The ‘Digital Natives Debate’ is justifiably one of the most argued topics in Education. With a proposed ‘revolutionary change’ (Prensky, 2001) in Education, to cater for the large majority of student’s, this debate has been met with strong differing opinions from educators, theorists and student’s alike. Perhaps the two strongest arguments come from the readings of Prensky (2001) and Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008), who outline with conviction their views on what needs to be done to address this issue in Education.
Prensky (2001) defines a Digital Native as someone who was born into the digital world (1980 – 1994), and is proficient in the use of various digital technologies such as computers, mobile phones etc. In contrast, he defines a Digital Immigrant as someone born before the explosion of digital technology (prior to 1980), and who has since caught up with its efficient use and functionality (Prensky, 2001). Upon reflecting on where I stand, I discovered that I was a ‘Digital Native,’ as I have owned and used a computer for many years, have frequent access to the Internet, own a mobile phone and always found myself having to teach my Parent’s how to use these technologies efficiently. Similarly, I discovered on my Prac last year that numerous students I encountered were also ’Digital Natives.’
This experience on Prac, ties in with the underlying debate explored in both Prensky and Bennett’s et al. reading, which is, whether or not Education needs to change to accommodate for these ‘Digital Native’ students. According to Prensky (2001) ”Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” This strong assertion from Prensky is backed up by Dr Perry (2001) who points out that the way student’s think has forever changed. Furthermore, Blackall (2005) emphasises that ICT media can provide a rich context for learning, and thus needs to be implemented within an educational framework. The main problem that Prensky outlines is that today’s teachers (largely Digital Immigrants) are not equipped to teach today’s student’s, who understand things in a completely different way. This is an understandable assertion made by Prensky, however, from what I personally believe and from what I witnessed whilst on Prac, teachers who classify themselves as ‘Digital Immigrants’ still need to be willing to vary their delivery of lessons (ie. base a lesson around an IWB or computer), so that they are constantly catering for student’s of different learning styles.
Prensky (2001) states with little conviction that Digital Immigrant teachers don’t believe learning should be enjoyable. This statement I completely disagree with, as whilst I was on Prac, I witnessed teachers who willingly acknowledged they were not technologically proficient (ie. a Digital Immigrant), do everything they could to make their lessons enjoyable and engaging for their students. Cruey (2008) supports this view, as he states that teachers need to do what they can to cater for the way student’s now think. There is an important lesson for me as a future teacher to learn here, and that is to ensure that students are engaged, my teaching pedagogy needs to encompass a wide variety of different resources and technologies, i.e. computers, music, an IWB etc, so that I don’t fall into the trap of teaching like Prensky believes ‘Digital Immigrant’ educators do.
Although in Prensky’s reading strong claims are made for the need to change the way students are taught, Bennett’s et al. reading provides a more balanced approach to the debate. According to Bennett et al. (2008, p. 782) there is no defining evidence suggesting that ‘Digital Native’ students learn in a completely distinctive way to how previous students learnt. Furthermore, Bennett et al., by citing the works of Lorenzo and Dziuban (2008, p. 781) raises a unique point by stating that ‘Digital Native’ students’ constant exposure to technology i.e. the Internet, does not help to make them critical thinkers. The point made here is that Education still has a vital role to play in student’s learning.
Bennett et al. (2008, p. 782) acknowledges the debates provided by Prensky, by pointing out that many student’s today do learn through different multimedia resources, however, in contrast to Prensky’s assertion that “if Digital Immigrant educators…want to reach (their students)…they will have to change” (2001), Bennett et al. states that more critical research needs to be conducted before a dramatic change should occur. Although there is a plethora of other useful articles out there, i.e. ‘The “Digital Natives” Debate Continues…’ (Larkin, 2007) and ‘First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?’ (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray & Krause, 2008), I tend to agree with Bennett et al., that there is not enough existing clear and consise research evident to warrant a drastic change in Education.
In summary, the ‘Digital Natives Debate’ is arguably the most topical and important debate regarding the future of Education. Many academics, particularly Marc Prensky, argue that our current Educational system is not appropriate for today’s students (2001). On the other hand, others, particularly Bennett et al. (2008, p. 784) argue that we need to understand the situation before contemplating change. Upon reflecting on all the evidence, my teaching pedagogy encompasses the inclusion of different ICT media in the classroom. As specified in the article ‘Preparing Students for Elearning’ (elearnspace, 2002) student’s need to be taught how to gain the most out of online learning, and by following some of the points listed in the article I plan to ensure my student’s achieve this. Moreover, some other useful points are specified in the article ‘What Is Meaningful Learning?’ (Jonassen, Howland, Morra & Crismond, 2008), which states that by ensuring the ICT resources used allow students to explore, write, communicate and visualise, they will be able to gain the most out of learning. Therefore, the tacit message is clear: to cater for students of different learning styles, educators need to take a diverse and flexible approach to their teaching methodology and by doing so ‘Digital Native’ students will be catered for.
Which learning style/s does this ICT support?
The graphic organiser supports the majority of Gardner’s intelligences. It is useful for Visual learners, as it is large and can efficiently summarise the content of a lesson into a simple mind-map. Furthermore, it is useful for Bodily-kinesthetic learners, as it is a hands-on program, and also is a useful tool for Interpersonal learners, as different group activities can be built around this program.
How could this ICT be implemented as a good cognitive tool within the learning environment?
The graphic organiser could easily be implemented as a good cognitive tool as it can foster a classroom environment conducive to more critical thinking. As evident above in my demonstration of a graphic organiser, it can be used as a tool for classroom debate, with half the students supporting one side, e.g. ‘Digital Natives,’ and the other half supporting the other side; ‘Digital Immigrants.’ Such a debate requires student’s to think more critically, as they need to compare both sides, to come to a conclusion on the benefits of their side.
As well as fostering a more critical level of thinking, a graphic organiser can be instrumental for visual learners. In all levels of schooling, students are required to write extended responses, whether they are basic narratives, or HSC essays. For most student’s, ideas will easily come to mind on what to write, in contrast, although Visual learners may have ideas in mind, for maximum efficiency they need to be able to represent these ideas in a visual form. Therefore, to ensure this ICT is implemented as a good cognitive tool within the learning environment, teachers need to allow their visual learning student’s access to this program, prior to writing, so that they can generate a clear and concise plan to follow.
How is this ICT enabling the development of creativity?
The graphic organiser can efficiently foster the development of creativity. It allows student’s to display information in a visual form, but more specifically the Inspiration program allows them to experiment with text size, font, colours, backgrounds, pictures and many more functions to make their work more visually appealing.
Reference List:
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Blackall, L. (2005). Digital literacy: How it affects teaching practices and networked learning futures – a proposal for action research. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://networkedlearning.wikispaces.com/digital+literacy+and+how+it+affects+teaching+and+learning+practices
Cruey, G. (2008). Digital natives and digital immigrants: Is technology creating changes in learning styles? Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/digital_natives_and_digital_immigrants
elearnspace (2002). Preparing students for elearning. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Preparingstudents.htm
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Morra, R.M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). In What is meaningful learning? (pp. 1-12). New Jersey: Pearson.
Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
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/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
