I’ve been thinking about the term “digital natives”. In the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) #Change11 Tony Bates facilitated a week about “Transforming teaching and learning through technology management“.
In a blogpost about this subject Squire Morley says:
So one of the questions Tony asks of us is whether universities can change from within or if new institutions are required for the 21st Century. Unless there is a disjuncture then there is no incentive to change. The system seems to be self-perpetuating. The training (or apprenticeships) of research graduates to become the next generation of lecturers and academics in the same ways as previously is at least partly responsible for this, as are the pressures for advancement through publication in closed, peer-reviewed journals.
But maybe one of the driving forces for change (facilitated by the use of social media) are the students? A new generation of digital natives? In my own experience, primarily among young journalists and journalism students, the fluency of digital natives in using social networks on a personal level does not really mean they “automatically” use these skills in the context of their learning or journalism. There is a subtle difference between being a “digital native” and being “tech-savvy”.
I gave a presentation at a journalism masterclass in Belgium, MasterClass IHECS 2011 â€“ with Open Newsroom â€“ at EghezÃ©e, Belgium and I had this video interview with facilitator Damien Van Achter:
Visitors and residents
But maybe “digital native” is too problematic a term to use. On the TALL blog David White uses the distinction between “residents” and “visitors” instead of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”:
(Hat tip to Stephen Downes for mentioning this video and blogpost). This distinction between “residents” and “natives” is not age-related nor even skill-related. Residents of the internet seem to inhabit a certain “space” and to maintain and develop a digital identity. Visitors seem to consider the net as a tool box.
This insight could be very useful. I often despaired when presenting Twitter to non-Twitter users, or Second Life for that matter: one can explain easily enough the buttons which one has to press and the basic practices (hashtags, lists for Twitter, creating an avatar and learning how to move around and communicate for a virtual world), but even then people are often reluctant to put that “knowledge” to good use.
So maybe the real issue is not the technology, but a cultural (often unconscious) choice for being a visitor and not a resident (I think active Twitter users are more like residents just as virtual world users are clearly “getting” the spatial metaphor). Which does not mean that promoting stuff such as Twitter is hopeless – it just means that the reluctance has to be recognized and addressed on the right level.
I could not participate at the weekly Digital Awakening course session in Second Life, but I did my required reading: Alan Kay/Adele Goldberg, “Personal Dynamic Media“.
In that 1977 essay the authors foretell the importance of notebook computing. “While most saw theÂ computer as a tool for engineers or, at most, businesspeople, Kay thought computers could be usedÂ even by children, and could be used creatively”, so it is explained in the MIT New Media Reader.
One of the great aspects of the Dynabook project was that it involved children as users. The kids were not just consumers or filling boxes which were provided by professional designers and developers, they were also programmers:
Considering children as the users radiates a compelling excitement when viewed from a number of different
perspectives. First, the children really can write programs that do serious things. Their programs use symbols to stand for objects, contain loops and recursions, require a fair amount of visualization of alternative strategies before a tactic is chosen, and involve interactive discovery and removal of â€œbugsâ€ in their ideas.
Second, the kids love it! The interactive nature of the dialogue, the fact that they are in control, the feeling that they are doing real things rather than playing with toys or working out â€œassignedâ€ problems, the pictorial and auditory nature of their results, all contribute to a tremendous sense of accomplishment to their experience. Their attention spans are measured in hours rather than minutes.
The kids used the Smalltalk-language: “Smalltalk was created as the language to underpin the “new world” of computing exemplified by humanâ€“computer symbiosis. It was designed and created in part for educational use, more so for constructionist learning” (Wikipedia)
I cannot help but contrast this enthusiasm with my experiences during a recent debate about the future of the newspaper industry. When I suggested journalism students (so university level, not junior high like in the Dynabook project) should have some basic experience with programming in order to see new story-telling possibilities, there was great indignation. A journalism instructor said that his students would not be interested in such a thing and an editor-in-chief exclaimed that such talk made him very nervous: journalists have to write stories, have scoops, not to mess around in programming languages.
Which means that more than thirty year after these Dynabook experiments, we failed to convey the message that computing literacy is not something for “the nerds in the basement”, but fun stuff which enables people to envision tasks and projects in very new and exhilarating ways.
I replied to Cristian as you can see at that blog link, and he has yet to answer my very salient points : )
It’s a mistake to think that because you are finished with a world or platform, that it is “finished”.
Ogoglio? You’re kidding. You can’t mistake geeky platformy things without any customer service plan or sticky worldyness to be knocking SL out of the water.
Not liking “walled gardens” is a geek affectation. WoW has the G, has the walled garden, has the attention economy. Sorry, but leaving that out of your analysis is just…weird.
Social media and games don’t pay anybody but their developers. Virtual worlds like SL get more people paid who build them out and participate in them. That’s golden, and will go on becoming more golden.
Not sure why this is getting so much coverage. I’ve personally believed a *mix* of private/public virtual worlds (layered atop a public utility-like 2D/3D internet) will co-exist just as similar constructs co-exist in real life (e.g. executive country clubs) and in other net-based virtual forms (e.g. invitation-only socnets).
“Linden Lab could roll out another platform that would be compatible with the original, but which was improved in a number of ways … And what would drive people to Linden Labâ€™s new platform besides a nicer world? Security. Security for world builders and for those who want to engage in real world interactivity.</eM” – “The Innovation of Insecurity”
Why 3D virtual worlds would be the exception to the rule makes no sense to me.
Why do you think that people are relunctant to use Twitter or other kinds of technology? Do they not see its value, do they not understand it??
People who don’t want to use Twitter, or at least not actively, seem to think it is “intellectual fast-food”, worthless short soundbytes. Or they say they do see the value, but lack the time to monitor Twitter and engage in discussions. Or they are reluctant to create a digital persona and to share stuff with whoever is out there. Or they feel they’ve nothing especially interesting to share (using Facebook for sharing trivia with friends and family, and perceiving Twitter more as a platform for opinion leaders).Â