I’m presently enrolled in a Harvard Graduate School of Education distance learning course. I’ve completed two of the courses and am in the process of training to be an online coach. I figure this is one way to encourage teachers to use technology. Besides the skills will be useful for working with students online and developing online assignments and courses. One of the main areas is the discussion page that all participants use to discuss the various topics of the week.
Now last week I was a bit behind so I didn’t get my ideas posted until the 11th hour. Reading through the different posts, I’m still amazed at the number of educators who have grabbed onto the “digital immigrant/digital native” phrase and see it as being their mantra – “The kids are so capable – I’m just an immigrant.” Now, the more I hear this, the more I begin to think that, unless there is something to replace this mantra, the more it will become the poster slogan for educators.
Presnky basis his argument that we are immigrants because we have had to make a switch from one way of doing things, non digitally, to a second way of doing things, therefore immigrants, while children, who have grown up with the technology know no other way and are surrounded by it and are immersed in it and, therefore, are natives. As I thought of this analogy, I began to wonder, if that is the case, there are no natives since no can be born and age without having to learn new things, things that may have not been there when they were young. Thus, taking this to its farthest extreme, we might as well all give up because as things progress, we’ll get farther and farther behind and there is no hope since we weren’t born into it. What he misses, which is very easy to understand is that for many of us, we grew up with video games, computers, electronic gadgets and all that he suggests the students of today have. In fact, after some serious reading, I would say that he’s missing the boat, almost completely.
I would suggest that using the tools and technologies is an aptitude that maybe we have not identified, much like one of Multiple Intelligences from Gardner. As I work with students and adults, it seems that there are those people, from each group, that are able to work with the technologies, are comfortable using them and adapt to any new upgrades that come along. Instead of it being a generational gap, as suggested by Prensky, I would suggest that it is an intelligence that people have. My reason for suggesting this? Well, in working with students, teachers always describe how they are so willing to try new things, find new things out and show them all these wonderful things while working on computers while they, the teacher, have great difficulty in moving around and getting things to work. However, I would suggest not all students are like this and, in fact, there are a few core ones who lead the way for the rest. Another thing is that children are naturally curious and therefore willing to try many things that adults don’t. So, using Presnky’s argument that children are native because they have been surrounded by it, we should allow children to use all kinds of power tools if they have been around them. Surely they’ll figure out what they are for and find some great things to do with them. Seems ridiculous. People have suggested that it is not the same thing, power tools are different than computers. Well, having worked for many summers pounding nails and then, later on in my life, learning to use an air nailer, to me the two are the same. In fact, I was using computers before the air nailer!
As for the “natives” being surrounded and growing up with it and therefore being able to use it effortlessly, that also doesn’t wash with me. Check out the age of the Guinness Book of World Records record holder for high score on video games. I believe the gentleman is in his late 30’s somewhere. Hmmm, I’d say he’d know a thing or two about gaming! Oh, yeah, the students using things effortlessly. My gauge for this is throwing a piece of software, like Zoho or other online software and see how they adjust. My experience, although limited to only a dozen or so years of working with kids and technology, is that if it is not what they are use to using, like Word, they are lost. This applies to most of the software that we have. In fact, we have several non-Windows based computers running on Linux and the kids avoid them because they are not Windows. “Those are the evil computers!” To me, a native will use any type of software, can figure out any type of software, doesn’t need the manual and will be comfortable on any platform. I know plenty of 40 something people who are this way – complete natives in the digital medium. Yet there are natives in all age groups, people not put off by the technology, who use it and understand how it can be used, see possibilities and are able to push the technology to get more and do more. That is why I would suggest that it has nothing to do with the “age/generational” as Prensky suggests but, instead, is an intelligence that people have.
Another fact that I’d like to point out is that many of the gamers and first users of the technologies are boys. Does this mean that girls are less native? Or, is it just in the last few years that game designers have been turning their attention to females? Are we seeing more and more females using technologies because it is being considered a “unisex” tool rather than the domain of the male “techno-geek”? Is it because the Web2.0 has become a social network with personal interaction being the norm. Who has more cellphones, boys or girls? What would a survey say? What do they use them for? Is there a difference? Does this mean that there is more than one type of native?
I really believe that for many people who have read Prensky, it is an immediate “Oh, that’s me.” reaction. They then generalize about the population in both regards and agree that it must be an “immigrant/native” divide. In discussions with people who speak many languages, they comment that they may know the language and fit in with the people but they are still immigrants because they were not born there. But being born automatically make you a native and, if that is the only criteria, then we’ll have to redefine a whole group of gaps as being “native/immigrant” divides – before microwaves/VCR’s/…. and after. Before the mini-van and after. This list will be endless. Each of these items had a huge impact on culture and changed the dynamics of the culture in many ways, although not as big as some of the other items. In rural settings, the introduction of large machinery creates a “immigrant/native” divide that has had a huge affect on a whole way of life. Yet, many people who were born before have made the transition and are very successful. So, maybe they have a particular intelligence that allows them to be successful despite the changes.
Why do I squeak about this? Well, it creates a way of thinking that I don’t think is good for education. It creates a divide that I don’t think is really there and causes people, especially teachers, to view themselves as being unable to make progress without great difficulty. Could it be that, like music or math or the other intelligences, there is a digital intelligence?
Kelly
