As nice & delightful it might be to have the educational system tailored to fit into a person's cultural and personal preferences, there should be a limit on this. The studying period might indeed go by much easier this way, but the "big wide world" students are then launched into aren't one they are ready for as employers do NOT offer such a customisable environment.
In terms of the digital native/immigrant debate this is relevant aswel:
If the education process is completely altered to suit the digital-world the digital native students live in they will then come to expect the "actual" world to work in the same way. And there's a whole stumbling block in Prensky's theory. If education needs to change, so does everything else at the same time, as students, after being educated, are supposed to be able to work in a society wich includes many different people of many different agegroups, digital natives and immigrants and both will keep existing in this "real world" for quite some time before only the natives are left.
Showing posts with label digital immigrant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital immigrant. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
2) What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make?
To socioeconomically related access issues within a society?
The way people are divided right now is likely to only widen the digital divide of which we speak. The CofP of digital natives may be unlikely to let a digital immigrant into their ways and could become a very closed group indeed which stops the digital immigrants from developing their technological skills as they are unlikely to receive help from the digital natives. One of the main purposes of a CofP is social learning, so digital natives will arguably always keep eachother up to data on "the latest" when it comes to new websites, tools, online communities, gadgets and technologies while digital immigrants are running behind having great difficulty keeping up with the ever changing world of the digital natives.
This is deffinitely a problem when it comes to situation where the two group work together, like education, where the teachers (immigrants) are having great difficulty in uderstanding and therefore correctly addressing their pupils (natives). Educational institutions such as schools do introduce new IT facilities but are still finding it hard to keep up because the evolution of technologies is shared within the Digital Native CofP and not communicated to the immigrants in the same way.
This does assume that all the pupils (or anyone else from the digital-native's generation for that matter) are actually able to use and are familiar with these technology-inflicted social changesin their own lives. However, for economic reasons mainly, not all of these younger (under 28) people are zactually in a position where they have access to these technologies intheir own lives and there they might not be too keen on any changes made by mainstream society and, as a part of that, the educational system, as to what is expected from people of this generation as they aren't part of it and will have as much difficulty (and will be left behind just as much) as other age-specific digital immigrants. So basically, the divide bewteen natives and immigrants isn't just a matter of agegroup, but also of whether or not people have been able to adapt these changes.
To global access issues across countries and regions?
The digital divide between the western world and 3rd world countries is a huge one, mainly because in the western world the financial sithuation makes for a great percentage of the population to be able to use and familiarise themselves with digital technologies where in the third world the great mjority of people do not have access to these kind of technologies at all.
The situation is almost a much bigger version of the problem described above. The Western countries, all familiar with these technologies are contantly improving their technologies and the third world ends up limping behind. (At the moment they might
Fast forward a few decades where digital natives are the only people left in the western world: technologies has completely changed western society as a whole in the way we interacts as well as the way our social practises are shaped. While Western society has gotten into the habit of communicationg, socialising, delling, buying, educating and practising politics using these technologies it will differ even more from society AND POLITICS in the third world countries.
The two parts of the world will arguable, over the years, grow more and more seperate from eachother creating an even wider digital divide, and through this a wider divide in politics, economics, education, everything. Alienating the two from each other.
The way people are divided right now is likely to only widen the digital divide of which we speak. The CofP of digital natives may be unlikely to let a digital immigrant into their ways and could become a very closed group indeed which stops the digital immigrants from developing their technological skills as they are unlikely to receive help from the digital natives. One of the main purposes of a CofP is social learning, so digital natives will arguably always keep eachother up to data on "the latest" when it comes to new websites, tools, online communities, gadgets and technologies while digital immigrants are running behind having great difficulty keeping up with the ever changing world of the digital natives.
This is deffinitely a problem when it comes to situation where the two group work together, like education, where the teachers (immigrants) are having great difficulty in uderstanding and therefore correctly addressing their pupils (natives). Educational institutions such as schools do introduce new IT facilities but are still finding it hard to keep up because the evolution of technologies is shared within the Digital Native CofP and not communicated to the immigrants in the same way.
