Generation - Wait, Me?

Digital Natives, as defined by Marc Prensky are current K-12 students....when he wrote the article in 2001. That, my dear reader, makes me a digital native.

I have some initial feelings on the subject. Below are just some initial reactions on the Prenskey (2001) and Kirschner (2017) articles.

SEMANTICS

Do I find the term "Digital Native" to be scientific? No. Do I find there to be some truth within the idea of a Digital Native? Yes. Do I find the term harmful? Again, no.  Here I am going to explore a few points made in regard to the attention span, abilities and adaptation of and for so-called Digital Natives.

For one, I both believe that both do a disservice in the though of what a "Digital Native" constitutes. Kirschner cites articles and studies that look at the idea of a Digital Native through such a literal lens. As if a child born in 1995 and out of the womb knows how to function a PlayStation. Of course there is learning to be done. Digital Native, to me, is not a synonym for being tech savvy. Below is a great graphic from a blog that says that Millennials are a huge threat to corporate data because we can't do things, even techy things. I know! Millennials! That's the one thing we are supposed to do, right!?

Children are getting involved in technology at younger and younger ages. Does this constitute an automatic mastery of all aspects of technology? Obviously not. There is a need for instruction to help learners leverage technology in a way that works for them. However, just as learning a second language at a young age is easier than learning a second language as an adult, early education in technology can lead an easier understanding and positioning of themselves online later on. Feel comfortable in a digital environment can help someone be more open to learning other tasks through that medium later on. Just like a new language, you have to help them learn the vocabulary before you conjugate.

ATTENTION SPAN

The Prensky article points out that Digital Natives are accustomed to multitasking. I did not interpret this as a specific trait attributed only to this generation. I also did not read into him claiming if the concept of multitasking in the implied way of actually doing two things simultaneously. We know today that there is a switching in the brain and that even if "doing two things at once", you are actually doing multiple things just switching back in rapid succession. According to MIT professor, Earl Miller, while there’s "no such thing as true multitasking, the younger generation will be better at switching focus from one task to another" because they have had more practice from younger ages.

I find fault in there not being more information that speaks to the ability of a Digital Native to be fully engrossed with long periods of attention in things they find value in or are in any way interested in. I do not find the attention span issue to be specifically related to technology. Attention span is one of those things always attributed to the youth. In the '80s, Gen X was accused of being burnouts. The first generation of latchkey kids where divorce rates were up and both parents worked, they were the original MTV generation. As technology progressed, it has become easier to spot when boredom strikes. Instead of staring out a window or closing their eyes, the interconnected feel a twitch, an urge, to check their phone. To scroll Facebook. To do something other than pay attention. Generally speaking, many younger generations have had access to these types of things from younger and younger ages.

I think the tongue-in-cheek "Gen Z has an attention span of 8-seconds" to not be extremely harmful for instructional designers, facilitators, or other general humans to believe. Utilizing design and some flash and pizazz when able can be helpful to keep learning fresh and interesting. Conferences and classes alike have been more memorable for me as a learner when the facilitator or instructor utilizes an array of knowledge checks and leverages technology into their instruction.

Apparently, what people consider Digital Natives

GAMIFICATION

I loved educational video games growing up. Which reminds me, do you think my NeoPets are still alive? Along with every JumpStart CD-ROM ever created, I also remember playing a Madeline video game in which there were mini-games with math and reading comprehension while you traveled to far off places like Istanbul. There were probably many others. Can I tell you if those games had a profound affect on my education? No, but there were probably much less constructive ways I could have filled my time.

My Jam

Overall, I agree with Prensky's assertion that gamification can lead to real learning, especially in those that are younger. In those not as literate with technology, there can be too much emphasis on the rules and tools and take away the focus from the lesson trying to be conveyed. Certain games can be too routine for others. When the design is right and everything goes according to plan? Perfect.

ADAPTATION

The Kirschner article raises the question of "whether the digital native actually exists, let alone if their existence would be a valid reason to adapt education to them" which, to me, reads as fairly closed minded. Within reason, I find there to be a strong case to be made for always adapting education to fit your learners. He sites a study of Hong Kong University students in which students utilize technology for communication and entertainment more than supporting their education. My question to this would be if the school or professors spent any time teaching the students how they can do this? Were the students thoroughly taught how technology can help them in the studies? Are professors assigning work that requires 21st century thinking that could help strengthen that muscle? Overall, if a student is expected to sit in a lecture hall for 3 hours a week, read a couple of chapters in a textbook and take two tests based off of these two actions -- why would they spend any time with technology for education?

I find Prensky's points on how the curriculum of the American education systems needed to adapt to the new generation valid. I think that, 19 years later, that is still a relevant discussion. There is no doubt, a need to learn math. One cannot enter certain STEM careers without a strong base knowledge, but I do find his example of including more technology specific learning such as binary in the curriculum to be valid.

What are your takeaways from the discussion on Digital Natives?