DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS, DIGITAL NATIVES: A review

DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS, DIGITAL NATIVES: A review

Prensky (2001) observes that, "Our students have changed radically. Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach"

Prensky (2001) sees today's students as digital natives while most of today's teachers remain digital immigrants…..today's students have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. In addition to this, today's educators are used to a print culture while students are increasingly products of a digitally-based secondary-oral culture.

The claim to the existence of a new generation that has been brought up surrounded by the mass media and technology started with (1998), Prensky 2001; and (Oblinger & Oblinger 2005; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2005; Tapscott, 2009; Bajt, 2011) in Romero et al (2013). These authors stated that the new generation's experience with technology gives them a deeper and more intuitive knowledge of ICT (Romero et al (2013) which as a result impacted on their learning, in that they seem to have different thinking paths. Prensky (2001) stated that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with technology, today's students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors and these differences go further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. Prensky (2001) further justified his claim by stating that "it is very likely that our students' brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed (Prensky, 2001).


Prensky explained that: Today s students – K through college – represent the first generations to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Today s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV), Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives (Prensky, 2001). Prensky called these students Digital Natives because they are "native speakers" of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet, and the teachers, "those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are Digital Immigrants (Prensky, 2001).
Toledo (2007) talks about the ubiquitous nature of technology brought about by the digital native appetite thus: "Today's youth … have enthusiastically embraced technologies that are on the leading edge of the technology wave including live chats, instant messaging, smart mobs, blogs, wikis, modding, and more". These are the idioms of the digital native culture, but digital immigrants are in dire need of an interpreter for this language (Toledo, 2007).
Different authors labelled this generation by trying to define their chronological context as well as their characteristics. They have been termed as, Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 1993; Martin & Tulgan, 2001), Digital Generation (Tapscott, 1998), and i-Generation (Rosen et al., 2010) in ( ). The most popular is Prensky's Digital Natives, defined as those native speakers of the digital language of video games and the Internet (Prensky, 2001), in contrast with Digital Immigrants applied to those born before 1980 (Romero et al, 2013). However, recent authors have coined up terms that portray children and young people of the 2000s as "generation M" (media), "generation V" (virtual) or "generation C" (referring to characteristics such as connected, creative and click) (see Veen and Vrakking, 2006; Rideout et al., 2005) in (Selwyn, 2009). For US author Donald Tapscott, the "net generation" comprise of young people who were born between 1977 and 1996 and subsequently "grew up bathed in bits" (Tapscott and Williams, 2008, p. 47). Other writers call this generation "born digital" (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008), "homo-zappiens" (Veen and Vrakking, 2006) and "net savvy" youth (Levin and Arafeh, 2002) in (Selwyn, 2009). Selwyn (2009) further stated all these point to common characteristics of current generations of children and young people; who have a strong passion for digital technologies and use such in their lives. Indeed this generation in described as being "fluent in the digital language of computers, video games and the internet" (Prensky, 2005, p. 8) and placing value on "being literate in media and ICTs in ways that exceed what many adults know or even consider worth knowing (Selwyn, 2009).
According to (Gros, 2012), the authors use different terms for this new generation though they all share similar features. Their main hypothesis however is that being immersed in new technologies influence the skills and interests of the new digital generation in a considerable way. Thus the most common characteristics attributed to members of the new digital generation are that they make extensive use of technology for communication purposes and that this intensive use makes them experts in technology {{(Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1998).}}
Many other Authors agree with Prensky. However, some have stated that having only two groups of technology users was unrealistic. Feeney (n.d.), in her article "Digital Denizens", suggests that adding more categories can be useful. She provides a short, non-scientific quiz to help individuals identify their category. The following summarizes Feeney's continuum: Digital recluse: Digital refugee; Digital immigrant; Digital Native; Digital Explorer; Digital Innovator; Digital Addict….. (Toledo,2007)?***. While Wosely et al( ) added two groups…."digital Tourist" and "digital Ambassadors".

