If this article in Innovate (registration required) didn’t keep hammering the “N-Gen” meme and all the requisite star-struck statistics and high-fallutin description so hard it would have been a lot more fun to read. But the bottom line thesis is still important for all educators to consider:
Much in the same way that Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 landmark book Why Johnny Can’t Read criticized the American educational system for not teaching phonics, we suggest that today’s instructors are missing an opportunity by not learning to read the texts of the Net Generation. Failing to recognize these texts as valuable tools in the teaching and learning process, professors dismiss an entire constellation of literacy skills.
And here is the crux of the problem:
…while N-Gens interact with the world through multimedia, online social networking, and routine multitasking, their professors tend to approach learning linearly, one task at a time, and as an individual activity that is centered largely around printed text…Not having been raised in the world of the N-Gen student, then, presents some significant challenges for faculty members who must attempt to address the needs of a learning style they have never experienced, may know little about, and may be unable to comprehend fully because of their different skills in processing information.
What I like about the article is that it attempts to make a cultural case for educators to get up to speed, not necessarily an technological one (though, obviously, the two are tied.) Learning cultures have changed:
Many faculty members developed their writing skills in a print world where text took the conventional form of paragraphs on a page or was packaged as a book or an article, a story or a novel; its production was typically conceived of as a solitary act. Consequently, their previous experiences with and understanding of text are quite different from that of the N-Gen student, which may lead to profound misunderstandings. When instructors perceive linear, print-based texts as a benchmark, the N-Gen’s texts may, at first glance, fall quite short. However, these digital texts do not necessarily lack style, coherence, or organization; they simply present meaning in ways unfamiliar to the instructor. For example, a collection of images on Flickr with authorial comments and tags certainly does not resemble the traditional essay, but the time spent on such a project, the motivation for undertaking it, and its ability to communicate meaning can certainly be equal to the investment and motivation required by the traditional essay—and the photos may actually provide more meaningful communication for their intended audience.
Whoa. I can hear the screams now. Essay writing akin to collecting images on Flickr? Even I bristle a bit on that one. But the overall point is clear: We can do this all differently now, and to not get our brains around the shifts has some real implications, specifically in the ways in which it limits us from understanding what our students create and, more importantly, helping them to create and construct with the most effect. And, as has been observed many times here and elsewhere, one of the biggest shifts is the move away from individual knowledge to distributed knowledge built on collaborative and, I would argue, network literacies that are unfamiliar to most of us. (Not to say these kids are born with them, btw.)
Let’s face it, the percentage of educators that Johnny comes into contact with K-16 who are fluent at digital texts is maybe 10%. That doesn’t mean that Johnny won’t be able to figure it out on his own. (You know others have suggested that “literacy is natural,” though I do want to probe that idea bit further at some point.) But it does mean, I think, that we’re missing an opportunity to help Johnny make even more of his digital potential. And I’ll ask you, if you had the chance for your own children to have 100% of their teachers who understand these shifts, wouldn’t you want them to? I know I would. Doesn’t mean that we make everything that happens in the classroom digital or Web 2.0 or whatever else. There are plenty of things worth doing the way we’ve been doing them for a long while. But for my kids to have teachers who don’t have a choice in the matter because they just “don’t get” digital environments is unacceptable.
10% huh, I’d say more like 5-6%…do you know how many professors that I have had that are not familiar with even simple 2.0 apps like Google Docs? Amazing.
Thanks Will! This a great post for the beginning of the school year. Will share.
I still have graduate professors who tell me: “Don’t send me an email. I’m not tech savvy. Call me if you need me.” ?!?!?!
And email is ancient in our kids’ world.
I don’t expect every teacher I work with, nor those who teach my own children, to be right on par with the kids. They’re not going to catch up. But I agree with you… they need to at least understand what kids are doing and open their minds to other possibilities. Think what kids could do with the notorious book report if it didn’t have to be in essay form!
It’s critical awareness and higher level thinking that we have always supposed to be fostering and nurturing. Yes, that the 21st century way of saying it, but from the time any record of what education and learning was after ‘pay attention to your lizard brain’, the giants whose efforts are written, it has been critical awareness nad higher level thinking.
If we are not giants ourselves, we should be standing on their shoulders, not hiding behind them or from them.
I agree … 10% … I doubt it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were more like 1 – 2 %. I think you would really be depressed if you were able to visit many schools and stick your head in classrooms. Remember the vast majority of people you see at conventions are Ed IT people and trainers … VERY FEW are actually full-time classroom teachers – and at NECC most classroom teachers there are locals, there because its cheap. (My school district sent 9 people to NECC, NONE were teachers – I had to get other funding which only came through when I won an award). What percentage of the edblogs you read are from full-time classroom teachers?… probably very few. How many real examples of teacher/student work do you show during your presentations? Probably not much … until recently there hasn’t been much out there to show. Want to make a connection with teachers and administrators … show them real work done by real teachers and students not examples of what they COULD do … doesn’t have as big an impact on them. See, now you have ME telling you what to do in your presos. : )
I agree with the comments made. I think one of the major problems is unless teachers are interested in the tools, they are going to be reluctant to apply them. For one thing, they need to be given the time to discover (or is this something they should be doing in their own time?) I read something recently saying that the best way teachers can improve their classes is by putting in extra time to make them more interesting, using different strategies etc. So time is the major factor. Some teachers will be doing this, but there are also some teachers and lecturers who use the same material year after year without changing anything. Just because there are computers in the school it doesn’t mean they are going to be fully utilised, unless teachers go through a complete paradigm shift in delivery.
