I have the same concern for never-ending research that never impacts practice. “Let’s wait for the next study” is also a delaying tactic.

Critically examining how we teach (as George says) is obviously important, but should NOT be done because we think kids have changed, which would imply that we think it was being done properly before. It should be done because it’s the right thing to do for any era and all children, whether they are highly exposed to digital technology or not.

What I take issue with is are the sweeping, apparently unsubstantiated, claims that are made:
a) about the defining characteristics of this generation and,
b) the implications these have for how we teach.

I do not dismiss practitioner knowledge. All teachers should be adjusting what they do based on what they observe in their classrooms. But to generalize that to an entire generation and then propose and make widespread institutional changes based on these anecdotal observations is irresponsible. It is also irresponsible for educators to continue to blindly accept these claims without examining the evidence.

As George Siemens points out in his earlier response, I am not refuting the claims, I am only saying the evidence doesn’t support the claims. And as I have said in my presentations, I am not saying we shouldn’t be critically examining how we teach and responding appropriately to our learners, but this should be based on evidence not on techno-utopian net gen hype.

Now, what percentage of youngsters today grow up digital before the age of 6? No doubt, there are a few, but likely the majority begin around the age of 6 and up. In such a case, then, the analogy to language learning would assert that these learners are not digital natives, which throws a wrench into the claims of those proposing a digital native/immigrant distinction for learning.

And even for those beginning video games or other digital things before the age of 6, then perhaps they could be considered digital natives at those specific items, but like language learners, as they move to a 2nd or 3rd or more electronic “language,” if it occurs after the age of 6, then they are digital immigrants for the specific electronic “language”.

The point is the digital native/immigrant terms hype the reality of what is occurring. Although age affects the ability to acquire new experiences easily, Chris’s position on experience and access makes sense to me. In fact, it explains well why students without much access to computers can text-message like “natives” but have problems, at least in my classes, managing the different aspects of a weblog or wiki. And thus, we need to avoid stereotyping and lumping all of our students together into a single digital “native” learner mold and all of us older-than-teenager folks into a single class of digital “immigrants”. Such dichotomies do not reflect reality.

One other problem I have, as indicated in my posts on my blog, is the claim of digital natives’ ability to multitask. Everything I’ve read in the research shows that the ability to learn and retain information, whether by a digital native or immigrant, decreases considerably when multitasking.

I do feel more and more that the question of the source of learner change is both fraught with difficulty due to the nature/nurture confound but also that different ideas of the how and why are almost distinctions without a difference. I tend to discount technological determinism, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe that the change in the information landscape and the increasing ubiquity of new media and information channels doesn’t have serious effects on learners…

The analogy I came up with a few days ago was that of eating. People eat very differently in times of abundance than scarcity. Their biology doesn’t significantly change (though it does some), but it would be foolish to look around and argue that people aren’t really eating differently, it’s just a change in their food context. It would be wiser to recognize that the socioeconomic context is an important factor to consider when it comes to nutrition and try to teach proper eating habits in an environment that is not just no longer one of hunting and gathering, but one that is very different for most of us from even 50 years ago.

Which is why I take your closing two points as support that learners are changing. And if we teach properly to the environment we will be teaching properly for those changes– more properly, in fact, because we will be introducing our own changes to help the students develop a posture and disposition when it comes to information and communication.

First – I have been mastered by my blog. I’m now actively soliciting other platforms. I have no idea why it won’t accept comments. I’ve spun dials, flicked switches…all to no avail.

Your Berkeley refutation is perfect! Every day, the students we see in our classrooms are evidence that the world is changing. I’m just not sure that the existing research on the subject provides enough evidence to make “changed learners” the basis for systemic changes. On the other hand, if I accept your statement that my final two points (how we interact with information and how we interact with each other) to be functions of digital learners, that changes everything . But, most literature on immigrants/natives draws conclusions like “learners are biologically different” or “learners have to power down when they come to class”…as well as suggesting learners relate different to each other and information. While I agree with the latter, I’m unsure about the former statements as I don’t think research beyond anecdotal experiences supports it.

As I noted at the CNIE conference where another individual addressed digital learners, her examples for refuting the concept were based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence (i.e. “do your own kids do this?”).

As you likely know, I’m a conflicted, even confused, thinker. I appreciate opposites to what I believe or, for that matter, even know to be true. I like knowing points for and against. That’s why I appreciated Keen’s voice being added to the debate of culture. Do I agree with him? No. But I like knowing that someone out there is challenging status quo. Naysayers are important .

To this end, while the blog title “Net Gen Nonsense” is a bit too extreme, dialogue in academic circles is important. Much of the conversation of net gen to date has happened through conferences/blogs. Now, as traditional academics are awakening to these conversations, they are seeking to impose their means of sense-making on existing/accepted theories – namely empirical evidence. It’s important to note as well, that lack of evidence is not the same as evidence against. At this point, even people like Bullen are saying “empirical evidence doesn’t support this”…they are not saying it’s completely false.

When we argued a few months ago about Prensky, your point was very valid: Prensky provided tools/language to think about learners today. It shook people out of their comfort zone. It gave name/face to a phenomenon most people had only experienced as a feeling/sensation.

George