David White’s description of the way in which people use the internet as being like the behaviours of visitors or residents has captured my interest this week. A link to his blog and his video were posted in a CCK09 forum this week.  Roy in his post – Thursday, 22 October 2009, 05:29 AM – has suggested that there might also be a ‘traveller/gypsy’ mode. I probably have not understood this correctly – but I’m not sure that this is necessary. David White views visitors and residents at either end of a spectrum along which people can position themselves differently at different times and in different contexts.

The ‘resident’ description makes perfect sense to me;  it’s so easy to identify ‘residents’ amongst the people I know. I wonder what proportion of any given population you would expect to be residents. Would this be about 10% – a figure quoted by Nancy White as the percentage of people you might expect to be very active in an online course or community.

‘Visitor’ is also an interesting idea – but I’m not sure that I’ve got my head round exactly what visitor behaviour incorporates. In terms of online teaching and learning the ‘resident’ is probably easier to work with, because we can get a very good sense of the ‘resident’s’ personal learning environment. The visitor’s work is less transparent. I think we probably need to know more about how ‘visitors’ learn.

On Dave White’s blog a number of commenters have recalled Prensky’s ‘digital natives/digital immigrants’ description. I see Prensky’s and White’s descriptions as being on different issues. Prensky’s is more to do with technology and how technological skills affect behaviour and learning online, whereas White’s is more about attitudes and approaches to learning – personal learning organisation. In the latter the learner is more in control. For me this is interesting as I think it reflects the increasing shift away from focussing on technology towards online learner behaviours, attitudes and preferences.

My skills in computing are not those of a ‘digital native’, although according to Prensky they should be. I have never really had much of an interest in computers. I did not have a computer at home until I was 18 years old. At school we only had a few computers in each class, and even in the ITC suite we were expected to share. I was never that engaged in ICT classes and spent a lot of time swinging on my chair, pretending to work. I guess that explains my lack of skills!

During my college and university years, I have developed my relationship with computers! I had to learn to use the internet and find information that was reliable for my Law degree. The internet gave me the most up to date information, and it was much quicker than going to the library. Unlike the library the internet is ‘open’ all hours and does not reuire you to use it in slience!

I still feel that computers should not be totally relied on because they tend to break frequently or flash boxes up ‘ERROR’! My computer is always breaking, some days it works others it just will not turn on!

Since starting the course I have started to save my work to so many different places, but the problem I have is remembering where I have saved it too!

Working in a school I have slowly become more familiar and developed some trust with computers. This will last as long as the computer does not mess up! I want to be more confident with computers because I think they are a great resource. Children enjoy the interactive whiteboard and being able to access information in seconds. They are also a part of every day life for the majority of people and we should embrace this, rather than shy away.

Over the summer I brought myself a digital camera and an IPOD. I have been able to download and upload pictures and music. I found it difficult at first and in fact deleted all the music I had downloaded! But Im slowly turning into an IPOD expert.

I am a member of Facebook and possible slightly addicted to it! I love begin able to keep in contact with family and friends, and begin able to see what they have been doing. My sister currently lives in Sardinia and has just had a baby. After much persuasion I have joined SKYPE. It is the best thing I have done all week, as I get to see my new niece and sister without having a massive phone bill!

Photography has always been a hobby of mine, over the summer I did a lot of digital photography. I enjoy taking pictures and making improvements to them. Generally I just remove red eye, but I am still experimenting with other tools.

Overall I think ITC is a brilliant piece of equipment, it can bring people together social networking sites, provide up to date information, provide a valuable resource and is a useful learning tool. I think ITC is important in classrooms but should not be over used. Not every lesson requires the interactive whiteboard, if it is used too often children, will become bored. ITC should be recognised by teachers and pupils as not just begin computers and the internet. Children should be introduced to other equipment such as cameras, robots and IPODs and as a new teacher I will do this!

Human communication was radically changed with the advent of the internet. The creation of an online, virtual world has changed the way we socialise; our concept of self-identity; the way we evaluate relationships and how we gain information and knowledge. I will discuss these aspects of online life in relation to my own experiences and with reference to the essays, ‘The emerging online life of the digital native’ by Marc Prensky (http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf) and ‘A new world’ by David Weinberger (http://www.smallpieces.com/).

Both Prensky and Weinberger see digital technology as a means of creating new worlds, however, each author takes a different perspective. Prensky sees users creating their own rich, online lives and worlds while Weinberger believes that this new world creates new people. For Prensky, users are masters of their own destinies, creating and adapting technology to satisfy their diverse needs and interests. For Weinberger, users are adapting and changing as a result of the technology.

Weinberger raises concerns regarding the blurred notion of self-identity on the internet—the users ability to create or assume multiple and varied personas. He believes that how we live in the real world defines who we are and, as we are no longer bound by the physics of real-world associations, the notion of the self existing in a physical world does not apply on the internet. Prensky, however, takes the view that this lack of physicality is the very thing that enables users’ online freedom. Online contacts are as real as face-to-face ones and are not affected by physical appearance or status; users are judged by what they say and produce.

Both authors acknowledge that digital technology has altered the way we socialise, and research from the Social Science Computer Review indicates that ‘internet users showed signs of more active social lives that non-users’ (1).While my own use of the internet for social purposes is extremely limited (I only use email), I can appreciate Prensky’s view of the internet as providing an unrestricted forum for users to communicate freely and the liberation that offers. Surely anything that removes social barriers and enables free exchange of information and ideas is beneficial to society.

Prensky also makes the interesting observation that today’s students are the first to grow up with digital technology and he describes this generation as ‘digital natives’— native speakers of the digital language. Throughout their lives, they will engage with computers,video games, mobile phones and portable music players; they will use email, blogs, instant messenger and social networking sites to communicate with their peers and the world. According to Prensky, I fall into the ‘digital immigrant’(2) category—someone who has learned to adapt to the new digital environment but is not a native speaker of the online language. I accept this and share some of Weinberger’s apprehension regarding the unmapped landscape of the internet. Like Weinberger, I tend to use the web as a research tool and again, agree with Prensky in that I want greater filtering of information to avoid suffering from information overload.

In regards to communicating on the internet, I am uncomfortable with the use of blogs as a form of online diary and agree with Weinberger’s observation that there is a need to draw a line between the public and the private. This reflects Prensky’s view that digital immigrants use technology to share information for intellectual rather than emotional purposes. This blog I have created reveals very little about me as a person and this is intentional on my behalf. I am not comfortable with the internet as a public sphere but acknowledge that links within blogs serve to aid interconnection. Part of my reluctance to embrace the social aspect of the internet is related to the difficulty of evaluating relationships.

