Net Generation

Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding The Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger  & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.). Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20). An EDUCAUSE e-Book.

The authors introduce an understanding of what they deem the ‘Net’ generation to be defined as in relation to pre-generation descriptions of Matures, Baby Boomers and Generation X. The ‘Net’ generation is described as “Millennials” born between the date range of 1982 to 1991 who are attributed as “hopeful and determined”, like “Public activism and have access to the “Latest technology” (p. 2.9).

In terms of ‘Asking the Right Questions’ the authors promote mindfulness in assuming complete understanding of our students when considering the different perspectives between the Net Generation and faculty/administrators.So in essence, who are our learners? As an explanation of the ‘Net’ generation they introduce ‘Eric’ who is a junior at university (p. 2.1). For example, upon waking Eric looks at his PC to check his instant messages (IMs) that have arrived while he slept. A familiar view or perhaps consider a teenager who upon waking reaches for a mobile phone to see who has sent a text throughout the night or early morning? Institutions may have demographic information (date of birth, home town, gender, ethnicity, and so on) but that is not to say they understand how students view the world, what is important to them, or even how they learn best. Therefore, the importance of an ‘engaging’ dialogue to better understand students’ perspective is of primary importance. 

They also consider investment deals of Institutions as extensive (IT infrastructure, classrooms, and student support facilities) and how best to support student enrolments and facilitate student success. Management decisions based on assumptions is risky so how are today’s learners different from (or the same as) faculty/ administrators? The comparison is with the Net Generation versus Baby Boomers, the recognition of distinct differences and yet some things stay the same. For example students still come together with like-minded goals of achievement in preferred courses and to learn with peers and staff. Therefore, the influence of student engagement consistently details the importance of ‘relationship’ with faculty and other students, as well as existence in supportive campus environments. 

An additional student preference considers how they receive information as each are unique but the authors imply that they (students) favour more graphics, a rapid pace, and immediate responses. For example students in a youth guarantee class on-site exhibit bored behaviour in the form of ‘lying across desks’ which is hinders student success at a foundation level. Therefore persistence of such behaviour will not enable faculty and administrators to more effectively develop programs and target investments.

In terms of understanding the Net Gen the authors ask ‘what learning activities are most engaging for learners? A primary suggestion is the learning activity and not technology that promotes engagement for the Net Gen. For example learners where traditional lectures are the norm may not find the instructional delivery style of help to achieving assessment standards. In essence, one size does not fit all as an effective approach to teaching.

The authors also ask, are there ways to use IT to make learning more successful? Yes, as long as the learner is first and IT is a tool to facilitate a learning journey. They state that with appropriate IT use learning can be more active, social and learner-centred. In summary educating students is the primary goal of colleges and universities. However, reaching that goal depends on understanding those learners. Only by understanding the Net Generation can colleges and universities create learning environments that optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Technology has changed the Net Generation, just as it is now changing higher education.

Figure 1: Todays Generation (p. 2.9)