blog@geibtechforlearning

Marc Prensky argues in his articles, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” and “Do They Really Think Differently?” that students today think and learn differently than their instructors. Prensky refers to the instructors as Digital Immigrants. They did not grow up with the technology and as a result have an “accent” when using the technology. The students are referred to as Digital Natives; they grew up with the technology. Pensky argues that the two groups process information differently.
Prensky’s first addresses the ways in which teachers present information to the students. In order to engage students, teachers must move faster and present the information in a parallel fashion. This may work for some students; however, many students struggle to keep up with the pace as is. They have processing difficulty or other learning challenges. Moving quicker and presenting information with out step by instruction would create even greater problems for these students.
Teaching both material from the past, “legacy” and “future” material is a challenge that instructors must face head on. It is important for students to not only learn the classics of the past, but also be well prepared to compete in the global job market. Teachers should work to combine the material to engage the students and teach them the value of information from the past and prepare them for the future.
The idea of The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy is an interesting approach to learning. I could see my students getting excited about learning math through a video game. However, I would not want to be the one to explain the concept to their parents. The parents are also digital immigrants and don’t see them embracing video games as a form of instruction.
Students today are stimulated in different ways than their parents or instructors were while growing up. I don’t think that this means they think or process information differently than students in the past did. This information means that teachers must present information in ways that is more engaging to students. It is not a matter of what students are capable of doing, but rather a matter of what they are willing to do or want to do. Their brains are capable of learning in many different forms; however, the struggle comes in engaging them and motivating them to want to learn.
The Digital Native/ Digital Immigrant issue is one that educators must address in order to be effective teachers. I don’t think it is as black and white as Prensky presents. I think there are various degrees of digital comfort. Teachers must differentiate instruction in order to address the various levels of the students.

Marc Prensky argues in his articles, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” and “Do They Really Think Differently?” that students today think and learn differently than their instructors. Prensky refers to the instructors as Digital Immigrants. They did not grow up with the technology and as a result have an “accent” when using the technology. The students are referred to as Digital Natives; they grew up with the technology. Pensky argues that the two groups process information differently.
Prensky’s first addresses the ways in which teachers present information to the students. In order to engage students, teachers must move faster and present the information in a parallel fashion. This may work for some students; however, many students struggle to keep up with the pace as is. They have processing difficulty or other learning challenges. Moving quicker and presenting information with out step by instruction would create even greater problems for these students.
Teaching both material from the past, “legacy” and “future” material is a challenge that instructors must face head on. It is important for students to not only learn the classics of the past, but also be well prepared to compete in the global job market. Teachers should work to combine the material to engage the students and teach them the value of information from the past and prepare them for the future.
The idea of The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy is an interesting approach to learning. I could see my students getting excited about learning math through a video game. However, I would not want to be the one to explain the concept to their parents. The parents are also digital immigrants and don’t see them embracing video games as a form of instruction.
Students today are stimulated in different ways than their parents or instructors were while growing up. I don’t think that this means they think or process information differently than students in the past did. This information means that teachers must present information in ways that is more engaging to students. It is not a matter of what students are capable of doing, but rather a matter of what they are willing to do or want to do. Their brains are capable of learning in many different forms; however, the struggle comes in engaging them and motivating them to want to learn.
The Digital Native/ Digital Immigrant issue is one that educators must address in order to be effective teachers. I don’t think it is as black and white as Prensky presents. I think there are various degrees of digital comfort. Teachers must differentiate instruction in order to address the various levels of the students.