Weinberger points out that users can create identities that exist only on the internet; that identities are intermittent and that users can create multiple identities. In Prensky’s words though, I’d better ‘get used to it’. The days of ‘looking people in the eye to know if you trust them’ are over and Prensky offers the establishment of online ratings systems as a tool to evaluate behaviour and develop trust as an alternative to the firm handshake.

In accordance with the findings by the ‘Generations Online in 2009’(3) project from the Pew Research Institute (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx), I am more comfortable with the use of digital technology to aid in learning and agree with Prensky that the internet allows users to search for information about topics they are interested in. As a motivation for learning, the internet is invaluable and provides users with extensive online tools that allow for greater breadth and depth of research. The sheer volume of information can be overwhelming and like Weinberger, I agree that online forums comprising specialists in a particular field of interest can be more valuable that a formal site, due to the human input. Like Weinberger, I have difficulty coordinating the real and virtual worlds but perhaps that is due to the fact that I have not grown up with this technology.

During this course, my understanding of the possibilities of new communication technologies has grown but my use of technology is still limited. I have no desire to be involved in multi-player role playing games, I have no interest in developing websites and programs, I am not compelled to share information about my life on a blog but I embrace the opportunities for world-wide communication. The internet allows me to communicate, research, learn, exchange and collect information and ideas and this is invaluable. I recognise that there is a whole new world that requires a new language and a new way of thinking and I think the possibilities of digital technology have yet to be realised. Weinberger and Prensky, while varying in their opinions on the role of digital technology, both agree that the technology is evolving; that it is being incorporated into our lives in new ways and that we need to learn and understand the implications and possibilities of this new, online world.

References

Jones, S & Fox, S 2009, ‘Generations Online in 2009’, Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 28, Pew Research Centre from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx

Prensky, M 2001, ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’, On the Horizon, MCB University Press, vol. 9, no. 5, October from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

Prensky, M 2001, ‘Do they really think differently?’, On the Horizon, MCB University Press, vol. 9 no. 6, December from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf.

Prensky, M 2004, ‘The emerging online life of the digital native: what they do differently because of technology, and how they do it’ viewed at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf

Orleans, M & Laney, M 2000, ‘Children’s Computer Use in the Home: Isolation or Sociation?’, Social Science Computer Review, 18:56 from http://ssc.sagepub.com

Robinson, J, Kestnbaum, M, Neustadl, A & Alvarez, A 2000, ‘Mass Media Use and Social Life Among Internet Users’, Social Science Computer Review, 18:490 from http://ssc.sagepub.com

Weinberger, D 2002, ‘A new world’, Small Pieces Loosely Joined: a unified theory of the web, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA from http://www.smallpieces.com/

Websites

Marc Prensky: http://www.marcprensky.com/default.asp

Project Tomorrow: http://www.tomorrow.org/index.html

Pew Research Centre: http://pewresearch.org/

(1)  Robinson, J et al 2000,’Mass Media Use and Social Life Among Internet Users’ in Social Science Computer Review 18:490. Viewed online at: http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/490

(2) Prensky, M 2001, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, On the Horizon, 9:5, MCB University Press.

(3) Jones, S & Fox, S 2009, ‘Generations Online in 2009’, Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 28.

I would not consider myself, as Prensky identifies many young people, as a ’Digital Native’. In many ways I feel that I am rather inept at using most programmes on the computer. I have no interest in downloading music from the internet and I frequently prefer to read articles and newspapers on paper and not online.

However, whilst I feel like I rarely use ICT, in actual fact I use, and rely on it, more than I realise. 

For instance, I like to shop on-line, especially on Amazon, and during my years as an undergraduate I often did my grocery shopping online. Shopping in this way is much more convenient and less time-consuming. Moreover, when researching for an essay or assignment the first place I look for information is always the internet, using sites such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. I have also become particularly proficient in typing, mainly due to the number of essays I have written on Word, and in some ways, whilst I like editing work with pen and paper, I prefer typing an essay than hand-writing it as it is easier to change, erase, or add in new information or ideas.

During my average day I use ICT quite frequently. In the morning I switch on my computer and check my e-mails, Facebook, and the news headlines on the BBC website.  I use my mobile phone during the day to make phone calls and send texts. I can access the internet on my mobile phone, which helps when trying to find information when there is no internet or computer readily available. During lectures we are constantly bombarded with different kinds of ICT. For instance, in the core lectures for science, mathematics, and English, the interactive whiteboard (Smart board) is constantly in use for different purposes. These include PowerPoint presentations, videos to watch regarding teaching, or a means to illustrate different kinds of games and learning activities that are available for children to play on the board. In ICT we are learning about the use of blogs. After lectures I use my computer to check blackboard and my e-mails again, before watching a programme on BBC iPlayer or an equivalent site.

The one huge area that I have not immersed myself in with ICT is the downloading of music. I do not own an IPOD, nor do I use the internet to download music tracks or buy CD’s. Whilst I realise that this practice has become the norm for most people, and is a much cheaper way to buy music, it does not interest me. I prefer to buy an actual CD, with the lyrics and notes that come with it, than purchasing a song online. However, I do listen to music online, via youtube and similar sites.

In reflection, I realise that I am much more reliant on ICT, in its various forms, than I initially realised. Whilst I may not be able to understand all the complexities of computers and the endless things that can be done with them, I do understand the basics and use them to the best of my ability. Programmes such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint are relatively simple to use and may prove to be useful in the classroom. My ability to use these well may prove to be an advantage. A good use of ICT seems to be essential in the world that we live in today. As most people communicate via e-mails, texts, programmes such as Skype, and mobile phone calls, a good grasp of technology is crucial. As children become better users of technology, as a teacher it means that I need a good grasp of what interests them. In this sense it is key to have a good understanding of technological advancements. However, a reliance on ICT is a danger as although it may prove to be engaging to children, it can be over-used and as a teacher it is crucial to have a varied lesson where all kinds of resources are used. For instance, it may prove to be better to show children how electricity flows through getting the class to act out an electric current rather than getting them to watch a video of this happening on the IWB. A balance in using ICT is fundamental to good teaching.

This week’s World History through film class, an elective course, brought the first time implementation of “Who wants to be a millionaire?” quiz rules to Basalt High School.  I presented to idea to kids the week prior to the quiz when I also gave them the quiz review.  The rules are as follows:

20 Questions, Multiple Choice

1 Phone a friend, either one person from class or a family or friend outside of school.

1 Ask the audience where the class together votes on one question to talk about as a class.  Hence the class is the audience.

1 50/50, where the class chooses one question that I break down to a 50/50 chance.

The idea was not one that I can take credit for.  Learning to bring this type of innovation and motivation to the kids can be credited to a school in Australia, Presbyterian Ladies’ College at Croydon, where students are allowed to phone a friend and use ipods and the internet on exams.  The idea is in the pilot stages for the grade 9 English classes.   And in fact the idea came through a challenge by Marc Prensky, educational consultant and web 2.0 educational specialist.

Prensky said, “What if we allowed the use of mobile phones and instant messaging to collect information during exams, redefining such activity from ‘cheating’ to ‘using our tools and including the world in our knowledge base’?

“Our kids already see this on television. ‘You can use a lifeline to win $1 million,’ said one. ‘Why not to pass a stupid test?’ I have begun advocating the use of open phone tests … Being able to find and apply the right information becomes more important than having it all in your head.”

As a teacher in Colorado, this idea made since for me.  I want to increase student engagement and encourage problem solving skills as much as knowledge content.  The example of the phone a friend was made dully applicable this week in my own professional life as I went to my principal for a question regarding a particular professional pedagogic phrase.  When my boss couldn’t recall the phrase, what do you think he did?  That’s right, he phoned a friend, his wife.  This was exactly what I was trying to show my kids that they could accomplish through collaborative cultures and here was a real life example of this needed skill happening right at the same time I was implementing this new look at test taking.   The students ended up really liking the idea.  The conversation went deeper.  Students, felt more confident with the help of others, and they learned a true life problem solving skill.  This isn’t a way to cheat, this is a way to utilize our social and professional networks to increase productivity.  This is a 21st Century applicable real world skill.

Though many teachers will likely not approve this concept right away, the rules left way for students to still have to make decisions.  Who would they call?  Does this person know more than me on this subject?  Should I trust their advice?  These are questions students have to deal with in finding help to solving  their questions.

Read all about the Australian school here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/phone-a-friend-in-exams/2008/08/19/1218911717490.html

What do you think???  Please take a quick minute to add to my thesis research.  All information is anonymous unless you wish to be know.  You may also comment on this blog to help me understand your perspectives.

This is an original survey: Should students be able to use cell phones, the internet, or each other on a test?  Is this cheating???  Please take this survey to respond.

Who wants to be a millionaire? Quiz Rules Survey

I think we should stop talking about “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” altogether. It’s unhelpful and unclear. A better distinction might be between “digital residents” and “digital tourists”.

I’ve never liked the terms “digital native” and “digital immigrant”, as introduced/popularised by Prensky, and the “born digital” idea as applied to people (rather than, say, media artefacts) is profoundly problematic. I’m not the first or only person to raise this – lots of people have criticised it. (And with very flaky Internet access at the moment, I can’t link to or cite to them … which is a bit annoying but saves me the bother – good job this isn’t a proper academic paper.)

Firstly, there’s important moral issues in appropriating language about indigenous people and human migration. I really don’t think the parallels are helpful or instructive here.

Secondly, there’s the fact that the categories are not fixed in generational terms: as is widely attested, there are plenty of retired-age people who have great facility with digital technologies, and spent large amounts of time online, and plenty of teenagers who struggle with them and find them overwhelming and alienating. (And the particular application to students starting at university is particularly problematic: the proportion of mature students is not negligible and is rising.)

Thirdly, it attributes inherent, unchangability to one’s approach and use of technology. One cannot aspire or attempt to become a digital native: one either is or one isn’t. There are plenty of people who come to digital fluency at a later stage in life than infancy.

Fourthly, it unhelpfully sets up an insurmountable barrier of incomprehension between teachers (by definition digital immigrants) and learners (by definition digital natives).

I do buy, however, that there are important qualitative differences between people who are familiar with digital technologies and can use them with a fluency, facility and creativity that others can’t.

So a much better metaphor, I think, is to contrast “digital residents” with “digital tourists” – or perhaps “digital visitors”.

Digital residents are familiar and comfortable with digital technologies, use them as part of their everyday lives, and therefore – to a greater or lesser extent – tend to take them for granted.

Digital tourists, however, are not familiar with digital technologies, and struggle to make good use of them. Some are enthusiastic, gushing admirers; at the other end of the spectrum, some loathe every moment of their visit and leave quickly, vowing never to return.

Often the things the digital tourists find compelling are very different to the things that digital residents do – partly because of the effect of novelty, and partly because of the amount of time spent there. And as a result, they tend to behave very differently in what’s superficially the same context.

Balancing the needs of tourists and residents is a well-known social problem in the physical world. It’s easy for tourists to be unaware of the huge impact they can have on the residents, and it’s also easy for residents to be unwelcoming as a result. But it’s entirely possible for the two communities to co-exist very happily in the same space, recognising that they each contribute something valuable. And frequent tourists might, over time, find that they have more-or-less settled in the place they originally came to as visitors and have come to know and love. Correspondingly, a longstanding digital resident might decide to leave – or at least take a holiday. (Plenty of very-online people take a break away from the net for a while now and then.)

The potential tension between tourist and resident is likely to be much less contentious and intractable in the digital world. One of the fantastic things about the digital world, as opposed to the physical one, is that in many ways that matter, more people being there tends to make things better. That’s true in some contexts in the physical world, but not all. If you want to settle and build a house, you have to find somewhere to put it: physical land is (often) a very limited resource, and is what economists call an ‘exclusionary good’ – if I own and build a house on a piece of land, you can’t. But digital “land” is (often) not a limited resource in the same way: me having this blog in no way stops you or anyone else setting up a blog.

There are, of course, plenty of people who would dearly love to visit the digital world and perhaps settle there, but lack the opportunity. And we shouldn’t forget the people who are perfectly happy with their non-digital lives and just get on with them. For completeness and entertainment value, we could also include digital xenophobes, who’ve never actually spent any time in the digital world, but still bang on about how awful (they assume) things are there – often spouting ill-informed and hostile speculation.

There are still problems with this metaphor. It’s still dichotomising (either one thing or the other), when I’m pretty sure it’s much more of a spectrum. But I think it’s a lot more helpful and accurate.

Edit: (with more connectivity) Juliette points out in the comments that plenty of people have already proposed digital residents/digital visitors (as a quick search confirms). There are fewer mentions of digital tourists in this context, although I did stumble on this guide to being a digital citizen, not a digital tourist.   I don’t think one should necessarily aspire to being a digital citizen – tourism is perfectly legitimate, so long as it’s done sensitively.  And the perspicacious and legendary John Naughton (and I’m not just saying that because he’s agreeing with me here!) draws a helpful parallel with his experience as a tourist in Provence.

A fallacy is, in short, a faulty piece of reasoning. Fallacies often appear to be very plausible — attractive, even — but they are always erroneous upon scrutiny.

I have noticed one such faulty piece of reasoning crop up lately in various educational contexts — what I am going to call the fallacy of technology (or, techno fallacy for short). And, although I have just given it a name of its own, before I explain any further I want to point out that the techno fallacy is really nothing more than a particular manifestation of a more general class of informal fallacy known as the Appeal to Novelty.

One has committed a fallacious Appeal to Novelty when one concludes, for example, that Brand X is better than Brand Y simply on the basis and for no other reason than that Brand X is newer than Brand Y. The problem with this piece of reasoning, of course, is that, even if it is true that Brand X is better than Brand Y, there is some legitimate reason (e.g., superior ingredients, better quality control, different recipe, etc.) for why this is so, and not simply chronological birth order.

In other words: just because something is new, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s better. (Similarly for the Appeal to Tradition: just because something is old, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s better.) These are both fallacies of relevance because, in each case, X’s being newer (or older) than Y is irrelevant to whether X is better than Y.

The techno fallacy can be viewed as a species of Appeal to Novelty. One has committed the techno fallacy when one concludes, for example, that X is better than Y simply on the basis and for no other reason than that X is more technological than Y.

With this in mind, consider the following lengthy quotation from a recent article by Marc Prensky concerning the relevance of students’ use of technology (e.g., Internet, cell phones, blogs, instant messaging) outside the classroom for teachers’ practices inside the classroom:

Long before they ever get to school, kids have seen a tremendous amount of the world. They’ve watched wars in far-off countries and explorations of distant planets. They’ve seen wild animals up close. They’ve simulated racing, flying, and running businesses. Many have taught themselves to read through the electronic games they play.

The world is no longer a dark, unknown place for today’s school kids. Kids are not intellectually empty. Even though some of what they know may be incomplete, biased, or wrong, they arrive at school full of knowledge, thoughts, ideas, and opinions about their world and their universe.

Given this new state of affairs, one might suppose that educators would acknowledge that today’s kids grow up differently and that kids are enlightened by all their various connections to the world. Educators would figure out ways to use, build on, and strengthen students’ reservoirs of knowledge. They would assume that kids will use their connections to the light to find information quickly, structure it in new ways, and communicate with peers around the world in a powerful, 21st-century learning process. Teachers would no longer be the providers of information but instead would be the explainers, the context providers, the meaning makers, and the evaluators of information that kids find on their own. Teaching would still be a noble calling, perhaps even more so than before.

But we’ve chosen something else. Somehow, schools have decided that all the light that surrounds kids — that is, their electronic connections to the world — is somehow detrimental to their education. So systematically, as kids enter our school buildings, we make them shut off all their connections. No cell phones. No music players. No game machines. No open Internet. When kids come to school, they leave behind the intellectual light of their everyday lives and walk into the darkness of the old-fashioned classroom. (“Turning on the Lights,” Marc Prensky, Educational Leadership, March 2008, pp. 40-45.)

I am quoting the article at such length in order to convey just how complex and elaborately woven a commission of a fallacy can be (as opposed to the terse and pithy examples I gave at the beginning of this article). And rather than present a blow-by-blow analysis, I trust that these excerpts will sufficiently convey this complexity all by themselves. So far, Prensky has done little more than point out that our children no longer live in the “dark” and “intellectually empty” world of the past and that teachers are reluctant to embrace this fact. But consider just a handful of the implications which Prensky draws:

A kid who has seen lunar landings and rovers working on Mars, who has done lots of research on the Internet on astronomy, and who comes to school excited about space travel may likely hear, “If you want to go to outer space, learn your math.” But the math she learns is not about space — it’s 1,200-year-old algebra and 4,000-year-old Egyptian geometry. A kid who has read and enjoyed the Harry Potter books must, in general, learn the rules of writing, spelling, and literary analysis not from the science fiction and fantasy books he enjoys, but from the books in the official curriculum. A kid who masters the electronic games Caesar III, Age of Kings, Age of Empires, Civilization IV, and Rise of Nations, and therefore knows a lot about world history, is likely to hear, “I don’t know what’s in those games, but the information may be incorrect. And besides, the history you should care about is what will be on the test.” (Prensky, 43)

This second quotation helps illustrate the full bloom of Prensky’s commission of (among others) the fallacy of technology. Kids nowadays learn (at home, on their own) about space travel and astronomy via the Internet (instead of via books, photographs, television, motion pictures, VHS videos, museum exhibits, all of which were available to motivated space-minded youngsters in ye olde days). This is true enough. But the validity of our methods of teaching mathematics has been compromised simply on the basis and for no other reason than that kids watch stuff on YouTube? Not only our methods, but the viability of even the content of our math curricula is now uncertain simply on the basis and for no other reason than that algebra and geometry are thousands of years old?

Please. This is nothing but the seductive allure of the techno fallacy: Technology is better. Because it’s newer. And more technological.

According to Prenskey, teachers ought to stop confiscating iPods, cell phones, and GameBoys; teachers ought to be encouraging students to use these devices in the classroom. Make of that what you will: but Prensky would do well to reorganize his case (so that his arguments are not fallacious). One ironic thing about Prensky’s arguments: he is so sanguine about the abilities and background knowledge kids are bringing with them into the classroom, one wonders why we need to educate them at all about technology. It used to be that the kids were the only ones in the house who know how to program the VCR, right? But if it’s true that Junior really is as plugged in as Prensky says he is, well, now I’m suddenly less worried than ever about Junior’s ability to keep pace with future technology.

Prensky’s article is hardly more than a feature-length exemplification of various fallacies of relevance, and in particular what I have called the fallacy of technology. But I don’t want to single out Prensky; it just so happens that, within the space of one month’s reading, I happened upon another example of the techno fallacy, this time in a book with the unlikely title Reading Doesn’t Matter Anymore, by David Booth. Consider:

Just as the telephone altered communication strategies, our children will encounter a wide and perhaps unthought-of variety of information and communication technologies. Just think of video cameras, web editors, spreadsheets, list serves, blogs, Power Point, virtual worlds, and dozens more. Our traditional way of thinking about and defining literacy will be insufficient if we hope to provide youngsters with what they will need to be full participants in the world of the future. As trade barriers fall and global trade expands, the workplace is altering. Within an organization, teams need to make important decisions as they identify problems, locate useful information, synthesize what they find, and communicate the solution to others in the company. These collaborative teams need new, more effective ways of working. Critical literacies and analytical skills will be requirements of workers. (Booth, 12)

Booth’s commission of the techno fallacy here is subtly different. While Prensky shouts from the rooftops that our bridges will all soon be collapsing (because, you know, none of those architects or construction engineers had a MySpace), Booth argues that rapidly changing technology will require future generations to master skills which previous generations could only hope to attain. Skills such as, e.g., problem solving, interpersonal communication, teamwork, decision making, and the ability to find and interpret information. These skills have, of course, always been valuable, and have always been essential to a sound education. In some ways, then, what Booth has committed here is as much a piece of general confusion as it is an instantiation of the techno fallacy.

