Making sense of the student experience

notes:
Bennett et al. argue that there is no need for to react to the studies that suggest we are not catering for the educational needs of the Net Generation. They state that those placing content (20ish %) on the internet is relatively low when compared the the users (high 90%). If the curricula were more ICT-based this would surely lead to those figures rising significantly?


within the digital native generation as between the generations


the substantially greater popularity of games amongst males compared to females (Kennedy et al2006; Kvavik et al 2005) - perhaps this is the stimulus that Selwyn was looking for?


Tapscott (1999) urges educators and authorities to ‘give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn’


recognition of the school’s in loco parentis role in protecting them from inappropriate material.


Advocates making claims with little evidence are in danger of repeating a pattern seen throughout the history of educational technology in which new technologies promoted as vehicles for educational reform then fail to meet unrealistic expectations (Cuban, 2001).


Neither dismissive scepticism nor uncritical advocacy enable understanding of whether the phenomenon of digital natives is significant and in what ways education might need to change to accommodate it.

1. What do you understand by the use of the term ‘moral panic’?Suggestion from previous studies is that it is not right that we are not catering for the Net Generation when they are the main student base now attending HE institutions. They use ICTs as part of their day to day lives and expect to use they educationally to.

2. What does this article suggest to you about the technological determinist thrust of the Net Generation argument?
The article suggests that it is wrong to assume that just because someone is born into the NG it does not follow that this should predetermine the way they wish to use ICTs (particularly in education) or indeed that they use them at all.


3. Is there a theoretical or empirical basis to the arguments that are presented using the terms, Net Generation, Digital Natives or Millennials?
They are theoretical, or at least the references used in this article talk about conclusions and theories made by others. There may be deeper empirical data in the other articles referred to but only limited empirical evidence is mentioned in Bennett et al's writing.


4. If there is, what do you think are the key features of this change in generations?
The assumptions that Bennett et al refer to are:
- young people live their lives completely immersed in technology and are ‘fluent in the digital language'
- young people do not even consider computers ‘technology’ anymore.
- constantly connected
- ‘today’s kids are always “multiprocessing”
- accustomed to learning at high speed, making random connections, processing visual and dynamic information and learning through game-based activities
- young people prefer discovery-based learning that allows them to explore and to actively test their ideas and create knowledge


5. How might these changes affect education?
I think Bennett et al suggest that they shouldn't affect education to such a high degree as the writers whom he references are suggesting. The 'moral panic' is pushing for a rapid change in the way that technology is used to deliver the curricula in HE institutions, to bring them in line with the Net Generation, those who make up, and will make up the major populace of these institutions now and in the future.
Bennett et al. are not the only ones to suggest that this needs a 'dispassionate investigation' to ensure that these changes firstly need to take place at all and if they do that they have quality and 'fit'.