Am 24.11.2009 wurde im ORF KulturCafé die Kinderstudie von mobilkom austria vorgestellt. Im Mittelpunkt stand der Zugang von 6-14Jährigen zu Handy, Internet, Facebook & Co. Wie beeinflussen Computer und Netzwerke die junge Generation in ihrer sozialen Interaktion?

Medien als Mittel zum Zweck

Unternehmenssprecherin Mag. Elisabeth Mattes stellte die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der seit 2003 durchgeführten Studie vor und betonte, dass Medien und soziale Netzwerke für die Kinder als „early adopter“ hauptsächlich ein Mittel zum Zweck darstellen: Nach wie vor sind FreundInnen am wichtigsten. Diese Priorisierung ändert sich nicht durch mediale Einflüsse – interaktive Netzwerke können als Verstärker sozialer Kontakte gesehen werden und wirken im Vergleich zu „realer“ Kommunikation nicht isolierend. 54 % der Zielgruppe sind in sozialen Netzwerken registriert, jedoch sprechen nur 15 % mit ihren Eltern über Themen wie Cybermobbing.

Eltern als Digital Immigrants

Für Dr. Christine Feil (Wissenschaftliche Referentin am Deutschen Jugendinstitut München) stellt die Behauptung, dass Kinder besser im Netz unterwegs seien als ihre Eltern, einen Mythos dar, der davon ablenken möchte, dass viele Erwachsene keine Motivation zur Begleitung haben. Gebildete Eltern lassen ihre Kinder auch vergleichsweise früh ins Internet. Benachteiligungen sieht sie vor allem für Kinder alleinerziehender Mütter oder jene der Förderschule. Soziale Plattformen sind für Jugendliche mittlerweile ein „must“ und bedeuten dort, wo sie ausschließlich Jüngeren vorbehalten sind, einen besonderen Freiraum. Dennoch ist das Agieren dabei oft von Konkurrenzaspekten geprägt.

Zu Recherchekompetenz hinleiten

Für den Philosophen und Kulturpublizist Dr. Franz Schuh ist klar: Gegner der Online-Kultur werden langfristig verlieren. Die aktuelle pädagogische Herausforderung liegt für Ihn in einer Balance zwischen begleiten und erziehen. Hier stellt sich insbesondere die Frage nach Filtern in den jeweiligen Altersgruppen.

Die im Publikum anwesenden Kinder stuften sich auf die Frage nach Ihren Internetgewohnheiten ganz klar als „heavy user“ ein. In der anschließenden Podiumsdiskussion wurde deutlich, dass insbesondere das Schulsystem auf die aktuellen Entwicklungen reagieren muss: Aufgaben sollten anders gestellt werden und u. a. auf die Vermittlung von Recherchekomptenz abzielen.

On 18 Nov, I joined more than 600 other publishing peers for an Aptara webinar on “eBook Readers and Standards…Where to Now?” The presentation looked at the rapidly unfolding eBook market, and how publishers are struggling to adapt as competitive and consumer pressures demand that their titles be compatible with the multitude of new eBook applications and eReaders coming to market. For those working on the development of a successful eBook production strategy, this presentation gave a clear position on where the market is today and will be tomorrow.

The presenters were Sarah Rotman Epps, Forrester Research’s eBook Market Analyst, and Michael Smith, Director of the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF), which manages the EPUB standard. Here are some highlights:

From Sarah Rotman Epps on a Forrester Research survey completed in the third quarter 2009:

• Q2 2008, 37% had never heard of an electronic book device; in Q3 2009, that number dropped to 17%
• US eReader outlook:
  • Sell-through of 3 million units in 2009
    • Amazon 60%
    • Sony 35%
    • Others less than 5%
  • 40% of 2009 sales (1.2M) in Q4, with 900,000 in November/December holiday season
  • A conservative estimate for 2010 would be for sales to increase from 6M (2009) to 10M units
• What’s coming in 2010:
  • First eReaders not using E Ink screens
  • New screen sizes, color, and non-E Ink video
  • New category-bending devices: dual screens, web tablets, smartphones better optimized for reading
  • More competition: B&N, others
  • Global growth
  • 2007 is to eReaders what 2001 was to MP3 players
• US consumers:
  • 3% now use their desktop computer to reader eBooks
  • 2% use their laptop computer
  • 1% use an eReader device, such as a Kindle or Sony Reader
  • 1% use a netbook
  • 1% use a mobile phone or PDA
• Of consumers who say they are interested in eBooks, the value they saw included:
  • Take up less space: 54%
  • Can access multiple books on the go: 47%
  • Can adjust text size: 37%
  • Better for the environment than print books: 37%
  • Can read in dark/low light: 37%
  • Cheaper than print books: 35%
  • Easy to search: 26%
  • Easy to look up a word in a dictionary: 22%
• When asked how interested they would be in reading different forms of media on an eBook reader, consumers who were very interested replied:
  • Books: 29%
  • Magazines: 15%
  • Newspapers: 14%
  • Textbooks: 11%
  • Wikipedia: 9%
  • Comics: 7%
  • Blogs: 4%
• What should book publishers take away from the survey:
  • Stay “device agnostic”
  • The features that matter when it comes to content:
    • Ability to reflow content and look good on any device
    • Ability to sync up content across multiple devices
    • Ability to share content with a friend
• What will eBooks mean for a publisher’s bottom line?
  • Expect small revenues from any one channel, but expect growth over time across devices
  • Could be incremental, but much will be replacement
    • Plan for a smaller business
    • But potentially still a profitable one as you cut back print operations over time
  • New opportunities
    • Subscriptions
    • Incremental content sales
    • Advertising

From Michael Smith’s presentation:

• Industry predictions:
  • Continued growth of eBooks and eReaders as they become more mainstream
  • Younger generations (digital natives) begin to read electronically for pleasure
  • Hockey stick sales growth: 2010-2011
• eBook wholesale numbers:
  • 2009: $109,900,000 (Q1-Q3)
  • 2008: $53,500,000
  • 2007: $31,800,000
  • 2006: $20,000,000
• eBook formats: What’s right for your content?
  • Final form content vs. digital reflowable text
    • PDF vs. EPUB
  • How will content be consumed?
    • Web
    • Mobile
    • E Ink Display
• Current standards landscape
  • EPUB is an open and non-proprietary standard
    • Key to healthy eBook ecosystem
    • PDF is an ISO Standard
    • DAISY, ONIX, ISBN, XML, XHTML, CSS all important
  • Others promoting non-EPUB formats
• What’s pivotal to pervasive EPUB adoption?
  • Publisher adoption — Critical mass of content
  • Consumer adoption — EPUB prefect for small screen apps
  • Continuous evolution and improvements — EPUB Maintenance Working Group + EPUB 3.0
• Future of EPUB — Not a matter of “if,” but how fast it will become the dominant format/preferred standard
  • Continued worldwide adoption of EPUB with strong push throughout Europe, China and Japan
  • Move from primarily trade titles into Science/Technology/Math and then Higher-Ed
  • Continued growth in Library markets
  • Adoption of EPUB format to be a factor in rise of accessible titles available for Print Disabled community

Si parla molto in queste settimane di Nativi Digitali*, è un termine curioso perché se ne parli con un ragazzo tra i 15 e i 20 anni (cioè uno che con le tecnologie digitali ci è nato) ovviamente non ci si riconosce! Per un ventenne è la normalità, il mondo è fatto così, è digitale. Sono gli analogici o i Digital Immigrants (quelli nati col VHS per capirci…) che devono definire una categoria che presto, per dirla con Nicola Greco, sarà la norma: “saremo tutti Digital Natives tra pochissimo“. È un fatto anagrafico.

È normale che in un periodo di transizione la new breed incuriosica e attragga. Considerando poi che più sei digital più sei social e tendi a essere visibile, interconnesso si capisce come i Digital Natives (o meglio coloro che vengono definiti tali) siano sempre più al centro del dibattito. (Riccardo Luna ci dedica il prossimo Numero di WIRED).

Ieri a Roma, durante il terzo incontro del ciclo Capitale Digitale, si è svolto un interessante confronto tra:

Nicola Greco, 16 anni (scheda) / Salvatore Aranzulla, 19 anni (scheda) / Marco De Rossi 19 anni (scheda) / Jessica Brando, 14 anni (scheda) / Valerio Masotti 22 anni (scheda) / Andrea Lo Pumo 22 anni (scheda) / Daniel Brusilovsky 16 anni (scheda)

Ascoltarli sotto la statua di Marco Aurelio è stata sicuramente una ventata di freschezza in un paese governato da ultrasettantenni resistenti all’innovazione. La domanda che mi gira in testa da alcune settimane però è sempre la stessa.

Li ascoltiamo con interesse perché hanno 15 anni o per le cose che dicono? Ci colpiscono perché dicono le stesse cose che diciamo noi, ma hanno “solo” 15 anni o perché dicono oggettivamente cose nuove?

È facile cadere nel tranello di provare stupore per sentir dire a una persona tanto giovane le stesse cose che magari dicono operatori del settore noti e navigati. Non sto certo dicendo che i partecipanti di ieri siano dei semplici ripetitori, anzi: alcuni di loro sono imprenditori innovativi, altri blogger stimati a livello internazionale etc etc. Ma quanto incide il fattore età? Se Nicola greco fosse un 35enne lo ascolteremmo con la stessa attenzione? (a scanso di equivoci prendo proprio Nicola come esempio di incidenza del fattore età, perché lui sa quanto io lo stimi per il suo lavoro di sviluppatore. Lui stesso non gradisce troppo l’attenzione in quanto sedicenne, ma la vorrebbe in quanto developer).

Basta avere meno di 18 anni e un blog con un certo successo per essere un modello o tutta questa attenzione è in realtà disperazione di chi cerca una risposta?

Durante l’ultima Venice Session ricordo Martin Sorrell chiedere con un’insistenza fuori dal comune a Nicola Greco: “Which form of advertising would you rather receive?“ Se da un lato fa onore al grande capo di WPP essere “così sul pezzo”, dall’altro fa paura sapere che non hanno la risposta e vedere il CEO del più grosso gruppo di comunicazione al mondo chiederla a un ragazzino. Sono i tempi che cambiano.

Io credo che in Italia scontiamo un po’ di sensi di colpa per essere un paese storicamente troppo protettivo verso la terza età come classe dirigente. Un paese dove a 40 anni sei un giovane politico o un giovane manager suona ridicolo a livello internazionale. Per cui dobbiamo creare la categoria dei supergiovani, per stabilire che loro non sono ancora pronti a prendere le redini e di conseguenza chi le ha non è ancora tempo che le molli…

Bravo quindi a chi tira fuori l’argomento e lo propone in Campidoglio e in rete.

Il mio native preferito di ieri? Daniel Brusilovsky. Uno che a 16 anni alla domanda “Quanto guadagni?” Risponde serafico: “All’ora o all’anno?” Uno che di euro ne fa 30/40.00 all’anno alla sua età. Uno che scrive su TechCrunch e fa il consulente e l’imprenditore. (Bio).

Senza nulla togliere a Andrea, Salvatore, Nicola e agli altri casi brillanti di ieri, Daniel ha attorno a sè (è nato in Silicon Valey) un ecosistema che valorizza il talento. Voi no. O almeno non ancora. Magari gli incontri come quello di ieri sono il presupposto perché questo ecosistema si sviluppi.

—

The BDRA Learning Futures Festival Online, entitled ‘Positively Disruptive’, is only a few weeks away:

www.le.ac.uk/beyonddistance/festival

I’ve decided whom to invite to ‘attend’, but few of them would call themselves digital natives so I visited a first-year Oxford undergraduate at University College, founded in 1249. Her study is in buildings (see photo) once frequented by Harold Wilson, Stephen Hawking and Bill Clinton. Her history essay, due that evening, was on: Was de Tocqueville right in saying that religion is not inimical to democracy?

