“The kids know far more about computers than I’ll ever know,” is the common refrain from parents and teachers, whenever the topic falls on technology. A common perception that the youth of today were far more tech-savvy than the adults and the concerns inherent in this and online safety as they would 'always be one step ahead' in terms of the digital technology they use is seemingly stated as a fact that only a Silicon Valley parent would be foolish enough to argue.
For my initial post I'm going to try and briefly evaluate the idea of the 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant' (Prensky, 2001) conundrum in light of more recent research in learning technologies.
For my initial post I'm going to try and briefly evaluate the idea of the 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant' (Prensky, 2001) conundrum in light of more recent research in learning technologies.
The tech literate youth, or 'digital native', as defined by the US technologist Marc Prensky (2001), is the generation born post-1980 who have grown up in a world where they have been immersed in digital technologies. This immersal has resulted in their 'innate confidence in using new technologies such as the internet, video games, mobile telephony and all the other toys and tools of the digital age' (Prensky cited in Selwyn, 2011). Phrases such as 'i-kids' and the 'plugged in' or 'net generation' have popularised this view, as well as the abundance of anecdotal evidence of the youth of today constantly being attached to their digital devices no matter the arena, and depict our age as one where 'childhood, adolescence and young adulthood are now centred on digital technology and media' (Selwyn, p5). Furthermore, our ‘digital natives’ are different from their parents’ generation with Jason Frand (2000) explaining that this digital age has creating an 'information-age mindset'; multitasking, typing rather than writing, the need for being 'connected', an intollerance of delays, the blurring of consumer and creator. Simply put digital technologies have allowed for faster and more flexible lifestyles, a digital world that allows for more personalisation of activities and resources rather than the 'one-size-fits-all' model of the analogue age.
Of course, for those of us born pre-1980 we are immigrants in this new world where the technologies which are continually added to the market place are unfamiliar or foreign and the 'digital immigrant' is forced to adapt to this new future. Even if they are early adopters of the technology the formative years spent in an analogue age hinder their fluency with the digital devices of today. Though 'these older people are online...they rely heavily on traditional, analogue forms of interaction' (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). The different mindsets between the flexible and multitasking 'digital natives' and the structured and focused 'digital immigrant' create an us and them mentality where the 'natives' look at digital devices as mere tools to carry out a job and wonder why the older generation don't get it, while the 'immigrants' look on confused at these shiny boxes with blinking lights and wonder what all the fuss is about.
We now sit in a digital age some 15 years after Prensky's definition of a two-tier society and the labels are still frequently used in many discussions on technology. Indeed, as first stated, parents still discuss, with a resigned look in their eyes, the issues of being a 'digital immigrant' attempting to parent a 'digital native'. How on earth are 'digital immigrants' supposed to enter this technical world of desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones, of software, hardware and cloud technology that changes so frequently and still be able to offer support and guidance to the 'digital natives' who are the only ones who can use the Sky remote or make the WiFi work?
As a teacher I work with many young people on a daily basis and am yet to come across two who are even remotely the same, in certain areas yes but as a whole human being no. Prensky makes the assumption that a magic cut off occurred on December 31st, 1979 when every child born after this point was suddenly Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (two 'digital immigrants', by the way). Buckingham (1998) argues that by 'believing that all young people are naturally endowed with technical skill and aptitudes we fail to acknowledge the diversity of the lived experience'. Basically, Prensky's view is a lazy stereotype that has been used as a sound bite for a far more complex issue. The idea of the digital divide has been heavily researched with the idea that we have ‘digitally excluded’ groups along the lines of socio-economic status, social class and geographical location, both between and within countries. Rowlands (2008) went further and analysed the differences in technological engagement between age groups, identifying the very different social, cultural and cognitive backgrounds between a 3 year old, 7 year old and an 11 year old, and also within these age groups. Henry Jenkins has addressed the concept of a ‘digital participation gap’, the difference in use of the technology, which is becoming a more prominent position as the ‘digital divide’ diminishes through the increased access to digital technologies. In a recent study two schools, with similar access to digital technologies, demonstrated a huge difference in the types of activity being carried out; one school was focussed on high level computing skills involving creativity whereas the other school used it in a low-level manner, focusing on office skills (Warschauer, 2010). Margaryan et al (2011) researched the technology usage of undergraduates in two UK universities and observed a difference between all students, regardless of whether ‘digital native’ or ‘digital immigrant’, ‘technical’ or ‘non-technical’. However, these research did highlight that the technology we are using are largely established technologies such as Google and Wikipedia, regardless of the users perceived confidence in technology use. This research debunks the myth that the ‘digital natives’ somehow have an intuitive sense of how to use technology and are constantly evolving their uses to take advantage of emergent technologies to supported their connected lifestyles, Prensky’s view of a generation with ‘sophisticated technology skills’ is seemingly is disproved with the any real differences between users being quantitive, i.e. the amount of time, rather than qualitative, i.e. the actual skills involved, and we see a generation with expertise in some, largely conventional, digital technologies but a low level of understanding of how they can use them in different contexts.