Why am I so offended by the idea of being a “digital immigrant?” It sounds so biased and condescending: digital immigrant. Marc Prensky states in his article, “ As Digital Immigrants learn – like all immigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree, their “accent,” that is, their foot in the past.” I hate that. That means I am a digital immigrant! And I will always have that accent. But is he right? Is it true? I so do not want to agree, but what choice do I have? For the most part, I think he may indeed be correct and I will forever carry a slight accent when it comes to technology. (Although I might argue that it was my generation and those slightly before me that created the digital interface and therefore, not all are immigrants. I would say as the creators they are also natives. But these individual may be the exception to the rule and are few and far between in our society so statistically speaking they may not “really count.”)
Prensky seems somewhat extreme in his opinions on the whole digital matter though. He claims that students have “different brain structures” and that their “ thinking patterns have changed.” I absolutely agree that their thinking patterns have changed, but different brain structures? I was extremely skeptical, but I agree with his evidence that the brain is malleable and is capable of reorganizing itself. However, I do not believe that the structure itself has changed any more than the brain structure between the TV generation (mine) and its preceding generation has changed. In either case, I do not think structural changes are what are really important. What I find more interesting is the way that teachers are willing, or not willing, to deal with whichever change has occurred in the brain and in fact, in the way students learn. The teachers of the TV generation seemed to have no trouble incorporating video into our classrooms. I wonder why the integration of technology is fought by so many?
Learning how to teach our students so that learning occurs is really the goal of every teacher, or at least it should be. I think Prensky is right that the way students can learn has been changed. I am not sure I agree with focusing on gaming only but I love the idea of creating a meaningful, well-organized game to support learning. As Prensky says, “The trick…. is to make the learning games compelling enough to actually be used in their (videogames) place. They must be real games, not just drill with eye-candy, combined creatively with real content.” Unfortunately, I think he is right. Currently, there are very few games out there that are created in such a manner and this has turned many teachers “off.” I think the implementation of such games would be more accepted if better games were developed. I think we are just at the beginning of such a realm. One only has to look at the Wii and its influence on fitness to see how effective games can be for students. The Wii has brought in a new scope to fitness that attracts many students to “want” to work out simply because of its video gaming style. Perhaps the influx of good educational teaching games can begin to have the same influence the Wii had on the opinion of those dead set against video games in all situations. The Wii is not the entire answer to our fitness dilemma, but it can be a step in the right direction for the digital natives generation. Perhaps the teachers of the future need to embrace what the Wii seems to be and include the video game format as yet another avenue into their student’s brains and learning and also be a step in the right learning direction.
I wonder if technology has inadvertently created a new learning style in our digital natives? Personally, I am terrible at video games so learning in this method would be a disaster for me. Prensky would argue that my lack of ability is only a part of my immigrant accent. I would therefore argue back, what about my daughter? She is eight and is showing very little ability in the video game realm. But my boys! Man, are they good at it. They are the typical kids who would spend hours in front of a video if I would let them. Maybe this is a learning style that would be good for them where my daughter may be at a disadvantage with this style. I would then propose that as teachers attempt to reach all learning styles, they include digital learning, perhaps in the form of video games. I like calling it “edutainment” and agree that this style of teaching should be incorporated at some level in the classroom to help meet the needs of all styles of learning.
Technology has allowed students of today a new avenue in which to learn. I do not know if the structure of their brain has actually changed, but I agree that the way they process information is probably different. Looking out into my classroom and watching the way my students process information, I can see why Prensky would say, “It’s as though their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential.” I think every child today is probably able to multitask on a different level than previous generations. Thinking about the Sesame Street example. I remember when I was in school our teachers telling us that we could really only learn things in 13-minute segments because that was how long it was between TV commercials. I think our teachers somewhat adapted to the way we processed and learned information. However, we still had to learn “the basics.” So should we as teachers adapt to this new way of thinking. I think there must be a balance. Where students today can probably pick up information in a quicker digital format, I also believe they like the comfort of clear, concise directions with a one thing at a time format. While student teaching in a fifth grade classroom, I sent my students on a digital web quest about the American Revolution. I had previously explored the site and personally thought it was very straightforward. Even as an immigrant, I had no trouble maneuvering the site. Much to my surprise, the students were very flabbergasted about the whole assignment. They were confused on the expectations, had difficulty figuring out how to use the intuitive site, and were opposed to this type of learning, at least initially. Remember, this is a site this digital immigrant had maneuvered easily. I figured I was about a fifth grade technological level. Once I figured out that they needed me to go over the assignment step by step and in fact model part of it, they then flew. So are all students the instant technological learners that we thought? Perhaps it is not as intuitive for all of them as proposed. Although I think Prensky would argue this was not a video game, I still thought it was interesting that these digital natives wanted me to create a paper and pencil checklist for them to follow.
So even though I think learning has changed from when I was in school, I still believe that the basics of teaching are still valuable to this generation. And even though I believe our students can probably learn faster with digital technologies, they still need their teachers to help lead and guide them. I love the ideas that Prensky is bringing forth as new ways to reach this generation but would also maintain that there is room for the basics of learning in the classroom and the teaching techniques of old. Where a digital video game may be fantastic at teaching historical information, a basic lesson on multiplication also has its place. I think it is up to each individual teacher to find the way to teach to her class in the best way possible to help them prepare for their futures. It is imminently possible that those futures include the use of technology, even in the form of a video game. I believe a teacher must be open to using technology in the classroom, not only for the benefit of the student’s learning, but also to prepare them for their technological futures.

