(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)
Le personas nacite inter 1980 e 2000 es le prime generation de personas qui cresceva con le technolgia digital in plus o minus su presente forma, e il ha un consenso general inter educatores, commerciantes, e politicos como Obama que iste nove technologia ha producite un generation de studentes, consumitores, e citatanos qui vide le mundo de un maniera differente.
Internet e YouTube, illes dice, ha transformate lor manieras de educar se, de travaliar, e de facer le politica; e a differentia de personas qui nasceva ante 1980, illes non ha debite facer effortios special pro comprender e usar le technologia digital proque illes esseva immergite in illo desde lor infantia. In lor libro “Born Digital”, John Palfrey e Urs Gasser del Berkman Center al Schola de Derecto de Harvard dice que iste juvenes se exprime de manieras multo innovative. Illes prefere facer videos, pro exemplo, in vice de scriber essayos como generationes anterior.
Secundo personas qui pensa como Palfre, Gasser, e Marc Prenski, qui scribeva le libro “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, le patronos de pensamento de iste nove generation juvene es profundemente differente, e professores universitari debe cambiar lor manieras de communicar con illes, considerante le possibilitate de usar ambientes electronic como Facebook, pro exemplo, in vice de un camera de classe traditional. Iste nove generation, illes insiste, prefere le collaboration e le consulatation frequente al travalio solitari.
Ma non omnes accepta iste ideas. Le professor Michael Wesch, un pionero in le uso del medios informatic in su classes de anthropologia cultural a Kansas State University, dice que multes de su studentes ha solmente un familiaritate superficial con le utensilios digital que illes usa regularmente, e illes non comprende multo ben le possibilitates social e politic del technologia informatic. In altere parolas, illes es ni melior ni pejor que le resto del population.
Secundo un articulo in le “British Journal of Education Technology” publicate in 2008, Sue Bennett e un gruppo de academicos al Universitate de Wollongong insiste que “il ha tante variation intra le generation de nativos digital como il ha inter le generationes”. Illes ha concludite que le idea de un nove generation que apprende de un maniera completemente differente poterea esser contraproductive in le education proque multe expertos “non recognosce le differentias cognitive in juvenes de differente gruppos de etate o le variation de personas differente intra un sol gruppo de etate”. In altere parolas, le natives digital non ha cerebros differente que presuppone le necessitate de nove manieras de apprender e de travaliar.
E concernente le politica e le idea que nostre natives digital devenira citatanos plus responsabile in lor maturitate durante que illes usa lor cognoscimentos technologic pro activismo pro resolver problemas social e supervider le activitates de lor governamentos, le opiniones del expertos anque es dividite.
Il ha examples, naturalmente, como le campania digitalmente sophisticate de Barack Obama pro le presidentia. Il ha anque exemplos de activismo politic in servicios como Twitter. E un studio de tres annos per le MacArthur Foundation trovava que pro nostre juvenes, passar tempore in linea “es essential durante que illes apprende a manipular le technologia pro devenir citatanos competente in le nove epocha digital”.
Ma alteres insiste que il ha simplemente troppo differentias geographic e demographic intra iste gruppo pro generalisationes facile proque non omnes qui nasceva inter 1980 e 2000 ha accesso al technologia digital, specialmente in le mundo disveloppante. E pro personas qui vive in paises repressive, il ha problemas de surveliantia de governmentos como China e Iran, pro exemplo. Sovente tal governmentos ha un contracto social dicente a lor citatanos que illes pote facer in linea lo que illes vole con le exception de participar in activismo politic.
Il anque ha multe superficialitate in linea que characterisa le activismo de nostre natives digital. Omne nostre adolescentes pote affiliar se a un gruppo de Facebook pro appoiar opposition al guerra american in Iran o le liberation de Tibet, ma tal “activismo” sovente es passive. Il pare que, in vice de ingagiar se activemente in movimentos pro justitia politic e cambios social, illes simplemente vole informar altere personas de lor mesme etate sur lor sentimentos e convictiones, e il non pare multo probabile que illes es le vanguardia de un nove generation active, ingagiate, e vermente revolutionari.
Digital Natives, people born between 1980 and 2000
People born between 1980 and 2000 are the first generation of people who grew up with digital technology in more or less its present form, and there is a general consensus among educators, businessmen, and politicians like Obama that this new technology has produced a generation of students, consumers, and citizens who see the world in a completely different way.
The Internet and YouTube, they say, have transformed their ways of educating themselves and of working and participating in politics; and unlike people who were born before 1980, they have not had to make special efforts to understand and use digital technology because they were immersed in it from their infancy. In their book ”Born Digital,” John Palfrey and Urs Gasser of the Berkman Center at the Harvard Law School say that these young people express themselves in very innovative ways. They prefer to make videos, for example, instead of writing essays like former generations.
According to people who think like Palfre, Gasser, and Marc Prenski, who wrote the book “Digital Natives, Ditigal Immigrants,” the patterns of thought of this new generation of young people is profoundly different, and university professors should change their ways of communicating with them, considering the possibility of using electronic environments such as Facebook, for example, instead of a traditional classroom. This new generation, they insist, prefers collaboration and frequent consultation to working alone.
But not everyone accepts these ideas. Professor Michael Wesh, a pioneer in the use of computer media in his cultural-anthropology classes at Kansas State University, says that many of his students have only a superficial familiarity with the digital tools that they regularly use, and they do not understand very well the social and political possibilities of computer technology. In other words, they are neither better nor worse than the rest of the population.
According to an article in the “British Journal of Education Technology” published in 2008, Sue Bennett and a group of academics at the University of Wollongong insist that “there is as much variation within the generation of digital natives as there is between the generations.” They have concluded that the idea of a new generation that learns in a completely different way could be contrproductive in education because many experts “do not recognize the cognitive differences in young people of different age groups or the variation of different people within a single age group.” In other words, digital natives do not have the different different brains that presuppose the need for new ways of learning and working.
And with regard to politics and the idea that our digital natives will become more responsible citizens in their maturity as they use their technological knowledge for activism to solve social problems and oversee the activities of their governments, expert opinion is also divided.
There are examples, naturally, of Barack Obama’s sophisticated political campaign for the presidency. There are also examples of political activism in services such as Twitter. And a three-year study by the MacArthur Foundation found that for our young people, spending time on line “is essential as they learn to manipulate the technology to become competent citizens in the new digital age.”
But others insist that there are simply too many geographical and demographic differences within this group for facile generalizations because not everyone who was born between 1980 and 2000 has access to digital technology, especially in the developing world. And for people who live in repressive countries, there are problems of governmental surveillance as in China and Iran, for example. Often such governments have a social contract saying to their citizens that they can do on line what they want with the exception of participating in political activism.
There also is a lot of on-line superficiality that characterizes the activism of our digital natives. All our teenagers can join a Facebook group to support opposition to the American war in Iran or the liberation of Tibet, but such “activism” is often passive. It seems that, instead of engaging themselves actively in movements for political justice and social change, they simply want to inform other people of their same age about their sentiments and convictions, and it does not seem very probable that they are the vanguard of a new generation that is active, engaged, and really revolutionary.