FaceBook, YouTube and Twitter are daily diet for her, but books, she felt, held the key to her answer. Fresh from school, she is definitely a ‘digital native’, with wi-fi access from her study to all the Internet’s resources, yet she turned to the college library:

Nearby is the Bodleian Library, dating back to 1602 and containing more than 8 million volumes. E-learning has to be positively disruptive in such a situation.

A few days later, I noticed the abstract of a talk, “The Net Generation encountering e-learning at university”, by Chris Jones (Institute of Educational Technology) at the Open University: it was about an ESRC-funded project that started in January 2008. The research took place with first-year students in five English universities who were studying a broad range of courses. The project took a critical view of the idea that there was a distinct generation of young people that has been described using various terms including the ‘Net Generation’ and ‘Digital Natives’, and explored age-related differences amongst first-year university students.

The talk drew on evidence from three surveys and a range of qualitative data including interviews and a cultural probe called the ‘Day Experience Method’. Overall, Jones and his team found a complex picture amongst first-year students with the sample population appearing to be a collection of minorities. These included a small minority that made little use of some technologies and larger minorities that made extensive use of new technologies. Often, Chris said, the use of new technology was in ways that did not fully correspond with the expectations that arise from the Net Generation and Digital Natives theses. He argued that whilst there are strong age-related variations amongst the sample it is far too simplistic to describe first-year students born after 1983 as a single generation. His team found that the generation age group was not homogenous in its use and appreciation of new technologies and that there were significant variations amongst students that lay within the Net Generation age band.

I’m sure these issues will crop up during the Festival. Meantime, I’ll keep in touch with that native at Oxford University.

David Hawkridge

Fast zeitgleich erhielt ich neulich zwei Tweets, die sich mit Kindern und web 2.0 beschäftigten. Via @autopoiet ereilte mich:

“Computer? Ganz normal!” Kurzer #DLF-Bericht über eine Grundschule in Hessen; Blogger ab dem zweiten Schuljahr… http://j.mp/ZxI1x“

und nur eine Minute später via @lernenzweinull:

“Interview mit einem „Digital Native“ http://ow.ly/zcfD”

Ich war sofort Feuer und Flamme. Sollten die Kinder Marc Prenskys, die Digital Natives, tatsächlich bereits Interviews geben? Während ich Überbleibsel des Mesozoikums mir das Bloggen schrittweise noch auf meine alten Tage angeeignet habe bloggen jetzt schon die Zweitklässler?

Während sich die 14 jährige Digital Native Sophie im Interview bei Telemedicus über Social Networks, Foren und das web 2.0 im Allgemeinen und Speziellen auslässt, wissen die Erstklässler aus dem hessischen Usingen zwar noch nicht, was das Internet ist, sehr wohl aber, wie sich sich im Medienraum der Schule an einem der 22 Rechner einloggen und wo sie welches Programm machen können, weiß DLF PISAplus zu berichten. Nachdem die Lehrerin an der Buchfinken-Grundschule eine einjährige medienpädagogische Weiterbildung absolviert hatte um anschließend in einem Projekt die Vorschüler von Viertklässlern an das Lesen über den Computer heranführen zu lassen, meint Sophie, dass zwar zwei Rechner in der Klasse stünden, aber weder vom Lehrer didaktische Hinweise auf Recherche im Netz gekommen seien, noch das ihre Eltern sich mit ihr sonderlich über ihre Surfgewohnheiten unterhielten. Lediglich dass sie keine wichtigen Daten von sich preisgeben solle, mahnten sie hin und wieder an.

Ihren Blog hat Sophie mittlerweile wieder still gelegt, da sie das Interesse daran verloren hätte und lieber bei SchülerVZ unterwegs sei. An der Buchfinken-Grundschule sieht das da ganz anders aus. Noch schreibt die Lehrerin den Blog der Froschklasse alleine, da ihre Schüler noch nicht so lange Texte in einer lesbaren Form produzieren können. Doch ab der zweiten Klasse seien ihre Zöglinge dann voll mit dabei. Schließlich habe sie unmittelbar miterlebt, dass Vor- und Grundschüler am besten lernen, wenn sie ihr kreatives Potential entwickeln könnten:

“Eben das Bearbeiten von Bildern, das Selbst-Erstellen von Bilderbüchern, das Drehen von Filmen, oder das Film-Gestalten mit ‘Paint’ das sind die ganz neuen Sachen.” (Quelle)

Sophie schaut derzeit lieber Filme auf Streamingseiten oder bei Youtube. Bei letzterem hört sie sich auch Musik an. Was ihr gefällt lädt sie runter und konvertiert es zu mp3-Dateien. Für sie ist es normal. Zwar geht sie davon aus, dass es wohl nicht legal sei, aber darüber denke sie nicht weiter nach. Und plötzlich muss ich wieder an die Worte von Larry Lessig denken.

„We can´t make them passive again – we just can make the, pirates!“

Also kann ich allen jetzigen und zukünftigen Lehrern nur die Worte Marc Prenskys mit auf den Weg geben:

„So unless we want to just forget about educating Digital Natives until they grow up and do it themselves, we had better confront this issue. And in so doing we need to reconsider both our methodology and our content.„ (Quelle)

(Foto: Gerard Bierens)

Which approach (student-centered or teacher-centered) works best with digital natives and why?

D. – Digital natives need up-to-date approaches.  Modern technologies make the learning process easier and more effective, so teachers should have obligatory to use them.

R. – Majority of foreign teachers work best with digital natives.  Learner-Centered paradigm about professor role is much preferred by students because the professor is not only giver of primary information but also coaching and facilitating.  It makes education process much more interesting and involves the student in it.

A. – Today the impact of new technology is great.  People cannot live without using it in their lives.  Even education uses information technology.  Mobile phones, internet, e-mail and so on.  Everything in our lives I think it makes our living easy in this world.

