The Myth of the Digital Native
Posted by: Rob Wall in k12online06, teaching, education, educational blogging, education in societyI’m sitting at my kitchen table doing some marking (mid semester marks are due in 2 weeks), and I’m listening to and watching David Warlick in his keynote address to the K12Online Conference (thanks to Dean for the link). I like a lot of what David says, and I respect his thoughtfulness in the field of educational technology. Something is bugging me, however, about the keynote so far. Its not something that David specifically is responsible for instigating, although he and many others (perhaps even me) are guilty of perpetuating - the myth of the digital native.
Perhaps I’m just feeling like a cranky old man because “the big four-oh” is looming in front of me at the end of the month. Perhaps I’m just needing to get this off my chest. I don’t know exactly where this myth came from - I think that Don Tapscott or Mark Prensky may have initiated and incubated it. In his widely cited article Digital Natives Digital Immigrants Prensky describes digital natives thus:
Lest this perspective appear radical, rather than just descriptive, let me highlight some of the issues. Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work. (Does any of this sound familiar?)
It sounds very familiar to me - it is a particularly accurate description of children. I have a couple of them (and some would say my wife has three, but she is far too polite to say such a thing out loud), so I feel qualified to comment on this.
When I watch students working with computers, I don’t see any evidence of digital natives. Their ability to use a computer to create a product - graph, spreadsheet, movie, etc. - is no greater or less that adults. There are undoubtedly some students who are very sophisticated computer users, but as a percentage of the population I would judge that they are equally well represented in the adult population (although I tend to hang out with a particularly geeky crowd given the opportunity). Most students and most adults are quite naive users - they learn simple tasks easily enough, but more complex tasks take more time (although somewhat less with students) and at the end they accomplish these complex tasks by following a series of memorized steps. Quite often the steps they follow are not the most efficient ways of getting the job done, but it does the work. A colleague of mine observed that students don’t really understand the technology any better than most adults, they are just less afraid of making mistakes. They may figure things out on a computer faster, but they are just as likely to be mistaken as an adult.
My concern with the use of this convenient but, I believe, incorrect paradigm of digital natives and digital immigrants. If we project certain qualities and attributes onto our students, instead of learning what they really can do and what they really need to learn, we do them a great disservice by not providing the education (that is, formalized school learning) that they need. We also show great disrespect to them by attributing traits to them instead of coming to know them all as unique and valuable human beings.
Towards the end of his keynote, David suggests that we are learning in new, 21st century ways. I have to disagree and suggest that David (and others) seriously consider these sorts of statements. People are learning in the same way that we always have - mostly from each other, but in some cases we learn in formalized learning institutions. The elements that make for sound instruction, whether formal learning with a teacher teaching a math class to grade nines or informal learning with an apprentice welder learning the trade from a journeyman, have not changed. Indeed they cannot change since they are so deeply dependent on the way our brains work. While it is true that the scope of the communities from which we learn has greatly expanded, the way we communicate (that is, the genres of communication) has not changed although the tools used for communicating (that is, the media of communication) have changed. We write personal essays and journals as people did hundreds of years ago, but we publish them online and call them weblogs. Michel de Montaigne was undoubtedly the first a-list blogger. We send e-mail and messages back and forth to each other, but does this represent a qualitative change from written correspondence? Wikis, with their collaborative writing affordances, have always reminded me of the notes scribbled in margins of books which I personally experienced in university - some of the marginalia were actually quite thoughtful and well written. Our audience may now be world wide and the capability to publish may now be open to anyone, but we are still following genres that are well established and predate any so-called digital natives or their digital immigrant parents.
Entries (RSS)
October 20th, 2006 at 08:36
Great post, Rob! Sparked some neurons here early in the morning…
October 20th, 2006 at 08:50
Rob,
Thanks fo rthe insightful post. I agree that we cannot stereotype an entire generation of leraners with broad and trite labels. I also believe that the generalizations themselves are inaccurate and poorly define the depth and diversity of this learning generation. Hey, you think the big 40 is something, try the big 50!
October 20th, 2006 at 09:54
I’ve also had some concerns about the term and it’s interpretation. For me it’s less about the skill set they have but more about the rate and speed at which they proces information.
With two teenagers in the house the pace at which they interact with friends is very different. They expect information to come at them quickly. They also scan information better than adults.