This does assume that all the pupils (or anyone else from the digital-native's generation for that matter) are actually able to use and are familiar with these technology-inflicted social changesin their own lives. However, for economic reasons mainly, not all of these younger (under 28) people are zactually in a position where they have access to these technologies intheir own lives and there they might not be too keen on any changes made by mainstream society and, as a part of that, the educational system, as to what is expected from people of this generation as they aren't part of it and will have as much difficulty (and will be left behind just as much) as other age-specific digital immigrants. So basically, the divide bewteen natives and immigrants isn't just a matter of agegroup, but also of whether or not people have been able to adapt these changes.
To global access issues across countries and regions?
The digital divide between the western world and 3rd world countries is a huge one, mainly because in the western world the financial sithuation makes for a great percentage of the population to be able to use and familiarise themselves with digital technologies where in the third world the great mjority of people do not have access to these kind of technologies at all.
The situation is almost a much bigger version of the problem described above. The Western countries, all familiar with these technologies are contantly improving their technologies and the third world ends up limping behind. (At the moment they might
Fast forward a few decades where digital natives are the only people left in the western world: technologies has completely changed western society as a whole in the way we interacts as well as the way our social practises are shaped. While Western society has gotten into the habit of communicationg, socialising, delling, buying, educating and practising politics using these technologies it will differ even more from society AND POLITICS in the third world countries.
The two parts of the world will arguable, over the years, grow more and more seperate from eachother creating an even wider digital divide, and through this a wider divide in politics, economics, education, everything. Alienating the two from each other.
1) How might Wenger's notions on practice communities relate to Prensky's on education?
Yes, there is a way in which the two different theories from Prensky & Wenger do link together, I think.
Wegner's theory of the communities of practise predominantly talks about groups of individuals who, because they share the same goals and, I guess, ideologies & practises, improve themselves and establish themselves more trhough communicating to eachother.
Meanwhile Prensky theorises about how digital natives's these days have a completely different set of social practises because of the way they use technology, which, he claims, has caused these younger people to differ from others (digital immigrants) in the way they communicate, research, socialise, shop, learn etc. etc. etc.
You could well argue that this group of people, with their own new set of social standards, social practises, ideologies and aspirations is therefore a good example of a Community of Practise.
Wegner's theory of the communities of practise predominantly talks about groups of individuals who, because they share the same goals and, I guess, ideologies & practises, improve themselves and establish themselves more trhough communicating to eachother.
Meanwhile Prensky theorises about how digital natives's these days have a completely different set of social practises because of the way they use technology, which, he claims, has caused these younger people to differ from others (digital immigrants) in the way they communicate, research, socialise, shop, learn etc. etc. etc.
You could well argue that this group of people, with their own new set of social standards, social practises, ideologies and aspirations is therefore a good example of a Community of Practise.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Week 9 | Q3 Should education 'stretch a person do you think? (What do you mean by 'stretch'?)
Well, it all depends on what is meant by the term "stretch". I guess the first thing that springs to mind is urging (almost forcing?) pupils and students to perform to the best of their abilities. By raising the bar with each semester (or year) and that way allowing students to gradually develop their skills and knowledge: improving themselves and "plugging into their potential".
I guess this unit is also "stretching" students by "forcing" them into different methods of learning than the ones we used in different units. As mentioned in the lecture on several occasions, though, there doesn't seem to have been much forcing students into it as people got on with it quite well, quite quickly. Possibly because the current bunch of students are well-developed Digital Natives to be "ready" for learning in this alternative, digital way. Who knows? ;)
Week 9 | Describe the daily frustrations of a fictional neo-luddite at university now in the UK.
A neo-luddite would probably struggle with quite a few things in Uni. For example, handbooks are posted online rather than handed out, time tables are online, lecturers EMAIL students about lecture cancellations and other VITAL information. On the social side of things (s)he's also going to miss out as most of people events and parties are communicated on Facebook rather than IRL. A lot of discussion about work also taken place on Facebook and MSN. The neo-luddite would find it hard to keep in contact with friends as all that takes place with the use of social networking and mobile telephones and the degree will suffer because of the lack of access to things like blackboard and MChome where essential information is found.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Week 9 | Describe the experience of a fictional technophile student in 2020.