In his articles “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” and “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?” Marc Prensky argues that today’s students (or digital natives) think and learn different from “students in the past” and their immigrant teachers. He uses the term digital natives to describe current students; due to the vast influence technology has had in their lives. These students have been affected by technology since birth and incorporate the technologies into their daily lives. On the other hand, Prensky describes the teachers as “digital immigrants.” Technology did not influence their lives while growing up. A great example he states, “ The digital immigrant accent can be seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first” (p.2). He is concerned about education and states that both groups think and process information differently; their thinking patterns have changed.

Prensky believes that the brains between the two groups are “physically different as a result of the digital input they received growing up” (p. 1). He provided evidence from neurobiology, social psychology, and studies based on using games for learning. Based on the facts, I agree with him. Throughout our lives any type of stimulation “changes brain structures and affects the way people think” (p. 1). Of course our brains think differently, especially since the digital natives have been so strongly influenced by the new technologies.

Due to the fact that brain reorganization occurs when one pays attention to the task, Biofeedback requires more than fifty sessions to produce results. Another program, Scientific Learning’s Fast ForWard requires that students “spend 100 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 5 to 10 weeks to create desired changes, because “it takes sharply focused attention to rewire a brain”” (p. 3). We have been following this process in the classroom with reading instruction. The correlation Prensky makes between the time spent and focused attention and video games is superb! I believe this to be a great addition to the classroom as an interactive learning and teaching tool for all subject matters. Prensky also addresses the different blend of cognitive skills the digital natives possess.

Today’s student’s attention span is affected by their difference in thinking to the digital immigrants. “”Sure they have short attention spans-for the old ways of learning”” (p. 4). He believes their attention spans are not short for anything that interests them or games. Personally I can relate to the Sesame Street research. I enjoy having music in the background or the television on while I am reading, writing, driving, organizing or browsing the web; I like to multitask. Students will begin to choose to pay attention if we make learning fun. I’m in favor of learning video games in the classroom.

If we implement video games into the classroom students may also be more eager to learn because of their prior experiences, “this is a medium they are very familiar with and really enjoy” (p. 5). In order to use these video gaming tools in the classroom “the trick, though, is to make the learning games compelling enough to actually be used in their place. They must be real games, not just drill with eye-candy, combined creatively with real content” (p. 5). Research from the Lightspan Partnership, Click Health and Fast ForWard all back up this notion.

“Practice-time spent on learning-works. Kids don’t like to practice. Games capture their attention and make it happen. And of course they must be practicing the right things, so design is important” (p.6). Teachers should work with creators of video gaming systems to create fun, engaging learning games. Then we’ll have the digital immigrants working with digital natives and assisting in advancing their knowledge of technology.

I do believe technology is a new learning style and this will work for some students, but not all. We, as teachers, need to meet the needs of all students. We should all be lifelong learners. We need to build our knowledge of digital teaching in order to help our students gain the same knowledge we have. I agree with Prensky, though I believe I am more of a digital native than immigrant. I grew up surrounded by new technologies always trying to convince my parents into buying the latest gadget for me. I think that there needs to be a group that meets in the middle. Regardless of category, all teachers, natives or immigrants need to address this new learning style.

Prensky argues that there are two types of people when it comes to technology. One sort is what he calls "Digital Natives" which are those individuals who were born during the digital age and have learned how to use technology with ease. Then, there are those Pensky calls "Digital Immigrants." These are people who were born before the digitial age and have, therefore, had to learn this "new language." I think his assessment of people is correct because there is overwhelming evidence of these two different types of people.

Looking back at people I know and myself, I can also make the assessment that there are these two types of people. However, I also believe there is a sort of third type of person in the middle. Certainly there are those individuals, like the professors Prensky wrote about in the article "Do They Really Think Differently?", who believe that instruction should be conducted in a strict, chronological order and lecture. Those would be people my parents' age and older. The other people he talks about, the "Digital Natives", are those individuals that were born perhaps a few years after me in the 90's. What about my generation, the generation from 1975-ish to 1989-ish? There is a great deal of difference between television, CD players, and walkmans from the internet, MP3 players, and cell phones. I was not born during the rise of the latter three though I am classified as a "Digital Native". I had to learn a few things (not too much) about the new technologies rather than pick it up naturally (like breathing) like the kids nowadays. However, I will not say that I think lecture is where instruction should be. I believe that education should evolve with the way students are learning and technology should be used in the classroom. Really, what does that make me? I am apparently more of the "Native" side than the "Immigrant" side.