Not sure if this defines it better, but I agree that the term is often overused and misued.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:33
“People are learning in the same way that we always have”
It’s refreshing to hear someone else with this viewpoint. I’m tired of hearing the phrase ‘e-learning’, particularly from people who are using it as though they’re describing something revolutionary. To me (and yourself, I guess) learning is learning. It’s just that we’re using different (and often better) tools.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:22
Rob, I’m really glad that you took the time for this really insightful post. I’ve often wondered the same things about the DI/DN classifications. Even for myself, I’ve always considered myself more of a DN than a DI, although the lit. doesn’t seem to support those crossovers.
And as for learning in different ways … I think you’re right on the money with this one. Technology supports and enhances these old ways of knowing and learning. And of course, the connections are made more explicit and workable … but this just amplifies what we have done all along. Technology gives us social affordances that we did not have before.
And this blows my mind out of the water that Michel de Montaigne was the first A-list blogger. I always thought it was Doogie Howser.
Great post Rob. I’m glad to see you are back in saddle.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:45
Thank you Rob! You said it better than I will ever be able to but I agree completely with you.
October 20th, 2006 at 15:42
Thanks everyone - your comments (and support for my points) are really appreciated.
Dean - I agree that kids process information quickly, but I don’t know if that’s any different in this generation. I remember studying for chemistry with the TV and stereo both on, while carrying on a phone conversation. As I’ve gotten older, my preference for multiple information inputs has diminished, but I do see my daughter as being the same way sometimes.
Chris and Alec - yep - learning is learning, and we definitely have better tools now than ever before. I think the phrase educational technology puts the emphasis on the technology rather than education. Should we describe our field as technology enhanced education?
October 20th, 2006 at 16:45
However it’s described or labeled, the child of today is learning differently from not too many years ago. And that child has different skills from those who came before. I believe this because I see it, regularly and continually, as a teacher of 8 and 9 year olds for over 15 years. I’m not about to publish a scholarly treatise on the topic, but it’s not rocket science, either - at least to me. Change is happening, and it’s not just in our physical world.
October 20th, 2006 at 17:18
I think there is a lot in what you say, and it’s important to challenge metaphors which eventually people regard as axiomatic. Interestingly enough, I challenged the idea myself (http://www.terry-freedman.org.uk/artman/publish/article_794.php) but more from the point of view that people, whether parents or senior administrators, I think use the excuse of being digital immigrants to justify their lack of action, eg in protecting children online, or promoting good practice, or whatever. As it says in law, ignorance is no excuse!
October 21st, 2006 at 15:12
Mark - based on my experience, I have to disagree with you. Students are learning different things and are interested in different things, but that’s always been the case. The way they learn, again based on my experience, is still the same, but teachers definitely have more tools to create sound instructional opportunities. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mark, but I have to admit I like a lot of the stuff you write.
Terry - I think you have really nailed one of the most important issues about the DI/DN paradigm in that some teachers and parents are quite happy to let kids play in their digital playgrounds without any adult supervision to help them decide what are appropriate actions in that realm - what sites are appropriate to look at, what information about myself do I reveal, how do I react when someone tries to start a flamewar in a discussion group. These are all ethical decisions that students will need some level of guidance in dealing with, just like in the physical world.
October 21st, 2006 at 23:36
To the extent his admittedly simple dichotomy of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” has sparked a lot of thoughtful discussion and reflection like the ideas shared in this post and its comments, I think we should agree Prensky’s article and contribution to our collective understanding of educational technology, teaching and learning in the 21st century is worthwhile. None-the-less, I also agree that we need to look beyond that simplistic lens.
I’ve done a bit of thinking on Christopher Harris’ ideas about looking at whether someone is merely aware of technologies (a voyeur), participating in the use of those technologies, or LIVING the use of them. I think this type of analysis, which is not an overall generaliation by person but rather a technology by technology assessment, is more helpful than what Prensky proposes. For one thing, people can be “native” with some technology tools but “voyeurs” with others. I agree that the media environment has changed and kids have more options for multi-tasking, but I also concur that multi-tasking has been taking place for a very long time among young people and technology tools simply make the fact more obvious and pronounced. The question of whether or not high quality, in-depth learning can take place amidst such multi-tasking is one of the most important questions that seems often overlooked.
October 22nd, 2006 at 04:05
What about being a digital refugee who has left the old and chosen the new? We are caught in the middle of both worlds and luckily (well, I believe) can see the best in both worlds.
