User talk:Educ6620

Current Issues in Educating the Net Generation

Introduction
With every generation there come new technologies. Often, to which older or previous generations are opposed, dismayed by, or have fears of. Some justified some not. Obrien and Szeman (2010) contend the digital age is unlike any era yet entered into; “the explosion in computer and communication technologies that has affected every part of our lives” (p. 324) impacts us personally and professionally. The net generation has been born into a time in which their lives are already heavily infused with technology. Continual technology advancement is a definite as society persistently looks for ways to make life easier, more convenient, and profitable. Nikirk (2009) states we are already on the verge of the next jump in technology, “computerized clothing” (p.20). Such a concept is non-too-far-fetched for netters. Yet, for every technological advance, part of a generation is left behind and the generation gap gets wider and wider.

Frontline documentary, “Growing up online", which aired on PBS in 2008 indicated that parents, more and more, feel as if they are “outside looking in” as children increasingly tread into the far reaching depths of the internet. Similar fears exist for teachers as their teacher training becomes further and further removed from the current student demands as ever newer generations enter the school system. Likewise, it is theorized that more specifically the net generation possess enhanced skills and characteristics as a result of being born into a time of continually advancing technology. It is my stance that educating this particular generation presents with new and significant challenges. The net generation enter our classrooms with personal experiences unlike what many before have experienced. Many teachers are either unaware of the issues surrounding this generation or are receiving little to no support from administrators, districts, or government departments. Putnam and Borko (2000) claim that situational learning is key to effective learning experiences, hence teaching and learning of a generation that rely so heavily on technology is most effective when those technologies are incorporated into the classroom. However, as Hendricks (2005) indicates, “classroom practice in the real world has become increasingly incommensurate with the lived experience of students”.

Characteristics of the net generation
Being part of the net generation seems to have its benefits and challenges. Ask any non-netizen and they will tut at the ‘sinfulness’ of how our youth are constantly wired and connected. However, research on such individuals has revealed that the net generation are positive, optimistic, and team oriented individuals with a keenness towards technology (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). Not only, says Frand (2000), are the net generation better able to multitask, they are more culturally knowledgeable, having been exposed online to places many may never have had the opportunity or finances to visit. The net generation also have a tendency to be visually expressive (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). No longer are pen and written text the predominant means for expression by these “visual communicators” (Oblinger et al, 2005). Not only are they overly visual with heightened visual-spatial skills says Oblinger et al (2005), what many teachers confuse as inability to focus is an ability to focus on multiple things in one sitting and a demand for activities of interest to them.

From this account it would seem as if we are raising a super generation with skills that advance previous generations, but there are skeptics to this theory. A study conducted by Combes (2008) reveals that the skills of the net generation are superficial and in fact confidence in technology use has been confused for meaningful learning experiences. Combes (2008) goes on to argue that the net generation lack efficient information seeking skills and in fact are often never taught these valuable skills as educators assume students already have them because they are the ‘net generation’. Other issues include the net generations view of the internet as a one stop source of information viewing its content as unquestionably valid. Research conducted by Thomas indicates they have difficulty identifying key search words and there is an increase of plagiarism among these students. Unlike Oblinger et al (2005), Combes (2008) argues that students of the net generation do in fact have more difficulty attending and focusing.

Regardless of which theory is more likely, there is a duty among teachers to educate the net generation, whatever their abilities or challenges. Clayton-Pedersen and O’Neill (2005) agree it is essential for this generation that “faculty … effectively tap students’ existing familiarity with technology to engage them in constructing an integrated knowledge base and developing habits of the mind that will enable them to become lifelong learners” (p. 133). As well, Milliron and Sandoe (2008) urge that issues of plagiarism and cheating need to be addressed if we are to nourish integrity and trust within and among the net generation.

Impact on Classroom Teachers
Berk (1997) says “teaching methods must be built on what we know about our students” (p.2). If such is the case, understanding the net generation is essential in teaching them. “The role of teachers is paramount in guiding the development of students’ higher-order thinking skills during learning activities involving technology tools” says Cradler, McNabb, Freeman, and Burchett (2002, p.48). Oblinger et al (2005) state that teacher’s enthusiasm for the incorporation of technology is first and foremost in addressing their specific learning needs. Understanding the net generation’s expectations, skills, and existing abilities is key to educating them. As an example, Jaschik (2005) idenitifes this generation as being experiential, saying “they’d like to figure it out for themselves, do things hands-on”. This is certainly an element teachers need awareness of as older more traditional forms of chalk and talk teaching will not meet the needs of this generation.

