Clase de entidades

defence against drowning in a sea of information. As more people join more and more social networking sites and expand their networks, the volume of information they receive increases exponentially due to the network effect. Social technology is compounding this through adding features such as Facebook’s ‘frictionless sharing’

(Tene 2012) which can be considered an example of what some call ‘over-sharing’

(Rose 2011). As well as information overload there are concerns about privacy (Brandtzæg, Luders, and Skjetne 2010) and security (Rose 2011).

This makes some commentators ask: “Has this constant sharing of everything made us subject to the tyranny of group-think? And, if it has, what is this doing to our ability to innovate?” (Dao 2011)

When considering the research questions, the point was made that the most obvious of the new ways of working were simply the existing media bureaucracies taking their existing processes, such as phone-ins and newsgathering, and adding social media to the workflow. This seems quite a way from the revolution in media peer production some have suggested, indeed:

“Many of us who study new media still proceed too often from the assumptions that peer production is radically participatory, egalitarian, efficient, and psychologically fulfilling. As a result, we all too easily echo the line that peer production is revolutionizing the way that we produce and consume information, democratizing culture, and fostering a robust public domain.”

“… Today, we need to consider peer production not only as a challenge to bureaucratic forms, but as a complement and, at times, even an extension of their missions.” (Kreiss, Finn, and Turner 2011, p.255) Social media evangelism and rhetoric is shaping the discourse and

perceptions about the potential of social media. Does the evidence of changes in ways of doing business justify the rhetoric about what could be achieved? The issue will be analysed in greater detail in the final thesis.

8.4.6 Difference in generational aptitudes for technology – aka the ‘digital natives’ debate

An aspect of technologically determinist rhetoric which has been particularly influential on the field of education and learning is the debate surrounding ‘digital natives’. While there are a number of terms which mean much the same thing, but forward by a number of authors (list them) it is the concept of ‘digital natives’ as expressed by Marc Prensky, that the researcher considers to have had the greatest

Page 65 of 258 bearing in the main case study. An examination of the original ‘digital natives’

hypothesis, and subsequent criticism, and development of the idea, will follow.

8.4.6.1 “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”

This is an essay written for On the Horizon by, who it calls, the ‘internationally acclaimed thought leader’ Marc Prensky in 2001. On the Horizon makes no claim to be a peer-reviewed educational journal; its stated mission is “to inform educators about the challenges that they will face in a changing world and steps they can take to meet these challenges.” (On the Horizon 2005)

As with On the Horizon, the article makes no claims to be a piece of empirical research, yet has been very influential on discourse on how education could change as a result of the impact of digital technologies such as the Internet, computer games, smartphones and social media. Management thinking on learning and training inside the BBC was influenced by this debate, as will be shown in the main case study.

Prensky’s governing idea is clearly stated:

“Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” (Prensky 2001, p.1)

According to Prensky, this is not incremental change: “A really big discontinuity” has occurred. Prensky describes the event as a ‘singularity’, he continues: “This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20^th century.” Prensky, quoting his own description of this event, even going so far as describing it as “so-called”, demonstrates the rhetorical nature of his argument – although it is not clear if he uses “so-called” to indicate “his name that is commonly or usually used for something” or “a name or description that is not really right or suitable” (Miriam-Webster 2014).

He describes digital natives as having “…spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones and all the other toys and tools of the digital age”, and “computer games, email, the

Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives.”

(Prensky 2001)

These claims seem fairly obvious to anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in the company of teenagers and young adults in the 21^st Century, but from here Prensky makes a substantial intuitive leap, and suggests that:

Page 66 of 258

“…today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” (Prensky 2001, p.2)

This bold and unsubstantiated statement moves from observations about a change in the culture and behaviour of young people to the notion that their psychology, and the way their brains work, is somehow different to that of their parents or teachers.

Prensky does not elaborate on how they are different…

By contrast “Digital Immigrants” are those not born into the digital age, who Prensky argues have an ‘accent’ that can be “seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first, or in reading the manual for a program rather than assuming that the program itself will teach us to use it.” (Prensky 2001)

Prensky contrasts his claims about the learning habits of digital natives:

“Digital natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext).

They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.” (Prensky 2001, p.2)

With similarly unsubstantiated claims about what he seems to consider to be the conservative and reactionary teaching methods of their educators:

“Digital immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today’s learners are different.”

(Prensky 2001, p.3)

If at some point someone involved in setting the direction for learning technology at the BBC had read Prensky’s original article, and reflected on their own behaviour, they may well have observed that they were a ‘digital immigrant’ by generation, but a ‘digital native’ by behaviour – especially the ‘turn to the Internet first for

information’ behaviour which Prensky considered one of the strongest indicators of

‘digital natives’ (and which subsequent empirical research on the topic has

demonstrated is a valid observation (Helsper and Eynon 2009) – this research will be considered in more depth in the following ‘Criticism’ sub-section). But it did not happen…

In line with the aim of On the Horizon to inform educators of “steps they can take”, Prensky proposes that: “Today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students” which he suggests means “going faster, less

Page 67 of 258 step-by-step, more in parallel, with more random access, among other things.”

(Prensky 2001)

He also suggests that educators should differentiate “‘Legacy’ content (which) includes reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, understanding the writings and ideas of the past, etc. – all of our traditional curriculum”, and “’Future’ content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological.” (Prensky 2001)

Prensky’s “own preference for teaching Digital Natives is to invent computer games to do the job.” (Prensky 2001)

8.4.6.2 Criticism of the “digital natives” hypothesis

Selwyn (2009) contends that the “emblematic role of the child has been especially prominent in debates over the past ten years concerning the societal role of new digital technologies such as personalized, portable computerized devices and so-called ‘social software’ and ‘Web 2.0’ tools.” He goes on “… the first years of the 2000s have been subject to a particularly virulent strain of the child computer user discourse, typified by portrayals of ‘digital natives’ and the ‘net generation’”. (Selwyn 2009, p.364)

This discourse has been “influential in shaping contemporary public, political and academic expectation of the technological capabilities and demands of those children and young people who were ‘digitally born’ in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.” (Selwyn 2009, p.365)

The “loose body of digital native literature is predicated upon a common perception of generational divide and disjuncture”, and, Selwyn argues was (and is) “highly influential within popular and political discourse, as well as in some scientific discussion. The ‘commonsensical’ notion of the digital native is foregrounded increasingly in the thoughts and pronouncements of policymakers, technology vendors and opinion formers throughout the world.” (Selwyn 2009, p.366)

While Selwyn uses quotation marks as a rhetorical device – he does not provide a reference for his ‘commonsensical’ quotation, and does not provide any evidence of the foregrounded thoughts of the groups mentioned; we shall see in the main case study that for policy makers, technology providers and opinion formers within the BBC, this was certainly the case. And “the ease with which these commonsensical

‘stories’ of the digital native generation are being repeated and ‘re-told’ should be cause for some alarm” not least because “common-sense thinking is uncritical,

Page 68 of 258