The Future of the New Media: The Mobile Generation and Interpersonal Communication

The Future of the New Media:

The Mobile Generation and Interpersonal Communication

 Ulaş Başar Gezgin

Abstract

With the fastest and cheapest connections and with high rates of electronics production, a new generation called as ‘the mobile generation’ (m-generation) has been growing up worldwide. This generation doesn’t feel well when they are off-line. The older generations usually complain about their behaviors at dinner table and on other occasions. Smart phone is a part of their dress code; without it they feel somewhat naked. With the identification of the various features of this generation, a new field of research is burgeoning. Developmental psychologists and social psychologists as well as sociologists and communication researchers have been investigating the cohort characteristics, not only in negative ways, but also in positive ways. The m-generation is more social than the previous generations as they don’t only socialize with physically proximate fellows, but distant fellows as well. They acquire social skills on social media without realizing it. On the other hand, they are more vulnerable due to their need for social approval and acceptance. This chapter delineates the m-generation and presents scholarly research on this socially embedded generation. Recent research is complemented with anecdotal evidence. The main argument of  the chapter is the following: As there is no way to return to the days of asocial media and immobility in that sense, researchers and practitioners including teachers need to find ways to promote positive uses of social media, rather than totally ignoring it. This necessitates a deeper understanding of social media and the m-generation; which is being provided by the presentation of the scholarly findings in this chapter. An in-depth understanding of social media and the m-generation also requires an elaboration of the relevant models such as the one offered by an extended version of the uses and gratifications theory. With such a model, uses of online life and gratifications expected to be received and actually received by the m-generation can be identified for positive responses. Furthermore, developmental psychology and age-specific communication studies are being upgraded, as the new generation is setting the new norms. Those that are not connected are marginalized. Within this context, the chapter concludes with recommendations for parents as well as relevant professionals for promoting positive uses of social media by the m-generation, keeping an eye on inter-generational and intra-generational digital divide. 

Keywords: New media, interpersonal communication, social media, mobile generation, and uses and gratifications theory.

 

1. Introduction

Various terms have been used to denote the younger generations (born after 1980) including “Millennials,” “Generation Y,” the “Net Generation,” the “Dot-Coms,” the “Echo- Boomers,” the “iGeneration,” the “Me Generation,” “Generation-D” (digital), and the “Nexters” (Feiertag & Berge, 2008, p.458); as well as “digital natives”, “homo zappiens”, “instant messaging generation”, New Millennium Learners etc. (Calvani et al., 2012). These terms refer to generational differences which needs to be discussed before elaborating on the new generation.

Rosen (2010) divides the population into 4 categories (Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, Net-Geners and iGeners) and discovers a consistently positive trend between generations and time spent daily with media (p.28-29). Among iGeners, the hours spent for Internet use, offline computer use, e-mail, IM/Chat, telephone, texting, music and television increases by age, while time spent for video game playing peaks at 9-12 years and declines afterwards (p.29).

Worley (2011) states that traditionalists (the generation before Baby Boomers) are “committed, dedicated, conforming, obedient to rules and laws, and respectful of authority”; Baby Boomers (1946-1964) are “individualist, competitive, self-sufficient and uncomfortable with technology” and they hold “a strong sense of responsibility and a strong work ethic”; Generation X (1965-1981) is “self-sufficient, independent, environmentally conscious, and somewhat comfortable with technology”, they “challenge authority and question the government”; and finally, Net generation/millennials (1982-2002) are “technologically advanced, sheltered/protected, diverse, extremely social, close to parents, education oriented, self-confident, multitasking, impatient, materialistic, and self-centered”, they exhibit a “sense of entitlement” and focus too much on college success (Worley, 2011, 32). It is claimed that these characteristics are the consequences of the major events of the period such as “Pearl Harbor, WWII, the Great Depression, the New Deal” (for traditionalists), “television, assassinations, Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War, Watergate” (for Baby Boomers), “high divorce rates, single parent families, energy crisis, women's rights movement” (for Generation X), and “terrorist attacks, Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton impeachment, September 11, 2001, school shootings, Iraq/Afghanistan wars” (for Net generation) etc (Worley, 2011, 32).

Such characterizations assume a mechanistic/behavioristic view of sociology which speculates that many people that constitute a generation are affected in the same way. Furthermore, use of such models out of U.S. is problematic, but this use is very common in various countries including Turkey. Thirdly, these models usually emerged out of commercial settings rather than scientific settings. Fourthly, the origin of such discussions in the academia is mostly in Human Resource studies and related areas, which means that the writers could be biased to fit social phenomena into the ‘ultimate motives’ of maximizing profit etc. From this perspective, the employees are divided into generations that should be approached in different manners to maximize profits. In other words, these generation discussions are not based on non-commercial, scholarly interests. Fifthly, these models are based on an outdated notion of mass communication. Contrary to this notion, media users interpret the events rather than being exposed to them passively. There is no single meaning celestially emanating from the screens. Finally, the historical cutting years seem arbitrary. It resembles the Japanese calendar which starts by new numbering with the new emperor (e.g. 2013 is Heisei 25 in Japanese calendar which corresponds to the 25th year of the Emperor Akihito. Sebastian (2007) discusses ‘Heisei generation’ in that sense).

2. Characteristics of the Net/Mobile Generation

Although the terms Net generation and mobile generation (as well as iGeneration) are used interchangeably, the former is preceding the latter. Net generation was born with Internet, while the mobile generation was born with mobile phones (Rosen, 2010, p.12). Squire & Dikkers (2012) raises an important question which matches the distinction between these two generations: “If all the information is already on the internet, what was different about mobile media devices, over other forms of digitally mediated instruments?” (p.457). The difference revolves on the fact that mobile applications are used for ‘filler’ time that are otherwise wasted by doing nothing else such as waiting for bus, sitting somewhere, waiting for a line etc. (Squire & Dikkers, 2012, p.457). Teenagers use smart phones to amplify their selves, interests, social networks and learning (Squire & Dikkers, 2012, pp.453-458) in a way to match with the notion of ‘body expanders’ as opposed to ‘body containers’ (cf. Kellerman, 2006, p.78).

While half of the applications downloaded to smart phones are games, they are mostly used for Internet and social networking (e-mails included) followed by phone/tool use and game play (Squire & Dikkers, 2012, p.452-453). Smart phone use equips the teenagers with a sense of empowerment (Squire & Dikkers, 2012, p.453). m-Geners are more confident compared to past generations as they are more likely voice their opinions (Affleck, 2013, p.11; Rosen, 2010). Despite the early concerns that Internet and mobile technology uses would isolate the teens, electronic media use and SNS use are associated with more offline interactions. In other words, social media does not serve as a substitute of the offline relations; it instead facilitates offline social life (Jacobsen & Forste, 2011, p.279).

A study that defines ‘Generation N’ as those born after 1980 concludes that

“Generation N employees are often not as independent as their predecessor generations requiring more structure, guidance and regular feedback. They prefer working collaboratively, do not respond well to the lecture, often do not communicate effectively by traditional standards, require information individually tailored to them, and require technology that is available to use” (Feiertag & Berge, 2008, p.457).

This surprising view on “more structure, guidance and regular feedback” is attributed to the fact that m-Geners are receiving and providing frequent feedback online. In that sense, m-Geners are associated with instant gratification and fragmented attention (Affleck, 2013, p.5; Feiertag & Berge, 2008, p.460). From another perspective, Twenge (2013b) states that the new generation is “overconfident, have high expectations, report higher narcissism, is lower in creativity, is less interested in civic issues, and is less inclined to read long passages of text”, while believing in “equality regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation” (p.66).

Rosen (2010) derives the typology of iGeneration by the following 13 points:

“(1) introduction to technology, literally at birth;

(2) constant media diet;

(3) adeptness at multitasking;

(4) fervor for communication technologies;

(5) love of virtual social worlds and anything Internet-related;

(6) ability to use technology to create a vast array of “content”;

(7) unique learning style;

(8) need for constant motivation;

(9) closeness to family;

(10) confidence;

(11) openness to change;

(12) need for collective reflection; and

(13) desire for immediacy” (Rosen, 2010, p.26).

Furthermore, Rosen (2010) lists the following as the common characteristics of media used by iGeners:

“1. They all afford communication between people

2. They are mobile

3. They allow 24/7, on-demand access to family, friends, information, and entertainment.

4. Their popularity has been driven by young people.” (p.52)

As the iGeners grow, the number of text messages they send and receive increases and the gap between phone calls and texts widen. It is clear that iGeners prefer text over phone call. This preference is due to the fact that texting takes less time, is more flexible, does not stick the ear to phone etc. (Rosen, 2010, p.56-57).

Rosen (2010) compares multitasking across generations (Net Gen, iGen, Gen X and Baby Boomers) over typical activities such as ‘playing video games’, ‘reading books and magazines’, ‘talking face to face’, ‘working on the computer but not online’, ‘watching TV’, ‘e-mailing’, ‘texting’, ‘IMing’, ‘talking on the telephone’, ‘surfing the web’ and ‘listening to music’ and finds that while the number of activities multitasked are negatively related with the generations; some of the activities are easier to be multitasked (e.g. listening to music, surfing the web, talking on the phone, IMing, texting, e-mailing, watching TV, and working on the computer but not online) while some others are more difficult (e.g. playing video games, reading books and magazines) (p.82).

Although the framework and understanding provided by Rosen (2010) are laudable and precious, they can be criticized by the fact that the ‘i’ of iGen is just a brand and not a term to characterize smart phones (e.g. android). In that sense, the term could very well be ‘smart generation’. 

In fact, the iGen and mGen characterizations sometimes ignore digital divide on social, economic and geographic bases which would make the generational properties listed less generalizable. However, even if poor kids have limited chances to connect, they are motivated to connect which makes these properties more realistic (cf. Rosen, 2010, p.217).

Nevertheless, whether smart phone using cohort of youngsters should be called as a ‘generation’ is still under discussion despite unwarranted acceptance of the term and concept by various writers. This cohort is not homogeneous in their various characteristics (Calvani, 2012, p.805; Junco & Cotten, 2011). Calvani (2012) shows that the technical skills are not equally distributed in this cohort, while Junco & Cotten (2011) points out the heterogeneity of distractibility due to multitasking. In that sense, digital divide is not only inter-generational, but also intra-generational. In the same vein, Sánchez et al. (2011) finds that intragenerational variation is so wide that it is difficult to call this cohort as a ‘generation’: Divided attention is not a characterizing property or the priority of image over word that is associated with the decline in reading skills. It should be emphasized that Calvani (2012)’s study was based on Italian participants and Sanchez et al. (2011)’s study was on Chilean teens. There may be cultural differences which are totally ignored in generational characterizations.

3. The Young Generation and Education

According to Rosen (2010), schools are designed in a way that would maximize learning for the generation of parents and teachers. That is why m-generation (i-generation) doesn’t like school. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t like school. They learn but in a different way. The new generation is active on social networks and are able to perform many tasks (multitasking) at the same time (Rosen, 2010, p.2-4). In that sense, mobile learning and mobile virtual learning environments are more appropriate for the new generation.

Rosen (2010) associates mobile learning with 5 concepts:

“1. Information is available anywhere there is Internet access.

2. Information is available anytime.

3. Information is available through devices that are becoming commonplace and will soon be affordable to most people.

4. Information can be “pushed” from the environment to the student and “pulled” by the student from the environment.

5. The learning environment is fluid and adapts as the learner learns” (p.61-62).

Rosen (2010) makes a distinction between mobile learning and mobile virtual learning environments considering the latter as a more specific form of the former. So with this characterization, Rosen (2010) lists the following as the key features of mobile virtual learning environments:

“1. Engaging environments

2. Environmental flexibility

3. Relevant learning strategies

4. Material interactivity

5. Human interactivity

6. Student-centered

7. Collaborative

8. Creative

9. Available 24/7” (pp.65-70)

Rosen (2010) compares various educational technologies and points out that in terms of the ‘realism of simulated environment’, the graph extends from books, classroom lectures, audio podcasts, video vodcasts, video gaming to multi-user virtual environments (p.102). In this context, he describes Facebook as a 2-D social network and Second Life as 3-D social network (p.106).

One of the factors behind the popularity of video games among iGeners is the fact that they are full of positive reinforcers (Rosen, 2010, p.117). Thus, the behavioristic model can partially explain their attractiveness. Other factors for this popularity are the 3-dimensionality (being close to reality) and affordability (Rosen, 2010, p.117).

To sum up, Rosen (2010) lists “seven major arguments for changing our educational system to include more technologies:

- iGen students are wired 24/7 and are the early adopters of all new technologies.

- iGen students are multitaskers to the nth degree and are bored when asked to unitask.

- iGen students are socializing constantly via technologies such as social networks and text messaging, and this communication has been shown to level the playing field so that all students feel comfortable participating in conversations.