So what does this mean to a ‘digital immigrant’ parent? We will see our youthful ‘digital natives’ constantly texting on their smartphones and Googling for information, maybe even both at the same time, but their actual understanding of how the technology can be used is, at best, only marginally more than ours. Try uninstalling the modem from a ‘digital natives’ laptop and see a look of confusion and then anger appear on their faces as they don’t understand how to fix it, increase the settings on your internet filters and observe their inability to find those websites that they apparently never look at. ‘Digital natives’ admittedly have been brought up in a digital age where these technologies are taken for granted but the ‘digital immigrants’ have leaned how to use the mainstream tools too and, with our wealth of analogue knowledge, we can still guide them on the path to be responsible and respectful users using the tools of their generation to support them in their creative and innovative endeavours. As Alan Kee said ‘technology is only technology for those born after it was invented,’ the integration of the digital technologies of today is no different from the integration of technologies from the past. Surely our common cry of not understanding the point of it all or our fears of not knowing how it works is no different from previous generations decrying rock ‘n’ roll. In hindsight it wasn’t really that different than what was before, the world kept on turning and the ‘rock ‘n’ roll immigrants’ didn’t fade into insignificance because of their incompatibility with the teenager.
Of course, for those of us born pre-1980 we are immigrants in this new world where the technologies which are continually added to the market place are unfamiliar or foreign and the 'digital immigrant' is forced to adapt to this new future. Even if they are early adopters of the technology the formative years spent in an analogue age hinder their fluency with the digital devices of today. Though 'these older people are online...they rely heavily on traditional, analogue forms of interaction' (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). The different mindsets between the flexible and multitasking 'digital natives' and the structured and focused 'digital immigrant' create an us and them mentality where the 'natives' look at digital devices as mere tools to carry out a job and wonder why the older generation don't get it, while the 'immigrants' look on confused at these shiny boxes with blinking lights and wonder what all the fuss is about.
We now sit in a digital age some 15 years after Prensky's definition of a two-tier society and the labels are still frequently used in many discussions on technology. Indeed, as first stated, parents still discuss, with a resigned look in their eyes, the issues of being a 'digital immigrant' attempting to parent a 'digital native'. How on earth are 'digital immigrants' supposed to enter this technical world of desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones, of software, hardware and cloud technology that changes so frequently and still be able to offer support and guidance to the 'digital natives' who are the only ones who can use the Sky remote or make the WiFi work?
As a teacher I work with many young people on a daily basis and am yet to come across two who are even remotely the same, in certain areas yes but as a whole human being no. Prensky makes the assumption that a magic cut off occurred on December 31st, 1979 when every child born after this point was suddenly Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (two 'digital immigrants', by the way). Buckingham (1998) argues that by 'believing that all young people are naturally endowed with technical skill and aptitudes we fail to acknowledge the diversity of the lived experience'. Basically, Prensky's view is a lazy stereotype that has been used as a sound bite for a far more complex issue. The idea of the digital divide has been heavily researched with the idea that we have ‘digitally excluded’ groups along the lines of socio-economic status, social class and geographical location, both between and within countries. Rowlands (2008) went further and analysed the differences in technological engagement between age groups, identifying the very different social, cultural and cognitive backgrounds between a 3 year old, 7 year old and an 11 year old, and also within these age groups. Henry Jenkins has addressed the concept of a ‘digital participation gap’, the difference in use of the technology, which is becoming a more prominent position as the ‘digital divide’ diminishes through the increased access to digital technologies. In a recent study two schools, with similar access to digital technologies, demonstrated a huge difference in the types of activity being carried out; one school was focussed on high level computing skills involving creativity whereas the other school used it in a low-level manner, focusing on office skills (Warschauer, 2010). Margaryan et al (2011) researched the technology usage of undergraduates in two UK universities and observed a difference between all students, regardless of whether ‘digital native’ or ‘digital immigrant’, ‘technical’ or ‘non-technical’. However, these research did highlight that the technology we are using are largely established technologies such as Google and Wikipedia, regardless of the users perceived confidence in technology use. This research debunks the myth that the ‘digital natives’ somehow have an intuitive sense of how to use technology and are constantly evolving their uses to take advantage of emergent technologies to supported their connected lifestyles, Prensky’s view of a generation with ‘sophisticated technology skills’ is seemingly is disproved with the any real differences between users being quantitive, i.e. the amount of time, rather than qualitative, i.e. the actual skills involved, and we see a generation with expertise in some, largely conventional, digital technologies but a low level of understanding of how they can use them in different contexts.
So what does this mean to a ‘digital immigrant’ parent? We will see our youthful ‘digital natives’ constantly texting on their smartphones and Googling for information, maybe even both at the same time, but their actual understanding of how the technology can be used is, at best, only marginally more than ours. Try uninstalling the modem from a ‘digital natives’ laptop and see a look of confusion and then anger appear on their faces as they don’t understand how to fix it, increase the settings on your internet filters and observe their inability to find those websites that they apparently never look at. ‘Digital natives’ admittedly have been brought up in a digital age where these technologies are taken for granted but the ‘digital immigrants’ have leaned how to use the mainstream tools too and, with our wealth of analogue knowledge, we can still guide them on the path to be responsible and respectful users using the tools of their generation to support them in their creative and innovative endeavours. As Alan Kee said ‘technology is only technology for those born after it was invented,’ the integration of the digital technologies of today is no different from the integration of technologies from the past. Surely our common cry of not understanding the point of it all or our fears of not knowing how it works is no different from previous generations decrying rock ‘n’ roll. In hindsight it wasn’t really that different than what was before, the world kept on turning and the ‘rock ‘n’ roll immigrants’ didn’t fade into insignificance because of their incompatibility with the teenager.