms, and conventions,¹⁰ development of user expectations,¹¹ e-mail management and system design,¹² user productivity,¹³ and e-mail training.¹⁴ Though these studies investigated how e-mail is used and managed, studies related to e-mail use in the specific context of faculty-student communication and enhanced learning are limited and warrant further investigation.

Purpose of the Study

This study aimed to explore e-mail practice in academia between professors and undergraduate students in relation to their expectations and use of e-mail, along with its perceived impact on instructional outcomes and student success. Additional areas of investigation included survey participants' emotions regarding e-mail use and their formal e-mail training experiences.

The study addressed three questions:

1. What do faculty and students perceive as appropriate e-mail use in their communications with one another?

2. How do faculty and students actually use e-mail in communicating with one another?

3. Does e-mail communication have a perceived positive impact on learning, grades, and faculty-student familiarity?

Methodology

The study employed an exploratory quantitative and qualitative research design using an electronic survey tool. Two surveys were developed and administered to faculty and undergraduate students, respectively, in the fall of 2006. Each survey had approximately 74 parallel questions, presented in a mostly closed-question format. Participants had opportunities to provide comments regarding their responses on select survey questions.

Use of an electronic survey tool enabled gathering information from a large population in a systematic, efficient (both time and cost), and comparable manner. Additionally, participants could complete the survey at a convenient time and place. Prior to administering the survey, a pilot survey checked for clarity of wording and time it would take participants to complete the actual survey.

Each survey consisted of four components:

• Introduction,
• Demographics,
• Style (referring to self-reported e-mail behaviors), and
• Perceived style (referring to a respondent's impression of another's e-mail behavior).

The introduction functioned as a filtering tool to eliminate participants who did not meet study specifications. Part-time students and faculty were not included in this study, for example, nor were faculty with titles other than assistant, associate, or full professor. In addition, participants were instructed to respond only in terms of their e-mail communications surrounding on-campus undergraduate courses (distance education interactions were excluded).

The student survey demographic section collected information about gender, age, ethnicity, residency status, class status, and major. The faculty survey demographic section collected information about gender, age, ethnicity, professorship status level, years teaching, and academic discipline.

The final two sections of both surveys collected core information regarding e-mail attitudes, perceptions, expectations, and behaviors. The style section investigated participant e-mail use in regard to the construction of e-mails, frequency of use, behaviors, responsiveness, attitudes, and expectations. The section on perceived style collected information about how participants viewed their counterparts' attitudes and expectations.

Survey Implementation

The survey was administered through a computer-mediated tool and promoted through the UNC Mass E-mail System, which distributes e-mail messages to the entire university community. The incentive for participating in the survey was the chance to win a $20 gift certificate to a local shopping mall. Means of participant identification were limited to IP addresses (collected as standard procedure with the survey tool) and an optional submission of an e-mail address to participate in the drawing to win the gift certificate.

Participants

Participants were recruited from a pool of UNC Chapel Hill undergraduate students and faculty from all disciplines. Access to this pool of participants was achieved through the UNC Mass E-mail System.

Only full-time undergraduate students and full-time on-campus faculty serving in an on-campus instructional role to undergraduate students were included in the study. This allowed the samples to more accurately reflect a clear distinction between what Prensky refers to as digital natives and digital immigrants, given that the majority of undergraduates are between the ages of 17 and 21.

Procedure

An introductory e-mail outlining the intent of the study directed participants to the survey link. Individuals who consented to participate and who met the specified requirements were asked to respond to a total of 73 questions (74 for faculty). With the exception of the introductory questions, which were designed to ensure that participants met the guidelines for the study, participants had the option of not responding to questions. Many of the questions also permitted comments.

Access to the survey remained open for one week. Participants were informed that the results of the study would be made available to the UNC Chapel Hill community.

Analysis of Data

After closing access to the survey site, we compiled data from both the faculty and student surveys and organized it by category and parallel questions. Coding of data occurred on questions in which respondents could indicate multiple answers. Data was cross-tabulated using descriptive statistics, performing a chi square analysis and using Fisher's exact test, when appropriate, to determine statistical significance.

Results

The UNC Chapel Hill undergraduate faculty population of 1,818 represents more than 60 disciplines. Of the 97 faculty who participated in the study, 56 met the study's specifications; 25 respondents did not teach undergraduate stud