blog@geibtechforlearning

It's crazy to begin thinking about how students in our classrooms learn these days versus when we were students ourselves sitting in those same small desks with gum stuck to the bottom of the chair. It would be easy to state students have it so much easier than we did. I feel old even thinking about, "When I was your age, we didn't have those things called cell phones or internet. We used to walk miles uphill, through the snow,..." Ok maybe not, but even thinking about the lack of technology we didn't possess back then, we still felt as though we had the coolest stuff. I do believe that will always be the case. Even today, a cell phone that would only make phone calls would be "stupid". We don't even call them cell phones anymore, aren't they called "smart phones". I remember when cell phones came out with a color screen. That was the coolest stuff back then. Now, it has progressed way beyond anything we've had prior and will only continue to grow as technology advances

Sorry, getting back to our students today. Most don't even appreciate the advances we've made to technology because they haven't witnessed the drastic change made over the past 20 years. Now again, we thought our generation had it so tough. My guess is twenty years from now our students will be saying the same thing. "Remember when we could only use our smart phones for web access, phone calls, and teleporting". Ok, maybe that's a little far stretched ... or is it!!!

Now thinking about our first class, it really got me thinking as to not only how we are a different generation than our students now, but how much we are still the same. Looking at our circle examples, what motivated students back in the 70's and 80's still has a factor on our students in the 21st century. They still have life issues with family, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, sporting activities, after school activities, social or academic clubs, church or the lack of church, the popularity contest, fitting in, finding a place to live or something to eat, etc. This list goes on and on. As much as we have come to know technology and its advances, we quickly realize that our students are also dealing with the same issues we have been for years, and I'm sure this won't change over the next twenty years as well.

Now I'd have to agree that the advances made to technology have made things easier, faster, more accessible, but has it truly made things easier or simply more complicated. Let's think about this for a moment. Prior to owning a cell phone or pager, we relied on waiting to get home to see if someone left a message on our answering machine. Then we'd have to call them back in hopes that they are still around their phone at home to answer and have a conversation. Now that we have these "smart phones" to can not only attempt to get a hold of someone by calling them on a cell phone, you can send them an instant message via text or even using internet capabilities via facebook or email. Lately, I think it's been getting out of control with twitter. Now it's not important enough to give access to people by calling you on a cell or smart phone, you have to tell them where you are in hopes that they really care. I love the advancement of technology but isn't this getting a little out of hand with being too accessible.

Steve Lara
Marc Prensky states in Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” (pg. 1) I agree that our educational system is not made to teach kids who are used to playing video games instead of reading books and who think non digital teaching methods are an old boring language to be resisted. He explains that students today grew up using video technologies from birth and so learned modern technology such as texting and computers as a language from birth. They learned digital technology early enough to make it a 1st language, like kids born in the US learn English as a 1st language and so he calls such kids “digital natives.” Learning using the native language should be easier and preferable for kids because they were born into it. Our students today spend much more time playing with digital text technology than reading books. (pg. 1) When I look at the compare and contrast Venn diagram from class, I think students from 30 years ago still faced the same social situations compared to modern students but technology has made communication easier and increased exposure to and dependence on faster communication and video stimulation technology. This is similar to when I find radio too boring because of lack of video stimulation.
I would agree with the author that most of our teachers were not born in a world full of digital technology other than TV and so had to learn much technology as a second language. This means that most teachers are “digital immigrants”, less comfortable with computers and technology in general than the students and so are less able to connect with and teach today’s kids because of the technology language barrier. (pg. 2) Our educational system today is designed to teach in the old way of having students read books because that is what worked in the past. Video was used in the past but was not the main teaching method, and I have personally known some teachers that don’t take their class to the computer lab or teach using computers because they do not think computers can help their kids pass the standardized state tests their jobs depend on.
I believe that students today have been influenced so heavily by texting, video games, and the internet that their willingness to learn by reading books or listen to lectures has greatly diminished compared to when I was in school. Their demand for stimulation from video especially interactive video as in games has greatly increased although I remember greatly preferring watching movies to lectures when I was a student. I think too much lecturing is why our students are generally performing poorly in school. Kids I talk to today generally tell me that school is boring because they just listen to the teacher talking or practice doing endless multiplication problems without meaning.
I agree with the author when he says “Today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” (pg. 1) I think student brains today are more “wired” to learn by interacting with video due to years of playing video games, more so than in the past. By wired I mean that student brains physically change to more easily learn from video interaction because the part of the brain used to learn from video interaction grows stronger from more frequent use. Thus the student ability to learn from video improves compared to students from the past that played less video games. (Digital Natives part 2, pg. 1)
This means modern students do learn differently than in the past and so we should change our teaching style to match the preference of our students to maximize their learning. Research has shown that brains do physically change in growing animals and humans depending on what part of their brains are used most. (Digital Natives part 2, pg. 1) Musician’s brains have been shown to have a slightly different shape compared to those of non musicians. The brains of rats that grew up in “enriched” environments had thicker sensory areas compared to those of rats who grew up in “impoverished” environments. I think modern student brains are more adapted to be stronger in learning using interactive video compare to when I was in school. Of course students back then preferred to play video games to reading books, I sure did, but most of us had less opportunity to do so than today’s kids so our brains developed differently with more strength in non video learning that modern kids lack.
I think like the author that kids can improve learning by using computer games if the games are properly designed to be interesting while requiring students to learn educational content to win the game. (Digital Natives part 2, pg. 5) Research has shown that computer games can improve academic scores. Games created by The Lightspan Partnership improved scores in language arts and one from Click Health improved diabetes self care and reduced doctor visits from diabetes problems. (Digital Natives part 2, pg. 6) The US military has trusted video game training for over a decade and insists that such training technology works. I believe the success of our military is improved strongly by training with video games and well designed educational games can improve our educational system as well.

