Michael Thomas, ed. (2011) Decontructing Digital Natives: Young People, Technology and the New Literacies, New York & London: Routledge, 216pp.

According to Professor David Buckingham in the Foreword to this book, there have been generation gaps, and even technological media-gaps between generations before now—for instance the television generation of the 1960s. Terms like “Digital Native,” digital generation”, and “net generation,” have created a debate about the extent of change this digital age has brought. Buckingham goes on to say:

The myths of technological revolutionary change and generational difference can greatly overstate reality and underestimate factors of continuity. “Ultimately the digital natives argument tends to essentialize generations—and in the process to “exoticise” young people, to make them seem inherently strange and different…. Yet despite all this, the concept of generational change remains a relevant and productive one with which to work. If we wish to understand the complex and uneven nature of social change, and the place of technology within it, we need more measured and careful investigations that play close attention to the texture of lived experience.” (pp.x-xi)      

Author Michael Thomas begins the first chapter:

Thomas goes on to describe tensions in the literary and educational worlds. Students have found ways to shortcut research and honest study on the Web and use classroom time for multitasking. The great digital divide between entitled Westerners and young people in disadvantaged situations is noted.     
This book, Thomas makes clear, is about the term digital natives and the “so-called ‘transformation of learning’ in optimistic works (such as Nicholas Negroponte (1996) Being Digital, Marc Prensky, 2001, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” Don Tapscott (1998) Growing Up Digital, Palfrey & Gasser (2008) Born Digital, Don Tapscott, (2009) Grown Up Digital, and Marc Prensky, 2010, Teaching Digital Natives). Such works have created a debate and divide between educators who are embracing the idea of adapting to the supposed creative mind-set of those they continue to call digital natives, and those who reject even the term in serious academic circles. Thomas cites words from Green & Hannon, 2007, to illustrate the former group:

Assumptions by such thinkers, about digital natives in this new era, are three in number, according to Thomas:

1. They constitute a largely homogeneous generation and speak a different language vis-à-vis digital technologies, as opposed to their parents and “Digital Immigrants”;
2. They learn differently from preceding generations of students;
3. They demand a new way of teaching and learning involving technology. (p. 4)

“This book is an attempt to examine these arguments from a range of international and disciplinary perspectives and to understand both the temptations and dangers of technoevangelism, which often drive them, as well as the technoskepticism that may too easily dismiss them.” (p.4)

In Ch. 2, Marc Prinsky, above, seen as beginning the digital native “myth” argues ten years later that the words were meant as metaphors and shouldn’t be taken literally in a hard and fast manner.

Pensky knows not all kids grow up in the same digital culture, but game consoles and cell phones are universal enough. “In the developed world, the “digital culture” (as opposed to knowledge of specific hardware and software) is close to universal, and with the rapid spread of cell phones and game machines, it is growing quickly in the rest in the world. (p. 17) 

Digital wisdom, the theme of Prensky’s recent work is seen in the best strategies of advertising, politics, and education. “Digital wisdom arises from the combination of the mind and digital tools; what the enhanced mind loses by outsourcing mundane tasks will be more than made up for by the wisdom gained. Wisdom, and particularly practical wisdom, must be understood in light of the digital enhancements that make it stronger. (p.25)

Pensky’s article and this conclusion are thought provoking:

Chris Jones, in Ch. 3, shifts our attention to the problem of dating this new generation, reminding us there is no generally accepted, specific date for the beginning of the Net Generation or Millennials. 

Tapscott starts the new generation with extreme precision in January 1977 and ends it with a further generational shift into Generation Next in December 1977 (Tapscott, 2009, p.16). Prensky… does not specify a particular year, while other authors using the term “Digital Native” have been more precise and argued that digital natives appear after 1980 (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008, p.1). Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) following Howe and Strauss (2000) put a precise date on the Millennials, suggesting they were born “in or after 1982” (Oblinger, 2003, p.38). Unlike Howe and Strauss, Oblinger and Oblinger also provide an end date for the Millennial grouping in 1991 (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). All these authors suggest that the generally boundary is sharp and that a short period of time would make a significant difference to young people’ attitudes. (p. 30-31)

Most accept changing attitudes and styles of youth to some degree. The controversy is how precise we can, and ought to, be in dating and designating the characteristics of given youthful generations—or if thinking in dated generations is helpful. 

