NET GEN INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

Megan Poore

NET GEN INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

Megan Poore

• Web 2.0

• Statistics and expectations

• ICT proficiency and literacy

• Information behaviour

• Learning needs

• Moral Panic and Digital Faith

• Implications

COVERAGE

• Web 2.0 is not a software package

• It is the ‘read-write’ web

• Web 2.0 is not a software package

• It is the ‘read-write’ web

WEB 2.0

WEB 1.0 WEB 2.0

Ofoto Flickr

Mp3.com Napster

Britannica Online Wikipedia

Personal websites Blogging

Publishing Participation

Content mgt systs. Wikis

Directories (taxonomy) Tagging (‘folksonomy’)

Stickiness Syndication

Software as package Software as service

O’Reilly (2005: online)

WEB 2.0

• Social networking

• Wikis

• MySpace, Face book

• Blogs

• Podcasting

• Tagging, RSS

• Social networking

• Wikis

• MySpace, Face book

• Blogs

• Podcasting

• Tagging, RSS

WEB 2.0

Lankshear and Knobel (2006: 1)

Mindset 1.0 Mindset 2.0

The world is appropriately interpreted, understood and responded to in broadly physical industrial terms.

The world cannot adequately be interpreted, understood and responded to in physical-industrial terms only.

Value is a function of scarcity Value is a function of dispersion

Products as material artifacts Products as enabling services.

Tools for producing Tools for mediating and relating

Focus on individual intelligence Focus on collective intelligence

Expertise and authority ‘located’ in individuals and institutions

Expertise and authority are distributed and collective; hybrid experts

Space as enclosed and purpose specific

Space as open, continuous and fluid

Social relations of ‘bookspace’; a stable ‘textual order’

Social relations of emerging ‘digital media space’; texts in change

• Users add value

• Some rights reserved

• Perpetual beta

• Co-operate, don’t control

• Constructivism

• Users add value

• Some rights reserved

• Perpetual beta

• Co-operate, don’t control

• Constructivism

O’Reilly (2005: online)

WEB 2.0 DESIGN PATTERNS

• Also called ‘millennials’, ‘Digital Natives’

• In the UK, 1 in 3 children aged between 5 and 9 owns a mobile phone

• Average age of first phone ownership is 8

• Also called ‘millennials’, ‘Digital Natives’

• In the UK, 1 in 3 children aged between 5 and 9 owns a mobile phone

• Average age of first phone ownership is 8

Vision (2005: 11)

THE NET GENERATION

• Parallel process and multi-task

• Have ‘hypertext minds’

• Have always had Web 2.0 at home

• Have little patience for step-by-step logic (or reasoning?)

• Parallel process and multi-task

• Have ‘hypertext minds’

• Have always had Web 2.0 at home

• Have little patience for step-by-step logic (or reasoning?)

Prensky (2001)

THE NET GENERATION

• Some evidence that their brain structures are different …

• I’m a bit sceptical …

• Some evidence that their brain structures are different …

• I’m a bit sceptical …

Prensky (2001)

THE NET GENERATION

• Information-rich• Non-linear and

associative• Multi-media,visual and

graphical• Immediate/instantaneous• Immersive and abundant• Relevant and meaningful

INFORMATION FOR THE NET GEN

Pletka (2007)

• Community-oriented and team-based

• Collaborative, co-operative, participatory

• Communication-rich• Interactive and dialogical• Customised, personalised,

individualised

COMMUNITY, COLLABN, CHOICE

Pletka (2007)

• Are active processors of information

• Filter info all the time• Are used to getting info

immediately• Are used to controlling

info flows

CHARACTERISTICS

Veen and Vrakking (2007)

• Get bored if the information flow is poor or too slow

• Use non-linear resources

• Do not complain of information overload!

Veen and Vrakking (2007)

CHARACTERISTICS

• Absorb discontinuous information and make meaning of it

• Cope with complexity• Increase or decrease their

attention levels, depending on need

COMPLEXITY

Veen and Vrakking (2007)

• Can work with sub-optimal knowledge

• Make sense of bits• Accept uncertainty

Veen and Vrakking (2007)

COMPLEXITY

• Are effective communicators• Prefer communicating

through images• Use their networks• Are used to controlling

communication• Are collaborative

COMMUNICATION

Veen and Vrakking (2007)

• ‘Net Gen’ communication is

o Multimodal

o Interactive

o Creative and interpretive

o Comes easily to them

• ‘Net Gen’ communication is

o Multimodal

o Interactive

o Creative and interpretive

o Comes easily to them

Johnson (2006: 73)

COMMUNICATION

• Are personalised• Are visual• Have links to the

community• Are rigorous• Use individualised

feedback

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Pletka (2007)

• Trust• Openness• Access

VALUES

Veen and Vrakking (2007: 47)

• Speak with an ‘accent’ – or a different language entirely!

