![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 22nd, 2011 06:20 pm
(no subject)
In Education, politicians and "reformers"--some of them well meaning, but most reminding me of a quote from Dune*--like to say that our students are "Digital Natives." Now, that's a nice catchphrase, but it's used so badly in teaching that it's effectively lost its meaning.
For those who haven't read Marc Prensky's article that coined the phrase, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants (link opens in new window, if you're still using pre-tabbed browsing-capable web browsers), a Digital Native is a person born in the digital age, which is broadly from the 1980s onward, but specifically people who've grown up with 21st-century tech such as the laptop, iPhone, etc.
The idea is that these Digital Natives, who are most high schoolers now in school, have an easier time with technology, and are more capable with the tech that permeates our world today. Digital Immigrants, on the other hand, are people like me, born in the early 70s or earlier, who supposedly have less "integration" with the tech of our time. There are smaller groups within the Digital Immigrant population: Avoiders, who refuse to use tech beyond a phone and a TV, Reluctant Adopters, who may see the point of technology, but prefer landline phones and letters, and Eager Adopters, who grab onto tech from an early age and love it (I'm in this last category, of course).
The point of all this, most politicians and reformers say, is that we must teach in a new way, using this technology and thereby making our lessons more relevant, inclusive, and "eye-grabbing" to these Digital Natives. We should get students to turn in papers online, we should put handouts online instead of handing them out.
There are, however, some important flaws in the argument: Not all people born in the Digital Age are good with the technology they use--if they use any. Many kids today are still "Digital Immigrants."
I've lost track of how many students I've had to instruct on how to attach a file to an email, or how to open up their word processor and start a paper. Phones, they know. iPods, they know. Computers? Not so much. One student assured me he knew what to do--and then turned in the printout of his email, which he'd typed his essay in. "But I wrote it in Word," he said, "It's a Word document!"
Fully half my students don't even have a computer in their home--or they have a computer, but no Internet connection. Many students don't have any word processing ability whatsoever--as in they have no program to use, or they're using ancient programs.
It's all well and good to talk about "Digital Natives," and some of what Prensky calls for is sensible. But assuming that because a kid is 17, he knows how to use a computer fails to take into account the realities of a world where half our students were raised below the Poverty Line.
And that's the main point where I roll my eyes and stop listening to Prensky. His distinction seems to be that age is the defining factor, but it's pretty clear that experience is more important. Students raised in households with up-to-date computers and internet access tend to be better able to function in today's world than students with archaic machines and AOL accounts.
In addition, he says things that are patently absurd. He claims multitasking is effective for these kids, but not people my age-- but neurological research says it isn't very effective for pretty much anyone; though some people are better at it than others, the distinction is based on other factors than age.
Most importantly, what bothers me about this theory is that so many educators and their bosses just suck it down like it's pure gold--but it isn't. At best it's tarnished silver, at worst rusty iron.
*In my estimation, more misery has been created by reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, "Something must be done!" and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go with it.
There's a much more intensive refutation of the Digital Native theory here.
For those who haven't read Marc Prensky's article that coined the phrase, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants (link opens in new window, if you're still using pre-tabbed browsing-capable web browsers), a Digital Native is a person born in the digital age, which is broadly from the 1980s onward, but specifically people who've grown up with 21st-century tech such as the laptop, iPhone, etc.
The idea is that these Digital Natives, who are most high schoolers now in school, have an easier time with technology, and are more capable with the tech that permeates our world today. Digital Immigrants, on the other hand, are people like me, born in the early 70s or earlier, who supposedly have less "integration" with the tech of our time. There are smaller groups within the Digital Immigrant population: Avoiders, who refuse to use tech beyond a phone and a TV, Reluctant Adopters, who may see the point of technology, but prefer landline phones and letters, and Eager Adopters, who grab onto tech from an early age and love it (I'm in this last category, of course).
The point of all this, most politicians and reformers say, is that we must teach in a new way, using this technology and thereby making our lessons more relevant, inclusive, and "eye-grabbing" to these Digital Natives. We should get students to turn in papers online, we should put handouts online instead of handing them out.
There are, however, some important flaws in the argument: Not all people born in the Digital Age are good with the technology they use--if they use any. Many kids today are still "Digital Immigrants."
I've lost track of how many students I've had to instruct on how to attach a file to an email, or how to open up their word processor and start a paper. Phones, they know. iPods, they know. Computers? Not so much. One student assured me he knew what to do--and then turned in the printout of his email, which he'd typed his essay in. "But I wrote it in Word," he said, "It's a Word document!"
Fully half my students don't even have a computer in their home--or they have a computer, but no Internet connection. Many students don't have any word processing ability whatsoever--as in they have no program to use, or they're using ancient programs.
It's all well and good to talk about "Digital Natives," and some of what Prensky calls for is sensible. But assuming that because a kid is 17, he knows how to use a computer fails to take into account the realities of a world where half our students were raised below the Poverty Line.
And that's the main point where I roll my eyes and stop listening to Prensky. His distinction seems to be that age is the defining factor, but it's pretty clear that experience is more important. Students raised in households with up-to-date computers and internet access tend to be better able to function in today's world than students with archaic machines and AOL accounts.
In addition, he says things that are patently absurd. He claims multitasking is effective for these kids, but not people my age-- but neurological research says it isn't very effective for pretty much anyone; though some people are better at it than others, the distinction is based on other factors than age.
Most importantly, what bothers me about this theory is that so many educators and their bosses just suck it down like it's pure gold--but it isn't. At best it's tarnished silver, at worst rusty iron.
*In my estimation, more misery has been created by reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, "Something must be done!" and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go with it.
There's a much more intensive refutation of the Digital Native theory here.