Then, Pensky argues that people should invent video games to teach children. Although I think that utilizing video games as a way to channel education to our students is an extraordinary idea, there also have to be some precautions. First and foremost, students SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO KNOW THAT IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL VIDEO GAME. Why? Students hate anything related to school. Knowing that a video game is remotely educational will only make them reject the concept and we will have wasted several thousands (perhaps millions?) of dollars into a video game that will never be played. Also, developers must make the games into something that peaks interest. Solving missions with a monkey? Really? Kids don't want a monkey. I am not supporting violence here but students (particularly males) love violent video games. Anything non-violent is boring to them. I won't argue that Pensky's ideas will work, but only if they're targeted toward the younger crowd. How will I, as a single-subject English teacher, be able to interest students into video games about a monkey?

There is a reason why video games are popular. They are popular because people enter worlds that don't have to do with school. I don't remember Final Fantasy teaching kids about World War II, or how Romeo and Juliet were star-crossed lovers (although, it's great for simple math). Barbie games really only function for those who want to become hair-stylists. The only video games that have worked that were really there to serve a purpose were the dancing ones, "Dance Dance Revolution". There is competition and strategy in these games (you try matching pink eye-liner with tacky outfits in those Barbie games) that holds a child's interest. I cannot fathom a child getting into a video game that all of a sudden breaks into a scene where they have to learn about midieval history.

Prensky also writes about attention spans. I have always been under the impression that the reason students have short attention spans nowadays is because of television (what with thirty-second commercials and all). Prensky makes a point, though, that students' "attention spans are not short for games," ("Do They Really Think Differently?" 4) because it grabs onto their interests. When it comes to lecture, students shut down and think about how mean Susie was to Bobby at the dance. We, as educators, have to be aware of this and evolve so that students pay attention in class more.

Surely, Prensky makes many valuable points in his articles. Some, however, are faulty and can be improved. As someone who played video games as much as little dogs bark, I know that there are some games that will not appeal to kids. Developers will have to come up with better ideas. Also, we as teachers must evolve with these kids, as prensky suggests, so that we can properly educate our students.

Students have been exposed to more technologies in comparison to students 50 years ago. So it brings up the questions has students thinking process changed? Do they now learn differently than 50 years ago? I believe they do learn differently and their thinking process also changed with time difference. Students from 50 years ago and now have different experiences and different technological abilities. Marc Prensky mentions in his paper Do They Really Think Differently? “people who grow up in different cultures do not just think about different things they actually think differently . The environment and culture in which people are raised effects and even determine many of their thought processes.” Since our environment exposed us to much more technology I believe students now have different thinking process.
Marc P categorizes two different types of groups Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives have grown up and can “speak” the digital language. Digital Immigrants are out dated when we speak of technology. As an example I am observing my mom and my younger sister who is 17 years old. My mom would be a digital immigrant and my sister would be digital native. My sister is up to date in the latest technology she grew up with it. My sister is often trying to update my mom into technology she just showed her how to text and use her e-mail. My sister was so happy when my mom was able to text message. My mom loves to e-mail. Digital immigrants are able to learn new technology however my mom did not pick it up as quickly as my sister. Using text messaging and e-mail is where her technology abilities stop. She doesn’t desire to learn any more. For my mom there is no need to learn more. However my sister is always learning new thing when it comes with technology. She picks it up very quickly
In a way students are Digital Natives and teachers are Digital Immigrants. Since students thinking processes are now different should our teaching methods change? Absolutely, everything else around us is changing why should education stay the same. The teaching methods are always changing and the new change is to incorporate technology. However I feel that technology is changing so rapidly, so by the time you finish your four year teaching degree, work on your credential, and get your own class room technology has already changed. New technology has already grabbed the student’s attention. Education will never be up to date when I come to technology since it cost money to be able to afford up to date technology.
I do not feel our educational system should be only technology. Elementary, middle school, and high schools worry of preparing these students for the real world and college however the majority of colleges are not up to date with technology. They do not make the lesson a video game so that the student is able to learn or their learning improves. It is a sink or swim environment you either get it or you don’t. Next semester the teaching style will be the same. The same could be said of some jobs. The world will not become on big video game so that the new generation can function.
I do believe students’ education should change its teaching methods and incorporate up to date technology however I don’t think everything should be technology based. At least not yet we still need students to be able to use a paper and pencil a use their own brain solve problems, to come up with ideas, to use their imagination.