And how are they going to be motivated to shift their paradigm? I work in a small, rural school in Wisconsin that in the past has been a leader in implementing computers to teachers and students, but now seems frozen. Those of us who are trying to get a handle on these new technologies and paradigm are very few. At a recent presentation by WR, he said he didn’t see how to make systemic change; change works on the individual level. I’m not far from retirement, but I see the relevance of public schools eroding and wonder how time foster systemic progress.
I fear that this article is as replete with BS as is “Why Johnny Can’t Read.”
And that means what?
We really have to have that literacy conversation, Gary. ;0)
I completely agree that we have faulty that are not literate with today’s technologies and the role they can play in student learning. I can attest to the fact that the problem extends beyond the K-12 classroom. I am in the dissertation stage of a doctoral program in Instructional Technology and Distance Education. Unfortunately, this program while strong in theory has sorely lacked in application. Practically every assignment I have had to do has been a typed research paper or posting on a discussion board. While one course mentioned today’s technologies, none actually used them. Many assignments would have actually been more meaningful (while also providing exposure to web 2.0 technologies) if they could have been done in a blog, wiki, or other electronic media. This is a program preparing people to work as experts in the field! While I have worked in instructional technology for seven years and tried to keep up with how these technologies can be used in a K-12 setting, as many have already alluded to, they are not readily accepted or understood.
Not to get overtly political, but I simply could not get John McCain’s technological illiteracy out of my mind. I think it does matter that our president be somewhat up to speed here. Of course, educators from K to grad ought to be more than proficient.
I have to say that every time I read/hear these claims about how much more students today know about various computer technologies, I always have to wonder who are these students? I’ve been teaching college students (first year through grad school) how to make web sites, blogs, wikis, and other things for a long time, and I am always amazed at how much this so-called “n generation” don’t know. Large percentages of my students have never looked at blogs, and almost all of my students know nothing of basic html and/or css. Many of them have difficulty doing anything beyond basic web browsing, word processing, and email. And for most of the students who are “in the know,” their knowledge is limited to a not very critical understanding of tools they use in their daily lives– chat, their cell phones, MySpace or Facebook, etc.
Now, maybe I have this kind of attitude because I do know a lot about these technologies, and maybe I’m facing these students because I have always taught at “opportunity granting” regional universities. But I have to say this idea that “kids today” know so much about web 2.0 technologies seems off to me.
My comment in return would be that your students probably came from districts like mine that don’t allow the use of Web 2.0 tools. Extreme web filtering –and policy makers who don’t understand the tools– leave these kids with no experience in an academic environment to understand responsible digital citizenry (for lack of a better term).
I just left a meeting where I listened to people argue about blocking or unblocking iTunes– because how could that possibly have any academic value?!? It was difficult to contain myself in that meeting.
I’m so frustrated — my own children understand blogs, wikis, what they should and shouldn’t do on MySpace and Facebook, etc. because their mother uses and understands those tools. They have had absolutely no instruction, direction, or guidance in their schools, because administrators see Web 2.0 tools as nuisance or social/personal/dating tools only. And that’s why many of our kids are going to be sorely lacking and light years behind many of their peers.
I agree with both Steven and Michelle’s comments above:
Steven, although students may be familiar with the tech toys they use, there is still a lot they don’t know.
Michelle, you are right, unless educators understand the tools, they are not going to see their value. So this is where the need starts – until this happens, how are they going to pass them on? In most schools the curriculum is set using traditional methods/materials for teaching. It is only teachers who see value in shifting this teaching that make the effort to do so. Even then, it can be very frustrating as there are so many blockages in trying to do so.
My own daughters are more tech savvy than their teachers and have stepped up to problem-solve and show their teachers (including the tech teacher) how to use software. Many years ago, we came to the conclusion that our children would not learn any tech skills at school. Accepting that allowed us to minimize the frustration described and embrace technology in our home.
(BTW- I am a university instructor who trains new teachers to use technologies in their classrooms so I fully understand what we are facing)
I’ve addressed this issue before (so forgive me) but as a twenty four year veteran English Teacher I’m appalled by the leaders in our schools refusing to face & address this pivotal issue! In fact here in Michigan we are de-emphasizing the use of everyday technology tools by trying to “block” everything! “Stone Age” planning that just may lead to that value of learning! When are public school administrators & politicians going to realize that kids (including my own) WILL use the technology in their everyday lives, but if WE don’t GUIDE them to use those tools APPROPRIATELY & PRODUCTIVELY than yes they probably will “waste” time on gossip in myspace versus more practical applications of tech skills so necessary to communicate effectively with other human beings across the globe! Instead our politicians & school leaders believe that shoving Algebra down to the third grade will make us more competitive as a nation- complete nonsense!
WE must WAKE UP the politicians & school leaders to understand that we can’t “block” the world out, and that a “digital age era” is well underway & we MUST prepare our kids for navigating the deep water! I’ve often told my predominantly college-bound juniors & seniors this by stating- “Information is not yet knowledge, & knowledge is not yet wisdom”- if our kids are not taught productive ways to engage in the use of technology for their required “Life-long” learning, they indeed may engage in more wasteful uses of technology in the wake of being more productive at large!
Has anyone who commented here actually read the complete article and checked the bibliography or read any of the articles in the bibliography or is everyone just willing to jump on the technology-is-great bandwagon?