The second thing that struck me in this article by Prensky is that there wasn’t any research mentioned to support his position. My current university experience has trained me to be on the lookout for research-based evidence, and I didn’t find any. Prensky’s perspective was developed as a result of his experiences with his employees and his customers, and his sampling is not indicative of the population at large. It’s no wonder that, although he does make some valid points, Pensky’s article was thoroughly dissected 6 years later by a known expert in the field of educational technology, Mackenzie (2007), for being solely based on his own experiences.
One of the best points McKenzie made in his article, Digital nativism: Digital delusions and digital deprivation is that learners all differ from each other. His words, “Real fifteen year old humans are quite different from each other, a fact that Prensky did not take the time to study or notice. Some love things digital. Some are more interested in a horse or a dog or a walk along the shore” never rang so true. I recently blogged about a third grade student of mine who, although was given an iPad for her own daily use, and access to other digital technologies, consistently chose to use traditional tools for learning. She didn’t feel pressured by her peers, or by me. I also noted that when she arrived home each day, she went straight to her personal electronic devices! Yes, they all differ, and it’s our job as educational technologists to not assume that every student learns the same.
The third article, Do generational differences matter in instructional design?, by Reeves (2008), reviews research-based evidence, and cites that although generational differences do exist in learners, there isn’t enough evidence in support of changing the current design of instruction, or teaching with different educational technologies based alone on these generational differences.
As teachers, we do need to consider that many of our students are avid users of digital technologies and may be more engaged in the content we are teaching if those devices are used, but, again, one size does not fit all, and our lessons must be determined by content and not by instructional tools. If digital technologies can make our lessons more engaging and/or more effective, than we should offer them as a choice. Generalizing instruction based on the age of today’s students is discriminatory, and can be detrimental to learners like the student I previously mentioned. Although Prensky would consider her a “Digital Native”, she preferred all of her learning be done by traditional methods.
Sources:
McKenzie, J. (2007). Digital nativism: Digital delusions and digital deprivation. From Now On, 17(2). Retrieved from http://fno.org/nov07/nativism.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants – Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Reeves, T.C. (2008). Do generational differences matter in instructional design? Online discussion presentation to Instructional Technology Forum from January 22-25, 2008 at http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf