Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Digital Natives, Immigrants & Divide

The following is a post for a course...


The work presented by Prensky (2001) discusses the influence of the digital experience for students and makes a marked difference between those that grew-up digital (digital natives) and those that did not (digital immigrants). Throughout his work, the disparities between the two populations are described and there is an emphasis on the impact that technology and the digital era has had on those that have experienced it during their lives. Prensky (2001) focuses on these postures to validate a need to revise and therefore, change the current approach to education in order to satisfy the needs and interests of the new consumer of information.

In the article, Prensky (2001) mentions that “In math, for example, the debate must no longer be about whether to use calculators and computers – they are part of the Digital Natives’ world – but rather how to use them to instill the things that are useful to have internalized, from key skills and concepts to the multiplication tables.” (p. 5). This statement presents the core of the work. It presents the technology and how its access has become ubiquitous to the population, in addition to the need of implementing rather than combating technology. The importance of the availability of technology should not be ignored; by incorporating these innovations into the learning process, the students will be able to move forward from the current practice and develop new thought and practices form the standard. If students were to be taught using the technology or methods presented in previous generations, their work would be double as there will be a disparity between what they are experiencing in the educational environment and what the society will be expecting of them – it is moving back, to move forward.

To supplement the work in Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, I chose the work by Smith (2012) to update the argument presented by Prensky in the form of a review in the topic and how it impacts higher education in Canada. The author presents a comprehensive trajectory of the influence and support of the digital natives concept. It describes predecessors to Presnky’s work such as Tapscott in 1998 and Frand in 2000, in addition to successors such as Oblinger in 2003. Together, the body of work describes the proposed characteristics of the digital natives such as, innately tech-savvy, multi-taskers, speakers of the language of technology, gamers, and requiring instant gratification. Additionally, Smith (2012) presents the impact these characterizations have had in the educational discourse, specifically relating to educational technology; and the criticisms associated to the concepts of natives and immigrants, in addition to the digital divide. The work concludes by discussing the particular impact of the characterization in Canadian populations and concluding that the topic needs to be expanded beyond the current debate.

As evidence of the criticism Brown & Czerniewicz (2010) aim to explore the digital characterization on students in South Africa, and describe implications associated with this divide. Their work focuses on the failure of the characterization of the two groups, stating that the matter is not as simple as creating polar opposites but rather that there is a potential continuum within the generations (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010). The characteristics such as the term “native” is confronted because of connotation in South African society associated with something native as something primitive. Additionally, it furthers the criticism by describing South African students belonging to the millennial generation, a supposed digital native representatives, that have not been exposed to the technology and do not share the characteristics of fellow millennial from other societies. Altogether, Brown & Czerniewicz (2010) describe the existence of a “digital elite” and propose the democratization of digital access. While the work presented does present the realities of the participants, the study focuses primarily on one of their designated phases. The study was ongoing for 6-years and most of the data presented in the article focused on a particular portion of the data. Because of the use of only that particular phase in the study, the last portion that comprised the largest pool or participants was not expanded.

The work presented by Brown & Czerniewicz (2010) and Smith (2012), further the conversation about the digital natives and immigrant. Both pose the existence of a continuum rather than a dichotomy as it relates to students and the impact of the digital era. While Prensky (2001) lit a fire, it is important to consider the reality and impact that technology has had on students and society. While there needs to be a bridge between the way students communicate and consume information, and the way this information is accessible to them; there is also a need to understand the expectations of instructor, student and ultimately society. To echo Prensky’s work, we need to understand how to implement the technology rather than change instruction for the sake of changing it. We need to bridge the gap, not jump the divide. In my experience, students pose a barrier when asked to use tools such as social media or use tools outside their comfort. Students need to understand how to use the available technology for purposes outside their own constructs and to learn how to implement them for other purposes. Likewise, the accessibility, familiarity and proficiency with the technology needs to be assessed rather than implied based on membership to a particular generation (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Smith, 2012). This will indeed lead to the change proclaimed by Prensky (2001) rather than set generations opposed to each other or exclude members of society from the change.

Reference:
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the “digital native”: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 357–369. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky - Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part1.pdf
Smith, E. (2012). The Digital Native Debate in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Literature. Cjlt/Rcat, 38, 1–14.

No comments:

Post a Comment