The history of teaching is littered with ideas that have come and gone. In their day each was the new bright hope, set to transform what we do as teachers and how our students learn. Each new idea had its supporters and detractors and each in turn was replaced by an alternative or simply disappeared from view. Those who have experienced this ebb and flow of ideas have learned to approach the shiny and the new with caution and yet we have all encountered ideas that are so compelling it is difficult to ignore. How might we approach new ideas and innovative practices in ways that ensure our students benefit?
by Marc Prensky Our children today are being socialized in a way that is vastly different from their parents. The
numbers are overwhelming: over 10,000 hours playing videogames, over 200,000 emails and
instant messages sent and received; over 10,000 hours talking on digital cell phones; over 20,000
hours watching TV (a high percentage fast speed MTV), over 500,000 commercials seen-all
before the kids leave college. And, maybe, at the very most, 5,000 hours of book reading. These
are today's ―Digital Native‖ students.
1
In Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Part I, I discussed how the differences between our Digital
Native students and their Digital Immigrant teachers lie at the root of a great many of today's
educational problems. I suggested that Digital Natives' brains are likely physically different as a
result of the digital input they received growing up. And I submitted that learning via digital
games is one good way to reach Digital Natives in their ―native language.‖
Here I present evidence for why I think this is so. It comes from neurobiology, social psychology, and from studies done on children using games for learning.
by Marc Prensky Our children today are being socialized in a way that is vastly different from their parents. The
numbers are overwhelming: over 10,000 hours playing videogames, over 200,000 emails and
instant messages sent and received; over 10,000 hours talking on digital cell phones; over 20,000
hours watching TV (a high percentage fast speed MTV), over 500,000 commercials seen-all
before the kids leave college. And, maybe, at the very most, 5,000 hours of book reading. These
are today's ―Digital Native‖ students.
1
In Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Part I, I discussed how the differences between our Digital
Native students and their Digital Immigrant teachers lie at the root of a great many of today's
educational problems. I suggested that Digital Natives' brains are likely physically different as a
result of the digital input they received growing up. And I submitted that learning via digital
games is one good way to reach Digital Natives in their ―native language.‖
Here I present evidence for why I think this is so. It comes from neurobiology, social psychology, and from studies done on children using games for learning.
Hi.
I wrote a paper about digital natives as part of an anthropology assignment for a doctoral course. Researchers from around the world have empirically proven that Prensky's theories are false. Additionally, while neuroscience has shown that brains do change as a result of neuroplasticity, to argue that it is generational is also a false claim.
Though cognitive theory shows that learners bring their prior experiences to the interpretation of new educational opportunities - impacting attention and interpretation - all generations have had this occur. There is merit to the point that we should take learner's prior experience into consideration when designing instruction; however, Prensky's digital native claims may have done more to create tension between students and teachers than to provide instructional support.
If you would like any of the scholarly studies, I have a published reference list at http://brholland.com/reference-list.
Beth