Edited by Matthew Moran, Sunday, 9 May 2010, 15:48
What surprises me?
The first thing that surprised me in Salaway et al. was the statement that '[w]here students lead, institutions must follow' (p.5). Why? Students choose to come to campus, so you could argue that institutions do not have to use technology at all. Given this circumstance, if institutions choose to use technology, is the decision being determined by the curriculum first and foremost, or is it motivated by a perceived need to 'engage' students, or to seem contemporary and/or relevant? By following the students in the way Salaway et al. describe, institutions are not adopting technology for learning's sake or because learning requires or is enhanced by technology.
What also surprises me is the extent to which the Net Gen discourse perpetuates the digital academic divide between natives (students) and immigrants (teachers), a gap Prensky identified already in 2001. This gap is perhaps at its most apparent when students are identified with the technology, and characterised by their relationship and facility with the technology. As when Kennedy et al. describe 'the technology-based tools of a new generation of students' – tools institutions can use also, if they can figure out how to do so by first getting over their technology-induced inferiority complex.
It's as if, post-Prensky, academic commentators see technology as the proper domain of young learners, as their sole possession. It's interesting that students seem not to see technology in this way, but rather as 'part of life' (Salaway et al., 2008, p.9), something that is just 'out there'. It's interesting (and significant) that corporations and businesses do not see things this way, either. Does Vodafone or Tesco or Amazon or Ryanair regard technology as a domain or possession of young customers? I don't think so.
When will academic institutions get over this them-and-us, ethnographic approach to their view of technology? Perhaps only when their academic staff is made up in largest part by Net Genners?
Week 13 Activity 1 (Part 2)
What surprises me?
The first thing that surprised me in Salaway et al. was the statement that '[w]here students lead, institutions must follow' (p.5). Why? Students choose to come to campus, so you could argue that institutions do not have to use technology at all. Given this circumstance, if institutions choose to use technology, is the decision being determined by the curriculum first and foremost, or is it motivated by a perceived need to 'engage' students, or to seem contemporary and/or relevant? By following the students in the way Salaway et al. describe, institutions are not adopting technology for learning's sake or because learning requires or is enhanced by technology.
What also surprises me is the extent to which the Net Gen discourse perpetuates the digital academic divide between natives (students) and immigrants (teachers), a gap Prensky identified already in 2001. This gap is perhaps at its most apparent when students are identified with the technology, and characterised by their relationship and facility with the technology. As when Kennedy et al. describe 'the technology-based tools of a new generation of students' – tools institutions can use also, if they can figure out how to do so by first getting over their technology-induced inferiority complex.
It's as if, post-Prensky, academic commentators see technology as the proper domain of young learners, as their sole possession. It's interesting that students seem not to see technology in this way, but rather as 'part of life' (Salaway et al., 2008, p.9), something that is just 'out there'. It's interesting (and significant) that corporations and businesses do not see things this way, either. Does Vodafone or Tesco or Amazon or Ryanair regard technology as a domain or possession of young customers? I don't think so.
When will academic institutions get over this them-and-us, ethnographic approach to their view of technology? Perhaps only when their academic staff is made up in largest part by Net Genners?