Well, first of all, 2020 is only 11 years ago, and if we look at the the situation 11 years ago from now the changes are there, but not THAT ground breaking. Yes, the web has changed a lot, it delivers more interactivity and multimedia than it did back in 1998, but education has only adapted to it a little bit. How the web is going to change in the next 11 years is hard to predict, I am assuming that Web 3.0 and the Semantic Web are developping further and that phones, music downloads and other "past-time" platforms will also have advanced a lot. But if the education system doesn't pick up the pace the technophile student of the future could well be a very frustrated man indeed. The uni is currently moving into digital submissions and I trust all submissions, or nearly all submissions, will be handing in that way by then. But the technophile students would probably not be happy with the fact that there, i think, WILL still be physical lectures, seminars and tutorials providing face to face contact with lecturers and peers. Further in the future there might not be, but at this short span of time of only 11 years I don't think Education is moving on quite that fast.
Week 9 | The biggest threat to "digital culture" as a concept.
One of my relatives (early 30s) seems to be a bit of a mixture of the two. One the one hand he uses online technology, but only for a limited number of things. He DOES download music, legally, but is reluctant to use eBay because he finds it a bit dodgy. Does email, and does have MSN but doesn't use Facebook.
The things he does use he uses just as well as anybody else but doesn't seem to let the technology change his social practices as much as digital natives are supposed to do, but does show the ability to use all the technology as well as them. He just doesn't seem as interested in it. And that's one notion that Prensky seems to ignore, he argues that everyone who grows up with these technology actively uses and let them influence they social practises, but my relative does show that there is also the factor of personal choice, or even if they are actually interested enough in these technologies to adapt them all.
The things he does use he uses just as well as anybody else but doesn't seem to let the technology change his social practices as much as digital natives are supposed to do, but does show the ability to use all the technology as well as them. He just doesn't seem as interested in it. And that's one notion that Prensky seems to ignore, he argues that everyone who grows up with these technology actively uses and let them influence they social practises, but my relative does show that there is also the factor of personal choice, or even if they are actually interested enough in these technologies to adapt them all.
Week 9 | The Youngest digital immigrant
This one's actually quite hard to find as the absolute majority of the people around me that are in the age group of the digital natives actually ARE. One of my friends doesn't seem to embrace technology quite the same as most of us, but the fact he goes to uni means he kind-of has to. Uni email, handbooks thatare only online and things like that have meant that he has been forced to more or less embrace new technologies, but, with a lack of interest and experience in it, he doesn't seem to use it as one of his main forms of socialising and he always seems to run behind asking what things actually ARE that we are talking about. I guess that is regular digital immigrant behaviour but I find it hard to pin-point HOW he ended up not being part of the group of digital natives. Perhaps his lack of interest in these things have meant that he's started developing his technological skills while other developed them while growing up.
WEEK 9 | The oldest digital native you know.
I guess the oldest digital native I know would be my uncle. Despite not having grown up with digital technology like younger people have he has always had a very specific interest in computer technology and because he works at Microsoft it is part of his job to keep up to dat ewith all forms of digital communication that are outthere. Whereas most people his age (early 50s) only ever get very specific training from their employers to use the software they need in their jobs (Office etc.) he is constantly being kept up to date, and being urged to investigate into, new technologies.
He can be found on all the well-known online platforms. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, last FM, Spotify, you name it, he's on there. And actively using them, as well as online shops, recourses such as wikipedia, online gaming services in his spare time and e-bay whenever he needs to get rid of something. In fact, it is quite often I hear new things though him, which does seem a typical thing a digital native would do. Digital natives are quite a closed group but, despite his age (THAT SOUNDS A BIT HARSH!) he's well and truly part of it.
He can be found on all the well-known online platforms. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, last FM, Spotify, you name it, he's on there. And actively using them, as well as online shops, recourses such as wikipedia, online gaming services in his spare time and e-bay whenever he needs to get rid of something. In fact, it is quite often I hear new things though him, which does seem a typical thing a digital native would do. Digital natives are quite a closed group but, despite his age (THAT SOUNDS A BIT HARSH!) he's well and truly part of it.
RED ANSWERS - Question 5 /// Abstracts
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5).
This 2001 article is essentially a first major introduction to the concept of Digital Immigration. A new concept in the day, the terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant are explained. The article then applies these terms to a the real-life sithuation of education highlighting that misscommunication can easily take place as the two groups do not understand eachother like they used to as digital natives have a different use of language and have a different sense of ethics, politics and sociology. The article concludes saying that lecturers (digital immigrants) should alter the way by which they communicate to their students (digital natives) as they are fundamentally different from students in the past.
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com.