• Misunderstand the new ways in which the Net Gen learns

• Speak with an ‘accent’ – or a different language entirely!

• Misunderstand the new ways in which the Net Gen learns

Prensky (72001)

‘DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’

• We work in a linear fashion• We read the instructions

first before using• We are used to working

alone• We believe in doing things

'right'• We believe in doing things

one thing at a timeVeen and Vrakking (2007:

32 )

‘DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’

“What truly continues to separate the generations is not technological skill but

how the generations perceive the digital world”

THE DIGITAL WORLD

Pletka (2007: 42)

• Students are feeling as though they are ‘powering down’ when they enter the school gates

• Students are feeling as though they are ‘powering down’ when they enter the school gates

Vision (2005: 4)

NET GENERATION AT SCHOOL

TECHNOLOGY TO WATCH

Horizon Report (2007)

2007 2008

User-created content Grassroots video

Social networking Collaboration webs

Mobile phones Mobile broadband

Virtual worlds Data mashups

New scholarship and forms of publication

Social operating systems

Educational gaming Collective intelligence

Horizon Report(2008)

SOME STATS: Incoming students

AccessAccess

Mobile 93%

Desktop 90%

Broadband 73%

University of Melbourne (2006)

SOME STATS: Incoming students

Computer useComputer use

Emailing 94%

Creating documents 88%

Info searching 83%

University of Melbourne (2006)

University of Melbourne (2006)

Main activities on computers

‘Overwhelmingly positive’

Main activities on computers

‘Overwhelmingly positive’

Study 94%

Info Searching 93%

Course admin 84%

SMS 84%

IM 75%

SOME STATS: Incoming students

University of Melbourne (2006)

STUDENT EXPECTATIONS

• International students use more tech

• Engineering students more likely to use tech than Arts students

• Reasons for use: convenience and control – not learning

JISC (2007)

• Preference for using technology

• Ubiquitous internet is normal

• Cautious about publishing their work for public scrutiny

• Tech is not an end in itself

• Face-to-face is seen as core

STUDENT EXPECTATIONS

JISC (2007)

• Uncertain about how to map current learning experience onto uni study

• Cannot see how ICT and learning can work together outside of school

STUDENT EXPECTATIONS

1. Working with info

2. Creating and sharing info

3. Using ICT responsibly

MCEETYA (2007)

ICT PROFICIENCY

1. Accessing info (identification, retrieval)

2. Managing info (organising, storing)

3. Evaluating info (integrity, relevance, usefulness)

MCEETYA (2007)

ICT LITERACY: KEY PROCESSES

4. New understandings (creating knowledge, authoring)

5. Communicating with others (sharing; creating products)

6. Using ICT appropriately (critical, reflective, strategy, ethics and legals)

MCEETYA (2007)

ICT LITERACY: KEY PROCESSES

• ‘Challenging but reasonable’ expectation

o Year 6: 49%

o Year 10: 61%

ICT PROFICIENCY

MCEETYA (2007)

• Patterns:

o Low socio-economic bkgnd

o Indigeneity

o Remote locality

o Gender not an issue

ICT PROFICIENCY

MCEETYA (2007)

• Findings

o Communication is a frequent use

BUT

o Less use of applications for creating, analysing, transforming information

MCEETYA (2007)

ICT PROFICIENCY

• Increase in full-phrase searching

• Satisfied with basic forms of searching

• Good parallel processing skills, but sequential for reading?

CIBER(2008)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

• No evidence that information literacy is worse than before

• Not expert searchers – Youngsters have always had trouble evaluating info

• Behaviour is now more public

CIBER(2008)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

• Skills gap between using media to create and how to create meaningful content

CRITICAL CHALLENGE

Horizon Report, EDUCAUSE (2007: 4-5)

• Spend little time evaluating for accuracy, relevance, authority (but this is also pre-web)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

CIBER(2008)

• Young people are concerned about the ‘unmanageable scale’ of the Web.

• They find it difficult to prioritse and evaluate search results.

Green and Hannon (2007: 63)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

• Fit between search engines and student lifestyles is ‘almost perfect’

CIBER(2008)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

• Older users are catching up fast

• All have increasing intolerance for information delay

• More people are ‘powerbrowsing’

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR: ALL

CIBER (2008)

• Individual and personality backgrounds more important than generation

• Looking for ‘the answer’ rather than particular format

• Lots of pre-publishing (blogs, wikis, websites)

CIBER (2008)

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR: ALL

• Age is important regarding engagement re ICTs BUT

• Attitude and character key to connection (not age, health, income)

OLDER PEOPLE AND ICTs

OFCOM (2006)

• Tailoring the learning environment is essential to engaging older people

OFCOM (2006)

OLDER PEOPLE AND ICTs

• Current users: absorbers; self-starters

• Non-users: rejecters; disengaged

• Those not connected will become increasingly excluded

OFCOM (2006)

OLDER PEOPLE AND ICTs

• Social networking• Gaming

INFORMAL LEARNING

• Facebook, My Space• 60% of students talk about

education topics online• 50 % talk about schoolwork

SOCIAL NETWORKING

NSBA (2007)

• Strengthens existing relationships

• Facilitates recognisable social interactions

• Is a forum for creativity and expression

Green and Hannon (2007)

SOCIAL NETWORKING

• Younger users are more likely to restrict access or withhold identifying information

Pew Internet Project 2007 (21-22)

SOCIAL NETWORKING

• Are hard • Are about experience,

delayed gratification, exploration, teamwork, reward

• Force you to decide, choose, prioritise (weigh evidence, analyse situations, consult long-term goals, decide)

GAMES ...

Johnson (2006 [2005])

• Probing as scientific method:1.Probe the environment2.Form hypothesis3.Reprobe and check the

effect4.Rethink based on feedback

GAMING: PROBING

Johnson (2006 [2005]: 45)

• Means co-ordinating with your ultimate objectives

• It’s about order and constructing proper hierarchies

• Means long-term planning and present focus

GAMING: TELESCOPING

Johnson (2006 [2005]: 54-55)

• It’s not what you’re thinking, but the way you’re thinking that’s important.

GAMING

Johnson (2006 [2005]: 13)

• Is about access to knowledge, not PCs

• It needs to be about relationships and networks: not hardware

THE NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE

Green and Hannon (2007: 17, 59-60)

• The internet is dangerous for children. (Children self-regulate all the time.)

• Junk culture is poisoning young people. (Youth culture always challenges the orthodoxy.)

MYTHS: MORAL PANIC

Green and Hannon (2007: 32, 34)

• No learning happens online. (Broad range of skills and learning that gives confidence to succeed in other contexts. Children better identify beneficial computer games than can adults.)

Green and Hannon (2007: 35-36)

MYTHS: MORAL PANIC

• There is a plagiarism epidemic in schools. (This shouldn’t be conflated with new ways of accessing information. We need to teach higher-order skills.)

Green and Hannon (2007: 38)

MYTHS: MORAL PANIC

• Young people are disengaged and disconnected. (Students use ICTs to engage with cultural and political issues, get mentoring.)

Green and Hannon (2007: 39)

MYTHS: MORAL PANIC

• This generation is one of passive consumers. (No. Media, gaming, networking communities mean large elements of production, creativity, communication.)

Green and Hannon (2007: 39)

MYTHS: MORAL PANIC

• All gaming is good. (There are different orders of digital activity, and not all activities are equal.)

MYTHS: DIGITAL FAITH

Green and Hannon (2007: 42)

• All children are cyberkids. (Cannot assume that behaviours from a motivated group with high access is characteristic. There is a gap between ‘everyday communicators’ and ‘digital pioneers’.)

Green and Hannon (2007: 42-43)

MYTHS: DIGITAL FAITH

• Facility does not mean ICT literacy

• Need to be careful about assumptions we make

IMPLICATIONS

MCEETYA (2007)

• Competent or just confident?

• How to find the right info, then assess, validate, interpret, analyse, synthesise, critique, evaluate, put in context

• The need to apply problem-solving and critical thinking skills

Oblinger and Hawkins (2006)

IMPLICATIONS

• Need to build ICT literacy through “systematic teaching rather than incidental use”

• More personalised assessment

MCEETYA (2007)

IMPLICATIONS

• You need to be ICT literate, too.

IMPLICATIONS

LICENCE