1a A6: Net generation webcast

Notes on Ian Rowley’s presentation:

I made a few notes on the webcast for this activity. As well as the compare and contrast bvetween webcast and paper-based, I thought there were several points of interest. Rowley expained how people, generally, are good at coping with change and he referred to the time and research space that this change may occur in for those in new roles or information environments. This resonates with me because I have been involved in significant (at least to me) change > an institutional merger and all that goes with it.

I also really liked the idea about ‘brand conviction’, that people from the so-called Google generation see libraries as something with aprint legacy, and that searching is something that occurs through Google and the web. I wonder if this goes for other things too, such as teaching delivery – how deeply embedded is the brand conviction of being ‘taught’, through lectures, for example? (this goes for both students and lecturers).

Another interesting point raised was the use of abstracts and metadata as critical for searching for information. The idea of ‘power-browsing’ > again I can identify with what was said about this in the webcast. The irony that these elements were being used as sources of information when they were designed to be the devices that make full content more visible and searchable is also fascinating and I would like to investigate this in my own work.

Someone at the end of the presentation commented on ‘digital dissidents’ being like luddites, but I think he got the wrong end of thwe stick completely. I liked the term used because it represents a group of people who, I believe, are expert searchers but whose uptake and shedding of tools is incredibly quick. It is these people that I would refer to as ‘digital dissidents’, those who have tried and tested, and rejected technology for a reason.

1a A5: Teaching/reaching the net generation

Well it was quite interesting to listen to the Kennedy interview then cross-reference my notes to the journal article. The first thing I picked up on was the stimulus for the research, and Kennedy mentioned the way that student’s minds change as a result of digital upbringing. For me, this is a ‘mythical’ preconception that was revealed in the data that the team collected, particularly during the focus group research.

In relation to my own context, I was intrigued by the time spent in the interview talking about the research methodology. I’m not sure if this was intentional or not, but one aspect in particular I though was very significant to research in e-learning. Obviously there is a critical need to capture the student voice when investigating all things teaching and learning. It was interesting therefore to hear the reflection that it was challenging to get distance learners in the same place at the same time for focus group research.

It seems to me that the nature of the focus group – a group of peers discussing a common theme – was an ideal methodology for capturing data from the first year students. However, I wonder whether the data was skewed at all because those students already using online technologies and web 2.0 in their learning were only interviewed one-to-one. It made me think anyway. I’m yet to encounter a similar problem in my own research, but it will definitely crop up at some point.

I thought another key question raised, again relating to the capture of data, was “if a student is not using it [web 2.0], how can they be asked to provide a commentary on its validity?” Again, is the answer that data could be skewed? Probably not. It’s more likely that the findings just raise more questions than answers.

Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. and Krause, K. (2008 ) ‘First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?’, Australasian journal of educational technology, 24(1), pp 108-122