A.S. I think I prefer Learning-centered paradigm because students are actively involved in the lesson.  They will improve their skill by their work they will not have ready materials they will do some research.  Also, learning by portfolios and papers can exactly show your performance, your progress.

Y. – As we already know, nowadays, it is impossible to live without any digital device (such as mobile phone/computer) so I think it is important to interact with digital natives via Internet.

X.– Our generation has many differences from the previous one.  Firstly, we prefer new system of education, we prefer to do everything with the help of electronic devices.

A. – Student centered is working better for us as digital natives, we work with computers and we learn from our mistakes.

N. – With digital natives, American approach works best, because they can easily find information using the computer.

D. – I suggest to Kazakh teachers to keep up step by step with time. Because NOW our world, technology, medicine, everything is not standing in one place, it’s changing everyday and month.  To teachers and students I also suggest to refresh their knowledge.

J.– students get numerous information from the mass-media these days.  So, rather than emphasizing one right answer, it is important to respect and listen to everyone’s different thoughts.

I. – Digital Natives are more independent and in good touch with technology.

A. – With student centered approach there appears interaction between students and professor.  Their students interest rises consequently professors get what he wanted, the interested to his subject.

If changes should be made at our university with teaching methodology, what should they be? If not, what is good about our university?

D. B.- Provide our Kazakh teachers access to modern trends in teaching, organize professional discussions, maybe some one chares his experience or ideas.

D. – I’m taking this writing class a second time and I love my second practice because the teacher is in touch with the students.  My first teacher even did not work with students on how to do a bibliography and reduced our scores for not right work.  I think more experienced teachers have to give some kind of “lecture” to these other teachers as a refresher course.  Maybe the first teacher was not new but she needs some work with teaching methodology.

K. – The professors create an atmosphere in which the student feels himself very organized, focused in learning, in good discipline and developing his individual skills.  It is a good and friendly atmosphere at our university where professors and students are learning together!

V. – As far as I am concerned, learner-centered paradigm is better.  But it is definitely not for lazy students.  But the teacher-centered paradigm is too old to work with digital natives.  I like the reminders via e-mail about assignments, it helps a lot and is the personal approach.  It should definitely be improved at our university.

Y. – In my opinion, we should write more papers like essays, short journals, to upgrade our writing skills first.  In my view, it is a good way to divide writing in three courses (Academic Writing I, II and III).

A. – Foreign teachers are more creative, they are trying to make classes interesting.  But, our Kazakh teachers try to give us all their experience.

X. – maybe change the way we write self-studies in order to kill plagiarism.  Do self-studies in class instead.  Another problem, is our textbook, it isn’t interesting, its boring.

A. – Our Kazakh students may become rude if lessons become too learner centered. They will not follow and listen to the teacher because she gave freedom.

Every time I walk by the ”Cyber Cafes” here at Northland, most of the students are on Facebook. So was surprised to read today that of American adults, just 26% are using online social networking to stay connected with friends. Making up that 26%:

• Over 65: 3% 
• 50-65 year olds: 9%
• 36-49 year olds: 21%
• 23-35 year olds: 49%
• 18-22 year olds: 75% 

So there’s an obvious generation gap forming around those who are plugged in to online social networking and those who aren’t.

I’m someplace in the middle of that divide, and I’m very aware of it.

About half of my “real world” friends are Facebooking, Tweeting, and texting away. The other half don’t want anything to do with any of it. They’re curmudgeons, 40 years ahead of their time (Is there an appointed age when curmudgeonism becomes appropriate? If there is, 74 seems like a good number).

My Gen X compatriots grew up in a time before internet access (I was in college when web browsing hit big. I searched with Altavista — the google of 1997).

The only thing we could do for fun in the high school Mac lab was play Oregon Trail.

I clearly remember using a cell phone for the first time, too. It was also in college. Being on the phone … in a car … was a trip. My buddy made me keep the call short. He said it was his dad’s phone, and it cost 2 bucks a minute.

Now, it’s not uncommon to see 10 year olds on bikes chatting it up on cell phones. Who are they talking to?! Other kids on bikes, I guess.

So what accounts for the digital divide between age groups? Are my disconnected friends afraid of the new social networking tools? Too busy with work and their own kids to learn something new? Do they dismiss things like Twitter as being silly without really investigating their uses beyond following Bob Vila? (Twitter recommended that I follow Bob V. when I activated my account. I guess they thought I could stand to learn a thing or two about crown molding … Which I could).

We are quickly becoming a nation of those who are mastering the tools of social media and those who don’t know the first thing about them. And if the digital divide deepens, it’s going to be a major barrier to communication between people of different generations.

Social media is here to stay. We may not all be Digital Natives, but we do need to become fluent in social media as a second language.

A few of us from Mother went to the Lost Generation talk at the RSA last week, where the economist David Blanchflower warned of the “lull before the storm” in youth unemployment. Currently it’s 1 in 5, and set to rise. This is a big deal, he says: it could leave permanent social and economic damage on an entire generation.

Interesting to see the allergic reaction from Ruby Pseudo to the language of “lost generations”. Here she is, speaking up:

We have the tools; the abilities; the knowledge, to succeed in an increasingly digital world – we are fast thinking, forward thinking, adept and mobile. We are the net generation and, by that, the most powerful generation ever [and we’re the ones that are in trouble?!]

Ruby’s point is that the world of work needs to adapt to a generation with a different set of skills. It’s not just a macro economics question of job creation: as Miles Templeman of the Institute of Directors put it in the discussion after the talk, the old jobs are going, and they’re not coming back. The challenge is to find new ways of working, more flexible and engaging modes of employment.