Digital technologies have influenced students today only in that they have more options and possibilities now then when I was in school. They may function differently and select novel modes to study and learn in, but I think fundamentally students are the same as when I was in school. Sure the world has changed in superficial respects, but underlying we find the same people now as in generations past—ones who have an underlying need to be taught.
In Marc Prensky’s article, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants he asserts, regarding the decline of education, “…we ignore the most fundamental of its causes” because there exists this certain dichotomy between what he calls Digital Immigrant teachers and Digital Native students. Prensky attempts to make the case that both groups “think and process information fundamentally differently.” I like how Prensky uses the analogy of the Digital Immigrant retaining “to some degree, their accent” and his example of Digital Immigrants turning to the internet for information second rather than first. But the issue that arises in my mind is that when one is an immigrant, that one usually migrates into a place where there is an established and defined culture already extant with customs one is not fully familiar with. But this is not the case with digital technology. In its case it is not established culture, but still evolving, and the “immigrants” have had at least some exposure to its changes. So I think the line defining the two camps is less stark than Prensky presents. As an example, he says that Digital Immigrant instructors speak in an “outdated language…to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” An emerging new dialect perhaps, but I don’t think an entirely new language. Certainly the overall setting of the classroom is about the same as in the past and Digital Natives do understand the context and language to be spoken in it just as a child knows how he should speak at home compared to how he should speak in front of company. Since Digital Natives can speak the “language” of the Digital Immigrant fairly well and can switch languages rapidly, I think the term bilingual might be a more accurate descriptor than Digital Native.
Prensky further distances Digital Immigrants from Digital Natives by pointing out the differences in preferences between the two. He says that Digital Natives “receive information really fast…thrive on instant gratification and…prefer games to “serious” work.” This confuses me since I like these things too, yet according to Prensky I would be considered a Digital Immigrant. Moreover he states an absolute by saying, “Digital Immigrants don’t think their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music…” That’s not always true. I know for me, even though I don’t listen to music when I study, I know that others can, and I don’t frown on that. Prensky also says that Digital Immigrants say, “…learning can’t be fun.” Again, I think learning can be great fun! So my question then is how much of a difference is there really between Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives and where is he coming up with the data to support this?
Prensky continues to drive the wedge between the two sides when he claims that in the view of Digital Natives “their education is not worth paying attention to compared to everything else they experience.” While this may be true of many Digital Immigrants, I imagine there are many Digital Native teachers who do the same thing. For example, my niece, who is in high school, is taking a digital photography class, which one would think should be technology rich and engaging. She says she dislikes the class because the teacher doesn’t teach the class anything. She says it’s more of a study hall with occasional pictures to turn in. This case in point highlights that it’s not always the Digital Immigrant versus Digital Native mentally that’s at issue; it may more accurately depend on how the teacher teaches, not necessarily with what mode the teacher teaches.
In support of this I did a little questioning of my Jr. High level students, who I substitute taught for this past week, and asked them about this, and without exception the said they didn’t think it mattered if a teacher understood their (the students’) “language” or their technology. They felt a teacher could be successful without knowing their ‘language’ and style.” Prensky himself even states, “It just depends on how it is presented.” But then this seems to contradict what he says elsewhere when he says, “Today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students.”
One suggestion Prensky offers to make learning more interesting is using games as a medium for learning. I think this is a great idea because I have noticed that this method works great for me and others, and I’ve successfully tried to incorporate this at times in my classes. Not only do I find students having fun, but they are engaged and learning without always even knowing it. Of course, whether this works for all students or just certain populations needs to be tested.
So where does the road lead from here? Prensky asks, “Should Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should Digital Immigrant educators learn the new? “ I agree with Prensky that, “Digital Natives aren’t going backwards.” We are definitely going forward in this “Digital Age”, and even if students don’t get their education presented exactly in their own “native tongue” they can still be successful. English Language Learners are proof of that. Rather than forcing Digital Immigrants to conform to a system uncomfortable to them, I think they should be helped to become more aware of the technological world that is developing around them and new techniques that might interest today’s students. They should still be allowed to teach in the way they think best because they are professionals on the front lines. And it will be alright in the end because they’ll be happier teachers and the Digital Natives will, as Prensky says, “grow up and do it themselves.” It will undoubtedly eventually find equilibrium because as Digital Natives do grow up and become teachers themselves, they will understand the digital language and they will be able to find new ways to connect with the new upcoming crop of learners in more meaningful ways.

