1. Can we stop talking about Digital Natives?
“Digital natives” are defined as individuals born after 1980, who were raised in an environment in which they were surrounded by technology and who possess technological skills different from those possessed by the members of the prior generation (Palfrey and Gasser, 2013, Prensky, 2001).
When I googled images of Digital Natives to see what the internet would give me, I was bombarded by pictures of babies playing with devices.
It strikes me, as is stated in the Manifesto for Teaching Online, that it is too much of a stereotype to assign technological prowess and intuition to people born after 1980.
“…this does not mean that the ability to learn through new media is a phenomenon embedded in the essence of what it means to be young” (Bayne et al (2020) “Manifesto for Teaching Online” p.34)
The concept of Prensky’s Digital Native versus Digital Immigrant creates an overly simplistic dichotomy between the old and the young. Age is not the sole reason why some feel at home within technology and others feel unsure.
In Northern Kenya, this is a common sight. The Masai tribe choose to wear their traditional clothing every day. I chose this photo to convey a sense of the traditional Kenyan who has a phone.
What about those who have extremely limited access to technology, irrespective of age? An example would be the lack of technological resources in most Kenyan households; very few will have a computer or tablet. Although, interestingly, this is slowly changing. Almost everybody, from the very poorest of the poor now have a mobile phone (before they have running water or sanitation), and as soon as you have a disposable income, not matter how small, the first thing you will hope to buy is a smart phone. Safaricom, one of the main mobile phone providers, offers extremely affordable and reliable 4G throughout the entire country and as a result, the ability for all to harness the powers of technology is more and more commonplace.
I have plenty of colleagues; the so-called Digital Immigrants, who view technology in teaching with fear, and allow themselves to become bogged down in the minutiae of the systems. Often, it is a reluctance to move out of one’s comfort zone that is a greater hurdle to digital competence than any age-related technological inability. I will further dispute the stereotype with another example from living in Africa. Whilst my children are undoubtedly fearless learners who navigate the digital world with enormous ease, so to does my 78 year old mother. She learnt out of a necessity, living in Malawi, when the written letter became practically obsolete as a means of communication with her family, because of a slow and unreliable postal service. She learnt to use WhatsApp and bought one of the earliest models of smart phone, delighted to be able to instantaneously communicate with family all over the world. I think it would be naïve to call her a Digital Immigrant.
It resonates with me that the “Manifesto for Teaching Online” recognises that the teacher may be de-professionalized when viewed as the ‘digital immigrant’, in direct comparison with the youthful, fearless digitally literate students. I agree that teachers are in a precarious and permanently deficient position with regards to new waves of technological changes, as they are constantly challenged and confronted with datafication and automation within education. It is ‘time to move away from simplistic binaries to challenge essentializing and reductive ways of thinking about technological change.” (Bayne, Sinclair, Evans, Ewins, Knox, Lamb, Macleod, O’Shea, Ross and Sheail (2020) “Manifesto for Teaching Online” p.37).
In my next blog, I am going to link this idea of the precarious teacher teetering in the face of a digital upheaval to the Manifesto’s exploration of automation within education and how perhaps the teacher can be better put at the centre of the digital future.
An interesting post to largely refute Prensky’s argument and the range of different experiences and confidence with digital technologies. Prensky’s argument goes beyond digital competence or literacy to suggest that millenials’ brains are change as a result of their exposure to digital technologies (a point largely debunked). It may be worth distinguishing here between a general digital literacies and digital literacies specifically for learning. There remains significant evidence that younger people continue to lack confidence and competence in using some digital technologies for learning.
You may be interested in David White’s concept of digital visitors and residences as a more nuanced and, I think, useful approach (http://daveowhite.com/vandr/) that allows for individual experiences with different digital tools for different activities.
Take a bit of care in checking through you argument: portraying teachers as in a permanent deficit to technological changes is the sort of essentialising and reductive approaches that the Manifesto is arguing against.
The status of mobile technologies in Africa is definitely something to watch in terms of access to education, learning, information and knowledge. Also, I’m liking the look of your blog and the use of images.
I was indeed interested in David White’ concept of digital visitors and residents; it is more useful in recognising that there are young people who lack digital literacy, as well as older people who are highly proficient.
I didn’t intend to portray teachers as in a permanent deficit to technology. Rather, I wanted to argue that teachers are often perceived to be beholden to technology, in the face of datafication and automation. I was trying to agree with the Manifesto that it is a reductive approach. I agree I was not clear. I wanted that to lead onto my next blog which explored the possibility of putting the teacher at the centre of the technological revolution, rather than being perceived as a mere facilitator; i.e. pursuing an argument that teachers have a pedagogical role to play in technological advances. And now that I think of it, I think the reverse could also be said – technology is often seen in an essentialist light; that of a mere facilitator (or is that an instrumentalist light?) in education, when the pedagogical and the technical could be better aligned.
Now that I have read Hamilton’s article ‘Online Education: A science and technology studies perspective’, I understand that it is an essentialist view to believe that teachers are in permanent deficit to technology and more of a constructivist view to consider the pedagogical potential of technology which could involve teachers being at the forefront of digital design and the implementation of online education. Which, of course, is now potentially being realised out of necessity with the Covid-19 pandemic.