All this sounds good, but something’s not right. Last week we spent a couple of hours talking to 16 year olds from local Hackney schools. None of them had a clue (or much interest) in what happens when school finishes – let alone any ideas about the future. These are the kids that the President of the National Union of Students Wes Streeting focused on during the talk – the ones at risk of real, lasting social exclusion, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

When we asked them what would be their ideal job, there was a pretty clear answer: testing computer games. It made me think of Steve Johnson’s book Everything Bad Is Good For You: the technology/media/culture environment young people are growing up in is teaching them to new cognitive skills – skills which aren’t being engaged by the world of work.

If the way that young peoples minds work is changing, shouldn’t the world of school change too? Instead, we have an epidemic of Ritalin prescription in this country – in some towns, as many as one in seven children under 16 are prescribed Ritalin (source). This is the lost generation: thousands of young people being pathologised for the convenience of doctors, teachers and parents.

It’s the good old Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants generation gap. It’s not just the world of work that needs to change, the world of learning does too. As the US group Partnership for 21st Century Skills puts it, “today’s education system faces irrelevance unless we bridge the gap between how students live and how they learn”.

Before we start getting all “Learning 2.0″, let’s get some perspective. We asked the 16 year olds we met what they’re looking at on YouTube at the moment: as one of them said, “I just type in FUNNY SHIT and see what happens”. We thought we’d entertain ourselves and our clients by running together a montage of the clips they talked about…. LYAO!

“Dole Street” image grabbed from David Blanchflower’s RSA Presentation. Any YouTube copyright infringements unintentional!

Zwei Fachveranstaltungen der Messe Nürnberg beschäftigten sich mit dem Kundendialog der Zukunft: die Voice Days plus und die CRM Expo. Einen Weckruf an die Denk-und Innovationsbürokraten (Wolf Lotter hat sie in der November-Ausgabe von brand eins aufs Korn genommen) sendete der Fernsehmoderator Ranga Yogeshwar am ersten Kongresstag der Voice Days plus aus. Alle Unternehmensbranchen stehen vor einem radikalen Umbruch, da das Social Web den Kunden mehr Macht und Gehör verschafft. Yogeshwar unterstrich, dass die Innovationsgeschwindigkeit dramatisch steigt und die so genannten „Digital Natives” gerade erst heranwachsen, was hohe Anforderungen an die Anpassungsfähigkeit der Wirtschaft stellt. „Mit meinem neuen iPhone habe ich das Rechenzentrum meiner Studienzeit in der Hosentasche. Mit der WDR-Sendung Quarks & Co erreichen wir rund 500.000 Podcast-Downloads im Monat. Hier erreichen wir Größenordnungen, wo wir im normalen TV-Programm als öffentlich-rechtliche Anbieter zwar sehr viele jungen Menschen verlieren, aber durch die Hintertür im Internet wieder zurückgewinnen. Das zeigt sehr deutlich, mit welchem Tempo der Wandel in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft verläuft. Wenn Sie das Gefühl haben, es ging in den vergangenen Jahren schnell, dann legen Sie den Gurt an: Es wird noch schneller”, so Yogeshwar.

Den Epochenwechsel machte der Wissenschaftsjournalist an zwei Bildern des Malers Vermeer fest, die im Abstand von einem Jahr entstanden. Das Werk mit dem Titel „Der Astronom” aus dem Jahr 1668 zeigte noch eine Welt, in der Menschen etwas betrachten.

„Der Astronom wagt nicht, etwas zu verändern. Ein Jahr später entsteht ‚Der Geograph’, der aktiv gestaltet und am Fortschritt arbeitet sowie das Schicksal in die eigenen Hände nimmt. Es gibt viele Kunsthistoriker, die sagen, dass es sich um ein Scharnierbild handelt. Es dokumentiert den gesellschaftlich-kulturellen Wandel dieser Zeit. Von einer kontemplativen Welt zu einer Epoche, die Dinge tut. Meine These ist, wenn Vermeer noch leben würde, müsste er heute ein drittes Bild malen, denn wir leben in einer Zeit, die wieder einem Scharnier entspricht”, sagte Yogeshwar in Nürnberg.

Fortschritt sei im 17. Jahrhundert noch sehr langsam verlaufen. Das war eine Geschichte, die von einer Menschengeneration zur nächsten übermittelt wurde. Das ist ein großer Unterschied zu heute. Jeden Tag werden weltweit 20.000 wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen publiziert, jede Minute gibt es irgendwo auf der Welt eine neue chemische Substanz, die synthetisiert wird, alle drei Minuten gibt es eine neue physikalische Erkenntnis. Und das Tempo legt zu”, prognostizierte Yogeshwar.

Konsum, Produktion und Dienstleistungen seien mittlerweile weltweit abrufbar und jeder sollte sich fragen, ob das eigene Business in Zukunft woanders besser, schneller und günstiger gemacht werden kann. Mobilität zähle zum Megatrend der nächsten Jahre. „Wir werden zunehmend Kunden haben, die nicht mehr lokal verpflanzt sind, sondern sich permanent neu organisieren. Es sind intelligente Kunden, die sich nicht mehr abspeisen lassen. Sie sind besser informiert, sie sind schneller, kritischer und sie kommunizieren in einer völlig anderen Weise”, erklärte Yogeshwar. Noch nie zuvor sei derart viel erfunden worden. Das Telefon brauchte rund 100 Jahre, bis es sich durchsetzte. Auf ein Ferngespräch nach Indien wartete Yogeshwar früher noch 48 Stunden und wenn die Leitung zustande kam, mussten sein Eltern schreien, um sich verständlich zu machen.

„Heute ist die Telefonie. Das Medium Internet wächst in einer Dynamik, die man nicht mehr verstehen kann. Wer meint, das Internet zu verstehen, liegt falsch. So hat die Distribution in der Musikindustrie einen Einbruch von 30 Prozent erlebt. Und man darf sich fragen, ob der Job des Verlegers ein Auslaufmodell ist. Die letzte Wetten, dass-Sendung hatte gut elf Millionen Zuschauer und zählt zu den Einschaltquoten-Champions. Die Jeff Dunham-Show ist viel bekannter. Sein Internet-Video ‚Ahmed the Dead Terrorist’ hat über verschiedene Internetkanäle allein in England 96 Millionen Downloads erreicht. Die Musik spielt nicht mehr bei ‚Wetten, dass’, die Musik spielt im Web”, meint Yogeshwar.
Den kompletten Vortrag findet Ihr hier als Audiodatei. Yogeshwar für die Ohren:

Siehe auch:
Yogeshwar und die Scharnierfunktion des Internets: Tempo des gesellschaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Wandels läuft schneller.

Mit der Design Thinking-Methode die Serviceökonomie verbessern – Das ist in Deutschland leider noch selten der Fall.

Was Sprachcomputer noch leisten werden – O-Töne von Professor Wahlster sind sehr interessant.

Mit sozialen Netzwerken den Kundenservice verbessern – Web 2.0 kein Parkett für autoritäre Kontrollfreaks.

One of the things I have been critical of in my comments on Marc Prensky and the Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants hypothesis is the lack of evidence to support his claim that Digital Natives by virtue of their exposure to computers and the internet, have differently wired brains.  Apparently, neuro scientists do believe in a concept they call neuro plasticity but that in itself does not support Prensky’s hypothesis.

In 2008 Dr Gary Small published a book iBrain: surviving the technological alteration of the Modern Mind, along with his partner, Gigi Vorgon,  a freelance writer. Small is an eminent medical researcher who pioneered MRI scans to show there was physical evidence that the brain aged and he was able to show evidence of Altzheimer’s Disease in living persons..It would follow, therefore, that his adoption of the Digital Native Digital Immigrant model in his book would give much weight to Prensky’s case.

In iBrain, Small is writing about young people, Generation Y, but his research has been with older people, mostly, but not always, the elderly.  We see this in a paper he published in February 2009  in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychology. (I said he has lots of street cred!)

To this untutored person, what Small, Moody, Siddarth and Bookheimer found actually argues against the Prensky hypothesis.  The study asked a group of older people to conduct on line searches in Google while the researchers studied their brain activity, hence the title of their paper, Patterns of cerebral activation during internet searching.  The subjects varied in age, the youngest was 55, and some were experienced users of the internet while others were novices.  The conclusion was that all subjects showed changes in the ways their brains worked during and after their searching.  The trouble for the Prensky hypothesis is that only Digital Natives will show  changes to their brains. Whatever you call the people born between 1945 and 1965, Baby Boomers, Woodstock Generation, they are part of Prensky’s Digital Immigrants and this should not be happening.  The fact that this research was conducted by a researcher who had previously supported the Prensky hypothesis should give pause for thought.

Back in 2001, Marc Prensky coined the term “digital natives,” referring to people for whom certain technologies (such as mp3s and internet tools) existed when they were born. Prensky argued that digital natives actually think differently due to frequent exposure to digital tools, and thus radically different educational approaches must be considered for this generation.

It is possible, however, to incorrectly infer that simply because someone is of a certain age that s/he is somewhat expert at gadgets and software, or that s/he will naturally imagine efficient uses of new gadgets and software. Dr Chris Jones of The Open University has been principal investigator of “The Net Generation Encountering eLearning at University Project” which looks at the ways “NetGen students” (born after 1983) approach elearning. Preliminary findings indicate that, for example, more than 4 out of 5 surveyed students born in the 1990s use social networking sites, but only 1.5 out of 5 use blogs and slightly more than 2.5 out of 5 use wikis. Another interim finding is that students use a wide range of technologies, but their usage depends on students’ individual circumstances and the context in which the learning occurs.

I have seen well-intentioned elearning initiatives fall flat because they began by asking the students, “would you like to use technology x?” and then not knowing what to do when students were less than enthusiastic. Students may need to be helped to understand the context in which technology x can sharpen their learning. Students might not have any personal experience of reading or writing blogs, but that does not mean a moderator with a clearly envisioned pedagogy cannot successfully help students to purposefully read and contribute to blogs in a course.

Assumptions about students’ technology use are dangerous simply because tech-use demographics can change fast. For example, while the median age of a Twitter user has been 31 for at least one year, the median age for Facebook is now 33, up from 26 as recently as May 2008. How many predicted the speed of the greying of Facebook?

In his 2009 article “H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom.,” Prensky moves from differentiating digital immigrants from natives based on when they born, to a new concept of “digital wisdom”. To quote, “Digital wisdom is a twofold concept, referring both to wisdom arising from the use of digital technology to access cognitive power beyond our innate capacity and to wisdom in the prudent use of technology to enhance our capabilities.” Learning practitioners need to demonstrate and encourage digital wisdom in our students without demographic assumptions.

Terese Bird

Beyond Distance Learning Technologist and Assistant ZooKeeper

As a social media presenter and parent, I am very familiar with what children do online, how vulnerable some make themselves when they enter cyberspace. (Frankly, it is amazing how often parents, themselves, create vulnerability online, click places they shouldn’t, fall for scams, worms, hacking, and spyware, frankly.)

Since the development of Web 2.0, the statistics regarding online “dangers” and risks for kids have changed significantly; anonymous adult predators posing as children are rare (although adults attempting to befriend students still happens), while the teen-to-teen advances are more frequent (especially “sexting”), and teen cyber-bullying is on the rise (particularly through texting).

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (based on research funded by the U. S. Dept. of Justice),

• “Approximately one in seven youth online (10 – 17-years-old) received a sexual approach or solicitation over the Internet.” [In other words, 20% of teens, at some point over a period of eight years, may receive a sexual approach or solicitation. According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, most of these “approaches or solicitations” were considered merely unwelcome, rude, or vulgar, but otherwise unthreatening. Almost half of these are approaches may be made by peers, not adults. Most of those approached either ignored or blocked further contact.]
• “Four percent (4%) [over the same eight-year period] received an aggressive sexual solicitation—a solicitor who asked to meet them somewhere; called them on the telephone; or sent them offline mail, money, or gifts.” [Again, many are peers, not adults. In fact, the research identified only two children were actually sexually victimized, statistically speaking, an insignificant number. I do recognize any is too many!]

