A Spiraling Generation?

Towards the end of “The App Generation”, Howard Gardner offers a dire prediction; he compares our current obsession with apps as a gateway to the dystopian world envisioned in George Orwell’s 1984. Although Gardner does identify some positive characteristics within the app generation (collaboration and tolerance), he mostly identifies the negative consequences associated with technology use. Through his anecdotal research, Gardner identifies a generation that has a difficult time with commitment, a generation dependent on their devices, and a generation with difficult time determining their next steps. I frequently wonder if users of Uber would be able to find a ride without their phones. Gardner does notice some positive effects of “The App Generation”. This generation is more collaborative and more tolerant than previous generations. The question becomes, how do we mitigate some of these negative consequences? How do we encourage members of the “App Generation” (myself included) to be more thoughtful about their technology use and information consumption? Should “App Generation” members still be encouraged to learn to live life unplugged?

In addition to providing the reader with a  nuanced analysis of the “App Generation”, the book can also serve as a guide for understanding the students in our classrooms. Gardner identifies characteristics that accurately describe the students we serve as educators. We need to provide opportunities for collaboration and technology use as these opportunities can play to the strengths of “The App Generation”. Educators should also be aware of the possible distractions that may befall “The App Generation”. Additionally, educators should be aware of the fact that assumptions can be harmful. Obviously, not every student will conform to the model proposed in “The App Generation”. It should be noted that students are used to the technology that they have in front of them, but, contrary to popular belief, not every student knows how to operate every technology tool that is placed in front of them. This is why software skills (ABCs of Activity) are so important.

I don’t think that “The App Generation” is inherently doomed as some suggest. All generations have challenges that need to be handled, and “The App Generation’s” dependence on technology is no different. While mindfulness about technology is something that needs to be promoted with members of “The App Generation”, there is no reason to believe that the issues cannot be solved. Ultimately, educators should take the lead when it comes to educating “The App Generation” about the shortcomings of technology.  

Putting the “Smart” in Net Smart

For educators, teaching the concept of being Smart online is crucial. From an early age, students have technology in their hands. Just because they have the technology does not mean that they are using it wisely. This concept is similar to what learners need to expect when they search for information online. Net Smart, How to Thrive Online refers a little more to online presence (although there is a section on crap detection). The book is helpful in that it details the specific forms of participation that exist online. I think that what is more important about this book is the fact that it starts the conversation about online presence, and raises larger questions about online presence in schools. How should students learn about the notion of online presence? How should one conduct oneself online? How can students learn to be safe online? Rheingold suggests that one should find a community online and participate, but educators should structure that experience for students so that they can learn the pros and cons of online presence before being released into the “wild”.

I find that students don’t always know how to conduct themselves online. They generally know how to use their favorite tools (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat etc.), but they don’t know how to use different tools, and more importantly, don’t comprehend the dangers. In addition to finding bad information, students also need to be aware of belligerent individuals, hackers, scams and illegal activity. They also need to be aware of the fact that nothing online is private. Computers and digital technology were not built with privacy in mind; these tools were built for collaboration. With this in mind, students should be taught to use the collaborative tools while remaining safe online. From there, students can gradually become used to the etiquette associated with the various methods of online content creation. Learning how to be “Net Smart” is also a continual process. I find that I am still learning how to use all of the tools afforded by the Internet. I am interested in learning how to make online learning more of an effective experience. Above all, I have noticed one thread that unifies all of the topics that we have covered. In the digital age, it is necessary to be thoughtful and reflective when using modern technologies. Using any technology (especially the Internet) without thinking about it can lead to unwanted consequences. As educators, we also want our students to be successful with technology so that these skills can follow them to the workplace.

Clarity Restored

Copyright Clarity did indeed bring some much needed clarity to a very thorny issue. What does fair use mean within an educational context? How does the educational sphere differ from the corporate sphere? It was eye opening to learn just how far an educator can go when it comes to using information found on the Internet and beyond. It is perhaps more disturbing to know that a myth is widely perpetuated by the American educational system. I remember being taught in school that using advanced search on Google was a must. It was necessary to avoid using something that you “did not have the rights to use.” I always knew that educators and students had a wide berth when it came to using information, but I did not realize that it also extends to most of the general public. The only time copyright seems to make an impact is when an exchange of money enters the picture. The perspective of Hobbs makes sense to me as it follows practical logic. It would be difficult to enforce copyright restrictions on the Internet, a platform that lends itself to sharing. If something is not meant to be shared, the open web would not be a logical place to keep the information.

Personally, it has always been my practice to use whatever picture I can find as long as I did not plan on sharing the content in public. Now that I have some “clarity” surrounding this issue, I do want to dispel this myth amongst my colleagues. I would, however, use a different approach with students. Even though educators do not need to worry about copyright issues as much as previously thought, it is necessary to keep the lessons learned from The Information Diet in mind. Even though it may be easier to use information fairly, this ease of use does not negate the need to exercise prudent information sorting. Students still need to question their information sources. Just because information can be used, does not necessarily mean that it should be. I still believe that plagiarism is something that needs to be taken seriously. There is still a line that should not be crossed. Blindly copying information from the Internet does not help students achieve anything; students need to take that information and make it their own through reflection, application and extension. This is what we need to include when we teach students to find information online. They need to understand that there are different standards depending on the information (and form of information) that is being accessed. Students still need to be taught that they need to cite sources. They still need to investigate who is providing them with different information on websites.  With all of this in mind, I do think that teaching students to exercise caution in the area of information sorting is still worthwhile.