In a recent article (Fall 2012/Vol 38) appearing in the Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology entitled "The Digital Native Debate in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Literature" (http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/download/649/347), the author revisits the claims by Marc Prensky in his epic 2001 article where he introduced the term "digital natives" and "digital immigrants". The author states "at the heart of this struggle is a growing debate regarding notions of such students as “digital natives, and digital immigrants (older generations of educators, lacking technical savvy), there [still] remains disagreement concerning the validity of such characterizations and the implications of such notions.
That said, in an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE), in its The Millennial Muddle‖ article (Hoover, 2009, The Millennial Muddle. Chronicle of Higher Education 11 October 2009), Palmer Muntz, director of admissions at Lincoln Christian University is said to have asserted that To accept generational thinking, one must find a way to swallow two large assumptions. That tens of millions of people, born over about 20 years, are fundamentally different from people of other age groups—and that those tens of millions of people are similar to each other in meaningful ways (Holden & Westfall, 2010. An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning, 2nd, retrieved from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf).
To that end, in a September 2008 issue, the CHE published an article entitled ―Generational Myth, its author, Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan, claimed that there is no Digital Generation.‟ Today’s young people—including college students—are just more complicated than any analysis of imaginary generations can ever reveal. The article went on to say those focusing on those ―born digital‖ ignore the vast range of skills, knowledge, and experience of many segments of society, and ignores the needs of the those who are not socially or financially privileged (Vaidhyanathan, 2008. Generational Myth. Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 September 2008).
The above conclusion has also been echoed in a comprehensive literature review conducted by Professor Thomas Reeves of the University of Georgia entitled Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? In his literature review, Reeves addressed whether generational difference is a variable important enough to be considered during the design of instruction or the use of different educational technologies. Reeves concluded the weight of the evidence is negative. Although generational differences are evident in the workplace, they are not salient enough to warrant the specification of different instructional designs or the use of different learning technologies (Reeves, T. 2006, Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf).
Food for thought and future discussion...