Considering that the use of technology to support learning in higher education is becoming more and more relevant, the debate must go beyond the characteristics of the new generation and focus on what it means to be a learner in a digital environment. (Gros and Garcia, 2012). Specifically, in relation to the use of technology in Education, Prensky went on to argue that, "the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language" (Prensky's emphasis) (Prensky, 2001). According to Tascott (2009), in education the Net generation, are forcing a change in the model of pedagogy, from a teacher-focused approach based on instruction to a student-focused model based on collaboration (Jones 2010b). Prensky (2001) argued that "Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today's learners are different". Prensky provided some examples: a kindergarten pupil complained that: "Every time I go to school I have to power down," A former high-school student also said: "I went to a highly ranked college where all the professors came from MIT, but all they did was read from their textbooks. I quit" (Prensky, 2001).
Toledo (2007) supported the above exposition by Prensky and further provided a summary of the behaviours of digital immigrant teachers to include:-
Prefer slow and controlled release of information from limited sources.
Prefer singular processing and single or limited tasking.
Prefer to provide text before pictures, sounds, and video.
Prefer to provide information linearly, logically, and sequentially.
Prefer students to work independently rather than network and interact.
Prefer to teach "just-in-case" (it's on the exam).
Prefer to teach to the curriculum guide and standardized tests.
Toledo (2007) also enumerated behaviours of the digital native learners to include:
Preferring to receive information quickly from multiple multimedia sources.
Preferring parallel processing and multitasking.
Preferring processing pictures, sounds, and video before text.
Preferring random access to hyperlinked multimedia information.
Preferring to interact/network simultaneously with many others.
Preferring instant gratification and instant rewards.
Preferring learning that is relevant, instantly useful, and fun.
Preferring to learn "just-in-time." (Toledo, 2007).
So what should happen? Should the Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should their Digital Immigrant educators learn the new? It is noteworthy that, no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards to the old ways. Prensky (2001) argues that children born into any new culture usually learn the new language easily, and forcefully resist using the old. He further suggests that smart adult immigrants accept that they don't know about their new world and take advantage of their own children to help them learn and integrate. Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible) immigrants spend most of their time grousing about how good things were in the "old country" (Prensky, 2001).
Prensky (2001) adviced that, the issue of educating Digital Natives be confronted by reconsidering both the current methodology and content. The above was relevant to Prensky's environment as at 2001, but it is quite relevant to the Nigerian educational environment at the moment (currently….in this second decade of the millenium).

The above was Prensky's comparison between students and their educators at the beginning of the 21st Century. But later in 2007, in another article, Prensky (2007), advocated for a paradigm change. According to Prensky (2007), because of twenty-first century technology, education no longer means the same thing as it did in the past. Education as defined by an online dictionary, "is the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction especially at a school or university. It is also a form of learning in which knowledge skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training or research". But for Prensky (2007), educators narrowly see education as transferring "stuff" (i.e. a textbook) into students' heads. They spend their class time lecturing, and teaching our kids to use a variety of "tools" from the past – from the multiplication tables to the long division algorithm, to the encyclopedia, the library, conjugations, spelling rules, and essays (Prensky, 2007). Prensky (2011), added that today's teachers should find ways to create 21st century citizens who "parrot less and think more". He further stated that this requires fully integrating into their teaching, "meta" skills like problem solving, critical thinking, video and programming, And that teachers and students need to work together in new forms of "partnering" in which students do what they are best at—for example, use technology, find information, and create products that demonstrate their understanding—and in which teachers guide students by doing what they are best at—for example, ask the right questions, put things into the proper context, and ensure quality and rigor. Jones (2010b) supported this view when he stated that: "In order for schools to adapt to the habits of Digital Natives and how they are processing information, educators need to accept that the mode of learning is changing rapidly in a digital age … Learning itself has undergone a transformation over the past 30 years … For Digital Natives, research is more likely to mean Google search than a trip to the library, and they are more likely to check Wikipedia" (Palfrey and Gasser 2008, 239) in (Jones 2010b).

Indeed for today's children, the digital natives, education is getting prepared for the future – their future. According to Prensky (2007) It begins with stuff they know from all their connections to the world and its people – from television, You Tube, the Internet, IM, chat, social networking – and then lets them follow their own interests, learning things only as they become useful, sharing their views with each other along the way. He added that digital natives want their education "to be, and feel, meaningful, worthwhile, and relevant to the future. To them, facts, explanations, tools, and reasoning are worth learning only in so far as they support their own personal goals" (Prensky, 2007). Hence to these students, the use of technology, in the old way is of little use to them. Prensky (2007) quoted a digital Native: "Some teachers make a PowerPoint and they think they're so awesome, but it's just like writing on the blackboard," Another Native stated: "And then they read it to us," a third Native says: "why should we go to hear it read?" (Prensky, 2007).
_____________________________________________________________________________
2
It is obvious that today's learners hate being lectured to, they want this method to be replaced by community, i.e working in groups: Doing projects, having the opportunity to share their ideas with their peers and hear what their peers have to say; Being challenged; Being asked interesting questions; Being listened to; Being respected" (Prensky, 2007).
???Rephrase and summarise{{{In a more recent article (May 2012), Mark Prensky argued that: "As a student, half a century ago, I was taught to do three things that were very useful: to write a good letter, to write a good report, and to write a good essay, I did and I got good at doing all of them. Today people praise my letters, I have gotten paid for writing reports, and I write essays (and longer essays—books) for a living. But if I were starting out on a job today, I wouldn't need any of those skills—at least in those forms. I would write emails, not letters. I would make Power Points, not write reports. And I certainly would not write essays. At the most I would write blog posts, or perhaps articles". Prensky concluded that smart educators have been switching over, gradually, to teaching kids to learn the new skills. Students should learn to express themselves clearly, cogently and artfully, in the new yet different forms.
???This argument is supported by Erstad () who stated that a growing field of research, inclined to raise awareness of present and future challenges for our education system, is 'media/digital literacy' (Buckingham, 2003). Primarily because this term emphasizes that 'reading' (information access) and 'writing' (producing and expressing content) change over time (Baron 2009) in (Erstad, 2010).