“Understanding the Net Generation’s transitional experiences positions educators to make more informed decisions regarding the use of technology as a teaching tool” (Munro, 2006, p. 2). Teachers need to be aware of the capability of technology in the classroom as it should be viewed and used as more than what Putnam et al (2000) refer to as “performance tools” (p.10). In this form technology is used simply to provide students variety in how they complete tasks. Technology has the ability to enhance students’ capabilities, in this manner it is a “pedagogical tool” (Putnam et al, 2000, p. 10). This understanding is detrimental in that it is the difference between developing the superficial skills that Combes (2208) argues are more likely characteristics and fostering those deeper skills Oblinger et al (2005) argue the net generation have.

According to Cradler et al (2002), students’ research skills, ability to generalize activities, organization skills, and interest in activities increased when teachers incorporated technology into their lessons. However, as Brand (1997) points out “current educational systems have done a miserable job empowering teachers to appropriately and effectively use computer-related technology in the classroom”. Teachers lack of understanding of the net generation lead to ineffective and inefficient incorporation of technology. Williams & Chinn (2009) say “careful selection and integration of technology provides relevance to students and allows pedagogic goals to be aligned with student preferences”(p.166). A benefit for the net generation as such understanding prompts technology to be used as a pedagogic tool. It needs to be understood by teachers that the net generations use of even simple technology has much more ability to extend learning. Frand (2000) says even simple word-processing increases students understanding; “in many ways it becomes an extension of our own memories, enabling us to capture and retain material for use in more critical problem-solving and decision-making situations” (p.18). Implementing technology for the net generation should not be done simply for the sake of it. Rosen (1997) supports that appropriate technologies provide teachers with a variety of options for presenting understanding that appeal to the many intelligences of our students.

The need for change and support
Throughout my literature review it became apparent that one of the biggest challenges in educating the net generation are issues with technology itself. Limited equipment, training, and time, are barriers to effective implementation. Curriculum review and modification, and a shift in pedagogical decree are necessary changes for future teaching of the net generation. A study conducted by Gavin (2002), revealed that many educators are resistant to technology in their classrooms, partially due to lack of support from administrative areas. Brand (1997) claims that “despite increased access to computers and related technology for students and teachers… schools are experiencing difficulty in effectively integrating these technologies into existing curricula”. The effects of which may be considerable for the net generation. Considering Putnam et al (2000) claim that technology that is implemented is chosen because it fits easily into the already existing curriculum, then maybe the curriculum needs to change. “The net [generation] are more visually literate than previous generations” (Oblinger et al, 2005, p. 2.5) yet the curriculum communicates the expectation that students be able to produce reams of written text as response activities.

This is not just an issue of professional development for teachers; there is a bigger picture here. In a study on inclusive education by Cameron and Porter (2004), they identified effective classroom teaching as influenced by all major educational stakeholders. Inclusive education refers to meeting all learner needs; hence this study is valid in addressing the needs of the net generation as much as for any differentiated learner. Cameron et al (2004) outline that leadership from federal and provincial government, parents, to all systems within the community are essential supports to classroom teachers. Cradler et al (2002) support that “leadership … is pivotal in aligning available technology resources with systemic school improvement goals” (p.49). Opportunities for teachers new and experienced, to share and collaborate in this ever changing time is essential. Putnam et al (2000) in their study on teacher learning, indicate that collaboration among teachers with varying knowledge and expertise help to create “rich conversations and new insights into teaching and learning” (p.8) and inspire new pedagogical thinking and practices.

Hendricks (2005) identifies the net generation as being very adaptable to new technologies. Gavin (2002) recommends that teachers need support from all levels in order to relinquish control and accept technology as a pedagogical tool. “Quality school and quality classrooms don’t just happen. They are planned” (Gavin, 2002, ¶ 57). When it comes to the net generation, this planning is pivotal and essential for successful teaching and learning.