One of the dangers of the Net Gen rhetoric is that it narrows the terms of debate about technology and social change by focusing on generations in western countries. Successive generations have always eyed each other with a mixture of suspicion, fear, admiration and envy, and digital technology may be now one factor in this negotiation of identity. But we are all affected by technology, not because technology dictates it, but because we choose to be (and/or because external factors decide for us). We identify ourselves with (and without) it, by and through our relationship with it. We negotiate its place in our practices and in our moral lives – it's okay to text in meetings but not to check share prices at dinner, got it? The social changes implied by technology are far greater than the narrow focus of the Net Gen debate – they run within and across classes, (sub)cultures, firewalls, regimes, borders, etc.
Educators need not to underestimate the social life of technology, the subjective, personal(ised) nature of our relationship with it, our different levels of ability (and support needs), and our different feelings and choices about technology – our experience in the round, not just in terms of how our experience measures up against institutional learning outcomes or prevailing theoretical discourses.
And the basis for educators' decisions about technology, to my mind, must be the learning, the curriculum, not rhetoric about 'where students/technology leads...'. Compare other approaches to technology-enhanced delivery of products or services. When a company decides to do business via a website, for example, the decision is made on the basis of the need for that service (the need of the company to sell to a market where there is demand). The online service enables the company to deliver the product/service in ways that add value for the customers, by allowing them to shop at home/work/24-7, or by allowing them to access a service that otherwise would be out of their reach. And the company gets the returns. None of these decisions are made because the website demands it, or 'just because'. The technology enables only, and perhaps its design adds further value by being easy to use, say, and so encouraging return visits and recommendations to friends. By contrast, the trouble with institutions' educational use of technology is that the initial decision is made out of hand – we have to use the technology because everyone else is, or it's the way of the world, or because the strategy demands it. How often is the decision made because (and purely because) value will be added to the product/service by the technology – value, that is, beyond that of using the technology merely as the equivalent of the fabled grocery truck, with the aim of 'delivering' the learning?
Generational changes and effects on education
One of the dangers of the Net Gen rhetoric is that it narrows the terms of debate about technology and social change by focusing on generations in western countries. Successive generations have always eyed each other with a mixture of suspicion, fear, admiration and envy, and digital technology may be now one factor in this negotiation of identity. But we are all affected by technology, not because technology dictates it, but because we choose to be (and/or because external factors decide for us). We identify ourselves with (and without) it, by and through our relationship with it. We negotiate its place in our practices and in our moral lives – it's okay to text in meetings but not to check share prices at dinner, got it? The social changes implied by technology are far greater than the narrow focus of the Net Gen debate – they run within and across classes, (sub)cultures, firewalls, regimes, borders, etc.
Educators need not to underestimate the social life of technology, the subjective, personal(ised) nature of our relationship with it, our different levels of ability (and support needs), and our different feelings and choices about technology – our experience in the round, not just in terms of how our experience measures up against institutional learning outcomes or prevailing theoretical discourses.
And the basis for educators' decisions about technology, to my mind, must be the learning, the curriculum, not rhetoric about 'where students/technology leads...'. Compare other approaches to technology-enhanced delivery of products or services. When a company decides to do business via a website, for example, the decision is made on the basis of the need for that service (the need of the company to sell to a market where there is demand). The online service enables the company to deliver the product/service in ways that add value for the customers, by allowing them to shop at home/work/24-7, or by allowing them to access a service that otherwise would be out of their reach. And the company gets the returns. None of these decisions are made because the website demands it, or 'just because'. The technology enables only, and perhaps its design adds further value by being easy to use, say, and so encouraging return visits and recommendations to friends. By contrast, the trouble with institutions' educational use of technology is that the initial decision is made out of hand – we have to use the technology because everyone else is, or it's the way of the world, or because the strategy demands it. How often is the decision made because (and purely because) value will be added to the product/service by the technology – value, that is, beyond that of using the technology merely as the equivalent of the fabled grocery truck, with the aim of 'delivering' the learning?