Prensky (2012) proposes three new technologies that would be particularly useful for the Digital Native today, which he believes, should be taught to them today to prepare them for the future. Those three skills are: Working in virtual communities, Making videos, and Programming computers. Prensky believed that by the time the Natives start working, the "new trio of skills will be as important as letters, reports and essays were in my time (and no longer are), and as email, PowerPoint and blogs are today (but soon will no longer be)" (Prensky, 2012).
However, there is also a lot of researchers who disagree with Prensky and his Digital Natives/ Digital Immigrants classification. For example, Palfrey and Gasser (2010) took a different approach. They see the classification of people into different generations of technology users as a hype, stating that most academics do not like the term at all and feel strongly that its use can do more harm than good. Palfrey and Gasser (2010), further argued that there was no generational break that divides older and younger people by how each group uses technology and that people have adopted new technologies at varying rates and at varying ages over time. Hence they differed significantly from Marc Prensky's original formulation of the term "Digital Natives." These two authors argued that there was no moment in history that demarks an overnight change in how people use technology or what it means for peoples' lives or societies. People have learned and adapted to life in a partially digitally mediated world at different rates, and that not all youth of recent generations use technology in advanced ways (Palfrey and Gasser, 2011). Other research studies (Kennedy, et al., 2010; McNaught et al., 2009; Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Guo et al., 2008; Selwyn, 2009; Salajan et al., 2010, Bullen et al., 2011; Romero et al., 2011; Gros, Garcia, & Escofet, 2012) in Romero (2013) show that there is a scientific gap demonstrating the principal claims about this generation. In fact, some of the authors mentioned refute the Net Generation characteristics arguing that they can also be found in other generations: Romero (2013) stated that the often used example of a young person doing homework while engaged in other activities was also applied to earlier generations doing homework in front of the television, refuting its validity: He further stated that most of these studies have not found evidence to support claims of young students using digital technologies in a radically different manner from older users (Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011) in Romero (2013). In fact, there is "no evidence of fundamentally new learning processes emerging from the so-called Digital Natives' lifelong encounters with IT" (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010, p. 42) nor a shift in the structure of the brain associated with growing up with digital technologies (Jones, 2012).
Adnan et al (2011) also disagrees with the "Digital Native/Net gen/ Millenials syndrome". He argued that such claims have potentially significant and costly implications for educational institutions since they are being forced to make significant changes to how they are organized, how they teach, and how learning technologies should be used (Adnan et al, 2011).
Also, according to Romero (2013), Empirical studies of university students' actual in situ uses of the Internet as a source of academic information are also surprisingly few (Selwyn, 2008); so it is not possible either to demonstrate that the so claimed Net Generation students are experts using it for educational purposes. Adnan et al (2011) further argued that Prensky (2001a, 2001b) provides no empirical support for most of his claims, although he does point to brain research to support his notion that technology use affects the physical structure of the brain. The specific effects of the pervasive use of digital technologies on multitasking ability, the need for instant gratification, and the preference for random access and graphics over conventional text are not supported. According to Gros et al (2012), most other empirical evidence demonstrates that the situation is not so simple and that it is not obvious that such a digital generation actually exists in a homogenous way. There may be age-related differences concerning perceptions and experiences of technology-mediated learning, but there may also be other demographic characteristics, such as gender (Selwyn, 2008) and academic discipline (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krause, 2008).}} (Gros et al, 2012).
In summary, the claims about the net generation fall into three categories: the widespread and intensive use of digital technologies; the impact of this use on how this generation accesses and uses information, how they interact socially, and how they learn; and the unique behavioural characteristics and learning styles of this generation. With the exception of the first category (widespread and intensive use) review of the popular and academic literature shows that there is no empirical support for the most prevalent claims in the other two categories. Furthermore, other literature reviews confirm our findings and the methodologically-sound research tends to contradict the claims (Adnan et al, 2011).***
RELEVANCE TO NIGERIA:
CONCLUSION
Despite this growing criticism policy-makers continue to adopt generational arguments. For example,
the then Vice Chancellor of the Open University (UK) speaking to the university council:
" Most of our students, moreover, are part of what we now describe as the Net
Generation. This is a generation who think IM, text and Google are verbs not
Applications". (Brenda Gourley, VC Open University [UK], 26 September 2008)


USE: Selwyn….Digital natives myth.

If we had to sum up the outcome of our work in a single message it would be to advocate
caution to all those arguing that universities and academic staff have to change to
accommodate a new Net generation of Digital Native students. The new generation of
students show significant age related differences but the generation is not homogenous
nor is it articulating a single clear set of demands. It seems to us that universities and
academics are, as always, faced with choices about how to change and these choices need
to be better informed about the kinds of students that are entering their institutions.{{Jones et al, 2011}}

[[[ADD CONCLUSION OF ADNAN et al RESEARCH]].



Prensky, Marc (2001). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants". On the Horizon, (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001)

11