Digital Natives are what the students are now. A digital native is a person who speaks a language of technology just as well as they speak English. Today, the students are more familiar with computers and television then they are with books. This has it's pro's and con's, but what the Marc Prensky is suggesting is that we need to start teaching to the Digital Natives. This means that we should have computer games instead of pencil and paper assignments. There is some good things about this idea as well as some negative. "Our students have changed radically. Today's students are no longer the people are educational system was designed to teach" (Article). I consider myself a digital native, since I grew up with computers basically my whole life.
"Our students today are all "Native speakers" of the digital language of computers, video games, and the internet" (Article). One pro to teaching to Digital Natives in their own language is that we are reaching them. Basically, we are meeting them where they are at in their real lives. A best practice of teaching is to always relate students real lives with what they are learning in class. If we teach them via computers then we are accomplishing this.
One negative aspect to teaching at the digital level is students will not be as great at spelling due to spell checkers and other basic skills we learn without technology. Another example is calculators. Of course without calculators students have to come up with mathematical answers on their own.
Some of the pros outweigh the cons in my opinion, but you could just as easily argue the other way. I think the critical theme is that we need to meet the students where they are at in their lives. By meeting them in their digital age we are doing exactly what we should. Lets go to the students level, which is through computers.
Our Methodology needs to change, but I think the content is still relevant. "Digital immigrants assume that learners are the same as they have always benn" (Article). These articles haev changed my mind a little bit. I thought previously that I would incorporate a reasonable amount of technology, but after reading these articles I would want to incorporate a lot more technology. We need to still teach students the core subjects, but the way we do it needs to change. If we don't teach them social studies then they will miss out on understanding geography, history, psychology. However, we could teach them through computer games instead of through textbooks. I'm all for this kind of a change, but lets leave the subjects that are already in use, stay.
The language that is of the old education system smells like textbooks and paper and pencil assessment. We need to change to a digital language and to do this we need to incorporate cell phones, computers, television, and any new technology. In my childhood I used technology to play games. When I went through high school we used a lot of technology. Lots of computer use. In college there was even more technology. I was using technology a lot and by the time I strated grad school I used even more. There is definitely a trend. Again we need to relate the material to what the students are living in. Meaning, they don't spend as much time reading books as they do playing on their computers. As Bob Dylan sang, "Times are changing" we need to keep up with these changing times. Technology most likely will imporve the learning of our students, it improved my learning when I went through school. I think we just have to utilize it correctly.
In conclusion, I think changing the way we do things will benefit the digital natives. Also, lets change our methodology, but keep the subjects were using. The cons are prevalent, but I don't think they outweigh the pro's. Essentially, lets meet the students where they are at in their lives. Lets, as teachers, go to the students level, which is where the reality is more digital then it used to be.
I agree Mikey, we need to learn technology in our classrooms! Our students are all Digital Natives so it is up to us as teachers to learn the ways of the world. Content can be taught in all forms, and technology is the most interesting way to do it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we HAVE to use technology in the classroom but maybe not switch from paper and pencils to video games. We have to find a realistic middle point where we can meet them. If you really think you can use video games to teach and engage the students then that sounds like one heck of an idea.
ReplyDeleteMikey, I like that you referenced the "best practices" philosophy about making the curriculum relevant to our students' lives -- and if their lives are centered on technology, we at need to figure out how to make educational use of the technology!
ReplyDeleteI also think, like Trevor, that moving to an entirely technology-focused method of instruction is probably not possible or even desirable. For example, most sciences require hands-on experimentation, which is impossible to provide via any kind of device (no matter how sophisticated). I think technology is best utilized to support curriculum and, as teachers, we will continually need to make judgements about how to incorporate technology (such as games) in order to enhance learning.
I agree with what Trevor and Amy said - there needs to be a balance between technology and non-technology stuff in the classroom. I felt like Prensky is really pushing technology a lot. I'm just afraid that with the more technology we start using in the classroom, students will be having real hands on experiences less and less. For example, Wii games are really awesome because you're actually physically active when you play them, but at the same time, playing Wii Bowl isn't as fun as going to a bowling alley and doing it for real.
ReplyDelete