Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Digital Wisdom

Context 

In 2001 Marc Prensky, a teacher and writer on education, started a long- running debate on the way students are learning. His view was that, “Our students have changed radically. Todays’ students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” (Prensky, 2001:p1). He coined the phrase ‘digital natives’ to describe this generational shift, calling those who has not grown up in the age of digital media ‘digital immigrants’. Prensky believed that this generational shift was a fundamental change in learning styles that the current educational system could not support.

In Prensky’s terms digital natives were now spending their lives surrounded by digital media and spending less time on reading or outdoor activities, and their attention spans were shorter than in previous generations. These changes in behaviour became of interest to educationalists, social scientists and psychologists. Industry, for whom digital natives were customers, and business, for whom digital natives were potential employees, also began to study this phenomenon. This interest from different perspectives requires an interdisciplinary approach to illuminate the discussions surrounding the digital natives debate.

Underpinning the digital native debate are the rapid technological changes which created the digital age and this includes mobile phone networks and smart phones; faster, smaller and cheaper computers; and changes to the Web (Web 2.0) which encourage greater user integration with the information available. From an education perspective, educators have the choice to invest time in learning new technologies or to work with what is currently available (Mishra et al 2009). From a sociological perspective employers require their employees to have the skills to function in an employment landscape that is becoming more digital. In this sense, the digital age is similar to previous technological advances where education has to adapt in order to stay relevant. What is different is the rapid pace of change that threatens to overwhelm educational institutions.

Those engaged in the debate come from a range of disciplines and often collaborate across disciplines. This is particularly true of education and sociology, education and technology as well as philosophy and politics. This is reflected in the way in which this new generation is described. ‘Homo Zappiens’ was a term used by educational technologists to describe the new generation, giving them the characteristics of preferences for images and symbols over text; their effortless adoption of technology; their cooperation and sharing in networks, and enjoying exploratory learning and personalised learning (Veen & van Staalduinen, 2010).

As you might expect, Salajan et al (2010) who were educators in a dental faculty focused on the neurobehavioural science component of Prensky’s work when they refer to the ‘Net-Generation’. Their view was that the polarisation into digital natives or digital immigrants was extreme, but not inherently flawed. Their research showed the gap between the net generation and the faculty teaching them to be closing and that the differences in the use of digital tools was not consistent. The term net-generation was also used by Valtonen et al, (2010) in their research from a philosophical perspective, and by Leung, (2003) from a journalism and communication perspective.

Another group of educational technologists working for the Open University (Jones et al, 2010) also looked at this debate because it suggested that teachers and educational institutions had a responsibility to change in response to the assumed demands of this new generation of learners. They described this generation as those who think IM, Text and Google are verbs not applications, and that they expected to be engaged by their environment with participatory, sensory rich and experiential activities.

Prensky himself continued the debate over a number of years and in 2009 extended his discussion to Homo Sapiens digital: from digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom (Prensky, 2009). He agreed that the distinction between digital natives and digital immigrants had become less relevant and that digital wisdom was now the concept that should drive education. In his view, “Digital wisdom was a two-fold concept referring both to wisdom arising from the use of digital technology to access cognitive power beyond our innate capacity, and, to wisdom in the prudent use of technology to enhance our capabilities” (Prensky, 2009: p1).

The debate on differences between students and those that teach them generated a number of research papers. Most of this research took place in educational establishments and was undertaken by educators or education technologists. One of the outcomes of these research projects was an understanding that the technology was transformational and created shifts in the way people learn and the values regarding learning (Kolikant, 2010). Researchers discovered that for the vast majority of students entering university laptops and smartphones were virtually universal (Jones et al, 2009). It was clear that this was not a conformation of the net generation thesis. Jones et al (2009) found significant minorities within the student population as well as a wide variation between age groups. They used the term Millenials in recognition of the complexity of the context facing students entering university. They saw a mixture of mature students with family commitments, and young students, alongside ethnic and cultural diversity in the student body. Age alone was not a good predictor of the digital capability or learning style of the students. A very focused study looking at approaches to enquiry in pharmaceutical students (Ellis et al, 2012) suggested that their information skills were a more significant factor than a classification as digital natives as a result of their age.

It was identified that those students categorised as digital natives used technology in a quantitatively rather than qualitatively different way. Their use of collaborative or knowledge creation tools was limited and they conformed to traditional pedagogies although they used different tools to access content (Valtonen et al, 2010; Margaryan et al, 2011). This suggests that these students, as with all students, need to be taught information skills in order to make full academic use of the tools and of the information available to them. One of the features described as part of the digital native phenomenon, is the loss of fundamental social skills (Adams et al, 2010). This affects issues of privacy, how people meet socially and also how they form attachments. If this is the case then the challenge for educators is not only to develop information and digital skills, but also to develop pedagogy that encourages the development of the collaborative, communication and social skills that are essential for academic success and future success in the work place.

When Prensky (2009) explained the notion of digital wisdom he argued that the increasing use of digital technology caused alterations in the structure of the brain. He saw this as a natural evolutionary process. Although Prensky was primarily an educationalist the notion of digital technology altering feelings, behaviours and functions is also being explored by neurophysiologists. The view that they put forward is that the evolution of the brain has rapidly emerged over a single generation. Small and Vorgan, (2008:p2) believe that “ not since early man discovered how to use a tool has the human brain been affected so quickly, or so dramatically”. Perhaps the changes seen in this generation are an alteration in their learning behaviours rather than advanced technical skills. It may be this that educators have to focus on in providing a suitable learning environment for the new generation.

Changes in learning behaviours or styles are not universally accepted. One common aspect appears to be that regardless of age attitudes to learning are influenced by the teaching approaches used by lecturers (Margaryan et al, 2011). They suggest that the adoption of technology is not a simple binary relationship but is far more complex. Much of the research uncovers wide variation within generations as well as between generations and it is important that those planning educational delivery do not make assumptions around the net-generation. Jones et al (2010) make the point that labelling of students as digital natives and faculty as digital immigrants is not helpful, and by definition an immigrant cannot become a native. This assumes that faculty will never have the same information skills or abilities as the students they teach. This is clearly not the case, and most research suggests there is much less difference then these labels might indicate, and that any such difference is in itself not consistent.

The debate is summed up well by Salajan (2010): “… drawing an artificial distinction between learners and those who help them learn may be more damaging then helpful in fostering a constructive learning environment conducive to a mutually beneficial student–teacher rapport. Care needs to be taken when engaging technology users in such terms. Instead, acceptance, encouragement and motivation are more likely to bring technology users closer together, regardless of their skills or abilities across generations”.

So what does a Digital Native look like?

I love this very tongue-in-cheek view of a Digital Native ... take a look, laugh, but also think about what this means for us in Higher Education as the student population becomes more Digital Native in their ways of learning, and their vision of both campus and off-campus education delivery:

 

Deconstructing the Digital Natives Discourse

In this video, Dr. Mark Bullen looks at the Digital Natives discourse, the idea that young people are fundamentally different than previous generations because of their exposure to digital technology. He suggests we should be skeptical of the key claims associated with this discourse because they are not supported by empirical research. Part of the Issues in E-Learning & Distance Education Video Series produced by the Commonwealth of Learning, July 2014:

 

References & Reading

Adams, NB; DeVaney, TA & Longstreet, WS (2010) Investigating aspects of an emerging digital ethnicity: Development of the Digital Ethnicity Scale (DES) Computers in Human Behaviour 26 (2010) 1822–1830

Downes, S (2009) Girls and IT: New Times, New Challenges IN: C. Barry et al. (eds.), Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education, Vol.1 New York: Springer

Ellis, RA; Bliuc, A-M & Goodyear, P (2012) Student experiences of engaged enquiry in pharmacy education: digital natives or something else? Higher Education DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9515-6

Jones, C; Ramanau, R; Cross, S & Healing, G (2010) Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education 54 (2010) 722–732

Kolikant, YB-D (2010) Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behaviour 26 (2010) 1384–1391

Leung, L (2003) Impacts of Net-generation attributes, seductive properties of the Internet, and gratifications-obtained on Internet use. Telematics and Informatics 20 (2003) 107–129

Margaryan, A; Littlejohn, A & Vojt, G (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education 56 (2011) 429–440

Miotto, A; Lessiter, J; Freeman, J; Carmichael, R & Ferrari, E (2011) Cognitive training via interactive television: drivers, barriers and potential users. Universal Access in the Information Society DOI 10.1007/s10209-011-0264-6

Mishra, P; Koehler, MJ & Kereluik, K (2009) The Song Remains the Same:
Looking Back to the Future of Educational Technology. TechTrends September/October 2009 Volume 53, Number 5, p48-53

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 6, December 2001

Prensky, M. (2009) H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom, Innovate 5 (3). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 Links to an external site. 

Prensky, M. (2012) Teaching the Right Stuff: Not yesterday’s stuff or today’s—but tomorrow’s! Educational Technology May-June 2012

Salajan, FD; Schonwetter, DJ & Cleghorn, BM (2010) Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers & Education 55 (2010) 1393–1403

Small, G & Vorgan, G (2008) iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. New York: Harper Collins

Valtonen,T; Dillon, P; Hacklin, S & Väisänen, P (2010) Net generation at social software: Challenging assumptions, clarifying relationships and raising implications for learning. International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 210–219

Veen, W & van Staalduinen, J-P (2010) Chapter 24: The Homo Zappiens and its Consequences for Learning in Universities. IN: Ehlers, UD and Schneckenberg, D (eds.), Changing Cultures in Higher Education. Berlin: Springer-Verlag