Here’s where we’ll talk about the readings on this metaphor/idea of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants;” Specifically:
- Read and discuss Marc Prensky, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants– A New Way To Look At Ourselves and Our Kids”(PDF) and Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part II: Do They REALLY Think Differently? (PDF)
- Read and discuss Henry Jenkins, “Reconsidering Digital Immigrants…,” the December 5, 2007 entry on his blog, Confessions of an Aca-Fan.
I actually think that all of these readings are very accessible (though I have to say I am not a big fan of Prensky’s style), and I think the gist of the argument is pretty easy to get. More after the continued.
To quote from Jenkins quoting Prensky:
Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century….
It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize….
What should we call these “new” students of today? Some refer to them as the N-[for Net]-gen or D-[for digital]-gen. But the most useful designation I have found for them is Digital Natives. Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.
So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them, Digital Immigrants.
I think there is some merit to pointing out that “the kids today” are coming from a different place when it comes to technology. It is generational to the point that people of different ages always have different assumptions about technologies. My son (who is 12) always has been online/on the web; I always remember having television; my mother always remember having radio; and so forth. But the “brain thing” that Prensky talks about in his “part II” of his argument seems awfully dubious to me.
But the metaphor is highly problematic to me, and it is clearly problematic to Jenkins, which he talks about in this blog post from a couple years ago. For one thing, it lumps all youth into one generation who are all (and presumably equally) digitally native, and the connotation of that is the natives all “know.” For another, as Jenkins argues here, it creates a rather artificial disparity between digital natives and adults. I really like this paragraph:
Talking about digital natives and digital immigrants tends to exagerate the gaps between adults, seen as fumbling and hopelessly out of touch, and youth, seen as masterful. It invites us to see contemporary youth as feral, cut off from all adult influences, inhabiting a world where adults sound like the parents in the old Peanuts cartoons — whah, whah, whah, whah — rather than having anything meaningful to say to their offspring. In the process, it disempowers adults, encouraging them to feel helpless, and thus justifying their decision not to know and not to care what happens to young people as they move into the on-line world.
Jenkins also talks about how Prensky’s analysis characterizes immigrants in rather negative, almost stereotypical (racists?) terms. I agree with that, but I also think the opposite is simultaneously true, interestingly enough: “natives” tend to be romanticized for their “innate” abilities and skills (think of the way the natives are portrayed in Avatar, for example: they all look alike, seem to think alike, etc., etc.) by outsiders, and they also tend to get killed/conquered/made to break to the will of “invaders,” which is potentially another name for “immigrants,” especially in the situation like this one, where the “digital immigrants” have all the power.
There are a bunch of other issues too, of course, but this ought to be enough to get you all started.
The word “native” is definitely problematic because of all the connotations the word holds in relationship to colonialism. Although, I do believe, along with the uses Jenkins points out, “native” is a term used in networking to imply the original data system or the “native” or original data in a sequence or chain. Myself, I imagine the Prensky is simply trying to be provocative. The form is also very much a manifesto which gives it a sense of urgency.
In general, I think Prensky’s point is right, there’s a generation gap and perhaps it’s a bit larger on account of the ever-increasing speed of technology. However, I don’t think it’s something to be particularly anxious over. The speed of technology is fast, however, it’s not that fast and while our ability to communicate has grown and we have added many new gadgets to our lives I haven’t noticed any particular gadget of necessity so complex only a native could operate it. I also find the “scientific” evidence Prensky presents to show how interaction with technology affects our brains to be speculative and un-convincing.
I seriously question whether Prensky is interested in pointing out a genuine concern of his or trying to gain attention. In his weblog he seems quite happy with the term “digital native”, having this to say:
“Bottom line: I am the person who should get the credit for popularizing – not for being the “first to think up,” – the native/immigrant distinction, and I should get credit as well, until an earlier citation arises, for adding the descriptor “digital.” This is, of course, somewhat like, as Jerry Michalski points out, Marconi getting credit for the radio that Tesla thought up first, or Bell for the telephone thought up first by Elisha Grey and Lars Ericsson:”
Also, regarding the digital divide metaphor: it seems oversimplified to me. Technology has influenced students differently depending on when and where they grew up and what they were exposed to. This really recent article from the NY Times discusses how the fast-paced changes in technology and digital media have created mini-generation gaps, which I think is really true: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10stone.html?pagewanted=all
I also agree that the native/immigrant metaphor seems problematic. It’s pretty essentialist, right? I like Jenkins point: “We should recognize what digital immigrants bring with them from the old world which is still valuable in the new, rather than simply focus on their lacks and inadequacies.” And I agree with Professor Krause when he says that it’s actually the immigrants who have all of the power in this situation, which is worrisome.
I don’t know, Carrie. The problem I see with the whole “native” and “immigrant” assignment that he gives is kind of what Brian was touching on– the connotation. I understand that he was looking at them from a denotative point-of-view, but the way they are portrayed is that natives are superior in knowledge and immigrants are bumbling and backwards. If you extend this into societal constructs, isn’t this really egotistical and a complete putdown?
There’s so much to talk about in these three pieces: claims regarding neuroplasticity, the native/immigrant metaphor, an argument for game-based learning… I’m not sure where to start.
I guess I’ll begin by saying that keeping our teaching methods dynamic and appropriate for our students seems very important. How we present information to students definitely matters. At the same time, it also seems highly unrealistic to teach mainly through games. I wonder: does game-based learning reduce students’ understanding of the real-world applications of their skills? What kinds of tasks were the CAD students asked to do; were they practical? This is where Prensky’s later point about reflection seems important. It seems essential to build in times when the students can ask, “Why am I learning this stuff? Why is it important more broadly?” and help them to discover the answers for themselves.
(I also just want to add that the military’s success with this model of game-based learning scares me. In the past several years, they’ve come out with a World of Warcraft-style online game designed to get young people to join up. Life is not a game, though, especially when it comes to things like warfare, and presenting life as such seems really problematic to me.)
Oh, and finally, just regarding neuroplasticity: I’m somewhat skeptical. I think it’s a super exciting IDEA, and I could definitely see the brain being like a muscle and developing differently depending on how it is stimulated (like body-builders versus long-distance runners). I guess I just don’t want to take this idea too far. Does it mean that if we practice telekinesis for 100 minutes a day for 10 weeks, our brains will begin to develop that capability? If what we practice determines how our brain develops, then we really need to design learning tools well and be ethical about what kinds of skills we’re encouraging.
I thought that was really interesting too Carrie. I got all excited wondering how I could further develop my own mind! The examples were really cool, but if it involves metacognition while playing these games, I’m not sure students would want in. It seems like they like to play games and zone out into the game, not “think” about what they’re learning and how they’re growing while doing so…
We’ll read a bit more about this later on, Angie– I think I still have a “gaming” unit on the calendar. The short answer is there is a lot of stuff out there nowadays about gaming and pedagogy, actually.
Cool! Can’t wait to hear more then!
I think this is a really interesting piece, and I’m trying to figure out if I’ve read it before or if I’ve read another article like it. Regardless, there are two things that I noticed and wanted to share:
1) Like others have said, the term “digital natives” does lump a generation of students together who may still have a wide range of knowledge when it comes to familiarity with technology. Even with my college students, it seems that, depending on socioeconomic status, the students have various ranges of exposure to technology and may or may not seem “native” to this new media.
2.) While the gap between the digital native and the digital immigrant may seem daunting, I’m not sure that having a gap between student and teacher is anything new. As Prof. Krause points out, technology and culture has never been stagnant but, instead, has been changing throughout the course of human existence. That’s what makes teaching interesting! Our students from semester to semester and from year to year are different. Learning how to adapt our teaching methods to meet our student’s needs is such an amazing an interesting challenge. And, with the new technology, we have yet another way to teach our students through a language they’ll understand.
I think this is all true, but with two important caveats. First, as I think Jenkins points out very clearly, it’s not as if the “kids today” (e.g., the natives) are “over there,” and the grown-ups (e.g., the immigrants) are “over here.” Adults are in kids’ lives, and vice versa. Really, the more I read/think about this metaphor, the weirder it gets: after all, how can an immigrant (a parent) possibly give birth to a native (a child)?
I also worry about the extent of that gap. If you see it as what you’re saying here, Andrea, something that has existed before and that is not insurmountable, then sure, it’s worthwhile to talk about these differences. But if you see the gap as some sort of excuse to not do something (e.g., “How could I possibly ever catch up with these kids with their phones and their technology!?! It’s hopeless! There’s no point in trying!”), then that’d be bad.
I completely agree. Teachers who teach the same stale way year after year without adapting their message to a new audience have a lot of difficulty being effective teachers. It’s a basic of communications to “know your audience.” Since a teacher’s job is wrapped up in communication, it’s an educator’s responsibility to learn his/her audience and adapt to their needs and interests.
Ok the one issue I see her is with the term native, but different from Brian ( and I know and see his point). I am a native of Michigan, lived here all my life, but so have my kids and to be honest I know the place much better then they do. I know the roads, places, how to get around and all that good stuff. I was born and raised before microwaves, video games, and a host of other technologies but I sure know how to use a whole bunch of them. I learned because I felt it was necessary and I don’t feel like an immigrant at all. My dad, who is 70, is a computer wizard. He can take them apart and put them back together. He has fixed my old laptop a dozen or so times. He knows what he is doing and he can navigate them extremely well, better then some so called “natives.” I do think that some of Prensky’s points are valid in that each generation has a different way of seeing and thinking, for the most part, but that is not because our brains are wired differently but because of the technologies that are at our disposal. I think we have to be cautious when we group a generation into one lump. I have students who know how to use the computer and some who dont even know what a flash drive is (seems odd to me, but who’s to say). I think a lot of it has to do with exposure and environment. Just because they have a cell phone and I-pods does not mean they are technology literatre. I mean for heavens sake my mom’s first reaction to needing to find out something is “let’s google it” not what Prensky says is the case (my mom thinks she is cool too..LOL)
Basically, I think you’re summing up my problems here, Cristin. The whole native/immigrant thing breaks down for me on a couple of different levels, not the least of which is the problem of it being defined in relation to age. I mean, not to pat myself on the back too much, but I generally know a lot more about web 2.0 technologies than most of my “digital immigrant” students.
Like you said, Carrie, there is so much to talk about here. The one thing that bothers me however, is that many of us just assume that the kids who have more money are exposed to more technology. I know that may apply in some situations, but definitely not in all situations. My students are from the same general socio-economic class and yet I find that some of my girls are avid readers and they seem to shun technology for reading. On the other hand, I have some boys that I know are from more struggling families, who practically absorb technology. They will come in to school early or stay late to use the school computers, and often go to the homes of their friends and use their computers. I have thought many times that the technology is a way for them to ‘escape’ their situation while a teen, and may be a method that will enable them to physically escape their situation as they grow into adulthood with such a skillset.
Andrea, your comments were interesting in light of a conversation I just had with 2 of my former students who were hanging around after school. They were commenting on their senior English class which is taught by the youngest teacher in our school, and this is what one of them said, “I just love Mr. Danz’s class–he is so old-school and I really learn a lot from him.” So, while we need to know and use technology, I am heartened that some of the ‘old-school’ teaching is actually appreciated by the students. If we can adapt to all this technology, they are showing they are able to adapt to, and embrace, a variety of teaching styles.
That’s a really good point about old-school teaching and embracing a variety of teaching styles. There’s certainly something to the idea that teaching is not necessarily dependent on technology all the time, and certainly a teacher who is effective without it is better than one who, while using all the latest whiz-bang, isn’t the most well-versed in pedagogy.
I have to be honest here, Prensky and Jenkins took the wind out of my sail while I was reading their articles. They made me feel old and all my prior knowledge about teaching was not worth a dime. After pondering it for a while, I think they are not seeing the whole picture. I think therre has to be a healthy balance between young and old. Cristin said her dad could take apart a computer and fix it and her mom googles for answers how to fix things. I have to go to my kids and students for help with some of the technology in my classroom but from what I am feeling, this builds community. There is not one person who knows everything about everything. We come together to share ideas, to learn from one another and to help one another reach another plain in life. I have never been treated as “old” from any of my students, but I also respect what they know about technology and let them teach each other. I had one student last summer from MTU who could probably hack into a bank. He was into computer security and there were things he shared with the class and me, but there were things that he did not know about composition organization that students helped him with.
The digital immigrants have to have an open mind about learning new things.
I found the Prensky piece frustrating. Although I do see its merits, like my fellow classmates, I thought that too many generalizations were drawn. First off, I didn’t like how he lumped all young people into the “natives” category. This is assuming that all students have the same experiences in life. And, it assumes that they all understand and use technology more and better than their teachers. I also didn’t care how he made the digital immigrants seem like they were inferior in their attempts to use technology and could not ever be at the level of their students. Lastly, the doubt that rests behind his message of, “Okay, we can reach them through using games” and such is disheartening. The article lingers with this, “Who could teach it?” message and all I wanted to say was, “A lot of people!” Just because you didn’t grow up with technology does not make you and your skills inferior to students in the classroom.
That is why, after reading both the Prensky pieces and being less than thrilled with the message, I really liked what Jenkins had to say. He explored the Prensky’s claims and came out with valid short-comings and questioned the parts I questioned. I like how he said that the examples Prensky gave of how digital immigrants behave with technology is just “re-inforcing stereotypes.” And, I could finally put my finger on my feelings about the Prensky articles when Jenkins said that all he does is “exagerate the gaps” between adults and the students they teach.
Generations always change. It is the job of the older generation to teach the younger generation all they need to know. How they are taught will depend on how they will receive the information. As teachers, we shouldn’t remain stagnant in our ways. We need to adapt lessons and to learn the forms of technology that are available to us. As members of the older generation, we have valuable things to say and always have experience to pass on to the students in our classes. There should be no room for doubt in this. A lot of people are realizing this and a lot of people are doing something about it. Sure, there are those who use this claim of being a digital immigrant to keep technology out of their classroom. As Prensky says, it’s time to stop “grousing”.
I think everyone is raising some really good points about the problematic nature of the term “digital natives,” so I won’t continue along that thread. But, suffice it to say, I agree that it is indeed a problematic analogy. Prensky’s first article strikes me as a bit condescending. Although he provides some caveats, he essentially says “You digital immigrants are slow, deliberative and linear-thinking. You have very little hope of ever losing your ‘accent.’ But, you owe it to your students to change.” I’m curious where he puts himself on this continum. Since he is soooo obviously “in the know” he must have been born after 1988 (yes, that is sacracsm).
And, I have to agree w/ Carrie about the gaming issue. While it is certainly exciting and I can see how it can be beneficial in certain contexts, I don’t know how realistic it is on a broad scale. Lets be honest, the notion of using games to facilitate learning is nothing new. We’ve all particpated in it as students, and probably as teachers. But there are certain things that require slow, deliberatvie, logical, reflective thought. And, if students are learning the skills primarily through gaming, what happens when they get a job and have to apply those skills? What happens when they get to a job where they are expected to learn new skills and tasks (let’s be honest… most people learn more about their job-on the job-then they did in school) but nobody has devised a video game for them to learn it? It just feels as if the whole concept is being oversimplified. Prensky seems to be talking about it as if in one moment that world changed from analog to digital…. his “singularity.” When the truth is that it is still a combination of the old and the new. We need people who are savvy w/ both. I don’t know, maybe I’m just a slow, antiquated, digital immigrant who is lost and freightened in this scary new world
I don’t know how I feel about turning everything into a game. I agree, I LOVE the ability to multi-task and have what I like to call “organized chaos” in my classroom so students can work out problems and solutions like I said below, but are games necessary? And what would he mean by “games” in the English classroom? Are students supposed to be Oliver Twist picking pockets and stealing food to survive? I’m not sure that all school needs to be fun and games. Does this make me awful? Sometimes I think I’m too old fashioned for my own good!
Sometimes I feel like its all a game.
Oh boy. Prensky’s tone and mannerism toward “digital immigrants” is definitely captious. I would ask if he means to mend the gap he has identified. Maybe he is just poignant and quick-witted and I am reading from a confusing perspective because I identify with both “immigrants” and “natives”. Prensky made a lot of great points, but he should have saved Jenkins the trouble and added a footnote or two about his use of terms. I understand why people feel those words are incredibly problematic, but I don’t think the identifying of cultures will sever parent/child relationships. Most parents embrace the gap for it is an opportunity to learn something from their children and bond with them. Though, I think Prensky has led way for the conversation to take place, I think he should have been gentler in his approach. But, then again, maybe a POW was needed so people could see the seriousness of how children have changed.
I agree with Prensky– I do not think there is one course that accurately represents the world that we live in today. Hmm, that’s asking a bit much. Let me rephrase and say that I do not think there is a academic program that accurately represents the world today because the world is changing so fast!
People’s brains do change! This is a great discovery!! I can tell you from experience that I have seen people change from immobile, reclusive types to outgoing, successful professionals.
Hmm.. inventing software or video games to teach… don’t know what to say about that one but it is kind of dehumanizing and devaluing the teachers that are here now.
But, on the other hand, I’d like to see that wrench monkey thing!
OOO one KEY point is what have we lost? Reflection!!! I AGREE! Oh boy, it seems that people hardly have the time to think deeply anymore!!!! It’s awful. I run into this problem all the time with my friends. I am criticized for thinking and reflecting too much. Wrongo!
Yes I agree with Jenkins that the terminology is problematic in the respect that Prensky others “immigrants”. But, really I am grateful that I read each piece and am now able to think deeply about the issue within the context of my own life.
I thought all three of these articles were really interesting and had a lot to offer. They definitely got my creativity flowing at the thought of how to teach high school English classes using games. But since he offered no examples of how this might be done at different levels, I must admit I am quite skeptical. Like the reconsidering blog pointed out, this is all a bit stereotypical anyways. We can’t make all these assumptions about natives vs. immigrants and I thought the comparison to the Ellis Island was quite clever. My family who came from Poland worked even harder than the natives and were probably better than them in most of the jobs they performed. They seemed to know the rules and laws of the country better as well, like my mom has taught herself and mastered the digital world, so do many “immigrants”. I also liked his point about those in the lower SES. How can we continue to give them these names that marginalize them over and over. It’s bad enough they get it in so many other areas, now they’re going to be even further behind in school because they don’t have the repertoire to play these “games” or have access to them in their homes? That’s not right.
On the other hand, I did like the basic ideas behind the Prensky pieces. He got my creative ideas flowing for things I would like to try out in the classroom. How I can bring these “fun” and “multi-tasking” methods into my classroom is still unknown, but the concepts are pretty interesting. I see it in my students. They get bored SOOOO easily and need the constant interaction. They crave the ability to be in hectic (yet structured) environments where they can work problems out in their own ways. I would love this organized chaos in my classroom, but how to do it is something Prensky left me wanting.
I enjoyed this banter. I am probably behind all of you technologically anyway. But I find all this stuff exciting. My son who has a BA in Aviation Flight definitely practiced a lot of his skills online. My daughter, at 5, told her kindergarten teacher that she just HAD to get a harder video game for math. I am especially interested in ADD and ADHD and there is program where students use biofeedback to help them concentrate–all by video game. It’s really exciting and it definitely works (at least for some people). I enjoyed this–lots of crazy information.