Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 15.
Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. [Electronic Version], from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky-the_emerging_online_life_of_the_digital_native-03.pdf


The metaphor of digital natives and digital immigrants vividly depicts the differences between generations grow up with and without digital technologies. As described in Prensky’s two papers, digital natives are originated from the digital world and thus form a different way of thinking. They prefer images more than text; they prefer shifting attention than focusing on one thing and they are very used to multi-tasking and parallel processing. Digital immigrants, on the opposite, appreciate the step-by-step, one-at-a-time attitude. The two different ways of thinking reflect on learning styles as well. When the teachers (digital immigrants) ask students (digital natives) to sit still and listen carefully to the lecture in classrooms, there is no way they can learn well. It is not true that digital natives cannot pay attention to learning for a long time, but they choose not to. Just think about how they play the video games. They simply cannot adapt to the old-fashion teaching methods. Prensky also points out the differences also physically lie in brains, because digital natives receive various stimulus and experiences and their brains are changed and develop differently than the previous generations.
To solve the native/immigrant divide in the learning context, Prensky suggests reconsider both the methodology and content (legacy and future). The skills and knowledge important in the past are still important today, but educators might need to present/teach them in a different way, in the language and style of their students. And a practical problem is that most teachers nowadays are not prepared for the change, both in methodology and future digital/technological and related ethics and social content. The brilliant idea, “edutainment,” which is about game-based instruction, thus is brought up. Prensky believes, like the Monkey Wrench game for CAD software, could improve the learning of digital natives, and in all subjects, including math, geography and language.
As children’s brained are constructed for hypertext, it is difficult and almost impossible to retrain their brains. The way they process and organize information is non-linear and parallel. Their attention span might be short when receiving information in one-way speech in the class, but they are not short at all for games. If educators can make learning more “twitch-speed, multitasking, random-access, graphics-first, active, connected, fun, fantasy and quick-payoff,” like video games, MTV and internet, there is definitely a big difference. Examples of Lightspan Partnership, Click Health and Fast ForWard all support the idea that games can capture children’s attention, allow more practice and engagement.
In Prensky’s logic, game-based learning indeed has positive effect on digital natives, but practical problems exist. Children are easy to be misled and distracted by visual/audio element. A systems and complete design and development of a learning game require both time and money. Teachers in school need to consider the digital divide among students and cannot assign homework requiring too many resources. The issue is very worth of further study but more empirical data might be needed to well support the “edutainment” concept.