October 24th, 2006 at 14:32
[…] It’s probably a combination of these, although I’d probably put the emphasis on the first and last ones. The conversation bloomed somewhat via the comment thread, leading to Others talking about this issue on their blogs. I’ve been meaning to post about if for a while and, being inspired by Dave Warlick’s pre-conference keynote for the K12 Online Conference, I’ve decided to vodcast my thoughts on this… […]
October 29th, 2006 at 15:33
[…] On the reading front George Siemens has another LMS review which as always bangs the nail in the coffin of any VLE. And maybe he is right. Worth downloading and having a look.The Myth of the Digital Native is a great snapshot and post, which really made me think of what is happening in my classrooms in Egypt and how the supposed Digital Natives don’t seem to be as native as they are supposed to be. In fact maybe the native is more willing to just let technologies wash over them, and not really even understand the processes behind them? Finally don’t forget to take a look at the lecture by Mr. Greenfield relating to his everyware book, which looks into ubiquitous computing in a simple and effective way. […]
December 26th, 2006 at 00:00
Rob,
I’ve compiled a summary page of different critiques of Prensky’s “digital natives / digital immigrants” slogan on my learning evolves wiki, here
It’s hard work but important to distinguish between the attention grabbing fads and deeper, more fundamental changes.
December 29th, 2006 at 01:54
Bill - sorry it took me awhile to approve your comment. I’ve been on a blogging and e-mail break during the school Christmas break.
I agree with you about the importance of separating the fads from the fundamentals. Difficult at times, but there is an ethical imperative for us (educators, in a formal and informal sense) to do so.
Thanks for sharing the resources you compiled; I’m honoured and humbled to be included.
January 12th, 2007 at 13:49
[…] Rob Wall got a bit frustrated listening to a keynote speaker talk about Digital Natives, and decided to blog his opinion here. He argues many of the same points that I do - but perhaps articulates them better! […]
June 1st, 2007 at 16:24
Since, everyone who has read this blog seems to be an educator, I thought you might like some insight from the other side. While I’m not exactly your target audience ( I’m currently a senior college student), I’ve been using social media since the 7th grade; which makes me a “Digital Native”.
In terms of the value of social media in education there are two things that I know are true: 1) that we find community in it and 2: WE DO USE IT. Facebook and wiki’s for example, are being used by most college students to conduct class projects. In terms of scientific evidence, the Just Think Foundation - a non-profit dedicated to media education - is planning to release findings on the first study on media literacy proving that it does have a positive impact on the critical thinking skills in middle school students.
In terms of the difference between natives and immigrants, I think that social media gives us speed and power. Beleive it or not,
“natives” do expect information as it happens as well as the ability to have our inputs heard. If as educators you can’t see that, well, than, I would call you an “immigrant”….
Even from a business standpoint ( drawing from my business degree and internship), ecorporations are changing to meet the demands of social media users. To say that the webcasts are the same as print publication is unrealistic. The internet has changes society, and as educators I beleive that you have to change with it.
August 21st, 2007 at 13:45
[…] point is that we don’t look critically enough at blogging in education. How can we change […]
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:04
Hello,
I should introduce myself for background so that my post will be taken in context. I am a 63 year old “geek” or “guru” or, as I like to think, just plain curious. I am completing a BS degree in Information Systems. I have always had family or something get in the way and now it is my turn. I have been involved with computers since the IBM 360, Mod 20, in 1965 and have a different overview of “Digital Natives.”
I am older than most of my teachers and professors and well beyond their education in my specialty, but there are always unique features and insights to every subject I take and, most importantly, I can never get enough of the “educational process.” I simply love learning.
Now, I must strongly disagree with most of your original post and most of the others. Though thoughtful and insightful you (and me) are dinosaurs. We are. I have a 14 year old grand-daughter who is on another planet, quite literally sometimes. The children in her generation do learn differently. You think you can understand but, you simply are not “wired” to do this. There has been a paradigm (I don’t like that word) change that I have just begun to notice. It is almost as if cave men were brought into this century. You may not like this, I don’t, and that really, is of no importance.
It is difficult to describe these changes. I have no empirical evidence of this, but I know it just as surely as I know I am typing this, in nice English, instead of texting in macros and broke English. My generation especially, as well as My 40 year old son, simply can not and will not be able to, understand what is happening. I think Toffler’s third wave is here and is overpowering us all without our knowledge.
I am not asking you to believe me, just go to some teenager who trusts you but is not related. Try and have an intellectual conversation, and you will find you are on different wave lengths, completely different frequencies. I have been studying this phenomena for some time and the pedagogy is alien to me. I am not aware of as many inputs as these young folks. They do learn differently, the stimulations are different. You simply can not suggest there are similarities between the mechanical usage of the way a young person interfaces with a computer and an adult of 30. None of us speak that language, the digital age has finally outdistanced most who are 25 or so and older.
Please have an open mind. Study, empirically, what I am suggesting. You will be surprised, I promise.