The App Generation

The App Generation

by Howard Gardner & Katie Davis

In the Introduction of The App Generation, Howard Gardner and Katie Davis contend that, due to the “availability, proliferation, and power of apps”, the collective consciousness of today’s youth is distinctly different from any past or present generation’s perspective. (14)  Specifically, digital technologies have changed young people’s sense of identity, intimacy, and imagination.  In a provocative statement, the authors claim that young people “… are not only immersed in apps; they’ve come to think of the world as an ensemble of apps, to see their lives as a string of ordered apps, or perhaps, in many cases, a single, extended, cradle-to-grave app.” (7)

In Chapter 2, “Talk About Technology”, Gardner and Davis provide an explanation of Marshall McLuhan’s profound insight that the medium is the message.   Simply put, each medium – from radio, to television, to apps – “alters the relation of the individual [in its own unique way] to the surrounding world.” (22)   Digital technologies, such as smartphones and iPads, are, according to the authors, much more personal than the mass media, such as television, of past generations.  Apps have created a “paradox of action and restriction. The feeling of instituting and implementing an app is active; and yet the moves enabled by each are restricted”. (25)  

The essential impact of apps can be either positive or negative.  They can either restrict or direct one’s thinking and choices, leaving one app-dependent, or they can open one to new possibilities and broaden one’s perspective, making one app-enabled. 

In terms of identity formation, apps can limit a person to becoming a pre-packaged stereotype, or they can enable exploration of various options and help one form a unique and meaningful identity.  With respect to intimacy, apps can “facilitate superficial ties”, or they can broaden and deepen one’s relationships (32).  When it comes to imagination, apps can cause laziness in thinking and thoughtless imitation, or they can invite exploration and innovation.  Unfortunately, the authors conclude that more young people are app-dependent than app-enabled. (45)

The main point made by Gardner and Davis in Chapter 3 is that the very meaning of the term generation is changing in this day and age.  For centuries, a generation was defined as the period of a person’s birth to the time he/she had offspring.  By the 20th century though, distinct generations were identified by “defining political experiences or powerful cultural forces.” (50)  For instance, there was the lost generation of the 1920s and the hippie era of the 1960s.   However, young people have shifted the notion of generation to mean a shorter period of time that is defined by a trendy, powerful digital technology, such as the iPhone or tablet.

Generation Z - The App Generation

Identity in the App Age is the topic of Chapter 4.  The 5-year research that the authors conducted through Harvard, which involved observations and interviews of youth, focus groups, and analysis of young people’s artistic work and fiction, has led them to conclude that “the identities of young people are increasingly packaged” (61) and that youth present a distorted “socially desirable, polished self online.” (63)  The problem with such stereotypical and ameliorated views of themselves is that “young persons risk prematurely foreclosing their identities” weakening their potential to achieve true self-actualization. (74)  It also can exacerbate anxiety and depression as youth compare their actual selves disfavourably to the persona that others and they themselves create online.

Then again, the authors also note that, through membership in online communities, youth can have access to a wider range of interests than is typically available in the actual communities in which they live.  Online, they will find their “digital alter-egos [as] …fan girls, gamers, chess players, or knitters”, and thus, expand the range of acceptable identities beyond those that “fit into a narrow peer culture.” (90) 

Chapter 5, “Apps and Intimate Relationships”, delves into the sad irony that social media and apps ‘designed to connect people may actually be making them feel less connected”, and more socially isolated. (101)  While social media such as Facebook and apps like FaceTime are great for connecting people across distances, the authors argue that “it’s difficult – if not impossible – to achieve the level of deep, warm connection that face-to-face contact provides.” (109)  Furthermore, the “stripped-down” nature of Twitter (140-character messages) and other such social media are not conducive to the deep and intimate connections that are necessary to sustain and grow healthy relationships.

A sad irony of Facebook Friends

On the positive side, Gardner and Davis acknowledge that there is a body of research that suggests that many young people use social media not just to substitute for face-to-face communication but to augment it.   When social media are used in this manner, they can, according to the authors, support the development of meaningful relationships for youth.  They note that, in particular, digital communication can benefit young people who are experiencing isolation in their actual communities, as they may “find or forge a sense of belonging in a sympathetic community online.” (108)        

The essential question posed by the authors in Chapter 6, “Acts (and Apps) of Imagination” is as follows: Do the constraints built into apps and other computer software short-circuit the creative process in young people? The authors acknowledge that the research they conducted directly with youth provide conflicting answers to this question: “While teens’ visual art has become less conventional over time, creative writing emanating from this age group has become more so.” (135)  They add, though, that the art teachers they interviewed feel that today’s students have greater difficulty than students in the past in coming up with their own ideas for art pieces.  One teacher stated, “They go to their laptop first.” (139) 
  

The authors, borrowing a term derived from Jaron Lanier (author of You Are Not a Gadget), conclude that, “Apps may represent the ultimate lock-in.” (143)  Lanier coined the term lock-in to describe the restrictive range of actions and experiences available to users when they use computer software programs.  Gardner and Davis’ analysis of current youth fiction indicates “increased conventionality and use of informal language” that may be the result of the “pedestrian language of tweets, texts, and instant messages”. (145)  The author’s overall conclusion on apps and creativity is a middle ground position:

         Our investigations lead us to conjecture that digital media give rise to –

          and allow more people to engage in – a “middle c” creativity that is more

          interesting and impressive than “little c” but – due to built-in software

          constraints and obstacles to deep engagement – decidedly less ground

          breaking than “Big C”. (153)

  In the final chapter, the authors draw some interesting conclusions concerning apps.  They also offer some sound advice for educators.   Not surprisingly, they conclude that the influence of apps is both pervasive and potentially harmful.  The perniciousness of apps is triggered by their accessibility, which Gardner and Davis believe, invites “an app consciousness … the idea that there are defined ways to achieve whatever we want to achieve” if we can only find the right combination of apps. (160)  While acknowledging that it is unfair to blame apps and digital technologies solely for what they perceive as the flaws of the today’s youth (dependence, risk-aversion, superficiality, narcissism), the authors nonetheless see them as contributing factors. 

The authors do see benefits to apps when it comes to education.  They note that digital devices enable collaboration beyond the four walls of a classroom or school.  As well, they point to their potential for individualizing learning for students. 

However, Gardner and Davis express the concern that their survey of current educational apps suggests that most of them fall well short of their promise and simply “… encourage pursuit of the goals and means of traditional education by digital means.” (179)  In other words, they are merely glossier substitutes for more traditional educational resources such as textbooks and promote a “constrained curriculum” that doesn’t spark student creativity.     

The advice they give educators is to, by all means, use apps as an engaging entry point for students to access information and apply it with precision.  However, they also challenge educators to leverage the potential of apps to augment and re-define learning opportunities such that students can develop higher order skills, critical thinking skills, and their creative capacities.        

Howard Gardner on The App Generation

In terms of identity formation, apps can limit a person to becoming a pre-packaged stereotype, or they can enable exploration of various options and help one form a unique and meaningful identity;  With respect to intimacy, apps can “facilitate superficial ties”, or they can broaden and deepen one’s relationships (32); and When it comes to imagination, apps can cause laziness in thinking and thoughtless imitation, or they can invite exploration and innovation.