DISCOURSES OF THE DIGITAL NATIVE

Abstract

This article emerges from a long-term project investigating the BBC initiative ‘Blast’ – an on- and offline creative resource for teenagers. Designed to ‘inspire and equip’ young people to be creative, the research interrogates the assumptions behind such a resource, particularly in terms of the so-called ‘digital native’, and tests such assumptions against the populations actually using and engaging with it. It finds that the conception of a ‘digital native’ – a technologically enthusiastic, if not technologically literate – teenage population, which is operationalized through the workshop structure of BBC Blast, rarely filters down to the teenagers themselves. Teenage delegates to the Blast workshops rarely validate interest based on technological facilities, enthusiasm or competency. Instead, it is peer groups and social alignments which shape declarations and, more importantly, enactments of interest. This suggests that while the concept of the ‘digital native’ may be pertinent for generational comparisons of technological use, or is a useful concept for the operationalization of creative media workshops, it is simply not recognized by teenagers to whom it refers, nor does it adequately define use. Further, technological competency and enthusiasm sits uneasily with social and cultural peer group norms, where certain (and very specific) technological competency is socially permitted. This means that the concept of the ‘digital native’ is problematic, if not entirely inadequate. Focusing on the BBC Blast workshops therefore raises some critical questions around teenage motivations to become technologically literate, and the pleasures teenagers articulate in such engagements per se.

Keywords:

• digital native
• creativity
• teenagers
• BBC
• Blast
• UGC

Notes

www.becta.org.uk, http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=sa&catcode=sa_te_ha_03

http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/chapters/technologies/

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/learningandtech/transforming_he_through_technology_enhanced_learning

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/teaching-with-games/, http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/harnessing-technology

In the initial years of the tour, mobile connection to the Blast base at White City was problematic which meant that teenagers did not see their tour content appear online within the time frame promised. Content had to be burned onto disk and posted which involved a lot of resources and time. The Blast team suspect this led to a lack of interest as workshop attendees checked the website and then became disinterested. When interviewed, however, the tour delegates rarely articulated knowledge about the website, which also suggests that the connection between the workshop and the website was not being made explicit. The mobile connection, piloted in 2008 and working in 2009 went some way to alleviate this issue. However, only competed work was uploaded, and while there are plans to create a ‘work in progress’ section on the website, this has still not been resolved. Awareness of the website was encouraged through the establishment of an extra truck facility, which allowed delegates to go online and see the website. However, teenagers observed and interviewed in 2009, were using the Internet connection for personal exploration and could not see the attraction of the Blast website for them.

Although unsurprising, we nevertheless asked delegates if they recognized the term ‘digital native’ as we felt it important to ascertain the extent of non/recognition. Below are a few extracts from the interviews.

• I: And one final question – digital native? Does that phrase mean anything to you?

  Chorus: no

  B1: never heard of it!

  I: ok. Thanks guys. (Telford 2009, 13 years)

  I: Just one last question, if I say ‘digital native’ to you – does that mean anything?

  G2: Digital native? Like what? Born digital?

  G1: digital native?

  I: have you heard it before?

  G2: no

  G3: no. Does it mean something? (Newcastle 2008, 17 years)

  I: so would you consider yourself good with technology?

  B1: err. Not really. Well I'm good at gaming and this music stuff

  G2: he's a total nerd

  B1: what?

  G1: you are.

  B1: not this stuff. This is just school stuff.

  I: have you heard the term ‘digital native before’?

  G1: is that what he is?

  B1: no. (Leeds 2008, 15 years)

As a member of the web team commented: ‘we don't judge it in terms of their talent or skills. So it doesn't matter what you do, we put it live as long as it doesn't break the house rules and that's just basic things like taste and decency’.

Especially if, as a recent article in the Times Higher suggests, students are coming to university in the UK (aged 18) illiterate in terms of text-based media, but transliterate in terms of technological competency (Attwood 2008, pp. 31–34)

Indeed, one of the Games workshops in Glasgow was fully booked for the day through the online booking system. However, none of the teenagers who had booked online showed up on the day, leaving the workshop empty. Although it was eventually partially filled by some teenagers who had attended the morning sessions, the non-appearance of the delegates raises a number of issues. The first is that despite the provision of resources, there is no guarantee of interest. The second is that socio-cultural factors powerfully affect interest. When the event organizer contacted those delegates who did not appear, she discovered that one of them had forgotten, one was not given parental permission, one was ‘in bed’, and another had simply decided not to come. This suggests that social, familial and everyday factors are far more relevant in terms of affecting interest than the actual provision of resources. Indeed, it also suggests that alongside those who use the resources, we also need to investigate those who do not.