Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Bolder CO: EDUCAUSE
Somewhat ‘old’ now, but still essential reading, this collection explores the Net Gen and the implications for institutions in areas such as teaching, service, learning space design, faculty development, and curriculum. Contributions by educators and students are included.
Thanks to Burkhard Lehmann for reminding me of this. He comments that the book indicates:
“1. The rhetoric that university students are Digital Natives and university staff are Digital Immigrants is not supported.
2. There is great diversity in students’ and staff experiences with technology, and their preferences for the use of technology in higher education.”
Dr. Tony Bates is the author of eleven books in the field of online learning and distance education. He has provided consulting services specializing in training in the planning and management of online learning and distance education, working with over 40 organizations in 25 countries. Tony is a Research Associate with Contact North | Contact Nord, Ontario’s Distance Education & Training Network.
Tony:
I think Burkhardt may be confusing the Oblinger & Oblinger book with the University of Melbourne research project by the same name. The Oblinger & Oblinger book (with the exception of one or two chapters) essentially repeats the unsubstantiated rhetoric about the net generation. The U of Melbourne study contradicts this rhetoric and has produced an excellent handbook on the implications the new technologies for higher education.
See The Net Gen Skeptic for more on this issue (http://www.netgennonsense.blogspot.com) and the U of Melbourne research project website for details of their research. (http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/overview/index.html)
Mark
Burkhard’s comments are so true, especially for us who teach at small regional campuses. And I’d add one of my own observations is that there is great diversity of IT staff experiences in identifying and promoting trends in educational technology to their constituent faculty.
Thanks, Mark, for the University of Melbourne correction.
Their (and Burkhard’s) conclusions are supported also by a British study:
CIBER (2008) Information behaviour of the researcher of the future London: British Library, UCL http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf.googlegen.pdf