1 Is "First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?" possibly a superficial research?

Is “First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?” possibly a superficial research?

To stimulate this critique, I suggest that readers to keep in mind of a following anecdote:

Back in a day, 50s and 60s to be more precise, people were allowed to smoke inside their offices. In a conference room there were bunch of staff workers having discussions to make their company thrive. However all of them, except for the Chairman, were vacillating and complaining about certain circumstances without providing any solutions. Quietly listening, with a cigarette in one hand, and touching a bulky and shiny crystal ashtray with his other hand, the chairman gently commented, “Doubting is a good thing but something should be followed! From this point on, anyone who complains without any possible resolutions will get this ashtray thrown to their head.”

In “First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?”, the authors, Gregor E. Kennedy, Terry S. Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray, and Kerri-Lee Krause made a great approach and points, that is if the findings from the research paper can aid in further and better development to educational field in general, particularly to students who will be receiving the education or should I say in a specific way that they will be given to be educated. The paper was meant to help educators understand and develop better programs and a structure of system in universities for so called “digital native” students. The research paper was done by conducting a set of surveys to first year college students, resulting with explanations, tables, discussions. However the research paper was vaguely concluded with ample margin; that is not to think forward but to leave it out there, in case if someone needs such information, and in a way it is somewhat irresponsible and cursory finish. Such an impression was left by the authors throughout reading, especially, in “Conclusions and Directions” passage at the end.

While observing the survey questions, its results, explanations, and reiterated report that was followed by tables, got me thinking that may be six tables of questionnaires and results could have been done with just a two part question; such as, ‘How comfortable would you be to spend day-to-day living, including studies, without current technological devices for one whole month, and explain your answer to first part of the question’, then implement an experiment accordingly to the asked question for whole month with students’ final statements. Such method I am suggesting may prevent authors from re-reporting about the table. Results are already there within the table, authors should complement with other necessary information and explanations therein. Such format gives an impression that the authors are disregarding readers’ cleverness, if not the behavior may be to just fill in the spaces.

Moreover while reading the tables, I came to senses that some survey questions are possibly useless and/or some parts should be more specific by having sub-categorized questions. First five rows of “Table 2” (p. 113) should have sub-categorized questions like, ‘as a hobby or for particular task?’ On the other hand, those first five questions could function as sub-categorized questionnaires for the sixth row, “Use a computer for general study, without accessing the web”. Not only the approach but also their findings offered by the tables are not convincing to relate them with the conclusion statement that is mentioned in “Introduction” passage with Prensky’s contention, “It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” (Prensky, 2001a, p.1).

As Prensky have mentioned, the students have different way of gathering and organizing information. To further examine the given fact, we should ask ourselves, ‘how are they different from their predecessors?’ According to Barbara Combes (2007), their adeptness in using digital devices are not in professional level (in terms of understanding mechanism) but good enough to rapidly access and easily cursor information that are flooding in internet. Combes (2007), in her research “Techno-savvy or just techno-oriented?” defines the “’Net generation”, which is in other term for “digital natives”, as “…Students rarely use even simple Boolean logic to refine search strategies…” (p.19): in other word they are superficial. She also goes on to mentioning significance of the generation as “If we assume that our students are techno-savvy and already have these skills when they are really just techno-oriented, they will not be prepared for life in the 21st century.” The statement at least guides a little closer to the substantial matter, the solution, and in general her research paper is more “empirical”. Furthermore, Combes research paper was published in Australia in 2007, which is one year prior to Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, and Krause’s research paper. Surprisingly, there are no relations or connections between the two research papers, other than both papers concerning the same object matters of introducing, understanding and supposedly aiding to create ways to better serve the “digital native” students. With that in mind, one can assume that if the authors of the two research papers have collaborated in lieu of striving for better educational environment, a research paper with sensational findings for all may have been conceived, just as how Claude Levi-Strauss’ “Tristes Tropiques” had significant influence on French society in 1950s.

In most of the times, it is better to have something than nothing. The research by Gregor E. Kennedy, Terry S. Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray, and Kerri-Lee Krause is still benefit to the educational community in a way. However while focusing on the results of the research paper and giving more efforts to view in different angles, it still leaves me with emptiness, as if some irresponsible adult trying to live his/hers burden as is to children. In addition, considering the fact that at the similar time and location somewhat better or more practical researches on the same object matters being out and about, possibly the authors of “First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?”, or at least one of them may need for the flying ashtray to happen.

Reference

Barbara Combes (2007). Techno-savvy or just techno-oriented?: What Does the Research Tell Us about the Information-seeking Behaviour of the 'Net Generation? Access: Information and communication technology, Vol. 21, No. 2, June 2007: 17-20

Gregor E. Kennedy, Terry S. Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray, & Kerri-Lee Krause (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1), 108-122

Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf