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
I definitely agree. As teachers we should want engaging and motivating lessons. If that involves technology then that is what we need to be doing. We need to do what is best for our students.
ReplyDeleteThank you responding, Kelly. I have you on my list to comment on your entry. I think I remember that you were the young teacher surrounded by many older, more traditional teachers. I am actually older (52 years old, and teaching 26 years), and find that some of the younger ones are the traditional ones! I think it's a personality thing, too. Teaching with technology in a student-centered classroom is hard to plan ahead. Many times the students take me in a direction different than I planned. That type of "lack of structure" is tough for many teachers to let go of...
DeleteI have many students who prefer traditional methods before using forms of technology? I am glad you mentioned that in your post.
ReplyDeleteIt's still surprising to me, especially in a technology magnet school! Thank you for the comment.
DeleteI agree that the use of technology is a great tool that can be used to create engaging and powerful lessons and that it is our responsibility to integrate that technology into our lessons. There are so many ways to engage students I agree that our job is to make sure we are true to the content not instructional tools.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, Erika. It seems we think alike. :)
DeleteI like how you mentioned the fact that Prensky's article was based on his perspective on his experiences with employees and customers. I will agree that he makes valid points, but I also would like some research. I also like how you mention the fact that one size doesn't fit all. I love technology and enjoy working with technology, but I also like to read and learn using paper and pencil. As far as in my classroom, I know that many of my students do not have technology at home so they are only exposed to it at school. It makes it harder to incorporate technology into my assignments outside of classroom.
ReplyDeleteWe had the same issue... not everyone was connected to the internet outside of school... and felt like we were being held back from what we wanted to assign as a result, but instead of holding back, we began searching for ways to resolve the issue... together as a community. I'm happy to say that last year all but one student was connected, and that is tremendous growth from 5 years ago where half weren't. Stay the course.
DeleteI was also rather disappointed in Prensky's lack of evidence for his claims (and it certainly appears that he suffered the consequences). I, too, have quite a few students who consistently choose technology-free options when given the choice in the classroom. I agree that it's dangerous to group all current students as "digital natives" who embrace technology with ease, and I'm glad you highlighted this in your post.
ReplyDeleteDo you have thoughts as to why it is that way in your class?
DeleteCambria,
ReplyDeleteI like that you presented some acknowledgements of the debate and before presenting your thoughts. It seems that most people in the class are close to being on the same page with your thoughts that, 'one size does not fit all.' In your final point you mention that the content should shape the lessons and not instructional tools. I wonder about the way that technology can actually change and improve the learning process. It's a much bigger debate and not really about generational things but I do wonder if in the next 10 to 15 years the tools available to us will enable us to create better learning experiences for pupils. For example think how virtual field trips might be in 10 years? Food for thought maybe. Thanks for a good post.
Interesting comments, Andrew. Honestly, when I first read the assignment and thought about my own experience in my classroom and as a Boise MET student, I thought myself to be on the side of Prensky. I believe that the reason I am even in this program is to learn more about how to use technology to increase student learning, right? When I dug deeper into the assignment, I realized that the main focus of Prensky's article wasn't that today's students need technology to learn (which I do lean towards...), but rather that their brain has somehow changed into a different way of thinking and learning, and they need technology to learn. I have found over 90% of my students to prefer the digital tech tools I offer over any traditional tools, time after time... and it's been this way for almost a decade! I'm glad you brought this up. Thank you!
DeleteI really think critics have been too quick to jump on Prensky's lack of evidence for his theories. I think it is just way too soon to tell. Digital technologies in learning is such a recent phenomena I am not sure we have enough longitudinal data to say with certainty any of its long term brain effects. Let's revisit the question in a few decades. I think we will see some of the hard-wired changes Presnky describes.
ReplyDeleteI am not in disagreement, Jeff. It's like with everything else. Time brings an entirely different perspective. It was just rather easy to negate Prensky's article because of the lack of research, and buy into McKenzie's article, especially since it was published in a peer-review journal.
Delete