I read an article today that really made my stomach turn. It was an article by Marc Prensky called “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” (2011). There were some valid points that the author makes about how our students have radically changed as a result of the Digital Age. There is no argument that many, if not most, of our students have grown up with the internet, email, social networking, computer games, mobile phones and instant messaging, and that some of these technological ‘commodities’ can serve us well in the classroom to engage our students.
Prensky draws on an analogy which I at times found left a bad taste in my mouth after reading. He refers to today’s students who have grown up with technology as “Digital Natives” and those of us who have adopted many aspects of technological advancements as “Digital Immigrants”. He wrote that “Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language” (p. 2). He also went so far as to say that for the Digital Natives, “school often feels pretty much as if we’ve brought in a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners to lecture them.” Being an equity-focused educator, I found some of these comments perhaps “digitally racist” – I don’t know if that even makes sense, but I certainly felt the analogy with a native-speaker and immigrant was taken perhaps a little too far. I also took issue with the author insinuating that the digital age is a result of Digital Natives – let me remind him that we are where we are today technologically, largely because of people who are not from the so called ‘digital generation’.
Prensky goes on to say that “for our Digital Immigrant teachers, the people sitting in their classes grew up on the ‘twitch speed’ of video games and MTV. They are used to the instantaneity of hypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamed messages and instant messaging. They’ve been networked most or all of their lives. They have little patience for lectures, step-by-step logic, and ‘tell-test’ instruction.” I’m a great supporter or technology and its uses in education, but can we as educators support and enable these generalizations about our digital youth? What does that say about our future if we value video games and MTV and encourage its use? Are we not doing our “digital natives” a disservice if we let them think it’s o.k. to send instant messages in class while their peer is presenting? I used to work as a consultant on eCommerce strategy development for large international organizations, and it always baffled me to see people on their Blackberries or making a phone call during a meeting or important presentations. Is it not that the role of a teacher is also to develop our students into respectful citizens with interpersonal skills?
The author commends a group of marketers of a then new CAD software who created a video game to engage engineering students so that they could enjoy while learning the software. I agree that this is commendable that the marketers were able to engage these future engineers to learn the CAD software by knowing their students’ interests. This wasn’t the shocking part – the shocking part was how the marketers achieved this. Prensky wrote (p. 5) “Their marketers, however, had a brilliant idea. Observing that the users of CAD software were almost exclusively male engineers between 20 and 30, they … invented and created for them a computer game in the ‘first person shooter’ style of the consumer games Doom and Quake“. I understand that technology can be used to engage young learners. But a Doom style shooting game? Really? Were the marketers even thinking about the kind of violence they are advocating and the systemic prejudices/stereotypes that they are perpetuating through this game. When the radio and television were invented, there were similar views on these then evolving technologies and what people were saying about young learners at the time. Yet, at the end of the day, human beings remain human beings, and technology should not supersede socialization.
Prensky blamed teachers who didn’t think that technology was always relevant for their topic or subject, labeling these educators as “lazy” and “lacking in imagination” (p. 6). He suggested for a Holocaust unit to create a simulation where students can role-play the meeting at Wannsee. I see the value of creating such simulations but I must also argue that there are some instructional strategies that will never be outdated e.g. incorporating drama strategies (why not let the students role-play instead of interacting virtually?). We see more and more students in our classrooms who have no problems interacting when it comes to chat messages or social networking websites, but when asked to interact with one another in a play or presentation, many have problems doing the latter. Furthermore, technology integration should be a part of the repertoire that constitutes an educator’s instructional strategies and best practices. The author makes no mention of the different ways of learning, or multiple intelligences. Naturalist, interpersonal and kinaesthetic learners can gain a great deal from other cooperative learning strategies that do not necessarily entail the integration of technology.
We cannot just teach what the author assumes to be values that the author dictates as a sort of evolution. I believe that a large part of our role as responsible educators is to teach our students to learn to care about forming meaningful relationships, caring for the community, the environment… As educators, and this is where I agree with the author, we can find ways using technology to engage our young students. I see technology as an integral part of our existence in the future and that we can use technology purposefully and responsibly to teach critical thinking skills and develop global, responsible (and digital) citizens.
chezchan 