Back in September I wrote a post concerning the premise that adults, including teachers, are “Digital Immigrants” and that the students that we teach are “Digital Natives”. This terminology was coined by Marc Prensky some time back. I have used the terminology on a number of occasions myself. During the last couple of years, having worked closely with secondary school students, I have begun questioning the premise that underlies the terminology. In my original post I concluded that “perhaps they are not Digital Natives at all but simply Digital Dilettantes… they are, and I quote from a dictionary, an amateur or dabbler; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge sporadically, superficially, or for amusement only.”
Last Saturday David Thornburg wrote a post where he expresses regret that he had utilised the terms in the past. He also wrote that the terms were demeaning to educators. As he points out it is true that today’s students have grown up in a world where computers are reasonably ubiquitous but one cannot assume that this fact makes the students any more tech savvy than their teachers, or parents, for that matter.
The author of the Connectivism Blog has written an article critical of Marc Prensky’s position. He picks up on David Thornburg’s apology regarding the terminology as well. I cannot do it justice here. I strongly recommend that all interested parties read his views. He concludes “…aside from insulting an entire generation and coddling to the needs of younger learners, Prensky doesn’t provide us with a compelling model forward (other than “use digital games”).”
The author also makes a reference to “technology weariness” and “resistance to technology” among educators. He adds that hyped-up educational technology that fails the promise to deliver will only hurt future applications of these processes in teaching and learning.
I am now going to read Jamie McKenzie’s critique of Marc Prensky’s position in his article, “Digital Nativism, Digital Delusions and Digital Deprivation.” Jamie sets out, point by point, his views regarding Marc Prensky’s position.
Readers may think it curious that a teacher that readily incorporates technologies in the teaching and learning curriculum should post articles that seemingly go against the grain. Many major speakers and evangelists preach the premise that our students are the “digital natives”. I do not believe that we can make this blanket assertion for all students. I am a not alone in this belief.
I believe in a pragmatic and commonsense approach to educational technologies. [This is beginning to sound like a creed]. I have seen hundred of thousands of dollars pumped into multimedia and eLearning projects that are now idle. I have seen revenues in excess of six figures devoted to eLearning projects that are now obsolete (in under five years). I feel that is such a waste. I am yet to crystallise my approach but I essentially believe that educational technologies must only be incorporated into the teaching and learning curriuclum when it is appropriate and not simply “becasue it was there”. The application of the technology should
- exactly match the specific knowledge, skill and attitudinal outcomes
- complement, and not exclude, other tactics and strategies, traditional and otherwise
October 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
John and I were conversing during his last visit to Singapore and the topic of Marc Prensky arose. We both shared mutual concerns about the insidious effects of Prensky’s terms ‘Digital Immigrants/Natives’ to differentiate ‘us’ and ‘them’ — not to mention the rather significant blithe acceptance and parroting of his terminology by educationists – self included. Mea culpa ..mea culpa).
Admittedly, at first glance, his terms appear as useful reference metaphors. However, a peek below the surface suggests they may be fostering the sense that there is a rather lofty and unattainable distance between those born into the digital realm and those of us in education who have been around for a certain period of time, i.e., those of us who may have been present when the first computers made their way into educational classrooms – 1982 in my case.
One might posit, for instance, that this fact makes those in attendance at that ‘birthing’ somewhat more qualified to wear the Digital Native badge, precisely because they were local inhabitants ( The Concise Oxford Dictionary) at the time this momentous event took place. And have grown accordingly with the technology.
I concur with John’s musings and also found Jamie Mackenzie’s commentary particularly cogent. His rebuttal to many of Prensky’s claims about the putative benefits of his ‘game-based solves all’ approach to learning, as well as his wholly unsubstantiated view that their brains are different and changing substantively, are instructive.
I especially like John’s choice of the word ‘Digital Dilettante’ as a substitute descriptor for the ‘Digital Natives.’ In addition, I personally feel that Prensky’s terms could also be construed as implicitly derogatory and potentially divisive, contributing unnecessarily and substantively to an already extant ‘Us vs Them” mentality — which seems to be more characteristic of longstanding intergenerational realities than digital ones.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Yes I myself have been caught up in the digital native-immigrants hype and have then followed up with a post that debates the Fact or Fiction associated with these terms. The whole digital natives debate is the wrong reason to want to use these technologies with students and is also a barrier to educators up taking the use of technology.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Hi Paul and Sue,
Thank you for your comments. We do have to ensure that barriers are not created between teachers and students. Barriers should not be created between early and late adopters.
Teachers should not be frightened of technology. At least once a day I hear technology criticised within my working environment. Some of the criticism is beginning to sound like a broken record. Sure, the “technology” cracks up and lets the system down but I feel that blind blanket criticism of the tool is unwarranted.
The students are capable but I am sure that they can be capable of even more if they are guided by creative and experienced teachers that at least have a knowledge of the potential of the tools.
Cheers
John
June 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[...] simply due to my generational status. I have posted on this theme before… [ September 2007 | October 2007 ] I know that myself and many other of my colleagues actually use technology in a more meaningful [...]
April 7th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
[...] Larkin, J. (2007). The “digital natives” debate continues…. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://blog.larkin.net.au/2007/10/23/the-digital-natives-debate-continues/ [...]