Mark Prensky è uno dei massimi esperti mondiali esistenti sulle tecnologie informatiche e l’apprendimento: il sito personale di Prensky è ricchissimo di articoli, interventi, video e idee). E’ l’inventore (per così dire) del termine “Digital Natives“, cioè “nativi digitali”, che definisce gli adoloscenti attuali e tutti coloro che sono già competenti delle ICT proprio perché sono nati e cresciuti in un mondo digitale e non più analogico. Questi “nativi” sono in gran parte perennemente connessi, spesso in rete e quasi sempre con un cellulare in mano, pronti a condividere esperienze, messaggi (SMS ed MMS), file, musica, foto e testi di vario tipo. Ecco, il video che propongo appresso riguarda proprio quello che in inglese si chiama “Handheld Learning“, cioè l’apprendimento per mezzo di strumenti (devices) digitali mobili e portatili.
Per chi volesse ulteriormente approfondire, suggerisco vivamente la piacevole lettura (in inglese) dell’interessante articolo di Prensky “Homo Sapiens Digital – From Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants to Digital Wisdom“, apparso sulla rivista online Innovate a Febbraio-Marzo 2009.

Natives or immigrants?

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/torres21/

kristen’s notes are here

Think I'm not native? I was weaned on an Apple IIe.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Marc Prensky’s Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants analogy.  Perhaps this is because I teach English, my native language, as a Second Language.  I help students to become more fluent in English every day, so I tend to see technological savy in terms of fluency.  And this analogy is a pretty good attempt to describe how different people react to new technology.

Prensky’s analogy is by no means complete.  It has been criticized as being ageist and xenophobic, which is fair, given the way he has described both groups.  (See a fuller rebuttal.)  But, in terms of fluency, perhaps technology has a critical period of acquisition as well.  After the critical period in language learning, it is extremely uncommon for a person to learn a second language to native-like fluency.  Is the same true for technology as well?

In some ways, technology, or at least tech-savvy, can similarly be viewed as a language or, perhaps, culture.  When someone is immersed in information technology from birth, that person has a different relationship with it than if he had become more familiar with it later in life.  For example, a student who works in my office recently found a credit card.  Her first reaction was to look for the owner on Facebook.  Although I use Facebook, I’m on Facebook, and I communicate via Facebook, my first reaction to finding a credit card would have been to either call the bank that issued the card or to turn it over to the campus Lost and Found Office.  Despite my familiarity with Facebook, I still use Facebook; I don’t Facebook.

Perhaps Digital Fluency, then, is a more subtle and satisfying analogy to describe a person’s incorporation of technology.  In my opinion, technological and linguistic fluency have nativeness in common; someone not born immersed in it will never use it in quite the same way as someone who was.  Of course, with both technology and language, there are exceptional cases and counter examples, but differences and accents remain.

Many folks argue that cell phones don’t belong in the school setting.  In an NEA article, teachers are surveyed about their opinions of cell phones in class. Most opinons in this national survey are very biased and narrow minded.  These apprehensive teachers are not only unaware of the advantages to cell phones as a learning tool, but they themselves seemed threatened.  Certainly we can all make a list of reasons to ban phones from class use but how many can come up with reasons to support the use of this Web 2.0 tool?  Among many cell phone applications available for free online, their are some life long lessons that cell phones can help educators convey to their students.  Schools and teachers who support the use of cell phones in class comes down to a matter of teachers pedagogical attitude towards using technology.  The greatest lessons that I teach as a an educator deal less with content and more with life lessons.  Lessons regarding decision making, moral attitudes, and ethics are the ones that leave students engaged, inspired, and thinking..

“Why would you give out your phone number to students?  Why would you invite students to text to other students in class?  Aren’t you worried they will use this network to cheat?”

These questions are fair to ask in this debate.  However, the discussion that can be followed with students in class regarding ethical use of phones is a much greater discussion.  How can we use these tools to our advantage?  These are the questions teachers need to focus on.  Otherwise we run the risk of being another stick on the mud.  Advocates of cell phones in class point out the benefit to schools tech departments, when you consider 4 out of 5 students have cell phones, this increases the number of computers available to students instantly.  Leaders of schools who use cell phones in class have created rules that students can agree to and learn by.  Kipp Rodgers, Principal of Mary Passage Middle School in Newport News, Vrigina, “developed an acceptable use policy. They are not to send text messages to anyone outside the building during class hours. They are not to take photos. They are not allowed to upload anything to YouTube or other Internet sites not approved by the school.“  These rules create a sense of right, which students need more and more in this ever dynamic technology society.  Students engage in learning, feel connected to the real world, and adopt a fair use policy.  In my own classroom setting, I find that kids are aware of all the negatives that teachers and parents fear about inapproriate use of the internet and technology.  When we open up the discussion with kids, instead of dictating our our bias’, we create a world of self-awareness and community.

“It’s about relationship, it’s about community, it’s about connectivity, it’s about access.” -Greg Whitby

How many teachers today would agree with this statement in regards to education?  The number one hot topic of choice for most employers when hiring deals with relationships.  When I was hired for my first job as a teacher, my principal said, “it is clear that you and I will get along because you are so focused on building relationships.”

I gotta admit, building community and relationships are the reason I got involved in teaching and the same reasons I still teach today.  In order to properly build relationships, it is vital to connect with your audience.   For myself this exchange evolves constantly.  A more recent tool I’ve implemented in my daily routine a school is to greet everyone of my students at the door with a handshake.  This simple gesture builds a connection very literally and at the same time gives students a chance to check in with me on a personal level and creates a sense of belonging, or community.  And if my students are late, they don’t get access to a hand shake that day.  Seems simple, but this tool for engagement, motivation, and accountability carries a lot of weight.  Now if we apply this same model to students ability to access the new Web 2.0 tools, social networking sites, and empower our students through “edutainment” it seems like we have a formula for success that no one would disagree with.
In the same video mentioned before, Learning to Change Changing to Learn, another gentlemen Stephen Heppell, describes the new space that learning takes place in, “nearly now.”  This is the space that exists in texting, twitting, and Facebook.  It is a space that is non-synchronous but nearly.  It allows for multiple ideas to be shared all at the same time.  It allows students to work in a non-judgmental, pressure free, no time limit environment which fosters a softer approach to learning, a true 21st Century value.  It allows for students to engage, evaluate, research, create, and share.  Where a traditional education approach doesn’t draw on student to share very often, this “nearly now” space gives students that opportunity to respond when there ready.  As teachers we talk about “wait time.”  Wait time is the time you must wait to allow students proper time to evaluate, remember, and synthesize a response to a question.  “Nearly now” is essentially wait time.