In his article, Prensky makes his argument that students have changed from years ago. Prensky says that this change is so radical that they are no longer are the students that the educational system was designed to teach. In a small way I do agree to some small degree. I believe that new technology has made people more aware of this and be more open to these new technologies. As educators we should keep up technology as it does help us reach out to students to educate them better and help them learn more effectively.
Dr. Prensky states “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures”, I have to say I do not agree all the way this statement. I do not think that the brain physically changes; it is our mental thinking that changes. For example when a teacher gives an assignment, like a report, they tell children they need resources. In the old days up to the late 1990’s all students ran to the nearest local library to get resources. Now at days everything is at the click of a finger tip and hi-speed internet. Everything they need to do, they do from home unless they do not have those resources at home. Unlike past students they do not have to dig through books to find what they need, all they do is Google, Yahoo, or Bing it.
Prensky calls students that use today’s technology “Digital Native” or otherwise as he calls them to be “Native Speaker” due to the use of knowledge and knowhow of language of computer, video games, and internet. In today’s students we have to keep things creative and interesting for them to learn. I have seen it first hand with my children that they can sit there all day and listen to their teacher lecture all day along, I am the same way. We need to do a little bit of everything so we can keep on track and focused. I believe that using such things as YOUTUBE and Power point can help children stay more focused and interested in learning the subject you are teaching them.
I remember when I in school and the teacher played a video on a subject he/she was teaching I seemed to focus and want to learn more, while at the same time taking notes that I needed. As for that some things haven’t changed because, I was multi-tasking just as the students today are as they sit down to do work, for example, homework and having music in the background, I did that while been on a landmine phone. I don’t think like said before that the brain has physically changed we have just programmed it to do sereval things at once. With today’s technology we need to come up with low cost ways for schools to provide these technologies for educators and students in every subject area so they can learn to the best of their abilities, so they won’t be bored in class, and be more assertive to learning.

I really enjoyed reading these two articles written by Prensky and found that I agreed with some of the comments he made as well as disagreed on demeaning statements he made about older generation teachers. In his article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” he refers to this generation as “Digital Natives” because they speak the digital language. Prensky refers to the current teachers as “Digital Immigrants” because we were not born into the digital world; therefore, we are not native speakers and have an “accent.” Wow! Then, I guess that makes me a double immigrant because English was not my first language and neither is the Digital Language.
“Digital Immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music because they (the Immigrants) can’t” (p. 3). As a “Digital Immigrant,” I have to agree with Prensky. There are some things that we need to be aware of and that is realize that the “Native Speakers” do learn differently. They are great at parallel processing and multi-tasking as he mentioned in his article. I see this at home all the time with my own children. They are capable of doing their homework while listening to their iPods and texting at the same time. I had a hard time allowing them to do so, but I learned to back off when I received their grades and noticed they were bringing A’s and B’s. Reading this part of the article made sense and helped me understand where my children and students are coming from.
Prensky states that in order to confront the issue of teaching Digital Natives two things need to be reconsidered: methodology and content. As far as our methodology, he states that, “Today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students” (p. 4). He expects teachers to teach more in parallel, “faster” not “step-by-step.” I do agree that there could be some changes in the way we teach, but not the way Prensky suggests. We have to keep in mind the learning theories we learned about in preparing to be professional educators. We must also remember that children perceive and process information in different ways. As professional educators we need to design our instruction using methods to connect with the different learning styles and introduce a variety of experimental elements into our classrooms. Our job is to meet the needs of all of our students. Keeping this in mind, in my opinion, there will be some students who might not be able to keep up with the “faster” teaching. And, we must also take into consideration our students with learning disabilities who are mainstreamed into regular classes. What place do they take in Prensky’s methodology of teaching?
In terms of “content,” he says that there are two kinds: “Legacy” content which refers to our traditional curriculum and “Future” content which refers to digital and technological teaching. Prensky questions if “Digital Immigrant” teachers are prepared to teach “Future” content. Teachers, especially at the high school level, need to be highly qualified to teach single subjects. They have absolutely no problem in teaching “Legacy” content. As far as teaching “Future” content, I think many teachers are prepared and use PowerPoint presentations, overhead projectors, document cameras, promethean boards, etc. What about teachers who are not so familiar with technology? How are they to learn? I feel that districts need to provide professional development opportunities where they bring teachers up to date who are not familiar with technology. I do feel we need to learn how to better communicate with “Digital Natives.” That is the source of my motivation to be in this class. I hope to learn as much technology as I can so that I can apply it in my classroom and have different alternatives to engage my students and help facilitate their learning.
Finally, I think it would be very interesting to see how education is going to continue to evolve with the use of technology. Personally, I think that “Digital Natives” would be fascinated by the idea of using computer games to learn content. However, I think that should only be a portion of the instruction. As human beings, we should not learn only from machines. We must not allow our children and students to become desensitized from humanity. While technology is so wonderful and innovative, it’s sad that the old-fashion ways of doing things are virtually disappearing. While I had to walk to the library to check out books, information is only as far as the nearest keyboard and internet access. Today’s students can just go to the computer, Google information on any subject and the information is instantly at their fingertips. I think this is great and love it myself! But, at the same time, today’s students spend excessive amount of hours glued to the computer with numerous distractions such as Face book, YouTube, MySpace or the Internet. This is also preventing students from exercising and that’s one of the reasons why we have such a huge problem with obesity today. Why do children need to play outside and get fresh air when they could be playing from the comfort of their living rooms with the Nintendo Wii? So, when Prensky suggests that students should learn content from games, I think it’s a great idea, but we must keep in mind that continuous use of technology can cause dependence. Many students joke around about being addicted to Face book or texting. Technology is without a doubt the greatest invention that has grown so rapidly, but I do wonder how much is too much? We all know that too much of anything can’t always be good. Therefore, even when it comes to technology, we have to remember that we must do everything with moderation. Technology is a simply a tool for automation and connectivity. However, the true knowledge and power source is within the user, not the device.

I teach at Larson Elementary School in Hueneme. The students that I teach are 100% English learners. They are, for the most part, the sons and daughters of field workers. Some of my students are recent arrivals to the United States, having lived here for less than 2 years. While they are not English natives, they are most definitely digital natives. With their talk of PSPs, DSs, xBoxes, Wiis and all the other forms of technology they have available to them, they are a student different from the student I was in their place all those years ago, and worlds apart from the students their parents were at their age.
I have a very distinct memory of my times in the computer lab at Adams Elementary in Santa Barbara. With our boxy Macs, and computers to spare, it was one of my favorite times. I can still go to my garage now and pull out mother’s day and Easter cards that I made for my mom on the paint program. I remember getting lost in the world of the Oregon Trail and Carmen Sandiego. I would go as far as to say that the times that I spent in that computer lab are what fueled my love of technology.
It saddens me now to take my students to the computer lab. Every time we go, I have to decide who will not get a computer because while I have 24 students, I only have 20 computers and, on a good day, only 18 that are working. The only program that they have available for use is Success Maker. I feel as if I’m doing a disservice to my students. I feel this way because I do think that my students think in a different way. I don’t think that the things that they are dealing with are all that different from the things that I dealt with when I was their age, but I do believe that the way in which they are going to handle and process these things is vastly different from the way that I would have handled and dealt with them.
I want so much more than my school has to offer for my students. I think that when a child comes up to you and says that they don’t want to play anymore games; it’s time to change the game. If they can spend “over 10,000 hours playing videogames” (Prensky, 2001) at home, then there is something wrong if my students get tired of “playing” on Success Maker when we are in the lab for less than half an hour. If they get tired after less than half an hour, how will they spend the effective “100 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 5 to 10 weeks” (Prensky, 2001)? This “game” has become boring for them. As Prensky says, “They must be real games, not just drill with eye-candy, combined creatively with real content.” Success maker is just drill. Where is their Carmen Sandiego? Where they can learn about geography while pretending to be government agents on the search for a mastermind criminal? Now that was fun and that was a game that I played with “sharply focused attention.”
So, do I think that my students are different from me at their age? Yes! But are they fundamentally and physiologically so? Maybe. I would say that if a person believes in evolution, then yes they are physiologically different. They would have to be. In the same way that the author states our brains had to be “reprogrammed to deal with the invention of written language” (Prensky, 2001), then it stands to reason that my student’s brains are also evolving and reprogramming to adapt to all the new digital media and technology that they are being exposed to. On the other hand if you look at the child him or herself, look at the fights or disagreements that they have with their parents, the problems with their brothers or sisters and the issues that they are facing at home, then no, these kids are just like me at their age. They are translating and reading to their parents who don’t speak English. But while I was reading papers that came home from school, they might be looking up websites, and googling information for their parents. They are also fighting with their older sister, I was fighting with my sister cause I read her diary, my students are fighting with their older sister because their read her texts. So, no, these kids aren’t all that different from me when I was their age, and yet they are totally different.