Patrick Aievoli
Long Island University C.W. Post campus
Abstract
In recent years the World Wide Web has made yet another impact on the conventional and traditional paradigms of the world as we know it. This new generation – Gen-i – has truly come of age. Gen-i stands for generation interactive, isolated, iterative, Internet driven, immaterial, isogonics, isomorphic, (cyber) itinerant, etc. This new group views the world through a flat 17” screen. But how have they changed the way the world works on a social, legal and ethical level?
The change is apparent in the ways that this new group deals with the real world. This has occurred due to a new demographic and geographic effect, this effect is referred to as “flatteners” by Thomas Friedman in his book “The World is Flat: A Very Brief History of the Twentieth Century”. In this work he outlines ten “flatteners” that have changed the world. It was through these “flatteners” Friedman believes that the world changed seemingly overnight and forever.
This paper will discuss these topics as well as issues such as the digital divide as it pertains to higher education, and specifically a segment of population referred to as “the lost boys”, the 18-34 year old men.
Social effects – The Flat World
Before we talk about how Gen-i is changing the world we need to understand just four of Friedman’s “flatteners” and to discuss how these “flatteners” changed the world.
Flattener #1
When the Walls Came Down and the Windows Went Up.
In this section Friedman discusses how the world changed dramatically on the days that the Berlin Wall came down and the World Trade Center was attacked for the second and final time. Friedman describes how the demolition of that wall liberated the mindset of the East and West German people and the world. He describes it as a “get out of jail free card” not just for the locally restricted but for free trade as well. This he believes opened free trade to that part of – if not the now “entire world”. He also goes on to describe how the extremists who demolished the World Trade Center also freed the mindset of the rest to start thinking of terrorism as activities happening not at a distance but also locally, through telecommunications.
The localization of terror would not have been possible without the ability to communicate internationally in a nanosecond. This is where the second “flattener” comes to play.
Flattener #2
When Netscape Went Public
Friedman sees the Netscape IPO as the catapult that finally pushes us over the edge of reality and into a “new world” of cyber-communications. He talks about how Netscape was the start of the dot.com bubble and how it created the niche for all others like Google and Yahoo!. This browser intellectually also changed how we think as people and more prevalently as students of all knowledge. Ted Nelson first describes how knowledge was to be disseminated via this new medium with his Xanadu project. Nelson believes that information should not be stored and copyrighted but left on each person’s workstation to be picked at when needed. On his Website http://xanadu.com/nxu/ Nelson describes his model as “The Xanadu model has always been very simple: make content available with certain permissions; then distribute and maintain documents simply as lists of these contents, to be filled in by the browser (in the same way that browsers now fill in GIFs.)” This was the early concept behind the structure we find through the workings of Gen-i’s most heralded stalwarts – P2Ps – “peer to peer”– YouTube, BigThink, Napster, Kazaa and LimeWire. It has been this ability to “share” information that has truly flattened the world.
Flattener #9
In-Forming
Google, Yahoo!, MSN Web Search
I would imagine that nothing previously has changed the field of educational research in the same way that these aforementioned search engines have. How students do research has been affected forever by these marvels of technology. The “stacks” of most libraries are bare of students while they sit hunched over glowing depositors of information. A double-edged sword to say the least! The rise of these machines has clearly altered how educational research is conducted. Search has now replaced the concept of Research. Although I love Google I am concerned with those that are in love with Google.
Search, especially research needs to be validated before it can be used. Too many students are simply copying and pasting their way into idiocy. There needs to be a better structure in place in order to assure the content has merit.
In a recent honors conference on plagiarism I asked students how they feel about using the Web for research. After polling the class the level of students who used the Web for research was approximately 80 to 90%. The question that was then asked was how many used verbatim the content they found? I was surprised to see the honors group would merely use it as a springboard for more research initiatives. This was a good thing however when I asked the same question later to a group of non-honors students the results were different. Not only would they use the content but also in some cases students would actually get papers translated via Google in order for them not to get caught for plagiarism. This new vehicle for research was truly making the students smarter in some ways.
Friedman states that “Google levels information – it has no class boundaries or education boundaries”; this is both good and bad. It helps educate through delivery of information however, the information may be in question.
Flattener #10
The Steroids
Digital, Mobile, Personal, and Virtual
In this section I believe Friedman gets to the heart of the matter. Here is where the addiction of Gen-i students comes to full fruition. The connectivity and the wireless quality are the most dangerous. Those of you old enough to remember The Who’s rock opera “Tommy” should empathize with my statement. We appear to be creating a generation of plugged in, turned on, tuned out zombies! Just as television was the babysitter of my generation the iPod and the iPhone are the televisions of this generation. The problem it generates is isolation. Think of the difference between the old 9-volt transistor radio and today’s iPod. The difference is the music was free – really free. Not just free because it is available but free because we couldn’t store it or in essence possess it. True we had cassette decks, and we could copy record open-air version but usually the quality made them worthless. However today with mp3 quality available the ripped and burned versions are as good as the original. This is a big issue not just to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) but also to the mindset of the “ripper.”
If taking other people’s property is acceptable at a young age how can that ever change with respect to stealing ideas and intellectual property in college and the workplace. If the magic of talking to anyone anywhere at anytime also exists how and when do individuals feel distance? In a recent survey of honors students I asked them the following questions.
Do you think it acceptable to steal music? Over 90% said more than acceptable, typically stating that the music was simply there for the taking and why not? I also asked how they develop an original theme to their work? This was the more difficult answer to give. Many thought it okay to depend heavily on packaged research by this I mean research that exists at a secondary source level. Is this the exponent of invalid search methods or simply laziness? Maybe they really didn’t know how to research or they just didn’t think it necessary? If we are developing a society of “rippers” then what can we expect? Gen-i is going to get what they want exactly when they want it. There ain’t no stopping them now! I actually hated disco (for the record – no pun intended).
The Digital Divide
Described by Phluid in the article “The Digital Divide in America “ – the term “Digital Divide” was created by Lloyd Morrisett, the former president of the Markle Foundation, an organization dedicated to promoting information technology for health and public needs. Lloyd Morrisett coined the term to differentiate between technology “haves” and “have-nots” (Hoffman 55) Today this differentiation has developed into “capable” and “incapable”.
Speaking about the capable
In a recent honors conference given at the C. W. Post campus of Long Island University an impromptu survey revealed that 90% of the students had access to high-speed Web connections. This coupled with their research habits. Where as the majority still favored the traditional approach to primary source research many stated that they were tempted to use secondary sources, primarily Web-based search engine sources. This spoke a lot about the capability of this generation and of those “capable” of accessing the information.
In his article “Age” Matthew Gartland states the following
The techno youngsters, however, have the ultimate edge. They were raised in environments filled with new technologies and were introduced to these concepts are far earlier ages than their parents. The birth and accelerated growth of the Internet and high-speed broadband has fueled their interest and passion to learn more and capitalize on the many wonderful and dynamic opportunities that have emerged in tech fields at home and across the globe. To succeed in a society where globalization is running rampant and job outsourcing is becoming more common, these techno youngsters have acquired the evolved understanding that knowledge is more powerful than ever and that to rise to the top one must be willing to continually pursue higher level education and stay current with the leading technologies.
If this is true, can one withhold from this Gen-i their right to information? How can we teach them to credit sources? On what level and what is the validity? And if appropriating Internet material is becoming the norm then has the process of researching changed for good? On what level can we accept their work as valid – or in art as original? Many issues come to play here. Is it influence or derivation?
In his article “The Need for a Strategic Foundation for Digital Learning and Knowledge Management Solutions,” Mehdi Asgarkhani, C P I T, Christchurch, New Zealand AsgarkhaniM@cpit.ac.nz states the following.
Furthermore, recent studies of learners’ attitudes towards e-Learning within tertiary educational institutions (e.g. Burns et al 2001, Asgarkhani 2003) indicated that there is an increasing demand for web-assisted courses. A recent pilot study of trends and attitudes within the CPIT in Christchurch, New Zealand (Asgarkhani 2003) suggested that in general, there is an increasing interest in the application of e-Learning (despite the fact that most of their learning still happens in the classroom). Even though the results of this study are not considered as being final, it appears that the demand for quality web-assisted courses with multifaceted person-to-person interaction will increase rapidly in the near future.
With this being said we need to rethink how we are teaching. How are we providing the information to a generation that expects updates instantly? A generation that realizes knowledge grows minute-by-minute and second by second. Dynamic content management is quickly becoming a double-edged sword. Here we wish to update daily the content of a Website for educational purposes but at the same time we make it more difficult for a teacher to find the source of the plagiarism. It is like playing whack-a-mole with the entire world. As soon as something gets updated the teacher or validators has to find the material and hold it in their own database. Not an easy task. The question is now how do we hold back the tide of new information?
Products like Turnitin.com are trying to combat these issues but not every school or university can afford the license fee. However companies like Blackboard are integrating Turnitin into their learning management solution structure.
Recently I conducted another survey of both honors and non-honors students. The purpose of the survey was to determine both Internet usage and research habits. Some of the questions asked were as follows. Do you have cable modems? Only 80% said they had cable modems while 10% said they had dial up and the other 10% said they had something like a Digital Subscriber Line. Almost all had a CD burner and 50% had a DVD burner. Now with the technology in place the other questions were more so geared towards their use of such technology.
Do you use the Internet for research? How heavily do you rely on the Internet for your primary source? Do you use it for secondary sources? In these cases almost all of the non-honors students stated yes to these questions while the honors students stated that they still use the library and librarians for their research needs. When the group was asked do you use the Internet to steal music and or images? Almost all said yes. Do you use the Internet to steal research papers? Almost all said no. They stated that stealing research papers was reaching a bit too far and not worth the risk. However when asked do you think it right to take information or intellectual property from the Internet the group still seemed confused by the question. For if it is okay to steal music and images what was actually considered intellectual property seemed to be still up in the air. However the only concern seemed to be getting in trouble for stealing research papers only because of the possible punishment.
What was most disconcerning of this survey was how they drew their own lines in the dirt. Stealing forms of art was okay but stealing written papers was not acceptable. But again it seemed to be based on the act of punishment and not moral reasoning. This is where the problem lies. For how long until that line fades away? How long until the need for citation and reference becomes fogged to the point of non-distinction?
Conclusion
If this new Gen-i has a right to their path of knowledge how will we as educators facilitate that path? How will we pave this path towards valid content? Will we be able to handle the ten billion web pages available? How will we manage the truth that is truly out there? It increasingly looks like the student may truly become the teacher of the new “generation interactive.”
Works cited
Asgarkhani, Mehdi C P I T, Christchurch, New Zealand. The Need for a Strategic Foundation for Digital Learning and Knowledge Management Solutions
Cooper, Joel and Kimberlee D. Weaver. Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003
Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat: A Very Brief History of the Twentieth Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005
Gartland, Matthew. The Digital Divide: Age Spring 2004
Government Information Focus. The Digital Divide: Understanding and Addressing the Challenge. Christopher P. Latimer. December 2001.
Phluid. The Digital Divide in America.
United States. U.S. Department of Education. Overview. 2006. .
U.S. Department of Education. “Guidance on the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech) Program.” March, 2002