Over the course of watching Digital Nation, a documentary written and produced by Frontline, I found myself considering the effects that the Internet has had on society since it’s boom in the early 2000’s. At least, I was considering it through the lens of those who do not identify as Digital Natives, like myself. I found the points regarding the effects that the Internet has had on the multiple aspects of life to be understandable when I considered things from a Digital Immigrant’s prospective.
To those who remember a time prior to the internet and smart phones, I can see how the current tempo of life in harmony with the internet can seem impersonal and intimidating, especially in regard to how it’s changing the state of education and media. Even so, after considering all the points the documentary had to offer, such as lower grades, mental health, social activity, a general decrease in mental capacity, and attention spans (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010), I can’t help but feel as though the internet isn’t necessarily the issue, more so just a new means of scapegoating an age old problem.
The extremities of internet immersion to the point of sacrificing one’s physical and mental health, is not the norm and can be avoided through moderation. If anything, it seems as though the resistance of technology in places like classrooms is the deciding factor in plummeting grades. Seeing as these thoughts and concerns presented in the documentary were primarily delivered by Digital Immigrants, I can’t help but feel as though a generation gap is also a large factor in the debate.
The film offered a plethora of negative effects that the internet has had on the culture and well being of the millennial generation. This includes lower rates of positive social integration and increases in feelings like isolation and loneliness (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010). But to be blunt, I do not think that the internet is the problem. Nor do I think that this problem is exclusive to Digital Natives. The fact of the matter is; that people have always found a ways of ignoring each other long before the introduction of the internet.
A digital literacy blogger I found once posted a vintage image of countless people on a train, all reading newspapers, all completely closed off to those around them, that perfectly captures this fact (Smyth, 2014). Before the internet, there were handheld games and television. Before that, there were radio shows and news papers. Before that, there were stage plays and books. Arguably, the internet allows more opportunity for desirable social interaction with like minded individuals that allows social rejects to find a sense of friendship and community which can lower stress and depression (Hampton, Rainie, Lu, Shin, & Purcell, 2015).
One key factor that stuck out to me while I watched the film and agreed wholeheartedly with, was the importance of technology in moderation. But I think it’s important to note that this rule applies the whole of life. Just like too much water can kill you, so can technology. As mentioned in the film, a teenager going 50 hours straight on World of Warcraft without food or water is an extreme that could have been avoided if the parents were well versed on what and how the technology worked and using discipline to monitor his activity.
Actually, all of the extremes displayed in the film had me constantly repeating, “Why are they’re parents letting them do this?? Where is the moderation? ” It seemed like it was one extreme or the other; letting kids play non stop or sending them away to camp and making them go cold turkey (which seemed to only make the problem worse). As a Digital Native who grew up with a moderated and limited but constant flow of internet access, I have learned the etiquette of maintaining a healthy balance.
I no problem leaving my phone off to chat over coffee with my husband or my friends and I don’t feel the need to Snapchat every meal I eat. All the while, I can fix, learn, build, create, and research anything technology related as easily as I tie my shoes. If the internet is a knife, the answer to using it isn’t just stabbing everyone or never touching one. It’s taking the steps to be taught how to julienne vegetables and to filet a fish.
Another key aspect of the film that stuck out to me was the comparison of the use of technology by students at MIT and by the students and faculty at the middle school in the Bronx. The question was posed, why does the technology seem to do well for the middle school students and not for the MIT students? When you look at the two, the answer seems rather obvious. I personally think it’s due to the resistance to the integration of technology in the presentation of the course material that is causing a lack of interest in MIT classrooms.
Giving a group of 20 year olds laptops and telling them to take notes on a boring and poorly designed Power Point is not at all the same as having them answer questions through computers in real time and making social media profiles for characters in To Kill a Mocking Bird. Even the way the two groups of teachers spoke about technology is a telling reason as to why the smartest kids in the country are getting out preformed by 13 year olds from the Bronx in terms of enthusiasm and effort.
The professors at MIT spoke of technology with bitter disdain while the teachers in the Bronx spoke of it as a saving grace. When technology isn’t used to engage in the learning process, it the technology will no longer be a catalyst for learning but will then become an escape from boredom. The last and most important thing that stood out to me when I watched the documentary was the stern idea that technology is solely responsible for making the millennial generation dumb.
Mark Bauerlein, the author of a book that focuses on this idea, had this to say, What I would like more than anything else, is for young people to prove every single harsh judgment in that book flat wrong. We want them to grow up and blow us away with their literacy, their reading and writing skills, their knowledge about history and art and their civic activity. But we just don’t see it” (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010). This annoyed me for multiple reasons but my main focus is the fact that the world is vastly different than it once was, the work force wants problem solvers, not fact memorizers.
I think Steve Maher, a history teacher who was also interviewed in the film said it best, “The world that we’re preparing them for isn’t going to require them to have to remember a bunch of information that someone tells them. The world is going to require for them to do stuff. To build things. To work on stuff” (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010). I also found it interesting that the majority of the interviewees were sorely concerned with how little Digital Natives read as opposed to past generations.
In actuality, studies have shown that millennials read more books than previous generations. In fact, 88 percent of Americans younger than 30 said they read a book in the past year compared with 79 percent of those older than 30 (Lafrance, 2014). With all of this in mind, I think it’s important for anyone who watches the film to remain sober to the idea that all of the facts and opinions on the effects that the internet has on Digital Natives, mentioned in the film, came from people over the age of 35.
I feel that this may have had an effect in the tone of the piece. All in all, the documentary was very thought provoking in terms of understanding why some Digital Immigrants fear technology as fiercely as they do. I think it would be interesting to see a similar documentary created in the current state of the new digital world as researched by Digital Natives who are now older enough to be successful members of the work force.