This article highlights areas in which digital natives particularly differ from digital immigrants. It lists and provides details on how digital natives have different ways of communicating, sharing, buying, selling, exchanging, creating, meeting, collecting, coordinating, evaluating, gaming, learning, searching, analysing, reporting, programming, socialising, evolving and ultimately growing up. It gives theory and examples on each of these topics. The article concludes that norms and behaviours are changing much faster than ever before and that digital natives are creating a new different form of life for themselves..
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning.
This article starts giving an example of a typical modern day student's working situation and continues with her views on the technology she uses, calling it her "gateway to the world". She also believes that the she "grew up into" a world that expects her to use technology of this kind.
The article continues by introducing Prensky's concept of the Digital Immigrant and mentions Jane Healey's claim that it is impossible for children to focus on more than one thing at a time.
However, continues to discuss that research has shown that perhaps people up till the age of 17 have had the ability to build up a high level of multi-tasking abilities whilst growing up with digital media. The article continue's to discuss different point of views from experts as well as actual Digital natives.
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21.
This article from Prensky discusses the outcomes of a research by the University of Rochester which suggested that playing action-computer games may have a positive effect on a student's visual selective attention. Prensky then uses this data as a rgument stating that videogames may be a good way of engaging children into learning and that gaming could be used for educational purposes.
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13.
This article start by claiming that many educators are still using their old fashioned 20th century ways ways to try and teach the new generation. The article oncemore explains Prensky's concept of digital immigration and again lists a number of things modern students do differently. It dismisses the claim that modern student's can't engage to anything and suggests that student's are having difficulties engaging to school because school does not address them in the right, modern, digital way why the rest of the outside world does. It is then suggested that educators and students should collaborate more in order to find a way by which student's can regain interest in what happens in the classroom rather than being alienated from it because them and the teachers are not on the same wavelength.
This 2001 article is essentially a first major introduction to the concept of Digital Immigration. A new concept in the day, the terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant are explained. The article then applies these terms to a the real-life sithuation of education highlighting that misscommunication can easily take place as the two groups do not understand eachother like they used to as digital natives have a different use of language and have a different sense of ethics, politics and sociology. The article concludes saying that lecturers (digital immigrants) should alter the way by which they communicate to their students (digital natives) as they are fundamentally different from students in the past.
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com.
This article highlights areas in which digital natives particularly differ from digital immigrants. It lists and provides details on how digital natives have different ways of communicating, sharing, buying, selling, exchanging, creating, meeting, collecting, coordinating, evaluating, gaming, learning, searching, analysing, reporting, programming, socialising, evolving and ultimately growing up. It gives theory and examples on each of these topics. The article concludes that norms and behaviours are changing much faster than ever before and that digital natives are creating a new different form of life for themselves..
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning.
This article starts giving an example of a typical modern day student's working situation and continues with her views on the technology she uses, calling it her "gateway to the world". She also believes that the she "grew up into" a world that expects her to use technology of this kind.
The article continues by introducing Prensky's concept of the Digital Immigrant and mentions Jane Healey's claim that it is impossible for children to focus on more than one thing at a time.
However, continues to discuss that research has shown that perhaps people up till the age of 17 have had the ability to build up a high level of multi-tasking abilities whilst growing up with digital media. The article continue's to discuss different point of views from experts as well as actual Digital natives.
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21.
This article from Prensky discusses the outcomes of a research by the University of Rochester which suggested that playing action-computer games may have a positive effect on a student's visual selective attention. Prensky then uses this data as a rgument stating that videogames may be a good way of engaging children into learning and that gaming could be used for educational purposes.
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13.
This article start by claiming that many educators are still using their old fashioned 20th century ways ways to try and teach the new generation. The article oncemore explains Prensky's concept of digital immigration and again lists a number of things modern students do differently. It dismisses the claim that modern student's can't engage to anything and suggests that student's are having difficulties engaging to school because school does not address them in the right, modern, digital way why the rest of the outside world does. It is then suggested that educators and students should collaborate more in order to find a way by which student's can regain interest in what happens in the classroom rather than being alienated from it because them and the teachers are not on the same wavelength.
RED ANSWERS - Question 4 /// In the Harvard manner, name five different academic articles dealing with the notion of young people's facility... etc.
1)
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5). http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm. [10/03/09].
2)
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf. [10/03/09].
3)
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/article/4572. [11/03/09].
4)
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21. http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=950596&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26899431&CFTOKEN=32247491. [11/03/09].
