Standing in front of the class this year has led me to a bitter assumption of our
education system –that we should look at the newest generation in a completely
different perspective. Yes, in a glance, this might seem like a light of tolerance
and understanding to younger inhabitants in our society. However, daunting
feeling and frowns coming along with the assumption imply a slur in disguise
towards the problem.
The emergence of the first digital-natives wave turned out to stir previously-non-
existent problem in their dependency to cyber sources. As a first generation to be
familiarized with the rise of Web 2.0 (which gave birth to the new interactivity
level in the internet), recent students demonstrated their so-called cyber
addiction. What was then known as cozy library filled with musky smells of
old antiquarian books is now considered as a relic of beautiful past. When
students are seen flocking the library, what they are mostly doing is finding air-
conditioned room with free internet access.
This kind of attitude went further in the trivialization of library’s function itself.
With the over-worshipping of cyberworld and nostalgic view against physical
library, attitude to potential of sources in library started to change as well.
Students started to feel demotivated in going and carefully looking for books
as part of their references. They would prefer to go online and consult Google
Almighty –and its twin brother, Saint Wikipedia- for essential information in
their research. Consequently, library research is now toppled down by Google
research. No longer students carefully scrutinize piles of books next to the
notebook and pen, as they can easily type the keyword and get the appropriate
quotations.
Indeed the easier information finding process facilitated by the internet, more
times can be saved. Therefore, information chaining browsing is completely
feasible. Some experienced scholars might even be able to find the key terms
they need to dig and explore deeper by this faster processing. Yet, these
experienced scholars already posses the basic of critical analysis forged by their
times working together with heaps of papers. Their constant scrutiny of key
terms in the index and scanning ability for the whole book –instead of reading
cover by cover- proved to be a training ground to look for more references. By
comparing these various references, these scholars also developed skepticism
against the validity of the information. This skepticism, in turn, triggers them to
constantly find some contested views against the subject matter and gave birth
to fresh critiques and even breakthrough.
The birth of Web 2.0 –to be more specific, Saint Wikipedia- has since gave space
to document the journey of various subject matters. Yet, due to the easy access,
most of the information is compressed and squeezed, leaving only the surviving
core problems and theories. Contested views are rarely elaborated in the same
manner with main subjects, thus rendering them only as some flaw concepts in
the development. Seldom are these concepts explained as some contributions
in the revision of main concept. Thus, the digital natives take only the surviving
main concepts as granted.
Acceptance of something as granted leads the digital natives to lose touch with
their critical thinking. Well, I might be exaggerating as not all of this generation is
losing their critical analysis ability, but speaking from my classroom experience,
a great deal of them suffer from this lack. When they are asked to write a paper
or invoke the analysis on the subject matter, they tend only to quote the main
theories without any carefully crafted logic behind. The concept is only seen as
the “only” product, not as “final” product. Thus, no flaws of the theories are found
in the philosophical basis. Concepts and theories become merely black and white,
only correct and incorrect.
This rendition of concepts and theories as merely two sides of the coin –
leaving no space between- is very much detrimental in education and academic
world. Polarized truth like this may lead to the shallow prejudice of the views,
regardless of the logic behind their conception and development. Being spoilt
by type-search-find process, the habit of scrutinizing whole texts is also slowly
disintegrating from the current generation. Without the scrutinizing ability, the
shallow prejudice will chain into shallow attack when these students disagree
to the concepts, attacking only the surface level of their understanding on the
concepts –leaving behind the philosophical basis. The virtually non-existent
space between polarized truths has left no room for neither compromising nor
development opportunity.
So, from what perspective should we see this current generation? I try to exempt
myself from aligning with the negative force by not saying that they are beyond
repair. However, I found a great difficulty in motivating them to raise critical
thinking in all their papers. Being spoilt by the blessing of Google Almighty
and Saint Wikipedia has changed their perspectives of scrutiny and deeper
investigation. These cyber patrons have freed them from academic skepticism
and bestowed upon them the salvation from constant questioning and long
debates of subject matter.
Then, what needs to be done? I will sound like an old man here, but the
preservation of remnants from pre Web 2.0 should be done. There needs to be a
historian and note keeper for the ancient critical tradition and attitudes towards
knowledge and scholarship. We, the surviving members of pre digital native era,
should shoulder the responsibility of guiding these newer generation, ensuring
that the old tradition should blend seamlessly to the new digital culture. Thus, it
will give birth to a better coming generation of scholarship.
