Reflections on Prensky's Ideas

There is a new idea in learning, as supported by Prensky (2001), that we can all be classed as either digital natives or digital immigrants.  According to this theory, teachers must alter their pedagogy to use all the digital technologies their students have grown-up with because this is the way society has already trained them to think and learn.

I agree with Prensky to a  point.  As society and culture changes, teaching must also change with it.  If digital technologies are a functioning part of society, then they must be included in schools.  However, the danger in any theory, I believe, is when they are taken to the extreme.  There is a reason why children are under the care of adults, and as adults we need to take a measured approach.  If allowed, children would prefer or demand to eat sugar at all possible opportunities.  While sugar (i.e. glucose) is essential for a body to function, this does not mean large doses of it are beneficial for their health.  Similarly, just because children would prefer to consume their attention with digital technologies does not mean solely digital techniques are beneficial for their learning.  These may be the current ways to gain students’ attention, but does it actually produce learning that is remembered and able to be applied again elsewhere?  Or are they just attention-getting techniques that are easily forgotten?

My issue with the digital native theory is that it subscribes to the theory that once a person’s brain is wired it cannot be changed.  This is not true.  Current research suggests that our brains are plastic for our entire lives and can be rewired (Doidge, Norman. (2008). The Brain That Changes Itself: stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. London: Penquin.) Just because a child's brain has been wired to receive information a certain way does not mean it cannot be rewired (remember the brain is plastic) or should not be exposed to different learning experiences.  Surely there is benefit in something being unique to the learner, whether this experience is considered ‘new’ or ‘old’ style.  I believe those who are able to learn in many different environments, even if they have a preference for one, will be more prepared for life.

Today I was talking to a current highschool teacher about using digital technologies in the classroom, and she made a similar point to Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008) and Thrupp (2009), that not all students are equal in their exposure to digital technologies.  In fact, she had just spent a number of class lessons instructing students on how to use a certain technology rather than covering any curriculum material.  It is also important to note that the world in which these children will ultimately need to function and live in will also contain varying levels of digital usage.  The current students will need to be able to work successfully with people who will be 10 or 20 years older than them (who will possibly even be their bosses) and have different levels of digital expertise.

While it is true that society is continually changing, there is always a mix of the old and the new.  And so a mix of the old and the new in teaching strategies will be beneficial for students as it will more closely mirror the culture they are to live in once their formal schooling has finished.  The challenge is for teachers to provide a schooling experience that truly prepares students for the ‘real world’.