5)
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13. http://centre4.core-ed.net/viewfile.php/users/38/1965011121/ICT_PD_Online/ListentotheNatives.pdf. [13/03/09].
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5). http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm. [10/03/09].
2)
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf. [10/03/09].
3)
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/article/4572. [11/03/09].
4)
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21. http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=950596&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26899431&CFTOKEN=32247491. [11/03/09].
5)
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13. http://centre4.core-ed.net/viewfile.php/users/38/1965011121/ICT_PD_Online/ListentotheNatives.pdf. [13/03/09].
RED ANSWERS - part 2 /// Identify five different websites/five-pages-on-different sites dealing with digital immigration and its counterpart.
1: "No Good Excuse"
http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=1541
2: "BlogScholar: Debating Digital Immigration"
http://www.blogscholar.com/content/view/72/2/
3: "TIMES ONLINE Report: The Next Step In Brain Evolution"
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article683193.ece
4: "Digitalnative.org - Wiki"
http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Main_Page
5: "New York Times: Click & Jane"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01wwln-medium-t.html?_r=2&bl=&ei=5087&en=60e0a8a5ed47f70d&ex=1233982800&pagewanted=all
http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=1541
2: "BlogScholar: Debating Digital Immigration"
http://www.blogscholar.com/content/view/72/2/
3: "TIMES ONLINE Report: The Next Step In Brain Evolution"
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article683193.ece
4: "Digitalnative.org - Wiki"
http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Main_Page
5: "New York Times: Click & Jane"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01wwln-medium-t.html?_r=2&bl=&ei=5087&en=60e0a8a5ed47f70d&ex=1233982800&pagewanted=all
RED ANSWERS - part 1 /// Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.
1) Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.What Is it? Who cares about it? What sort of general attitudes have been based upon it?
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
Friday, 13 March 2009
Week 8: Articles (PART ONE)
Week 8: Article 1
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
This article was published in 2001 so fairly soon after the birth of the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants, which means that research into the phenomenons was still quite basic.
The article seems to make the assumption that digital immigrants in teaching positions are unwilling to adapt their teaching-style to fit with, what he calls, students that are fundamentally different from students in the past. It's all a bit generalising, I feel. Also, as I don't think these new forms of education people are particularly suitable for all sciences. Yes, on a lot of courses new media should be embrassed and actively used, but on some it would not add anything new or enable teahers to get their point accross to students any better. There's also quite a few points made that I do agree with, like how things like changes brought to people's sense of ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things by the phenomenon, but surely it's hard to determine where these changes are going as I personally feel they are still developing all the time. (If they will ever settle at all)
Article 2:
This article from 2004 lays out how digital natives are different from digital immigrants, and actually going point to point whilst doing so. A nice overview of the digital native/digital immigrant phenomenons and actually uses some practical example making the concepts easy to grasp. However, what this article DOES do is (quite shamelessly) categorising the digital native as "the other", therefore the article gives a very one-sided view.
"In a very short time technology has changed an entire generation’s behavior radically..."
A bit of a bold statement to make, I'd think. The way things are done, the day-to-day practises, if you like, have changed, yes. But I don't think the essence of the interactions has changed in every single category. Yes, people's attitudes to "ownership" and "collecting" have changed (I would think), but I can't say I agree with every single TOTAL trunaround that the writer makes out. I believe that in many cases new social practises have come to exist ALONGSIDE existing ones rather than replacing them completely.
Article 3
Article 3, from 2005, also tends to have a view of digital natives as "the other". An interesting link that article makes is that study on child developments show that the brain's ability to effectively self-organize competing information keeps developping until the age of 16/17, and that therefore digital natives will always be able to multitask better than their parents. But abilities like that differ from person to person. I know people myself who, despite being too old to have been 16/17 by the time the "digital revolution" took place who are able to multitask and use new media forms as good as most digital natives, although I'll admit they are the minority. Then again, I know people who are 20, who find it quite hard to keep up with "the latest technology" and prefer to call rather than text, and go to a record store rather than iTunes. So, maybe the whole notion of 'how new media-savvy' you are is not solely a case of age-group, but more to do with other factors aswel. It is similar to article 1, how it descibes a difference between educators who are digital immigrants and students being digital natives and the problems in communications this causes. The same old generalisation there then and therefore a lot of the critism I have on that article applies to this one and vice-versa.
