In just a few hours I had responses of all hues and colours, some agreeing, some disagreeing, many wanting more flesh to be put on the subject. So here, just for the record are my own, and other people's thoughts on the controversy of Marc Prensky's Digital Natives and Immigrants theory. Prensky originally suggested that those who were born before the digital age are immigrants, whilst those who have grown up with technology are the natives. The implications for this dichotomy? Children don't need instruction manuals to use technology - they expect the device to teach them. Older people - the immigrants - can't multitask like younger 'natives' can, because they are not as immersed in the gaming culture, and therefore don't live at 'twitch speed'. Older people have a foot in the past, and speak technology with an 'accent' that they cannot lose, while younger people are naturally adept at using new and emerging technologies. OK, this is a potted version of Prensky's article, and you can read the entire thing for yourself at the link above. I won't begin to deconstruct his ideas on the supposed 'cognitive changes' he suggests are taking place in the heads of younger users. I'll leave that for another blog post.
A welter of similar terminologies have emerged alongside Prensky's 2001 distinction. Veen and Vrakking published an entire book dedicated to an analysis of ' Homo Zappiens ', whilst Diane Oblinger, Don Tapscott and others popularised the now oft repeated phrase 'Net Generation'. Other terms, such as 'Net Savvy Youth', 'Screenagers' and the 'Google Generation' played on a supposed distinction between age groups, and in doing so, created a dangerous perception that the two really were somehow different. As a response to this feeding frenzy, Mark Bullen set up a blogsite entitled 'Net Gen Skeptic', which he has used to attempt to debunk much of the rhetoric that has been generated on the subject. Bullen actually speaks a lot of sense, and in a recent interview said:
"...my basic point is that the claims about this generation are not based on research. They are speculations that emerge from anecdotal observations and from a techno-utopic view of the world and a fascination with technology. I don’t dispute that this generation is different than previous generations. Every generation differs from the previous in some way. The social, political and technological context changes so this is bound to have an impact on the people growing up at that time. But before we start making radical changes to the way to do things in education we need some evidence." (from Open Education.net)
Bullen goes on to warn of the dangers that lurk when politicians and school leaders swallow the digital natives theory whole and assume that policy and provision should be based upon it:
"...there is an assumption that because this generation is much more immersed in digital technologies for primarily social and recreational purposes that they a) want to use them for educational purposes and b) will be skilled at using these technologies for educational purposes. I have yet to see any evidence to support these assumptions. Also, some of the claims are the same or very similar to claims that have been made about every generation of young people: impatient, social, prefer to learn by doing, and goal oriented." (from Open Education.net)
The message is clear: teachers should not assume that because many children are adept at using new and emerging technology, that they are able to apply them freely in formalised learning contexts such as school. Nor as a result, should they shy away from using technology in the classroom with the fear that 'the children will know more about it than me' - children may have skills in the use of technology, but teachers have the skills and the knowledge to create engaging and exciting learning opportunities and environments. Technology is simply a part of that equation.
JISC has also produced a research based rebuttal of the Google Generation and several other evidence based refutations have recently been published, including Neil Selwyn's Digital Natives: The Myth and the Reality in which he provides a measured commentary of the difficulties the theory imposes upon education. The Chronicle has weighed in with its own report entitled Generational Myth while a useful critical review of the digital natives debate so far, has been captured by Bennett et al in the British Journal of Educational Technology. Finally, David White (University of Oxford) has proposed his own alternative theory - the Residents and Visitors theory, which is not based on the false distinction of age, but rather on perceptions of usefulness and habituation within digital environments. The evidence is now stacking up that there is indeed a lot of doubt being cast over the digital natives and immigrants theory. It's interesting that although Marc Prensky has revised his theory, with a much more measured 'digital wisdom' approach, many people are either ignorant of it, or simply choose to continue to subscribe to, and quote from the digital natives theory. Perhaps it conveniently suits their purpose....?
The natives are revolting by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
No comments:
Post a Comment