- iGen students live a connected life at home and are being asked to disconnect at school.

- High-quality course materials that have been proven to actively engage this connected generation of students are available at low or no cost.

- Technologically adapted curriculum materials have been proven to help students develop higher-order thinking skills.

- Students’ participation in the Web 2.0 via user-generated content, social networking, mobile learning, and virtual learning environments (just to name a few) is highly motivating for them and they are naturals at it” (Rosen, 2010, p.201).

Although use of mobile devices including iPads in class may distract the students, they may also help the students to do their own search for a better understanding during the lecture (Wakefield & Smith, 2012, p.647). Wu & Zhang (2010) reports their study which finds that elementary school students that learn language and maths courses with ‘handheld computers’ scored higher on exams compared to those without the so-called ‘palmtops’ (p.57). However, some other studies roll out with negative conclusions: Jacobsen & Forste (2011) finds a negative relationship between electronic media use and grades on first semester and attributes this to the distraction demanded by multitasking during engaging in academic activities (p.279). Likewise, Levine, Waite & Bowman (2007)’s findings point out that time spent on IMing and distractibility on academic activities are positively correlated. By a self-report measure, m-Gener participants to Junco & Cotten (2011) study state that IMing and multitasking in general hinder their efforts to complete homeworks; and lead to lower academic performance (p.370). It appears that some of the students are good at multitasking without academic interference, but they constitute a minority. In Watson & Strayer (2010) study, only 2.5% of the participants were found to be ‘supertaskers’ in that sense (p.479). Junco & Cotten (2011) speculates that a subgroup of students is affected by multitasking positively, while some others negatively. This may explain the mixed results on multitasking. Levine, Waite & Bowman (2007) states that

“[t]here are three ways in which IMing might interfere with academic reading: (a) displacement of time available for study, (b) direct interference while studying, and (c) development of a cognitive style of short and shifting attention” (p.565).

Although they are valuable in their own right, such studies sometimes fail to see that quantity (time spent for smart phone use) is less important compared to quality (in what ways smart phones are used) (Gezgin, 2012a).

Are the m-Geners cognitively more superior compared to the previous generations as a result of their heavy technology use? The academia is divided in this question. Following a Piagetian point of view, Affleck (2013) does not think so and instead states that m-Geners hold a different set of cognitive skills compared to the past generations and that is all. Their technological skills are not generalizable to other domains (Affleck, 2013, p.8). This different set of cognitive skills includes “response times, visual-spatial skill, pattern recognition and systematic thinking” (Affleck, 2013, p.10). Nevertheless, they have to pass the Piagetian stages for cognitive development, as did their past counterparts. Converging with Affleck (2013), Calvani et al. (2012) discovers that adolescents (aged 14-16) in the study are not digitally competent based on their responses on a questionnaire covering “conceptual understanding of technology (visual literacy, trouble shooting, and understanding technological concepts), socio-relational knowledge (knowledge related to privacy, respect for others, and knowledge of technology’s socio-cultural implications) and high-order cognitive skills (organising and connecting textual and visual data, organising structured data, and information research)” (p.797, 799, 800). In this study, ‘visual literacy’ involves ‘computer signals and menu bars’, and ‘trouble shooting’ involves problems such as “audio is not heard”, “working with video”, “printer does not work”, “possible damage caused by viruses” and “malfunctioning of the computer”, while ‘understanding technological concepts’ consists of items such as “requisites for using electronic mail”, “emails do not arrive: what are the possible reasons?”, “what are the causes of slow net surfing?”, “associating tasks with the relative specialised software”, “tasks suitable for computers and for humans”, “searches using logical operators”, “completing a pseudo-programme in a pseudo-programming language”, and “the shortest path: a simple algorithm” (Calvani et al., 2012, p.802). Likewise, ‘organising and connecting textual and visual data’ refers to ‘representing a text with a graph, representing hierarchical classes, hierarchic structure of a document, and identifying keywords in a text’;‘organising structured data’ corresponds to ‘organising data in a table, finding a missing value in a table and planning a simple budget’, while ‘information research’ matches ‘research on the Internet’, search engine results, credibility of information, and reliability of information’ (Calvani et al., 2012, p.803). Finally, ‘staying safe online’ comprises ‘communication of personal data on the Internet and online payments’; ‘respect on the net’ signifies ‘offensive online phrases and quoting information found on the web’, while ‘understanding social and technological inequality’ maps on ‘technological gap between different countries in terms of awareness and communication’ (Calvani et al., 2012, p.804). The low performance of the teenagers on these items clearly support the argument of “a different set of cognitive skills and that is all” mentioned above.

