[photo by Michael Sarver]

… they were a kind of solution.

From a recent post by the inimitable CogDog, spurred by current CCK08 discussions on complexity and chaos:

“In addition, I am growing more snarky with tacit generalizations (all but using the dead tired “natives/immigrants”) that “younger = desires more complex / older = desires linear”. I am not wanting studies, but some appreciation that the range of teachers and learners is just as complex as this week is supposed to address. I don’t know what to do with this reflex, but hope others can pause for reaching for that assumption, or at least question it.”

The thing about generalizations– and I’m not picking at Alan’s post, merely using it as a jumping off point– is that all educators need and use them all the time. The minute we prepare a single assignment, assessment, outcome or piece of curriculum for a future student or more than one student, we are necessarily relying on predictions of needs and behavior that come from generalizations. I would even go so far as saying that knowing how to make the most accurate and productive generalizations possible is a critical skill for any educator.

Given a heterogeneous student population, most such necessary generalizations are– by definition– inaccurate. The question we have to constantly ask ourselves include: why am I prone to consider or accept a particular general statement? Why is that statement being made, particularly by others? Does the context justify a generalization? Is a particular prediction accurate enough to be useful? Are our plans flexible enough to accommodate the “outliers” who won’t be able to adapt to the inaccuracy? I suppose this is really the same kind of request that Alan makes in the last line quoted above… it’s just that I’m as wary of the generalization that generalizations are bad as I am many of the generalizations that are suspect! How’s that for twisted?

Like other generalizations, the idea of digital natives and digital immigrants doesn’t remain a constant topic of discussion out of mass intellectual laziness or delusion, but because it has some degree of accuracy in describing an experience that a significant number of people share. I don’t want to go too far into defending this particular generalization as such (my argument, like that of my unwitting partner Danah Boyd– and the contributors to the very good book Being Digital, among others who can’t really be classified as partners of Prensky– is that it isn’t going away, it’s narrowly useful as something other than an age-based schema, it can be part of a nuanced discussion, and it can/should be rehabilitated) but to note that its continued resilience in the face of criticism and viable alternatives is in itself an indication of an area that needs more attention.

A generalization is only as useful as its predictive power. A gross calculation would be that if the shoe fits more than 50% of the users it’s a net gain. But educators, of course, have much higher standards than that. But what is that standard? I have two classes at the moment where the digital native/immigrant generalization fits almost (with one exception) perfectly. Is something that predicts important behaviors of 34 out of 35 students from 16-60+ valuable? Given our inability– even today with all the power of social network tools at our disposal– to completely individualize most educational experiences, we must be vigilant in questioning generalities and stingy– but not completely averse to– making use of them.

And context weighs heavily in whether I let my feathers get ruffled when a generalization is made. Who’s making it? Do I have good reason to believe that it’s a shorthand referring to a more complex and considered idea that isn’t being made for reasons of time or space? Is the context of the conversation such that it might seem hyperfocused, the kind of conversation that can lead me to mistake the intensity of that focus for an illusory level of support? I’m particularly sensitive to this because my philosophy is (though I am hardly good at it) to give the benefit of the doubt to most speakers in a way that I hope is accorded to me. Nothing is more frustrating than being conversationally derailed because someone assumes that because I am talking about, say, the usefulness of student blogging that I must not be aware of powerful uses of discussion boards, chat rooms and wikis. Or because I am focused at the moment on authentic, performance-based assessments means I don’t know about– or worse don’t believe in– the usefulness of traditional quizzes and tests.

So, I’m not arguing with Alan (I know better! I might argue with him about something like the productive importance of philosophy and “theory” but you’d be able to hear his head hitting his keyboard out of sleepiness and/or frustration) as much as voicing my own hope that while questioning generalizations we also give the ability– even the pragmatic necessity– of making generalizations its due, and that we consider how we can pay attention to and improve that process in the cases where discarding it isn’t feasible.