Chris Jones notes Marc Prensky’s shift and modification from earlier narrow and enthusiastic dogmatism to his later theme of digital wisdom. Prensky came to acknowledge that most people are now using digital enhancements. But Jones still finds deterministic conclusions in those emphasizing technological change as changing our brains and the course of culture. The primary argument of the determinists is that “The ubiquitous nature of certain technologies, specifically gaming and the Web, has affected the outlook of an entire age cohort in advanced economies.” (p. 42) Jones cites the empirical evidence of a greater diversity among university students as being more than such theories can support (e.g. Czerniewicz et al., 2009; Hargitti, 2010; Jones et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2008).

The second argument of those insisting on clear-cut effects on specific areas of the brain and consequent behavioral characteristics is that “The new technologies emerging with this generation have particular characteristics that afford certain types of social engagement.” (p.42). 

This idea, “that new technologies simply determine the outlook of an entire generation is one that should be discarded…. Research is showing a more complex set of changes among young people that either the Net Generation or digital native arguments suggest.” (see researcher Czerniewicz and others above, p. 43)

Are a generation of online students more likely to become socially concerned and active? Many believe so. It is worthwhile to read carefully from the first paragraph of Ch. 4, “Disempowering by Assumption: ‘Digital Natives’ and the EU Civic Web Project,” by Shakuntala Banaji.

Shakuntala Banaji, UK researcher (CivicWeb, EU) at the Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media and lecturer, summarizes the debate and analyzes several current sites inviting youthful social participation, and then asks, “… are young people taking up the invitations to use online spaces in question?” Her answer from empirical studies (e.g. Livingstone, et al., 2005, p. 295) suggests that “overall, visiting civic websites is low on young people’s priorities. These findings are replicated with slight differences of emphasis in the Civic Web survey of 3,300 young people’s online and offline participation.” (p. 53) Furthermore she found that Internet projects with big funding received more spam than serious interaction and tended to run out of money to service online comments and forums.

Civic Web findings suggest the idea of most European and Turkish youth eager to participate online and offline in forums and social action to be a myth. The result of this myth, “… probably the largest number of under-utilized  and spam-filled spaces in history—expensive digital dustbins.” (p. 62)

Toshie Takahashi (faculty fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society and professor of communication and media studies at Rikkyo Univ., Tokyo) considers “Japanese Youth and Media” in Ch. 5. She reviews overly “Utopian and dystopian views of youth” generally to begin with and then goes on to describe particularities of youthful Japanese use of phone, Email and SNS’s. (pp. 68-69) Included are insightful interviews with students, and a particular issue: “Recently, young people have develop a psychological problem: the so-called Mixi tsukare (fatigue). She quotes Tomlinson (1999, p. 204):

Takahashi concludes:

Mike Levy and Rowan Michael again caution against seeing “a whole generation as a homogenous group” in Ch. 6, “Analyzing Students’ Multimodal Texts: The Product and the Product”… Clearly, more empirical research is needed to understand more precisely what skills, knowledge, and literacies are available to young people, both collectively and individually…. The case study here aims to elucidate further the nature of students’ multimodal creations through the use of empirical study and observation.” (pp. 83-84, 87)  They conclude that students need more formal settings to gain certain types of knowledge and learn many necessary social skills. Their study further affirmed the notion that students of a certain age are not a homogeneous group, have various aptitudes, and need different learning techniques and situation.

Professor Ola Erstad of the University of Oslo continues the general consensus of this book from studies in the Nordic (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland) in Ch. 7, “Citizens Navigating in Literate World: The Case for Digital Literacy.” The Nordic context is one of the most digitalized areas on earth.

The widespread use of digital devices, however, does not necessarily translate into adequate digital literacy. Erstad provides a chart to define “different aspects and categories of digital literacy: Basic skills, Download, Search, Navigate, Classify, Integrate, Evaluate, Communicate, Cooperate, and Create.” (p. 107) He attempts in this article “to develop a more cohesive approach in our conceptualization of a new digital generation. It is rather, still, a generation that uses many different media, both analog and digital, in their everyday lives.” (p. 114). 