In contrast, Rosen (2010) states that games such as Civilizations, Age of Empires etc. tap “logic, memory, problem solving strategies, critical thinking, and visualization skills” (p.117). To add more detail: Video games help kids develop higher-order skills such as “physical coordination, knowledge acquisition, problem-solving abilities, ability to extract and synthesize complex information, decision-making abilities when faced with multiple alternatives, motivation,” and “system thinking” (Rosen, 2010, p.209).

In summary, researchers from both camps agree that technology use leads to skill acquisition but the significance, generalizability and epistemic status of these skills are a moot issue.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Due to information overload and abundance of unedited and non-expert sources of information on the net, m-Geners are in need of media literacy training that will allow them to check the references and further pages on Google search rather than the first links found, and let them gain the awareness of the likely biases of the online texts as well as offline ones (Affleck, 2013; Calvani, 2012; Rosen, 2010). On the positive side, technology use by mobile generation allows more diversity as curriculum can no longer be totally bound by governments.

One of the characteristics of the m-Geners is the text-speak, in other words, the shortened form of messaging. Although the majority of the scholars are negative about it as they associate it with the decline of literacy and reading skills (Affleck, 2013, p.9), a few of the researchers including Rosen (2010) thinks about how this stream of expression could be harnessed for educational uses. Thus, the recommendation about text-speak is not conclusive.

Rosen (2010) recommends educators to design education in a way to allow multitasking considering the level of ease of the activities to be multitasked that are presented above (p.83).

The multitasking that characterizes the iGeners could be seen on TV screen as well. News channels like CNN provide information in various ways simultaneously by the news anchors, lefthand info, righthand info, subtitles etc. (Rosen, 2010, p.83). However, many other researchers hold negative views on multitasking (e.g. Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Junco & Cotten, 2011; Levine, Waite & Bowman, 2007; Watson & Strayer, 2010). The recommendations are mixed. 

Proposing that ‘Net generation’ is “focused on achievement and grades, goal oriented, pressured to succeed, assertive, confident, enjoy working in groups, team-oriented, extremely social, easily bored with traditional teaching methods, technologically savvy, multitasking, accustomed to instant gratification, visually stimulated, self-centered”, has “little patience, short attention span, poor time management skills, sense of entitlement” and see themselves as a "customer" of the college, Worley (2011) lists the following teaching strategies to match these characteristics:

“- Give students many opportunities for success and a variety of graded assignments

- Prepare detailed course goals and objectives

- Provide clear expectations

- Allow student input on course assignments and assessment

- Respect the knowledge and experience students bring to class; work to build on that knowledge

- Help students see the difference between information and knowledge

- Implement group and team projects

- Allow students to work together

- Encourage interaction and communication

- Shift the focus from teaching to learning

- Give short, relevant writing assignments

- Create assignments that deal with real-life issues that students are interested in

- Limit lectures to short sessions with discussion breaks

- Instead of reading about something, have students visit something

- Bring in guest speakers

- Incorporate inquiry based learning

- Allow students to discover learning

- Instead of testing, have students demonstrate what they have learned

- Talk less and do more

- Incorporate technology throughout the course

- Provide online course materials such as syllabi, readings, and quizzes

- Allow students to submit assignments online

- Use online teaching tools such as WebQuests and Wikis

- Set up a class Facebook page

- Communicate through email

- Challenge students to think beyond the technology

- Keep students busy with a variety of assignments and projects

- Give frequent breaks

- Allow students to utilize all course materials and equipment in class

- Give students a variety of methods to meet course requirements (a paper, project, presentation,

video, interviews, etc.)

- Provide prompt, constructive feedback

- Follow through on all student requests and concerns

- Utilize textbook CD's for assignments that provide immediate feedback

- Include a variety of teaching materials such as graphics, visuals, and simulations

- Utilize PowerPoint presentations

- Offer assignments that include visual tools

- Attempt to slow student-paced thinking and working

- Create assignments that provide some focused reflection time

- Emphasize time-on-task and provide students with a timeline for assignment completion

- Require attendance and count it as a grade

- Provide frequent teacher/student interaction

- Show students that you care about their success

- Be flexible

- Listen and respect student concerns

- Provide service learning and community project opportunities” (Worley, 2011, pp.36-37).

