3
This chapter briefly compares Prensky’s work, Digital Native, Digital Immigrant, Part 1 (2001), and the work of Sharon Stoerger (2009). First, Prensky spends a good portion of the article bemoaning how present day educators, basically “digital immigrants,” seem incapable of educating the young people of today, whom he refers to as “digital natives.” The premise is that digital natives have grown up with technology, learning to incorporate various forms and levels of technology into all areas of their lives. Digital Immigrants on the other hand, cannot even begin to understand the “digital language” of the Digital Natives and may as well be “teaching in a foreign language” (Prensky 2001). Prensky seems to suggest digital immigrants will never be able to catch up to, or keep up with, the new generation of learners.
To justify this theory, Prensky states digital natives obtain information almost immediately, using technology that provides instant answers. Young students use social media, music, and game playing as methods to learn and identify with the ever-expanding world. Digital immigrants are stuck in the past, using old school methods to acquire information, using printers to print out information rather than see it online, and calling people into an office to dispense information rather than sending email. Prensky states that the language of digital immigrants is foreign to digital natives (2001). He also makes the claim that the physical brain structure of digital natives is different than digital immigrants, this making it extremely difficult for digital immigrants to “learn” the new language of the natives.
In order to counter this problem, Prensky suggests teachers have to learn the language the students know in order to communicate effectively and enhance learning. He further breaks content down into two areas (1) Legacy content and (2) Future content. “Legacy content” is the application of traditional pedegogies, i.e. “traditional curriculum.” “Future content” includes the use of digital and technological tools to acquire and understand application of that information.
By comparison, The Digital Melting Pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant Divide, Sharon Stoerger claims “today’s students are technologically savvy content creators and consumers whose mindset differs from previous generations” (2009). She asserts digital natives and immigrants are different in terms of how each has incorporated technology. Stoerger seems to prefer a new metaphor, “digital melting pot.” This refers to the integration of digital natives and immigrants rather than classifying them as completely separate classes. Stoerger’s premise looks at the use and incorporation of technology rather than an individual’s innate ability to use it.
Stoerger provided her own definitions of “native and “immigrant.” “Native” reflects someone who belonged, whereas “immigrant” is someone from the outside who came to a place to settle. Stoerger stretches the metaphor to indicate in modern day schools natives (students) belong but immigrants (teachers) do not. In her work, Stoerger cites several articles including Sanford (2006), who breaks down the metaphor into superior (students) and inferior (teachers) classification.
Stanford’s (2006) comparison of an inferior and superior separation between teachers and students may be even more destructive than that of Prensky (2001) in that Prensky at least seemed to give some hope of redemption to digital immigrants that put effort into learning the ways of the digital native. Stoerger’s research to show the most desirable outcome of the digital native-immigrant issue is one of a “digital melting-pot.” As long as the terms “native” and “immigrant” are in play, there will always be a level of segregation. A melting pot brings all participants together in an equal balance of old and new with full integration being the end result.
The basic question could be is how do we describe today’s classrooms? Are we entrenched in culturally stagnant ponds of tradition or are students and teachers encouraged to “think outside the box” of tradition and embrace new methods and theories of learning? Why are teachers afraid to use the technology students already know how to use; preferring to use tools and practices that are arcane and increasingly unproductive? In An Introduction to Multicultural Education, Banks believes it necessary to consider how communication methods used by students on a day-to-day basis may be incorporated by teachers into lesson plans and assessments (Banks 2002). As Shelly’s Frankenstein produced profound fear and hatred of The Monster, teachers especially express frustration to the introduction of new technologies in the classroom. This is likely founded on the lack of training or knowledge in how these technologies are to be applied, and the lack of specific goals/objectives to be accomplished.
ACTIVITY: Therefore, what or whom, is the true Frankenstein or the true Monster? Which pronoun applies to the teacher who stays hidden from the advancement of technology that students use on their own but are prevented from accessing in the classroom? Which describes the teacher that opens the classroom to new and innovative methods and practices that may be frightening at first but properly channeled could become advantageous and benevolent means for learning? Or is the technology itself the Monster, that if allowed to go unchecked and unbridled will result in chaos and mayhem, much like Frankenstein’s Monster?
Prompt: Explain your thoughts on these questions, using your own experience in the classroom as a foundation. As a prompt, consider the following question:
- Are students (and teachers) technologically savvy? In other words, do these groups possess technological knowledge and/or expertise to adequately apply advanced technology to learning?
- Would more defined or focused training be needed in order to enhance students and teachers to acquire greater benefit from advanced technological tools? If so, in what manner and by whom should this training be received?