Transcript Document

Digital Natives,
Digital Immigrants
Presentation
by
Ashley Rogers
Alicia Flores
Mayra Mendoza
Dorsetta Williams
According to Prensky
Digital Natives First generation to grow up with
technology.
• Seek the internet for information first and
foremost.
• Multi-task
• Function best when networked.
• Hyper-text
• Need instant gratification and rewards
• Prefer graphics rather than text
• Prefer games over “work”
• See no worth in the old learning process
According to Prensky
Digital Immigrants •
•
•
•
•
Not born into the digital generation
Struggling or slightly fascinated by the technology era.
Have a foot in the past
Turn to the internet as a secondary reference
Read manuals when in doubt about technology rather than
figuring it out on their own
• Have little appreciation for natives and their skills
• Are the majority of our teaching population
• Teach in a slow step-by-step process that cause natives to
lose focus
Neuroplasticity....According to Prensky
The human brain doesn’t physically change based on
stimulation it receives from the outside—especially after the
age of 3— FALSE!!!!
Malleability: Social psychology also provides strong evidence
that one’s thinking patterns change depending on one’s
experiences.
Reorganization takes place only when the animal pays
attention to the sensory input and to the task.
Digital natives: where is the evidence?
There is really no evidence that digital natives can only be
people that were born after 1983.
You don't have to be born in the last three decades to be
considered a digital native.
Anyone can be a native as long as they show knowledge
and depth of use in regards to technology.
We shouldn't change the way we educate children until we
have done more research on the topic.
Helsper, (2010).
Digital natives: where is the evidence?
• It is “Not yet known what
differences (if any) there are in the
brain structure of adults and young
people who use the Internet and
other technologies.
• Tapscott (1998) argues that a digital
native is defined by exposure or
experience with technology and not
by age group.
Helsper, (2010).
Native Defined
•
•
•
•
•
•
Someone who multi-tasks
Has access to a range of new technologies
Confident in their use of technologies
Uses the Internet as a first port of call for information
Born 1983-1990 (first generation)
Born after 1990 (second generation)
Helsper, (2010).
Nativism Determined by
1. age
2. experience
• years of using the Internet.
3. breadth of use
• the number of different activities a person undertakes online.
• The research shows that “the majority of educators and
parent of younger children do use the Internet”
• “younger people were more likely to use the Internet for
entertainment, social networking and diary functions.
Helsper, (2010).
How Technology is Used by Natives
• if it's learning related, they tend to search for definitions of
words, checking facts, looking for jobs, e-learning, and online
courses.
• More likely to engage in online learning activities.
Helsper, (2010).
• Adults can “speak the same language”
• This article does not support the fact that there are
unbridgeable differences between those who can be
classified as digital natives or digital immigrants based on
age
• The conclusion is that “debates about change in education
change must be based on empirical evidence and not
rhetoric.”
Helsper, (2010).
The Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical Review of the Evidence
•1) The term digital natives over
generalizes.
While technology is embedded in their lives, young
people's use and skills are not uniform.
True, many learners are now adept at technology but
socio-cultural & economic factors should not be
overlooked).
It may be that there is much variation within the digital
native generation as between the generations.
Benton et. al., (2006).
2) Multi-tasking is not a new phenomenon.
• There is no evidence that multitasking is a new phenomenon exclusive to
digital natives. (Ex. Doing homework in front of the TV simply finds
expression in new forms today).
• Disadvantage: Multitasking may not be as beneficial as it appears, and can
result in a loss of concentration and cognitive ‘overload’ as the brain shifts
between competing stimuli.
Benton et. al., (2006).
3) Learning styles still vary.
• Prensky states that digital natives are marked by a particular
learning style that traditional teaching methods no longer
can serve.
• However, research shows that students change their
approach to learning depending on their perception of what
a task requires and their previous success with a particular
approach.
Benton et. al., (2006).
Recommendations:
• More substantial evidence needed that there truly exists a great
divide between the digital natives & immigrants.
• Perspectives of teachers and students should be considered.
• The natives should not be regarded as “aliens” but also as learners
with varying degrees of technological skills.
• Think of the technological developments as a gradual “evolution”
rather than a “revolution” that thrusts us educators into a “panic”
mode that requires us to make radical changes in our teaching
styles.
Benton et. al., (2006).
The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital
immigrant’: a dangerous opposition.
• A division in these terms is dangerous to the student teacher
relationship
• Overstates the gap between the generational technology
immersion
• Such a gap may be unconquerable
Bayne and Ross, (2007).
The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital
immigrant’: a dangerous opposition.
• The use of technology for social networking does not
translate into a desire to obtain an education mediated
through technology
• Students age 16-18 believe that "if all learning is mediated
through technology, its value will diminish."
Bayne and Ross, (2007).
The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital
immigrant’: a dangerous opposition.
• The teacher is put in a position of being forced to change
• Change in inevitable in the face of nativism
o teachers don't question some e-learning paths
o Violently reject other paths
Bayne and Ross, (2007).
Recommendation
• Use terms that depict diversity rather than dichotomy
o teachers are "digital colonists" because they are creators
of many of the networks used by the natives
Bayne and Ross, (2007).
Digital Nativism, Digital Delusions & Digital
Deprivation
Arguments against Prensky:
Spends little time on differentiation or understanding
o
o
o
Those leading the digital surge are quick to exile
Presnky’s point of view is harsh and ill informed.
He paints digital experience as wonderful and old
ways as worthless.
•
McKenzie, 2007
What about the Research on Violence??
• Prensky talks about the advantage of learning by video
games without addressing any of the serious negatives
associated with the violence and negative
consequences.
• ISU psychologists have recently released a book which
has proved the harmful effects of violent video games
on kids and youth.
• “We were surprised to find that exposure to violent
video games was a better predictor of the students’ own
violent behavior than their gender or their beliefs about
violence,” said Anderson
Prensky's Citings are Questionable
• Prensky cites only one author but no books to back his
claim, then weasels on the claim with words like "very likely"
and "whether or not this is literally true."
• Prensky quotes Dr. Bruce D. Berry of Baylor College of
Medicine out of context and without citing which article or
study he speaks about
• Prensky speaks about a Dr. Bruce: Where does he work?
What has he written? We cannot find him, his research or
his books.
The Young Generation of Today Do Not All Function the
Same
• Prensky Ignores Serious Studies of the Young and
Important Data
• He lumps all young ones together as digital natives
• There is much more variance within this age group that
Prensky claims when it comes to immersion in things
digital
• Users are divided into three categories: light users,
medium users, and heavy users
Does Anyone Really Talk Anymore?
• One of the biggest negatives that technology has brought to
others attention is face to face communication.
• Computers, headsets, and cell phones have made it
possible for children and parents almost to avoid each
other’s company entirely, even when sitting next to each
other.
Resources
Helsper, E.J. & Eynon, R. (2010). “Digital natives: Where is the evidence?”.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. London: Routledge.
Bennett, S; Maton, K., & Kevin, L. (2006). The Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical
Review of the Evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5). pp.
775–786.
Bayne, Siân and Ross, Jen. (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a
dangerous opposition. Society for Research into Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf.
McKenzie, Jamie. (2007). Digital Nativism, Digital Delusions, and Digital
Deprivation. Educational Technology Journal. Vol. 17, No.2
Prensky, Marc. (2001), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. Vol. 9,
No. 5
Prensky, Mark. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrans, Part II: Do They Really
Think Differently. On the Horizon. Vol. 9, No. 6.