So, if these tools exist, and our children’s future ride on the idea that the careers they will enter likely do not exist today, then how can we as educators be so limited in our approach to learning?  How can we ban cell phones in schools?  We didn’t have these phones growing up but we are “Digital Immigrants” living in a “Digital Native” world. (Prensky, 2001).   Most arguments in regards to immigration eventually lead to a discussion about assimilation.  Well, how come we spent nearly 45 minutes of a staff meeting talking about repercussion and consequences for students carrying cell phones at school?  And why do we then punish students for building community?  And is it that we are afraid that they aren’t paying attention?  Or are we just illiterate to the world in which students are now living in?  Why do we build firewalls that block information?  Are we afraid that too much information is a bad thing?  If we refuse to adjust to these tools are we then choosing to fall to the way of the dinosaur?

As educators we need to put away our old notions of simply learning from the book and lecture style.  We may not exactly have the key to this problem or even know how to unlock the possibilities, but by embracing the revolution we will emerge stronger, more prone to learning in a non-linear fashion, and filling a reservoir of hope instead of fear.

I love the way Heppell puts it.  This new paradigm in learning represents, “the death of education, and the dawn of learning.”

Learning to Change Changing to Learn Advancing K-12 Technology Leadership, Consortium for School Networking(COSN)

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahTKdEUAPk

Prensky, Marc. (2001). On the Horizon; Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants .  MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5

 I found Berni and Leon’s seminar on Digital Literacy really well designed to help us learn a lot about this topic, plenty of great resources.

Literacy, the ability to read and write as always been essential to ensure people can participate in society successfully and progress in education, with implications for the broader economy.    However, computers and the internet mean that there are new literacies we must master.  (Jones-Kavalier,B., Flannigan S.L., 2006).   They refer to Presnsky who described non-IT literate individuals as “burdened with an accent – non-native speakers of a  language” .  Teenagers at the moment are the digital natives.   This has implications when  teaching them because the teaching methods of the non-natives appear so dull.   At least one lecturer I know struggles to use PowerPoint, so embedding streaming video, hyper-linking and synchronous chat with audio and video interaction would be out of the question, but these are  the tools students use every day.

The librarians currently run a TAFLIN course introducing local librarians to Web 2:0 technologies.  This covers the use of blogs, wikis, social networking, news gatherers like bloglines, resource stores like delicious and the use of YouTube.  We need to expand this and use it with our own staff, possibly integrating elements from the BCS Digital Cre8or qualification.  See syllabus, http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.9546.   Staff can then integrate technology into their module descriptors.

The only answer is to start using the technology.  I’ve now got my blog which I’ll probably continue.  I’m using Bloglines to aggregate the sources I find.  I’m using delicious for my personal bookmarks and to share resources with  the rest of our department  and I intend to convert some shared documents at work to a Wiki.    I’m face-booking and twittering now and aim to get my friends to do the same, however most of them are too busy playing tennis.

I’m improved my research skills by reading the Primer on Digital Literacy (Glister, P. 1997).    I liked his knowledge assembly techniques when using news delivery services.eg News Page Direct,   by running a test search on the subject you want and see how the news service catalogs stories on the subject.  Use the tags on the stories you are interested in to specify the categories for your personal newsfeed.   I definitely need to find a copy of Gilster’s book, Digital Literacy, all other articles  seem to refer to his work.

My favourite resource was the http://tsheko.wordpress.com/ blog.  The reference to Howard Rheingold’s article on 21^st century literacies sums up the questions educators face.

“Will our grandchildren’s century grow up knowing how to pluck the answer to any question out of the air, summon their social networks to assist them personally or professionally, organize political movements and markets online?  Will they collaborate to solve problems, participate in online discussions as a form of civic engagement, share and teach and learn to their benefit and that of everyone else? Or will they grow up knowing that he online world is a bewildering puzzle to which they have few clues, a dangerous neighbourhood, where their identities can be stolen, a morass of spam and porn, misinformation and disinformation, urban legends, hoaxes and scams.

 He goes on to say that just because your teenagers can Facebook, . . . .don’t think they have the skills of “online crap detection”.   Rheingold’s thoughts chime with the utopian, dystopian perception of the Internet.   Becta have issued guidelines on” Safeguarding Children in a digital world”.  They aim to embed e-safety in the national curriculum, teacher training and CPD for education staff and that e-safety will form part of the inspection process.  It’s important to include this aspect of digital literacy in any programme.

We need to educate the educators so that they know how to use the tools available.  This may be just letting them know what’s out there and letting them find out how to use them the way the e-generation did, by teaching themselves as proposed by Gadamer (1975, 2001, quoted in Hokstad, L. M., Dons, C. F., 2007). 

We need to move everone towards the utopian idea of people being connected to social and professional networks, able to evaluate the information they find and not be overwhelmed by it.  They need to be aware of their digital trail and the “dotsam and netsome” (quote from Wikipedia which I liked) and able to keep their information safe. 

References

Glister, P., A primer on Digital Literacy Adapted from the book Digital Literacy.  [Available online] http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/resources/digital_literacy.asp.  [Accessed 17/4/09].

Hokstad, L. M., Dons, C.F. Digital literacy – Towards a re description of literacy for the digital learning environments, Conference ICL2007, September 26-28, 2007 Villach, Austria.

Jones-Kavalier, B. R., Flannigan, S. L., Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21^st Century. 

This week my teacher trainees have an e-learning week of my design. They explore the topics of digital learners and 21st century learning environments. To do this, they read a Prensky’s article on digital natives, visit the Classroom of the Future (COTF) and watch the iN2015 video.

But along comes another article by Prensky in the Journal of Online Education: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. In his introduction, Prensky wrote:

In 2001, I published “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” a two-part article that explained these terms as a way of understanding the deep differences between the young people of today and many of their elders (Prensky 2001a, 2001b). Although many have found the terms useful, as we move further into the 21st century when all will have grown up in the era of digital technology, the distinction between digital natives and digital immigrants will become less relevant. Clearly, as we work to create and improve the future, we need to imagine a new set of distinctions. I suggest we think in terms of digital wisdom.

I don’t think that the phrases “digital native” and “digital immigrant” have become irrelevant, not yet in Singapore’s context anyway. But it is probably wise to look ahead and explore the prospect of digital wisdom.

Moni kuluneen viikon aikana mielessä pyörinyt asia johti siihen, että pohdiskelin aikakauslehtien tilannetta ja tulevaisuuden haasteita. Kuskasin viikonlopuksi kotiin toimistolta kasan lehtiä, mielessäni mukava rentoutuminen lehtien parissa ja toisaalta pieni päivitys itselleni niiden tilasta. Rentoutumista kesti kuitenkin noin tunti, ja nyt olen kirjoittamassa tätä…

Ensimmäinen havainto: Oma keskittymiseni ei tunnu enää riittävän lehden lukemiseen, tai ainakaan monen lehden formaatti ei jotenkin rohkaise lukemaan. Tuntuu, että lehdet ovat pyrkineet lyhentämään artikkelien pituutta ja lisäämään määrää kilpaillakseen verkon kanssa, mutta en ole tuloksesta vakuuttunut. Tästä ajatukseni harhailivat Prenskyn 2001 kirjoittamaan Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants -artikkeliin, jonka luin taas pitkästä aikaa. Ja täytyy sanoa, se on edelleen pirun hyvä ja kuvaa loistavasti sitä, että digitaalisen maahanmuuttajan (ontuva suomennos) on vaikea edes ymmärtää nettisukupolven tapaa ajatella, oppia ja käyttää mediaa. Ohessa pari lainausta.

Today’s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV).

Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards.

Toinen havainto: Aikakauslehtien ovat viime vuosina olleet aktiivisia siirtämään “lehtikokemusta” verkkoon keskustelujen ja jopa yhteisöjen muodossa. Esimerkkejä on niin hyvistä kuin huonoista toteutuksista. Parhaimmillaan nämä nettiyhteisöt ovat jo ohittaneet lehdet lukija/kävijämäärissään. Kuitenkin aikakauslehtitalot eivät ole mielestäni onnistuneet missään suhteessa hyödyntämään netin suosiota rahallisesti. Netin kävijä tuskin tuo talolle samaa rahaa kuin lehti vaikka nettisaitille mainoksia myydäänkin.

Otetaan esimerkiksi Yhtyneiden Kuvalehtien Kaksplus, joka on kävijämäärältään suurin aikakauslehden nettisaitti Suomessa tavoittaen 180 000 uniikkia viikkokävijää (Markkinointi&Mainonta 07/09 ja TNS Metrix) kun itse lehdellä on 153 000 lukijaa ja se ilmestyy kerran kuussa (Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Mediakortti). Netissä siis käy viikossa enemmän porukkaa kuin lehdellä on lukijoita. Vauvat ja lapset on varmasti otollinen aihe keskusteluille ja mielipiteenvaihdolle, joten ei mikään ihme että netti on näin suosittu. Kuitenkin kun Kaksplus saitille menee, esimerkiksi rekisteröitymisen hyödyistä saati sitten mahdollisista lisäpalveluista ei kerrota sanallakaan. Paremminkin voisi varmasti suoriutua!

Kolmas havainto: Aikakauslehden perusluonne on kaiketi tarjoilla “ajan hermoilla” olevaa tietoa lehden teeman piiristä ja tehdä se päivittäisiä julkaisuja syvällisemmin ja analyyttisemmin tai jopa viihdyttävämmin. Itselläni aikakauslehdet kilpailevat kotona ajasta kirjojen kanssa netin pitäessä huolta ajantasaisesta jatkuvasta uutisvirrasta. Valitsen todella usein kirjan lehden sijaan. Lehti on silmissäni tuomittu väliinputoajaksi netin ajankohtaisen sisällön ja kirjan rentoutumisaspektin väliin. Se ei tee kumpaakaan tarpeeksi hyvin.

Neljäs havainto: Viitaten Andrew Keenin ajatuksiin siitä, että netti tuhoaa kultuurin ja journalistinen kyky katoaa planeetaltamme viittaan tässä tapauksessa rukkasella. Jos (kun?) lehtitalot joskus kuolevat, koska eivät keksi uutta bisnesmallia niin eiköhän motivoituneet toimittajat löydä jonkin tavan saada omat hengentuotteensa julkiseksi ja sitä myöden korvauksen työstään. Olen siitä ihan varma, koska ihmisten tarve oppia ja saada tietoa lisää ei katoa. Huonoille toimittajille sen sijaan povaan heikkoja aikoja: netissä nimittäin kuluttaja valitsee, ei päätoimittaja.

Viides havainto: Lehdet ovat perkeleen kalliita. 5-9€ per lätyskä irtonumerosta, jonka parissa jaksan viettää reilusti alle puoli tuntia ja joka kovin suurelta osalta sisältää mainoksia sekä juttuja, joista on voinut lukea netistä viikkoja aiemmin. Joku voisi kutsua tätä kusetukseksi. Samalla rahalla saa vaikkapa kuunnella Spotifyn kautta musiikkia kuukauden ilman mainoksia.

Viimeinen havainto: Tai paremminkin tutkimustulos. Mainostajien liiton uusin mainosbarometri ennakoi yleisaikakauslehdille, naistenlehdille sekä harrastelehdille synkkiä aikoja mainostajien pienentäessä panostuksiaan. Saldoluku (eli montako prosenttia vastaajista kasvattaa panostuksia versus pienentää niitä) on -47. Lähes 60% mainostajista aikoo pienentää panostuksiaan näissä lehdissä kun ainoastaan reilu 10% suunnittelee kasvattavansa niitä. Tätä nihkeämpää povataan vain telkkarille ja painetuille hakemistoille.

Näiden kuuden havainnon myötä julistan kuolemantuomion niille aikakauslehdille, jotka eivät ymmärrä ajoissa uusiutua ja miettiä sähköisten kanavien roolia omassa bisneksessään.

Confirmed keynote for Game Based Learning 2009

La mayoría de los comentarios  a las entradas en este blog sobre el uso de las redes sociales en la Política hacen referencia al desconocimiento generalizado sobre estas herramientas por parte de los representantes públicos. El ‘analfabetismo digital’, al que hace referencia Lidia Fernández en su aportación a ‘La Política se desnuda’, se pone sobre todo en evidencia cuando los políticos que están dentro de ese grupo de ‘inmigrantes digitales’ trata de establecer un diálogo efectivo con los ‘nativos digitales’.

Uso aquí dos términos acuñados por Marc Prensky  para analizar uno de los problemas fundamentales del sistema educativo norteamericano, al no dar respuesta a las necesidades de estudiantes que presentan diferencias radicales respecto a aquéllos para quienes fue ideado el actual sistema de enseñanza. La división entre ‘digital natives’  y ‘digital inmigrants’ es también aplicable a la Comunicación Política. Entre los primeros se encuentran quienes han crecido en un entorno tecnológico y tienen, en consecuencia, formas peculiares de entender las TICs y de aplicarlas.  Entre los segundos estamos quienes no nos criamos rodeados de nuevas tecnologías e incorporamos ya creciditos el uso de Internet a nuestra cotidianidad.