Erstad concludes with questions about life in increasingly digital-dependent societies and about the kind of research important for future citizens and about the kind of schools that will provide the best learning spaces for different kinds of students. “In the next few years it will be critical to debate and research these issues and to move towards a better understanding of what citizenship in terms of 21st century digital competencies implies.” (p. 115)

Students can be very adept at some kinds of Internet searches and yet inept at fundamental online academic research. This is the issue taken up by Gregor E. Kennedy and Terry S. Judd in Ch. 8, “Beyond Google and the ‘Satisficing’ Searching of Digital Natives. They question again the stereotyping of that term and by reviewing the evidence, “we seek to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of students in tertiary education, which may be useful in informing policy and practice.” (p. 120) The question here is how students use databases like Psych-Info, ERIC, MedLine and “integrate these with tools and sources such as Google and Wikipedia?” Their basic conclusion is that “a generation of students that has grown up with Google may over-value expediency when locating and selecting appropriate scholarly information.” (p. 132)

Rachael Levy looks at “Young Children, Digital Technology, and Interaction with Text,” in Ch. 10. Along with the term digital native, digital literacy also needs to be clarified. Acknowledging that young children “are immersed in ‘digital practices’ from an early age,… it was clear that children had different responses to digital technology, especially in relation to its perceived place within the school discourse…. It is not wise to assume that children are in any way ‘native’ users of digital technology.” (p. 163) Schools are encouraged to discern the level of competencies of each student, to integrate school use of technology with that which goes on in the home environment, and help “children to develop a range of encoding and decoding skills.”  (p.164)

The penultimate Chapter 11 is the clearest and most caustic critique of the Digital Native (Net Gen and Millennial Learners) idea and movement. Sue Bennett and Karl Maton take Howe & Strauss, Marc Prensky, Palfrey & Gasser to task for creating moral panic with a theory that has no, or at least inadequate, empirical evidence. They conclude:

A fascinating feature of this book is that its chapters are bookended by proponents of the position being attacked throughout. As Marc Prensky contributed an early second chapter, the final Ch.12 is written by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser (Born Digital). In both cases the authors are identified with the “digital native theory,” and here, while standing by their original theses, they restate their position in view of critiques. Palfrey and Gasser begin their chapter by reiterating their claim that digital media is changing the way students learn and relate. They go on to affirm, “in tension with what others in this volume have argued, (we believe) that the use of the term “Digital Native” can be a constructive way to reach parents and teachers and that it can be done in a fashion that is true to sound research about youth practices with respect to digital media.” (p. 186) And they do back up their ideas with sound global research.

With other writers in this book, Palfrey&Gasser do take exception to Marc Prensky’s early stark contrast between “digital natives and digital immigrants,” his use of “words like ‘singularity,’ ‘discontinuity,’ and ‘fundamentally different’ (emphasis in the original) to describe young people,” and his emphasis on a radically new era. They see the digital age as an evolution not a revolution. For them “digital natives” fulfill three requirements: born after 1980 (not an exact date), have access to digital technologies (4.8 of the world’s 6 billion don’t), and most importantly have the skills to use those technologies in a sophisticated way. (p. 188-189) 

The special attributes of this population (this word preferred to “generation”) are (1) an emphasis on expressing and working out their identities online on Facebook, etc., and a fusion of online and offline identities, (2) a practice and ability of multi-tasking (these authors seem almost to accept graduate student multi-tasking [better “task-switching” or “switch-tasking”] in the classroom—as being inevitable and that more is being picked up by students than a professor might assume), (3) a presumption that anything important and needed should be available digitally, and (4) that they are not only consumers but creators of information (their social networks, blogs, etc.).

They are concerned about five dangers: safety, privacy, intellectual property, information quality, and information overload. These concerns, neglected by many other experts, are issues to which they’ve given a great deal thought and developed a center as a practical response. They conclude:

We need to strive to understand youth (and adult) practice with respect to information as it changes based on sound data; to chart a common path forward; and then to work hard, together, to make it come to pass. With the help of our children and our students, we can design and craft a much better information environment not just for today’s youth, but for society at large and for future generations. (p. 201)

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. What is the main single point you have gotten from this article?
2. Are there two or more specific points you will take with you?
3. What questions, suggestions, or criticisms or do you have regarding this article or the book it is summarizing?
4. If you are a teacher, what did you find most useful for your practice?
5. If you are a youth worker/minister, how does this book apply to you?
6. If you are a parent, do you take anything from this book which can help your family?

IMPLICATIONS

1. This is, I believe, the longest article in our Encyclopedia. I am very pleased you have read through it. Even a long summary misses so much of importance. I hope you will get this book, or have your library order it—and then use it for important discussions.
2. This book provides strong evidence that empirical evidence can support various conflicting theories. This should humble all who do research in human behavior—and those who depend on the research of others.
3. Though there is strong disagreement in this book, all are convinced as to changing technologies and important cultural changes—and that we must continue a dialogue about the meaning of it all.
4. This book highlights the importance of youth.
5. There is also common agreement among us all on the importance of collaboration with each other in various disciplines and roles, and that we all need the cooperation of children and youth if we are to understand our times and how we can support one another for the common good.

Dean Borgman  cCYS