Marc Prensky's Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants argues that 'digital natives' were born into a society of computers and high speed technology. 'Digital immigrants' however, have had to learn to adapt to this use of technology alongside their understanding of the world without it.
Prensky suggests that the thinking processes involved in the understanding of information technology are 'fundamentally different from their predecessors'. Essentially, young people have evolved to have an innate comprehension of how technology works, and are predisposed to working with computers.
In education, the application of the digital natives, digital immigrants theory presents a problem. Currently, most, if not all teachers are digital immigrants whilst the children they are teaching are of course digital natives. Does this mean that teachers are unable to teach their classes about ICT in a challenging and stimulating way? Are teachers too far behind their pupils in their grasp of ICT? Does the introduction of digital native teachers (i.e. Teachers currently in training or recently trained) mean that ICT will be revolutionised in schools?
Photo taken from here
I think the key thing to remember when considering this problem is that of course some children are computer whizzes, however not all families can afford computers and games consoles. Not all children spend hours on end staring at a computer screen. As well as this, i'm sure that many teachers have been thoroughly trained and are more than able to teach children beyond what they already know about computers.
My main concern regarding Prensky's argument is that it focuses on the idea that children (digital natives) should not be made to regress into understanding the world without technology, but adults (digital immigrants) should be made to progress into understanding the world with technology. Although I agree that this is logical, I also worry that children (and some adults) will become too reliant on technology. Most people who work with technology will agree that technology always has the potential to go wrong.This is why I think it is essential that children are always taught an alternative way.
What interests me most about this article is applying it to myself, and others that I know. It amuses me when I consider my family in relation to these ideas. A few years ago my Dad gave my Grandad a computer. We set it up in his dining room and he was taught how to turn it on, and connect to the internet. He used it for a few months to e-mail an old relative in Canada. Of course, he forgot how to turn it on one day and hasn't bothered to try again. My mother cannot grasp how to upload her holiday photos from her digital camera. Every time I go home, we go through it, and she makes notes. Then I get a phone call telling me that she's lost the notes, and can't remember. However, my mother works on a computer for seven hours a day when she is at work. She understands certain elements of technology; those that she is taught and uses frequently enough to remember, yet has no clue as to how these things work. Perhaps this is what Prensky is talking about. Young people have a desire to understand how and why things work in the way they do. This backs up their knowledge with understanding.
I am a digital native. I was born in 1987 and have always been surrounded by computers. As a child I played on our family computer and searched for hours on Encarta Encyclopedia. I played Lemmings with my older brothers and I remember many of the computer games we owned being on computer disks. We had hundreds of them because each game required about seven disks each. My father is a computer genius. I think it is this that has given me the confidence to play around with computers and figure out what to do if something is wrong. However, he is a digital immigrant. How does this fit in with Prensky's argument? There must be a certain amount of digital immigrants who are computer experts, otherwise we couldn't possibly have computers in the first place!
Back to me... I have always been comfortable with technology. I was the first in my family to own a digital camera. I was the first to own a DVD player, an Ipod and a laptop. All of this would suggest that I am a secure digital native. However I have my doubts. Prensky highlights some traits of digital immigrants which illustrate their poor understanding of how technology should be used. One of these is printing out e-mails, or work to edit them by hand. I often print off articles and my own essays to read on paper. I much prefer reading from paper than from a screen. Does this jeopardise my digital native status?
1 comment:
...My mother cannot grasp how to upload her holiday photos from her digital camera. Every time I go home, we go through it, and she makes notes. Then I get a phone call telling me that she's lost the notes, and can't remember. However, my mother works on a computer for seven hours a day when she is at work. She understands certain elements of technology; those that she is taught and uses frequently enough to remember, yet has no clue as to how these things work. Perhaps this is what Prensky is talking about...
Absolutely.
As immigrants, we have learned the essentials that we need to cope in a digital world. However, we can never develop that intuitive grasp of technology that natives have. Like people who have learned a second language late in life, we tend to think in our own language and translate as we go along.
I regard myself as a pretty good digital immigrant, having developed my interest in educational technology early on. However, my son (20) has a much wider intuitive understanding of the digital world which leaves me gasping.
Post a Comment