Probablemente en España la primera generación de ‘nativos digitales’ sea a la que Tuenti ofrece una plataforma de comunicación en comunidades de amigos hecha justamente a su medida. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los políticos que actualmente ocupan cargos de responsabilidad son ‘inmigrantes digitales. Actualmente en Comunicación Política es imprescindible tener en cuenta esa brecha. ¿Es posible que los partidos usen el mismo lenguaje hoy que hace unos años para buscar la implicación de un chico o una chica de 18 años? Evidentemente no.

Galería de miguelperezsubias en flickr

Most of you have read and commented on the two Marc Prensky articles I flagged up at the beginning of the course and some of you have provided useful critiques of the papers on your blogs. There do seem to be a few misconceptions, however, which I would like to deal with here.

It is important to realise that Prensky is not saying that all children born after a specific date are automatically digital natives and the rest of us immigrants.  Rather, he is suggesting that people who grow up in environments where computers and other information and communications technologies are commonplace and accessible tend to use them as tools of choice for learning, socialising and recreation. Given that these tools also have the potential to enrich the learning environment, we need to give serious consideration to using them in educational institutions if we wish to provide a relevant and meaningful educational environment for the growing number of people who fit into the digital native category.

A number of you also queried the validity of the claim that the brain’s of natives are ‘wired’ differently. Perhaps the wiring metaphor is not a good one, suggesting an almost ‘androidal’ manipulation of wires and connections. However, it is generally accepted that the way we think and interact with the world is influenced to a good extent by the tools we use and the way we work. Our environment impacts on us and we impact on our environment and change is ongoing. Powerful technologies enable us to do things in different ways and even to do things that we could not do before. This is bound to impact on the way users of powerful technologies think about the world. There is a reasonably well established body of literature on this topic, including this article by Davidson and Lutz (2008).

A number of people queried the issue of one’s “immigrant accent”, suggesting that it is over emphasised.  It is true that we interface with digital material in different ways. Printing out a pdf of an academic paper so as to highlight ideas and write comments on it is fairly commonplace, given that it is difficult to work with a pdf electronically. However, working electronically with word processed files is possible, using highlighting and comments. Some, myself included, find it easier to work with very long documents such as dissertations in hard copy but printing out e-mails so as to file them would seem to be silly, given that email applications provide useful tools for managing messages. We all need to print less in an age where we green issues are important.

The bottom line is not to get too hooked up on the native / immigrant issue. We develop strategies which work for us. Do what works for you, but be open to changing your practice as you go along. Most importantly, take into consideration that not everyone shares your approach and allow for individuality.

The work of Prensky has triggered other research. Of particular interest for us in the UK is the work by Canole, de Laat, Dillon and Darby (2006) and Trinder, Guiller, Margaryan, Littlejohn and Nicol (2008).

Canole et al’s work looked at the way students in UK universities used technology. They found students using their own devices (mobile phones, laptops, pdas) extensively. Furthermore, they suggest that there is “strong evidence of peer support and peer community, resonant with the rhetoric inherent in the idea of social networking and the world of Web 2.0″ (5) with students “appropriating technologies to meet their own personal, individual needs – mixing use of general ICT tools and resources, with official course or institutional tools and resources” (5). The researchers suggested that this represented “a profound shift in the way in which students are working…” and… “a rich and complex inter-relationship between the individuals and the tools” (5). I think you will probably agree with this, looking at your own practice, especially if you can reflect back to the way you worked five years ago.

Trinder et al’s work explored the way “e-tools and the processes which underpin their use can support learning” (5) in educational institutions, the aim being to improve the quality of students learning in higher education. Their findings (6) were that “new e-tools and technologies afford processes with an informal focus on self-direction, communities of practice, collaboration, sharing and even identity exploration.” Furthermore, students showed that adaptability in their use of e-tools to support their learning and they are prepared to use their own tools if none are provided. However, they also found that students did not always realise the potential of new tools for learning.  This notwithstanding, the way that students used tools helped the researchers to see a way to equally develop their own “understandings and conceptions of processes and tools as our engagement with technologies can have an impact on their experiences” (7).

Both of these studies would seem to support the claims that Prensky makes. Both saw students working in non-traditional ways, using digital tools to develop their own learning. More importantly, they also saw the need for teachers to take cognisance of the way students worked so as to provide a more meaningful learning experience for them. According to Canole et al, “HEIs need to conceptually change their perspectives and rethink their positions as institutions of learning within the 21st century media landscape. They will be required to respond to the ever growing body of personalised, handheld devices, which will allows users to access content in contexts which were previously not possible. This will require rethinking not only how content is delivered to such devices, which maybe distributed across wide networks and locations but also how students interact, contribute and repurpose this content within their communities and for their own ends” (99).

Perhaps the most important thing for you to consider as a future teacher is the extent to which you can enhance the learning environment in your classroom.  We know that ict has the potential to enhance the learning environment and that it enables us to do some things more efficiently (quicker), effectively (better) and to do things which we could not do before.  As such, it is a technology which is has to potential to emancipate and empower learners and add value to the learning environment.* We also know that young people enjoy using digital devices and that they regard them as relevant both as personal and learning tools . However, it is also a technology which is seen by some as overly complicated, difficult to master and threatening.  Such people are unlikely to buy into the idea of using it much, if at all, until they are able to see good practice and get good support for their own efforts.

This is where you, as a digital native or successful immigrant, can help.

* There has been a longstanding debate with respect to aquiring clear evidence that the use of ICT raises attainment and standards. In my opinion, this is a non-issue. ICT has become a part of the very fabric of our society, used by the majority of people as a work, communications and recreational tool. It provides access to a vast amount of information and is changing the way we think about and interact with the world and people around us. For this reason, if no other, it needs to be used in a proactive way in our schools.

References.

Canole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006) JISC LXP: Student experiences of technologies. Final Report.

Davidson, R. & Lutz, A. (20o8) IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE, January.

Hall, H. & Davidson, B. (2008) Article Note: On blogs in LIS course as reflective tools.

Trinder, K., Guiller, J., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. & Nicol, D. (2008) Learning from digital natives: bridging formal and informal learning. The Higher Education Academy.

Additional resources:

Frand, J.L. (2000) The Information-Age Mindset. Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education.

Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the New Students.

Oblinger, D. (2008) Growing up with Google. What it means for education. Becta.

With Colin’s collaboration on the content and the idea, I have just uploaded the graphics to: this webspace for the web artfact on the netgen debate.

The idea of this project was to collect comments on the Marc Prensky idea of Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants. Some great feedback.

This forum is free to use and open to all to comment.

The question it is based around is:

Is there any evidence of a generational divide based upon exposure to the Internet?

Enter the debate here. 

Could be quite explosive depending on whether you consider yourself a Digital Immigrant (a visitor to the Internet generation) or a Digital Native (you belong here).