Whereas these are statistics worthy of concern, they are not a cause for fear or panic—simple precautions, monitoring, and education can alleviate or mitigate most of them.

I cite these statistics because I attended a PTA presentation for parents of K-8^th grade kids about social media last week. The presenter is considered an expert in the field of internet safety.  I went hoping to hear new ideas about the ways parents can instruct, oversee, monitor, and manage, their Digital Native children through the various ins and outs of navigating social media. What I got was something else.

Located in the middle of computer-savvy Marin County, CA, the school encourages computer and web access as a part of the interactive learning experience. Most elementary and middle school children in this community carry cell phones to school. (More and more parents are sending their kindergarteners to school with cell phones for the GPS capabilities as a cautionary measure.)

These children have used screen media since they were crawling. By the time they are 21, these kids will have sent and received over 250,000 text messages, spent over 10,000 hours talking on the cell phone, 10,000 hours playing video games, and 20,000 hours watching television.

Naturally, I assumed the program would instruct about privacy, monitoring, netiquette, ways to protect against the “dark side” of the internet, and dealing with cyber-bullying. In other words, ways we keep our children as safe as possible during their formative online experience.

The idea is to educate parents and children, alike, to create ideas for conversations parents and children can have regarding the use, risks, and abuse of social media.

But I was hoping for more than that. I was hoping the program that would help parents better understand what lay ahead for their Digital Native children. I was looking forward to a presentation that would give us tools with which to equip our children on their journey toward college—where they would receive degrees in areas that never existed when we were in school, to work in fields we never heard of, using technology yet to be invented.

I began to feel uncomfortable when the presenter—a police officer specializing in arresting and prosecuting online predators, specifically child pornographers—opened with the comment, “I am not here to panic you….”

The next 90 minutes was, for many present, panic inducing. His presentation was named “Lord of the Flies—,” (a reference to the William Golding book about the savage activities of children marooned on an island). The PowerPoint contained headlines of arrests he had made of child pornographers, young girls seeking sex online, and the underbelly of virtual worlds. He left the impression that the risks for a child logging on to the internet were as great as strolling across an eight lane freeway in heavy, high-speed, traffic.

Adding fuel to the fire, he distributed a CD that included a Bill Curtis, A&E Investigation, on cyber child-porn predators, and an NBC feature on the same subject, child pornography, by Stone Philips,.

Given the PTA meeting is held during the work day, it may be that those parents at work have a better understanding of the Web. It seemed many of the mothers in attendance were less than familiar with it.

Several mothers of 5^th graders were asking if they should allow their children online at all? Others were already convinced the Web was dangerous.

How does sensationalizing the dangers of social media equip parents to engage in a healthy conversation with their children? Children already have a tendency to ignore parental instructions for many reasons. This is certainly the case when the child is more comfortable and confident with social media than is the parent. The child assumes that the parents’ fear is unfounded, therefore shuts them out.

This is not helpful.

What families need are information, discussion points, systems, and tools. What is needed is a healthy conversation, without fear from either party—fear on the part of the parents, or fear of repercussions on the part of the child.

When talking to the principal following the presentation, I voiced my concern. I said that panicking the parents was not an effective way to deal with the ubiquitous nature of the internet for children. It sent all the wrong messages to parents. It incited fear, rather than healthy caution, and would, ultimately, be more detrimental than helpful for parents and children, alike.

Her response was that she had been working with this presenter for nine years.

She said the parents “needed a wake-up call.”

Possibly. But, panic and intelligent conversation are mutually exclusive.

There is a better way.

Angeregt zu diesem Beitrag wurde ich durch eine Sendereihe die diese Woche bei hr 2 gesendet wird. 
Im Zentrum steht das Leben der sogenannten “digital natives” (die nach 1980 Geborenen) in sozialen Netzwerken und ihr Umgang mit Medien.  Was für diese oft alltäglich und selbstverständlich ist, ist für die mittlere und ältere Generation oft fremd, neu, gewöhnungsbedürftig.

Als ich vor etwa einem Jahr mit dem Selbstlernkurs für das Bibliothekswesen 13 Dinge begann, hatte ich nur sehr wenig Hintergrundinformationen zu sozialen Netzwerken. Im Laufe des Kurses konnte ich sehr viele nützliche Anwendungen kennen und teilweise auch einsetzen lernen.

Später meldete ich mich bei Facebook an, der Freundeskreis blieb bisher überschaubar, Mitteilungen werden dort eher sparsam verbreitet. Ich schloss mich einer Gruppe (Zöliakie) an, war aber über Wochen hinweg der Einzige, der Beiträge beisteuerte. Folglich meldete ich mich wieder ab.
Auch die Zugriffe auf dieses Weglog sind eher gering und Kommentare habe ich schon seit Monaten nicht mehr erhalten. Vielleicht liegt es an meinen Beiträgen, die für Niemanden interessant zu sein scheinen.

Bei Flickr bin ich ebenfalls als “lesekater” vertreten. Eine Sammlung von Fotos habe dort abgelegt, aber alles weitere habe ich bisher nicht als sinnvoll erachtet. Denn ich möchte nicht jede Person, die auf einem Foto zu sehen ist, vorher um Erlaubnis fragen die Bilder auch dort einstellen zu dürfen. Soviel Achtung der Privatsphäre muss sein!

Mit twittern habe ich mich bisher zurückgehalten. Sinnvoll erscheint mir dies überwiegend via Handy, doch das verursacht Kosten, die vermeidbar sind.

Mein Fazit: Weiter dran bleiben und schauen was noch alles kommt. Eine Sendereihe wie bei hr 2 ist dafür umso nützlicher. Als Angehöriger der “mittleren Generation” verhalte ich mich doch wohl etwas zu traditionell. Oder ist doch alles überflüssig?

Auf die weiteren Beiträge  zu diesem Thema bei hr 2 Wissenswert freue ich mich schon.

I would not consider myself, as Prensky identifies many young people, as a ’Digital Native’. In many ways I feel that I am rather inept at using most programmes on the computer. I have no interest in downloading music from the internet and I frequently prefer to read articles and newspapers on paper and not online.

However, whilst I feel like I rarely use ICT, in actual fact I use, and rely on it, more than I realise. 

For instance, I like to shop on-line, especially on Amazon, and during my years as an undergraduate I often did my grocery shopping online. Shopping in this way is much more convenient and less time-consuming. Moreover, when researching for an essay or assignment the first place I look for information is always the internet, using sites such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. I have also become particularly proficient in typing, mainly due to the number of essays I have written on Word, and in some ways, whilst I like editing work with pen and paper, I prefer typing an essay than hand-writing it as it is easier to change, erase, or add in new information or ideas.

During my average day I use ICT quite frequently. In the morning I switch on my computer and check my e-mails, Facebook, and the news headlines on the BBC website.  I use my mobile phone during the day to make phone calls and send texts. I can access the internet on my mobile phone, which helps when trying to find information when there is no internet or computer readily available. During lectures we are constantly bombarded with different kinds of ICT. For instance, in the core lectures for science, mathematics, and English, the interactive whiteboard (Smart board) is constantly in use for different purposes. These include PowerPoint presentations, videos to watch regarding teaching, or a means to illustrate different kinds of games and learning activities that are available for children to play on the board. In ICT we are learning about the use of blogs. After lectures I use my computer to check blackboard and my e-mails again, before watching a programme on BBC iPlayer or an equivalent site.

The one huge area that I have not immersed myself in with ICT is the downloading of music. I do not own an IPOD, nor do I use the internet to download music tracks or buy CD’s. Whilst I realise that this practice has become the norm for most people, and is a much cheaper way to buy music, it does not interest me. I prefer to buy an actual CD, with the lyrics and notes that come with it, than purchasing a song online. However, I do listen to music online, via youtube and similar sites.

In reflection, I realise that I am much more reliant on ICT, in its various forms, than I initially realised. Whilst I may not be able to understand all the complexities of computers and the endless things that can be done with them, I do understand the basics and use them to the best of my ability. Programmes such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint are relatively simple to use and may prove to be useful in the classroom. My ability to use these well may prove to be an advantage. A good use of ICT seems to be essential in the world that we live in today. As most people communicate via e-mails, texts, programmes such as Skype, and mobile phone calls, a good grasp of technology is crucial. As children become better users of technology, as a teacher it means that I need a good grasp of what interests them. In this sense it is key to have a good understanding of technological advancements. However, a reliance on ICT is a danger as although it may prove to be engaging to children, it can be over-used and as a teacher it is crucial to have a varied lesson where all kinds of resources are used. For instance, it may prove to be better to show children how electricity flows through getting the class to act out an electric current rather than getting them to watch a video of this happening on the IWB. A balance in using ICT is fundamental to good teaching.

In meinen Vorträgen vor unseren Kunden rutscht mir immer mal wieder der Satz raus: In der realen Welt. Dieser Satz soll dann eine Unterscheidung zwischen klassischem Marketing und Online Marketing verdeutlichen. Und da mein tägliches Geschäft eben in erster Linie Online Marketing ist, argumentiere ich natürlich zumeist pro Internet.

Dennoch möchte ich diesen Satz: In der realen Welt, eigentlich gar nicht mehr verwenden. Ich hasse diesen Satz fast. Eine reale Welt und eine virtuelle Welt als getrennte Einheiten nach dem Motto, wenn ich menschliches und wichtiges tue, bin ich in der realen Welt, wenn ich aber in der virtuellen Welt bin, dann mache ich Dinge, die keinen Wert haben und sehr vielen Menschen  immernoch suspekt zu sein scheinen. Dinge die man kontrollieren und regulieren muss, weil sie eventuell gefährlich oder sogar subversiv sein könnten.

Das Internet ist aber keine virtuelle Welt. Heute ist das Internet reale Welt, noch dazu eine reale Welt in der ich aktiv und gestaltend  bin, was ich mit allen anderen Medien nur dann tun kann, wenn ich dort angestellt bin. Dann habe ich aber nur ein Publikum oder Zuschauer. Im Internet habe ich stattdessen Mitwirkende. Das wäre doc h eigentlich auch eine Chance für mehr Demokratie und weniger Politikmüdigkeit. Warum soll man eigentlich nur alle 4 Jahre seine Stimme abgeben, da geht doch viel mehr.

Also: Das Internet ist die reale Welt und hier gibt es einen sehr guten Artikel dazu, der mich zu diesen Zeilen inspiriert hat, weil ich diesen Satz in meinen Vorträgen nicht mehr aussprechen möchte. Ich hoffe es wird mir gelingen.

http://netzwertig.com/2009/10/02/gesellschaft-ueber-das-lebensgefuehl-always-on/http://netzwertig.com/2009/10/02/gesellschaft-ueber-das-lebensgefuehl-always-on/

POLIS in partnership with OFCOM panel discussion

Date: Tuesday 24 November 2009
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building – London School of Economics and Poltical Sciences
Speakers: Professor David Buckingham, Ranjana Das, Dr Chris Davies, Professor Sonia Livingstone, Dr Rebecca Willet
Chair: Charlie Beckett

Enabling media literacy for ‘digital natives’ – a contradiction in terms?
Professor Sonia Livingstone, Department of Media and Communications, LSE

Talking about their generation: constructions of the digital learner
Professor David Buckingham, Institute of Education

Q & A

Teenagers using the internet: riders, drivers, dabblers and outsiders
Dr Chris Davies, University of Oxford

Power relations, play and boredom in teens’ online interactions
Dr Rebekah Willet, Institute of Education

Panel Reflections
Ranjana Das, POLIS Silverstone Scholar 2009

This event is free and open to all, but pre-registration is required.  RSVP polis@lse.ac.uk|.