As I read the Prensky article, I did think about how my students are digital natives and the things that now exist for them that didn't necessarily exist for myself being a Millennial. Prensky did mention that today's methodology has to change so that teachers can learn to communicate in the language and style of their students. I agree with this statement because in my own work, I've had to be creative and even do my research to ensure that my students received the message I was presenting. I didn't change the meaning of what was being presented but I did changes its delivery. This describes my students because often times your credibility is based upon how relatable you are.
The McKenzie article did talk about the variance that occurs in the digital usage of todays learners. I do agree with the author's findings on the usage of video games which are more popular for boys. This is something that helps describe my students. They are videogame proned. McKenzie does paint a picture of how diverse technology is for this generation which would imply that their is diversity in processing and learning for todays student. The videos really show how K-12 students demand the use of technology and engagement. This is definitely fits my students. They require interaction and something that stuck out was that they have more unqualified teachers leading them during this digital age. The college video really showed how relevance plays a picture in obtaining an education. Its a cycle set up for so-called success when in actuality my students need different preparation to prepare them for the world. I liked the part on the video where the students were showing how they won't be prepared to deal with world issues such as war, poverty, etc. I can say that technology has brought about awareness of such issues. Students today now have access to a global canvas with a wealth of information.
What doesn't describe my students is Prensky's statement about this generation of students spending their entire lives surrounded by and using technology as if they have nothing else outside of their digital nativism. I do have very active students who pursue sports and social clubs that enhance their learning in alternative ways. I have students interested in social justice and leadership but then apply technology to only better connect their concerns. All of my students who are considered a part of the Millennial/Edge Generation are not just prone to technology and nothing else. This does not represent the majority of my students who are actively preparing for college. McKenzie also mentioned this concept about the vast variance of teens today.
Prensky failed to mention that technology in this digital era have done great things and awarded today's learners possibilities that did not exist years ago. Even in a professional stand point as we see technology used in an arena of careers such as medicine, engineering and even in military training, it is not the Generation Edge learners operating and running these technologies. We have successful Millennials, Generation X'ers and so on that have indeed adapted to the digital era. Due to limited research the Generation Edge articles left out how the upcoming generation will coexist with the past generation who were privileged to be apart of the birthing of technology.
Overall, I draw many similarities of my students who are indulged into social networks, instant gratification and creative storytelling. As digital natives there is indeed a brilliant population of the current generation using technology to make significant changes in the world opposed to the generational stereotype that they are just easily getting by. My students are geniuses with technology and as a great support to them, it is my job to relate, connect and help sharpen their toolbox for their future.
One theme prevalent in all of the generation literature is the sampling problem. Much of the millennial literature draws observations and data from children from affluent (or at least solid middle class) parents. Is that the majority? Is that the norm?
ReplyDeleteI point this out because drawing observations from only college students (like the Twenge material this week) has an inherent bias...students who were steered toward going to college (because of parents, peer groups, etc.). Does that represent an entire generation?
I would like to add to the point about the sampling, I believe that it depends on what point that you are trying to prove, if you are trying to prove a particular point more than likely data would be gathered to prove that point. Samples sizes represent the population that you are observing it doesn’t necessarily represent the entire generation or population. It was stated in our reading material (Twenge) that the generational research did not reflect regional differences sufficiently and it lacked cross-cultural comparisons. I have had the opportunity to provide services to various schools in low-income school districts, in those districts some schools were 21st century schools and some were not. Some of those students that attended those schools had computers at home and some did not however many of the students that did not have computers at home had access to some type of digital device and worked them very well. Even though these students had access to technology, some students did well academically and some did not. In my opinion, technology should be used to compliment instruction to engage and motivate those students that are not motivated. Technology does not take the place of developing critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills in addition to use of technology may make a bigger difference in real world application than just technology skills alone.
DeleteI thought about the sampling problem, and it crossed my mind when I was completing the readings from last week as well. It does seem that the majority of millennial data involves children from more affluent backgrounds. I got to thinking about this because I do agree that technology plays a huge role with today's learners, and my students have a need to be "connected" with their devices. However, I have many students in my school that do have a computer at home, and a game system is completely out of the question. I think at times people confuse student wanting to be immersed in technology and the instant gratification (which I also see) with students who are just very excited to be able to use technology that they never have the opportunity to use at home. I teach the technology club at my school that is offered a few times a year. The majority of my student who enroll are the students who are given a scholarship because they can't afford to pay the small fee for the class. There is a big population of students who truly just want the chance to use technology that their peers have at home and talk about. I am sure other schools have similar situations. I think that this group can't be ignored either when you look at the data about this generation.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about sampling. I guess for two of the charter schools I service, the school has a technological culture. Every class has Smartboards and every student has access to a their own laptop to utilize during class. I also only work with High School students and I have noticed that even those who don't have access to technology at home are still very immersed and comfortable with using it at school because its become a part of the school culture. The public school I service is a little bit different. These students are use to technology such as their phones and mp3 players but not necessarily utilizing it for classroom instruction. Overall, I don't see a major difference in how their generation responds as digital natives.
DeletePerhaps the research should then focus on the "fixed vs. growth" mindset discussion that is permeating educational circles these days, as opposed to generational boundaries.
ReplyDelete