Monthly Archives: December 2012

Prenzky doesn’t use it anymore. Research has shown over and over again that it isn’t true, but people keep on calling young people digital natives. Well, some more (literature) research by Erika Smith (University of Alberta) giving arguments to stop doing this (HT @wrubens). She sees 8 claims in the digital natives discourses for which she sees little proof:

1. Possessing new ways of knowing and being. A persisting claim within digital native discourse is that there is an urgent need for educational institutions (administrators, educators) and parents to recognize and adapt to digital native learners who possess new learning styles or different ways of knowing and being. This viewpoint sees current problems with education as a part of old ways of schooling (i.e., old ways of being and knowing), often associated with digital immigrants.
2. Driving a digital revolution transforming society. Another dominant claim is that there is a pressing need to acknowledge and accept a digital revolution transforming society. Many argue that this revolution is especially evident within and important for higher education.
3. Innately or inherently tech-savvy. Within digital native discourse, students are seen as innately or inherently tech-savvy, desiring and using digital technology in all arenas, as opposed to older educators who lack tech-savvy.
4. Multi-taskers, team-oriented, and collaborative. Net generation students are often said to be multi-taskers, team-oriented, and collaborative.
5. Native speakers of the language of technologies. Purported as native speakers of the language of technologies, digital natives are often seen as having unique viewpoints and abilities, especially regarding their unique aptitude for the language of technology.
6. Embracing gaming, interaction, and simulation. According to digital native claims, gaming, interaction, and simulation (i.e., multi-linear, visual, virtual environments) are both embraced by and well-suited to the Net generation.
7. Demanding immediate gratification. The Net generation is often portrayed as demanding immediate gratification, with short attention spans and no tolerance for delays. However, even some digital native proponents dispute this argument, such as Tapscott.
8. Reflecting and responding to the knowledge economy. Proponents of digital native notions often present a strong relationship between needs of the Net generation and the knowledge economy (i.e., students as consumers, demanding customer satisfaction), specifically within the context of the Information Age.

Smith concludes:

“Despite a growing body of recent evidence challenging such notions of students as digital natives, these ideas remain influential. As a learner and practitioner who (to some) may also be considered a part of the Net generation, I do see important and well- warranted educational innovations occurring with the use of emerging technologies. However, by mapping the key digital native arguments shaping higher education technology research and practice over the past decade, I am advocating for further discussion and analysis of the varied themes that continue to form the many facets of this debate.“

Abstract of the research that you can download freely here.

More than a decade after Prensky’s influential articulation of digital natives and immigrants, disagreement exists around these characterizations of students and the impact of such notions within higher education. Perceptions of today’s undergraduate learners as tech-savvy “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001a), who both want and need the latest emerging technologies in all learning situations, continue to dominate the discourse in educational technology research and practice. Popular yet controversial conceptions of digital natives continue to be embedded within the assumptions of several contemporary research studies on student perceptions of emerging technologies, seemingly without regard for a growing body of evidence questioning such notions. In order to promote critical discussion in the higher education community considering potential directions for further research of these issues, especially within the Canadian context, the purpose of this review of recent literature is to analyze key themes and issues emerging from contemporary research on the Net generation as digital natives.

This week Renske Schappin presented her PhD at the University of Utrecht in which she examined the effect of the Triple P-approach with 2-5 years old preterm born children with emotional / behavioral problems which has proven to be quite popular. She compared 2 groups of children with behavioral problems from which the parents and educators of one group  received Triple P-training, the other group didn’t. (Source in Dutch)

When compared, Schappin couldn’t find any significant effect of the approach.

If you wonder what Triple P is:

Wikipedia describes Triple P as

a multilevel parenting intervention with the main goal of increasing the knowledge, skills, and confidence of parents at the population level and, as a result, reduce the prevalence of mental health, emotional, and behavioral problems in children and adolescents. The program is a universal preventive intervention (all members of the given population participate) with selective interventions specifically tailored for at risk children and parents.

A Triple P website for parents advertises

the international award winning Triple P – Positive Parenting Program^®, backed by over 25 years of clinically proven, world wide research, has the answers to your parenting questions and needs. How do we know? Because we’ve listened to and worked with thousands of parents and professionals across the world. We have the knowledge and evidence to prove that Triple P works for many different families, in many different circumstances, with many different problems, in many different places!

The Triple P website for practitioners declares

As an individual practitioner or a practitioner working within an organisation you need to be sure that the programs you implement, the consultations you provide, the courses you undertake and the resources you buy actually work.

Triple P is one of the only evidence-based parenting programs available worldwide, founded on over 30 years of clinical and empirical research.

Earlier this year, in November, Scottish researchers described how much of the earlier proof of the positive effect of the approach evaporates when they examined the evidence. (check their systematic review and meta-analysis)

On PlosOne James Coyne takes a closer look at the work by Philip Wilson and his Scottish colleagues and discovered that they found an important weakness in the research but to hi, they even underestimated how big the problem is: “Wilson and colleagues pointed to serious deficiencies in the body of evidence supporting the efficacy of Triple P parenting programs, but once we exclude underpowered trials, there is little evidence left.”

The thing is, just as with many of such programs a lot of money is involved and it’s sometimes very difficult to criticize. Schappin stated that she found it very difficult to get her research published as the major journals which she perceived as a publication bias, something that Coyne and Wilson also mention of sorts. I don’t know for sure if that’s the case of course. What I do know that for an expensive program, there is reasonable doubt and further research is at least advisable before investing?

Do read this post I wrote earlier on: put brain on it and people will believe it!