My biggest problem with it is the over-generalization of a whole generation. It's the same with critics who claim that boys are better at maths and girls are better at english: well, which boys and which girls? Jamie Mackenzie sums this up nicely here "Real fifteen year old humans are quite different from each other, a fact that Prensky did not take the time to study or notice.”
In my study of gifted education, it's all too clear that learners are (and probably always have been) an incredibly diverse bunch and require differentiated curriculum options to help them progress - this differentiation needs to happen for process, content and product (see Riley, T. (2004b). Qualitative differentiation for gifted and talented students. In McAlpine, D. & Moltzen, R. (Eds.), Gifted and talented. New Zealand perspectives (pp. 345-369). Palmerston North: Massey University for more on this). Moreover Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences would suggest that labelling a whole generation with one identity is somewhat simplistic.
Jamie Mackenzie also makes the valid point that Prensky's ideas have weak academic evidence to support them and I note that his Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2 cites sources such as New York Times and Los Angeles Times which lack perhaps the academic rigour of peer reviewed journals.
My other problem is Prensky's view of "future" content which Mackenzie calls "vacuous". "“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But
while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also
includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. " So Prensky contends - but what are those ethics and politics? He makes no mention of constructing knowledge (except perhaps his assertion that students should learn on computers they build themselves) and on the collaborative and connected nature of e-learning.
Having said all that, there is a degree to which I accept that today's learners are relating to the world in a different way due to their exposure to technology. I just think it's too early in the piece to make sweeping judgments as to what that new way of relating is.
In my own practice, some of my children certainly seem to be able to pick up new software and run with it relatively quickly. But there are others who need plenty of support to assimilate new ways of working, even with something like the basic word processor contained in Google Docs. Consider this from another DN/DI blog “students don’t really understand the technology any better than most adults, they are just less afraid of making mistakes”.
And what about me? Well, I had my first computer aged 15 (ZX Spectrum) and learned to program in Basic (just twee stuff like drawing random lines on the screen!!) but I still consider myself an immigrant if the term has any value. I prefer however to call myself a "digital open book", keen and ready to learn new ideas and new ways of doing things. I am not frightened of technology (only of the price...) and I believe that not paying attention is only reason to be out of touch with the latest trends and technology, it's got nothing to do with one's age. I am a physical immigrant to New Zealand but in the 10 years I've lived here I seem to have seen a good deal more of the place than many of my Kiwi friends. So maybe there are benefits to being an immigrant - if you have the motivation, perhaps you view the modern technological landscape with a more critical and appreciative eye than a native who may see the ubiquitous fresh and untouched spaces as not worth bothering with.
No comments:
Post a Comment