Article 4
A controversial statement in this piece from 2003, it is claimed that playing action video games enhances a student's visual selective attention. But surely, so would driving and things like that then, wouldn't they? Any practice in reaction-speed and "looking out for stuff" should enhance these kind of skills, surely? So I think he's pretty much stating the obvious here, just served with extra hi-tech chips. (I do like my vague metaphores, sorry!) It is continued that "videogames aren't the enemy but the best opportunity to engage our kids in real learning". Again, practical ways of learning, or learning celeverly disguised as playing is not exactly a new thing either. I would agree that the changed past-time activities of digital natives should be taken into account, so "playing for learning" could indeed be combined with things like computer games, but it's just an evolution of this "tried -and-tested" practise, rather than a brand new thing, as the writer seems to want to put across. The article is clearly a bit dated, as things like the Nintendo DS and even the Nintendo Wii have both embedded education into many of the games they offer.
The writer of the article is credited as working for Games2Train, which means t5hat the author's views are hardly going to be unbiased, considering the company or institution's name.
Article 5
Aaaaaaargh, another article pretty much stating a similar thing about education. It is really hard to find academic articles about other parts of the phenomenon that this one. The article suggests that educational institutions should co-operate with the students more to solve "the problem", and I think there's a point there, even if it might blur the boundary between the teachers and the students a bit. I personally think that this whole digital divide between students and teachers is a temporary one anyway. Change will probably come when the generation who are students now become the teachers, bringing their own ideas of social activity to the teaching staff-meeting of the future (so to speak). Ofcourse people want to make sure these younger people are addressed in a way that engages, relates to and motives them, but I have never heard of fellow students who feel that lecturers REALLY should get a special MSN-account that students can use to ask them questions. Yes, students would probably use it if teachers DID have them, but most are quite happy to e-mail or meet them in real life instead. Simply because "it's the way it is". For now, anyway.
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
This article was published in 2001 so fairly soon after the birth of the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants, which means that research into the phenomenons was still quite basic.
The article seems to make the assumption that digital immigrants in teaching positions are unwilling to adapt their teaching-style to fit with, what he calls, students that are fundamentally different from students in the past. It's all a bit generalising, I feel. Also, as I don't think these new forms of education people are particularly suitable for all sciences. Yes, on a lot of courses new media should be embrassed and actively used, but on some it would not add anything new or enable teahers to get their point accross to students any better. There's also quite a few points made that I do agree with, like how things like changes brought to people's sense of ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things by the phenomenon, but surely it's hard to determine where these changes are going as I personally feel they are still developing all the time. (If they will ever settle at all)
Article 2:
This article from 2004 lays out how digital natives are different from digital immigrants, and actually going point to point whilst doing so. A nice overview of the digital native/digital immigrant phenomenons and actually uses some practical example making the concepts easy to grasp. However, what this article DOES do is (quite shamelessly) categorising the digital native as "the other", therefore the article gives a very one-sided view.
"In a very short time technology has changed an entire generation’s behavior radically..."
A bit of a bold statement to make, I'd think. The way things are done, the day-to-day practises, if you like, have changed, yes. But I don't think the essence of the interactions has changed in every single category. Yes, people's attitudes to "ownership" and "collecting" have changed (I would think), but I can't say I agree with every single TOTAL trunaround that the writer makes out. I believe that in many cases new social practises have come to exist ALONGSIDE existing ones rather than replacing them completely.
Article 3
Article 3, from 2005, also tends to have a view of digital natives as "the other". An interesting link that article makes is that study on child developments show that the brain's ability to effectively self-organize competing information keeps developping until the age of 16/17, and that therefore digital natives will always be able to multitask better than their parents. But abilities like that differ from person to person. I know people myself who, despite being too old to have been 16/17 by the time the "digital revolution" took place who are able to multitask and use new media forms as good as most digital natives, although I'll admit they are the minority. Then again, I know people who are 20, who find it quite hard to keep up with "the latest technology" and prefer to call rather than text, and go to a record store rather than iTunes. So, maybe the whole notion of 'how new media-savvy' you are is not solely a case of age-group, but more to do with other factors aswel. It is similar to article 1, how it descibes a difference between educators who are digital immigrants and students being digital natives and the problems in communications this causes. The same old generalisation there then and therefore a lot of the critism I have on that article applies to this one and vice-versa.
Article 4
A controversial statement in this piece from 2003, it is claimed that playing action video games enhances a student's visual selective attention. But surely, so would driving and things like that then, wouldn't they? Any practice in reaction-speed and "looking out for stuff" should enhance these kind of skills, surely? So I think he's pretty much stating the obvious here, just served with extra hi-tech chips. (I do like my vague metaphores, sorry!) It is continued that "videogames aren't the enemy but the best opportunity to engage our kids in real learning". Again, practical ways of learning, or learning celeverly disguised as playing is not exactly a new thing either. I would agree that the changed past-time activities of digital natives should be taken into account, so "playing for learning" could indeed be combined with things like computer games, but it's just an evolution of this "tried -and-tested" practise, rather than a brand new thing, as the writer seems to want to put across. The article is clearly a bit dated, as things like the Nintendo DS and even the Nintendo Wii have both embedded education into many of the games they offer.
The writer of the article is credited as working for Games2Train, which means t5hat the author's views are hardly going to be unbiased, considering the company or institution's name.
Article 5
Aaaaaaargh, another article pretty much stating a similar thing about education. It is really hard to find academic articles about other parts of the phenomenon that this one. The article suggests that educational institutions should co-operate with the students more to solve "the problem", and I think there's a point there, even if it might blur the boundary between the teachers and the students a bit. I personally think that this whole digital divide between students and teachers is a temporary one anyway. Change will probably come when the generation who are students now become the teachers, bringing their own ideas of social activity to the teaching staff-meeting of the future (so to speak). Ofcourse people want to make sure these younger people are addressed in a way that engages, relates to and motives them, but I have never heard of fellow students who feel that lecturers REALLY should get a special MSN-account that students can use to ask them questions. Yes, students would probably use it if teachers DID have them, but most are quite happy to e-mail or meet them in real life instead. Simply because "it's the way it is". For now, anyway.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Week 8: Digital native: Webpages (PART ONE)
Webpage 1:
This page, written in the summer of 2006 expresses the writer's personal critisism of the concept of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Claiming they are terms that are overused (ALREADY!) to describe something they do not understand or simply to dismiss the behaviour of those who they call digital natives or immigrants.
The page enables users to respond to the article.
Webpage 2:
This page, also from 2006, gives a (VERY!) brief history of the concept of "digital natives/immigrants" and quotes to opposing views on the matter. Sadly, that is all it does.
Webpage 3:
This webpage features a news article from a large British newspaper, also from 2006, explaining the concept itself (by using an example) as well as an example of "the opposite", talks of a "digital divide". Experts involved give their views and the article continues to report on academic research done on the phenomenon. The article concludes with several predictions of future developments of the concept. The article points out that it is not just a case of the age of a person but also their willingness and ability to embrace new technologies. How useful the article is to you depends on your knowledge of the concepts themselves as the article pretty much only covers the basic concepts of digital natives/immigrants themselves, the findings and opinion of experts are only mentioned quite briefly. The article is perfectly useful to give somebody and idea of what digital natives and digital immigrants actually ARE but doesn't seem to go particularly "deep" into the material. However, as it does mention some of these "experts" it could perhaps make it easier to find out more about them elsewhere.
This page, written in the summer of 2006 expresses the writer's personal critisism of the concept of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Claiming they are terms that are overused (ALREADY!) to describe something they do not understand or simply to dismiss the behaviour of those who they call digital natives or immigrants.
The page enables users to respond to the article.
Webpage 2:
This page, also from 2006, gives a (VERY!) brief history of the concept of "digital natives/immigrants" and quotes to opposing views on the matter. Sadly, that is all it does.
Webpage 3:
This webpage features a news article from a large British newspaper, also from 2006, explaining the concept itself (by using an example) as well as an example of "the opposite", talks of a "digital divide". Experts involved give their views and the article continues to report on academic research done on the phenomenon. The article concludes with several predictions of future developments of the concept. The article points out that it is not just a case of the age of a person but also their willingness and ability to embrace new technologies. How useful the article is to you depends on your knowledge of the concepts themselves as the article pretty much only covers the basic concepts of digital natives/immigrants themselves, the findings and opinion of experts are only mentioned quite briefly. The article is perfectly useful to give somebody and idea of what digital natives and digital immigrants actually ARE but doesn't seem to go particularly "deep" into the material. However, as it does mention some of these "experts" it could perhaps make it easier to find out more about them elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
