When answering the question posed at the beginning of this module, I answered yes and no. Yes, I think students are different today because they have been surrounded by technology since the day they were born. No, I don't think students have changed because they are still kids. They still have the same needs and wants and desires as kids from 50 years ago. After reading both articles by Prensky and Quin, I think I'm not the only one who thinks that students have changed in some ways, but not in others.
I was first struck by the fact that Prensky's article was written in 2001; I began thinking about all of the technological and pedagogical changes that have taken place since then. Quite a few! I began teaching in 1998 and remember that being able to use graphing calculators in class was a big deal. Now, my students all have Chromebooks; one Google search later, they all have 10 different choices of graphing calculators at their disposal. I didn't need to worry about kids using their phones during class because very few students had a phone. Now, all of my students have phones and many of them have phones much more advanced than mine. Even though his article was written 12 years ago, I found myself agreeing with many of his observations.
I found myself wondering how Prensky knew that students' brains have actually changed. I was happy to see in Quin's article that he agreed with me. Prensky provided no evidence to support this claim. I can see that this may be true considering that most of brain development is between the ages of birth and three and I know many toddlers use ipads and watch TV. I know mine did! But does that mean their brains have actually changed? Have they changed for the worse, as many digital immigrants believe, or maybe have they changed for the better, allowing them to absorb more ideas and knowledge?
The differences between digital natives and immigrants that Prensky observed were very interesting. Natives want instantaneous learning, graphics, frequent rewards and games, according to the author, where immigrants want slow learning, one-step-at-a-time and serious learning. I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess I am considered an immigrant and I enjoy learning with graphics and games just as much as the teenager sitting next to me. I also know many of my native students who prefer step-by-step, slow and serious learning. I'm not sure we can pigeon hole every student born in the digital age as needing fast and furious learning. That may be just as dangerous as saying that all immigrants print off their email and are resistant to change.
I think the key is finding, as Prensky states, new ways to teach "old" content. For example, he states that, when it comes to calculators, it should not be a question of when we use them but how. It floors me that there are math teachers who don't let their students use calculators. They have a calculator at their disposal at all times. Isn't it time we change our teaching to reflect that? I think so. I think that's a perfect example of Prensky's point of view. They now have calculators they can use all the time. They are allowed on all state testing and the ACT and SAT. Isn't it time we integrate their use into our lessons? I agree that learning basic facts and being able to make change are still skills I believe people should be able to do without calculators, but I think there are many other lessons in which using a calculator should be advocated.
Using technology can be a way to open up our students' minds to more advanced thinking. Prensky discusses that, by using technology, we can open up more discussions and thinking related to technology, ethics, politics and sociology. I'll refer back to my calculator example. If I'm teaching graphing quadratic functions, and I allow my students to use graphing calculators, my lesson has now expanded from the simple lesson of substituting in x and getting out a y and plotting points, to being able to quickly delve into maximum and minimum values, roots and associating them with real-world situations. What would take three or four days the immigrant way can now be done in one or two the native way. I definitely think it can be difficult to get immigrants to see the native way. As Prensky states, we can take advantage of kids helping us into the digital age or we can sit around and grouse about how things used to be. I think, when we join the natives, it opens up many more possibilities for us and our students.
One thought that kept running through my mind when Prensky was talking about the creation of the video game program for the engineers was, yes, that would be nice, but come on! What teacher has time to do that! Maybe he would call me a lazy immigrant, but I doubt there will ever be enough time in the day to create a video game for all of my lessons that I teach. I definitely try to be engaging and provide "edutainment" but at the same time I know that there aren't enough hours in the day to do that for every single lesson. Nor do I think we should do that. I think a balance of the two, old and new, is a good balance for most students and teachers. I did see that Prensky reported that, at first, creating the video game took twice as long as usual, but later on they became more efficient. I do think that, when this new type of pedagogy becomes the norm, it will be easier for us all.
Lastly, I did find Quin's assertion that educators are in charge and pedagogy should drive technology to be right on point. I don't believe that just because students are surrounded by technology we should use it in our lessons willy-nilly. I think our use of technology should be appropriate and used when the pedagogy supports it, not just because we feel we should have a technology component in there somewhere.
Quin, DT. (2013). Response to Prensky's (2001) Digital natives, Digital immigrants. http://quindpdp.blogspot.com/2013/01/response-to-prenskys-2001-digital.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment