Many claims are surrounding the so-called digital generation, including the ones discussed in class. The concept of digital natives and immigrants, proposed by Marc Prensky, is a much-debated topic among scholars in education and technology. There were several articles where different scholars tried to disprove Prensky’s theories. The authors of these articles argue with Prensky and break his arguments from various perspectives.
Firstly, it is essential to view the article of Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin called “The ‘digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence”. Bennet and her teammates do not support Prensky’s claim that there is a distinctive new generation of people who are performing generally better when it comes to the field of technology and that there will be a drastic change in education to support that performance. Their main argument that in his research, Prensky lacks genuine evidence of his claims (Bennet et al., 2008). They also argue that there is no such concept as ‘moral panic’ because the generations are not differentiated that deeply.
They also say that the relationship between young people (“digital natives”) and technology is much more complicated than Prensky initially anticipates. While it is true that technology is an essential part of young people’s lives, it is also true that there is no evidence of a widespread and universal distinctive difference in learning styles of older and younger generations. They back up their claims by using several academic pieces of research, which is more convincing than Prensky’s claims with weak evidence and mostly assumptions.
Moreover, the authors make several assumptions, where they claim that multitasking is a skill that every generation possesses; however, it is not as useful as one may think. As the authors declare, multitasking diverts attention from one main task and makes a person more forgetful and sloppy (Bennet et al., 2008). Furthermore, they assume that educational games are not as popular and useful as Prensky claims. Consequently, they conclude that teaching style is not bound to the technologies and their usage, and it is not universal for the whole generation; instead, the learning style is unique to every person, and that is why an individual approach and understanding will be more beneficial to all.
The second article, which disproves Prensky’s claim, is Mark Bullen, Tannis Morgan, Adnan Qayyum’s article called “Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation is Not the Issue”. They have also not found evidence that digital literacy is something that relates to a particular generation. Their main claim is that the stereotyping of the whole age group is not beneficial. They also conclude that each person is unique in their learning style, and there are bound to be diverse teaching programs aimed to teach children with different learning styles.
Moreover, they support their claims by using a plethora of academic research, which seems more convincing than Prensky’s conjectures and stereotypes. They conclude that the change in higher education is needed; however, that change needs to be based natives more on specific learning styles of each student rather than a learning style for the whole generation, which was wrongfully applied in previous years (Bullen et al., 2011). They assume that this decision will help develop a more sophisticated understanding of vastly different groups of people.
To compare the two types of organizations, the authors suggest, one needs to understand the difference between the two approaches. Bennet et al. suggest finding an individual approach to each student rather than stereotyping the whole generation. Even though Bullen et al. propose a similar concept, the difference between them is individuality. While one suggests implementing different approaches in groups, others want to find an individual approach. Each pattern has its advantages; for example, if to speak about personal lessons, it would be more effective as homeschooling proves to be exceptional for one’s learning and concentrating abilities. Group lessons with children of different learning styles would be beneficial because they would be learning as effectively, and the group aspect would help them learn to work in a team. However, group lessons with vastly different approaches would be more beneficial, as it does not leave the socializing aspect of learning. Moreover, group lessons will cost less and be more comfortable for children around the world, and be more manageable for teachers.
To conclude, there are many disputes on whether the concept of digital natives and immigrants, developed by Prensky, exists. Lots of works disprove the theory, but also there are also many works, which are supportive of it. However, the authors of chosen actions completely discredit the hypothesis of Prensky with the claim that the evidence he has presented appeared weak. They support their vision with dozens of reliable researchers. Their main application is that the learning style is not dependent on the generation of digital literacy levels. It is highly personal and depends on one’s character and abilities. The authors also make several assumptions on multitasking, claiming that it was accessible to every generation, and despite Prensky’s claims, it is not beneficial for one’s work and cognitive abilities.
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1-24.