Response to "Digital Natives"
This week I was asked to give my perspective on three readings dealing with generational differences in the areas of learning and use of technology.
The terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" were conjured up by Marc Prensky in his creatively titled article; Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Prensky uses the term "digital native" to refer to a person who has grown up (or is currently growing up) with frequent use of digital technology. On the other hand, a "digital immigrant" is someone who uses technology, but did not grow up doing so. He mentions that digital immigrants sometimes revert back to their "old world" ways as they were socialized prior to the digital age. Prensky asserts that today's educational system is not serving "today's students" in an effective manner.
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
Prensky claims that the exponential increase in digital technology and media has caused a change in the way students process information. He asserts (although he doesn't name his source) that today's college student (keep in mind this article was written in 2001) has spent approximately 5,000 hours reading as opposed to tens of thousands of hours playing video games and/or watching television. As a graduate student in an educational technology program, I would be lying if I said that I didn't believe technology could positively impact the quality of instruction. As a high school social studies teacher, I am always trying to find new sources of media I can use to improve the quality of my instruction. I think the question every teacher should ask themselves now (and in the foreseeable future) is; "How does this new instructional tool benefit my students"? For example, a few years ago I gave my students a "Facebook" assignment when I was teaching U.S. History. Students had to fill out a Facebook-like profile for a founding father who signed the Constitution at Independence Hall. Modern technology allowed them to find pictures, research their individual signer, and create a "status" for their profile that showed a solid understanding of their signer's beliefs, fears, hopes, etc. Students generally enjoyed the assignment and learned something along the way. As with any instructional tool, the teacher must set appropriate guidelines...if I had just told my students to make up a "tweet" from their founding father they most likely would have been bored due to the lack of rigor.
As I implied earlier, I believe modern technology can yield high-quality learning outcomes, but that doesn't mean that "old school" methods don't still work. Jamie McKenzie took issue with Prensky's article and offered a rebuttal to much of what he had to say. In a nutshell, McKenzie points out that Prensky frequently uses "casual language" which to him signaled sloppy research. One particular issue McKenzie brings up is that Prensky proposes to fix schools by changing content to emphasize "future" content over "legacy" content. He then goes on to say that "this doesn't mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills"...then what does it mean? As teachers (at least in my department) we spend hours discussing and debating what content to cover and for how long. Prensky's words in this case just seem like meaningless jargon to me.
Finally, the third and final reading asked; "Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design"? This article is the most recent of the three and interestingly enough concludes that while generational differences do exist, they are not important enough to be considered when designing instruction.
These readings reinforced ideas that I held prior to this week.
1. Millennials (especially those in K-12 today) have known nothing but the "digital age" and are generally better (or at least more comfortable) with technology than previous generations. Prensky came up with the term "digital native" over 15 years ago...that is more time than it takes a child to go from Kindergarten through senior year!
2. Technology can have a positive impact on student learning outcomes, however the lesson/activity should still be relevant and rigorous. Other factors can influence learning outcomes...if I have a fantastic lesson planned but 6 of my students did not go to bed until 2 AM then they probably won't absorb much material.
3. Generational differences DO exist. Reeves concludes that generational differences are not important enough to be considered when designing instruction, but I would advise any K-12 educator to get to know their students as well as they can. This may seem like an obvious statement since many of us go out of our way to learn about and understand the backgrounds of our kids. I've found that students appreciate when I try to make a personal connection for them to the material.
The terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" were conjured up by Marc Prensky in his creatively titled article; Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Prensky uses the term "digital native" to refer to a person who has grown up (or is currently growing up) with frequent use of digital technology. On the other hand, a "digital immigrant" is someone who uses technology, but did not grow up doing so. He mentions that digital immigrants sometimes revert back to their "old world" ways as they were socialized prior to the digital age. Prensky asserts that today's educational system is not serving "today's students" in an effective manner.
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
Prensky claims that the exponential increase in digital technology and media has caused a change in the way students process information. He asserts (although he doesn't name his source) that today's college student (keep in mind this article was written in 2001) has spent approximately 5,000 hours reading as opposed to tens of thousands of hours playing video games and/or watching television. As a graduate student in an educational technology program, I would be lying if I said that I didn't believe technology could positively impact the quality of instruction. As a high school social studies teacher, I am always trying to find new sources of media I can use to improve the quality of my instruction. I think the question every teacher should ask themselves now (and in the foreseeable future) is; "How does this new instructional tool benefit my students"? For example, a few years ago I gave my students a "Facebook" assignment when I was teaching U.S. History. Students had to fill out a Facebook-like profile for a founding father who signed the Constitution at Independence Hall. Modern technology allowed them to find pictures, research their individual signer, and create a "status" for their profile that showed a solid understanding of their signer's beliefs, fears, hopes, etc. Students generally enjoyed the assignment and learned something along the way. As with any instructional tool, the teacher must set appropriate guidelines...if I had just told my students to make up a "tweet" from their founding father they most likely would have been bored due to the lack of rigor.
As I implied earlier, I believe modern technology can yield high-quality learning outcomes, but that doesn't mean that "old school" methods don't still work. Jamie McKenzie took issue with Prensky's article and offered a rebuttal to much of what he had to say. In a nutshell, McKenzie points out that Prensky frequently uses "casual language" which to him signaled sloppy research. One particular issue McKenzie brings up is that Prensky proposes to fix schools by changing content to emphasize "future" content over "legacy" content. He then goes on to say that "this doesn't mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills"...then what does it mean? As teachers (at least in my department) we spend hours discussing and debating what content to cover and for how long. Prensky's words in this case just seem like meaningless jargon to me.
Finally, the third and final reading asked; "Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design"? This article is the most recent of the three and interestingly enough concludes that while generational differences do exist, they are not important enough to be considered when designing instruction.
These readings reinforced ideas that I held prior to this week.
1. Millennials (especially those in K-12 today) have known nothing but the "digital age" and are generally better (or at least more comfortable) with technology than previous generations. Prensky came up with the term "digital native" over 15 years ago...that is more time than it takes a child to go from Kindergarten through senior year!
2. Technology can have a positive impact on student learning outcomes, however the lesson/activity should still be relevant and rigorous. Other factors can influence learning outcomes...if I have a fantastic lesson planned but 6 of my students did not go to bed until 2 AM then they probably won't absorb much material.
3. Generational differences DO exist. Reeves concludes that generational differences are not important enough to be considered when designing instruction, but I would advise any K-12 educator to get to know their students as well as they can. This may seem like an obvious statement since many of us go out of our way to learn about and understand the backgrounds of our kids. I've found that students appreciate when I try to make a personal connection for them to the material.
Comments
Post a Comment