Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants: Part 1

Dr. Harvey Silver stated in the video Understanding the Learner (Laureate Education, 2011) that teachers need to make students feel that their learning and knowledge is worthwhile and, it needs to catch their attention.  Lessons and activities cannot do that sufficiently if they are not designed for the particular students with which they will be used.  With that being said, teachers must get to know their students and the types of learners they are.  While many of them may be classified as digital natives, there are some exceptions.

What is a digital native?  According to Dr. Marc Prensky (2001), digital natives are those individuals who have grown up in a technology-rich world.  They are people who like to receive information at a very fast pace and prefer to receive graphics before text.  They can parallel process, multi-task, and they function best when they are networked with or connected to other people.  Digital natives thrive on instant gratification and prefer games over other styles of work.  And, because these learners prefer random access rather than linear steps, traditional teaching methods can often “retard learning for brains developed through games and web surfing” (Prensky, 2001).  In my opinion, the majority of students today fall into this category of digital natives.  They have grown up with multiple television sets in their houses, they have played countless hours of video games on a variety of gaming systems, and they have iPods, iPads, and/or cell phones.  They have been immersed in technology.  They are comfortable using it and are quite proficient with these modalities. They could not imagine life prior to these inventions.

Conversely, digital immigrants are those people who have not had the experiences with technology that their counterparts have had from an early age.  They are individuals who, at some point in time, crossed-over into the digital realm and started on their digital journey.  They are not as automatic in the use of technologies as the natives, and some will never achieve the same levels of proficiency.  They may become familiar with a variety of technologies, but it will usually be after multiple exposures.  Generally, this conversion happens later in one’s life, after childhood has passed. 

Tim McHale, in the article Portrait of a Digital Native, espoused the idea that “the brain’s ability to effectively self-organize competing information remains in the developmental process until 16 or 17 years of age.”  At that point, the learner will have to work harder to incorporate new skills.  That is where fear steps in.  I have seen this with my own life and in the lives of others.  When presented with a task that evokes fear, some people think it is easier to avoid the task then to work at learning the skill.  My grandmother was a prime example.  She worked as a cashier in a department store for years.   Then, when the store switched to computerized cash registers and an electronic inventory system, she experienced fear.  Her fears were so strong that, instead of trying to learn the new system, she quit her job.  I daresay she was not even on the fringe of becoming a digital immigrant.

Students in my classroom support the characteristics that describe digital natives.  They want to be entertained.  They want to compete against each other and they definitely want prizes for their efforts.  They are easily bored with tackling traditional reading, writing, and math practice.  These students want to know why they have to complete certain tasks and they want to know if they can use technology to achieve their goals.  I have found that even in the results from Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Inventory that are administered yearly, more of my students are falling into the interpersonal and the bodily-kinesthetic categories than in the past.  The students conceivably learn better by talking to others and moving about—components that do not often appear in the traditional classrooms of the past.  The students that are in my classroom today are definitely not the same type of students that occupied the desks ten to fifteen years ago.

What then are the implications for digital immigrants in teaching and leading the digital natives? In the article Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Some Thoughts from the Generation Gap by Timothy VanSlyke (2003), he challenges the findings of Marc Prensky and offers his twist on the theories Prensky shares.  While he supports many of the statements and implications made by Prensky, he does not believe that the makeup of the brain actually changes for digital natives.  He does agree that many of today’s students are much more advanced technologically, but that they can adapt and be successfully taught with non-technology instructional methods.  I tend to side with VanSlyke.  While I know that students are changing, I do not believe there is a physical change at the cause.  I believe that the environment plays a key factor in forming the students of today.  Students who are allowed or given access to technology will crave it just as those children who are given many sweets or material items.  Those children who have limited or no access to the same items will not develop a dependence on them.   Dr. David Thornburg, in the video segment Debate: Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants supported the same theory when he said, “The environment in which they were brought up in prior to school effects them.”   Yes, the students of today are different, but it is not due to physical alterations in the brain.

In order to work with the students who have become technology immersed, teachers need to change.  Seeking professional development about ways to integrate technology in the classroom is just one of the steps educators can take to help bridge the technology gap.  Teachers should research, acquire, and utilize the latest products to become familiar with their merits.  Educators must also be open-minded and patient.  As fearful as technology can be, the benefits it can espouse are more important.  Teachers must then reflect on their methodologies to determine if there are better ways to accomplish learning objectives than were used previously and if so, adjustments need to be made.  If standard methods are better for completing a task, they should be implemented.

Carol Ann Tomlinson, in the video segment Differentiation, Part 2 (Laureate Education, 2011) reiterated that we as teachers must “teach the students we have, not the students we used to have or the students we wish we had.”  With this directive, teachers who fall into the digital immigrant category, or worse—those who haven’t even attempted to migrate—must get on board and redesign our lessons and classrooms to reflect the needs of our current students, the ones who have lived with technology of some type almost every day of their lives.  Our entire curriculum does not have to be technology-driven, but it should certainly be technology-rich. 

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (2011). Program 31: Designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment [DVD]. Understanding the Learner. Baltimore, MD.  Silver.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2011). Program 33: Designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment [DVD]. Differentiation Part II. Baltimore, MD.  Tomlinson.