It appears that some of these are applicable to any cohort of students (e.g. providing clear expectations and groupwork); and some others such as using Powerpoint or e-mails is outdated from the eyes of this ‘generation’. A higher number of assessments (e.g. quizzes, formative and multiple project assessments) is reasonable. As stated above, media literacy training is indispensable.

To conclude, whether this cohort forms a ‘generation’ is still under discussion; and the scholarly ideas about this topic rarely reach a consensus. Nevertheless, this discussion is full of valuable recommendations.

 References

Affleck, C. (2013). The rewired generation stepping into the gap that is the digital divide. Retrieved

from http://www.samra.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Affleck_The-rewired-generation-Guest-Paper.pdf

Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally competent?

A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58, 797-807. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.004

Feiertag, J. & Berge, Z. L. (2008). Training Generation N: how educators should approach the Net Generation.

Education & Training, 50, 457-464. doi: 10.1108/00400910810901782

Gezgin, U. B. (2012). Psychology of You 2.0: Psychology of Social Media. Germany: Lambert Publishing.

Gezgin, U. B. ve Ng, Y.-S. (2012). “Keep In E-Touch”: Personality and Facebook use.

Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 123-139.

Jacobsen, W. C. & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use

among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 275-280. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0135

Junco, R. & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56,

370-378. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.020

Kellerman, A. (2006). Personal mobilities. New York: Routledge.

Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M. & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in

college youth. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 560-566. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9990

Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York: Palgrave                Macmillan.

Sebastian, E. (2007). The wider context: some key implications of generational change in Asia. In Ruth Phillips

(ed.), Generational change and new policy challenges: Australia and South Korea (pp.206-228). Sydney: Sydney University Press.  

Squire, K. & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning : Use of mobile media devices among youth.

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18, 445-464. doi: 10.1177/1354856511429646

Sánchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D. & Meyer, E. (2011). Does the new digital generation of learners exist?: A           qualitative study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 543-556. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x

Twenge, J. M. (2013). Teaching generation me. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 66-69.

Wakefield, J. & Smith, D. (2012). From Socrates to satellites: iPad learning in an undergraduate course. Creative

Education, 3, 643-648. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.35094

Watson, J. M. & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review, 17, 479-485. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.479

Worley, K. (2011). Educating college students of the net generation. Adult Learning, 22, 31-39. doi:                10.1177/104515951102200305

Wu, J. & Zhang, Y. (2010). Examining potentialities of handheld technology in students’ academic attainments.

Educational Media International, 47, 57-67. doi: 10.1080/09523981003654977

Source:  Gezgin, U.B. (2017). Connecting Social Science Research with Human Communication Practices: Politics, Education and Psychology of Social Media, Media and Culture.

CONNECTING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH WITH HUMAN COMMUNICATION PRACTICES: POLITICS, EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL MEDIA, MEDIA AND CULTURE Prof.Dr. Ulaş Başar Gezgin SOCIAL MEDIA, MEDIA AND POLITICS 1. Omnipresent and Omnipotent Authoritarianism: Authoritarian Media vs. Social Media? 2. Istanbul Mobil’ized: Mobile Phones’ Contribution to Political Participation and Activism in Istanbul Gezi Park Protests and Onwards. 3. The Gezi Park Protest and #resistgezi: A Chronicle of Tweeting the Protests.  4. Peace Journalism: Urgently and Desperately Needed in Post-Election Turkey. SOCIAL MEDIA AND EDUCATION 5. Critical Thinking Skills on Social Media: A Blooming Season Or A Period Of Decline?   6. Social media, blended learning and constructivism: A jigsaw completed by the uses and gratifications theory? 7. Educational uses of social media and problem-based learning. PSYCHOLOGY, MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA 8. The future of the new media: The mobile generation and interpersonal communication. 9. “Keep in E-Touch”: Personality and Facebook use (with Ng) 10. Of Kate Moss & Marilyn Monroe: Body Dissatisfaction and its Relation to Media (with Dev) CULTURAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 11. Media psychology and intercultural communication: The social representations of Vietnam on Turkish newspapers. 12. Regional Journalism in Southeast Asia and ASEAN Identity in Making: Asia News Network as a Case for International and Intercultural Communication. 13. Uses of social media to promote ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community in Vietnam. Bio