In Marc Prensky’s articles “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” and “Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?” he defines “digital natives” as today’s learners, K-college, who are “fluent” with technology, as opposed to “the rest of us” who he refers to as “digital immigrants” with accents that we will never quite lose. Prensky claims that the brains of “digital natives” are structurally different and that “today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (p. 1). Along with this claim, which I am not entirely in agreement with, Prensky argues that “digital immigrant” teachers who are “not-so-smart” or “not-so-flexible” spend most of their time “grousing about how good things were in the “old country.”
I do agree with Prensky that educators who are insistent on teaching only using their laminated 30 year old notes need to get on board. However, I do not agree with his narrow definition of all “digital immigrants” as being resistant to change, and unwilling to accept that today’s students can learn from technology including video games, on-line games, etc. I do not agree that all teachers have those views. Perhaps Prensky should include two additional categories, one for “digital natives” who aren’t so consumed by the digital world, and one for teachers who are willing to learn and change. A good name that could apply to both of these groups might be “tweeners” as used by Tracy L. Cross in his article “Digital Immigrants, Natives, and "Tweeners": A Glimpse Into the Future for Our Students With Gifts and Talents”. Cross defines “tweeners with this explanation: “so while all four children are technically savvy and digitally literate, only two are seemingly representative of the digital native category. The two older children are "tweeners," in that they walk relatively comfortably among two cultures to the extent and in the manner that they care to”.
With this definition in mind, many teachers could also be considered as “tweeners.” Those of us who are in our 30s and 40s who may have had more exposure and openness to the digital world would fit into this category nicely. We are the teachers who realize that, whether their brains are physically or structurally different or not, today’s students are used to a fast paced environment that we typically do not offer in the classroom, and we acknowledge that these students “have little patience for lectures, step-by-step logic, and “tell-test” instruction” (p. 3). We are the teachers who are trying to instruct students who may or may not have cell phones, I-pods, video games and computers at home, at the same time as we are instructing those “digital natives” who do have all the gadgets. We are the instructors who may not be fully bilingual, but we are at the intermediate stage. We want to learn, grow, and perfect our craft. We are the teachers who do sign up for the technology classes offered by our school districts. We are the teachers who ask our own children to teach us when they learn a new digital trick.
Prensky asks the question, “So what should happen? Should the Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should their digital immigrant educators learn the new? Unfortunately, no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely that the Digital Natives will go backwards.” In this case, I do agree with Prensky in general. I liken teachers who do not use the tools available to them to doctors who refuse to use new medical technology because it wasn’t what they originally learned. If doctors had that attitude, many of us would never have needed cat-scans, MRIs, angioplasty, liver, kidney, lung or heart transplants. So it is with teachers… we do a disservice to our students when we do not stay current with modern tools of our trade.
Finally, Prensky claims that the resistant “digital immigrant” teachers are lazy. Again, this is a generality that is unfair and inaccurate. Maybe fear is a better word than lazy. Many teachers feel that the technology of today is so far above their heads that they can’t possibly get up to speed in a timely manner to impact their students during their remaining teacher tenure. Although this may be the case, these teachers should still be learning how to use digital tools. Perhaps a good solution is to have the “digital native” teachers partnered with the “digital immigrant” teachers to share the latest technology. Just like anything else that has a learning curve, once the learner is exposed to it, the fear dies down, and the learning takes place.

Prensky argues that young people today are fundamentally different than they were before. He says that our students have changed radically and are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. Is this true? I think it is because new technology has incorporated to our world and we as educators should be up to date in teaching what is new to our students. We should always be open to new technology so our students could be more interested.
I think that digital technologies have influence students to the point that they are different from when I was in school. Just like Dr. Bruce D. Perry said “different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures.” I really believe that the students brains have physically changed and are different from ours do to the way they grew up. Before in order to do a book report we had to go to the library and do research through books and encyclopedias, now you could do it from home by looking it up in the internet.

Our new generation is now called “native speakers” because they know the digital language of computers, video games and the internet. I consider myself a digital immigrant because I am still learning the new technology. I still remember the time that I used a typewriter; it was a headache because I had to write it by hand and then type it and if I had a mistake, I had to go back and white it out or type it all over again. Nowadays it is so easy just to get on Microsoft word, type your paper hit spell check, and print.

Today’s learners are more interested in creative learning to be engage and interested in the subject. They are most likely to pay attention if the teacher incorporates media into their learning instead of always hearing their professor lecture all day long. It is good to use PowerPoint for the visual learners and YouTube for the auditory and visual learners. By using these two media your students could learn more and focus longer.

I think that the only way that the students are the same from when I was their age is that they still have to take tests the same way, pencil and paper and that they have homework to do. Other than that, they are completely different because they are smarter and could do things faster with the help of the new technology. For example, the computer, it could not think for you for it could definitely help you check your spelling and your grammar. Also, the students from today could multi-tasks by doing homework and listening to music in their iPod because that’s what they are use to doing. They have mentally programmed their brain to do two things at once. Now, we could not do that because we did not have iPods back then and because if we did homework we would try to do it in a quiet place.
Moreover, I think that it would be a great idea to invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels for all those students who learn better through playing games. That way, the students could have fun as they learn and would not get bored.