Are students today fundamentally different than students in the past?
My Original Answer
I feel that students today are fundamentally different than students in the past. Students today have grown up in the digital age, where all types of information are available to them immediately and in a multitude of ways. And students have access to all of this information literally at their fingertips, with a tap or a swipe or click. Whether it is via social media like Facebook or Twitter, or via Google, or just simply through texting between friends and family, students today have access to more information, in more ways, and in real time, than ever before in history. As a result, the way students view and interpret information would seem to be fundamentally different too.
My Revised Answerd, After Reading Both Articles
After reading Prensky's article and DT Quinn's blog post response, I still feel that students are fundamentally different. I feel this because of the reasons I already stated: so many types of information are available to them, in such a variety of forms, and immediately--at their fingertips. In my opinion, this would seem to greatly affect the way that students of today view and interpret information compared to students of the past. And as Prensky stated (Paragraph 3), "today's students...are the first to grow up with this new technology." It surrounds them all the time as "Digital Natives," which is very different than how their "Digital Immigrants" counterparts grew up.
Additionally (Paragraph 5), Prensky notes that as a result of growing up in a digital environment, the experience of today's students leads to different brain structures that make them think and process information fundamentally different from their predecessors.
As Quinn also noted (Paragraph 4), "attention spans decrease and 'twitch speeds' increase as humans are exposed to digital media.' In my opinion, this has to affect--at least some of the time--how today's students view and interpret/assimilate new information. Conversely, Quinn also notes in the same paragraph that humans do engage 'with TV, internet, and games for unhealthily protracted durations.' So this would demonstrate that even though attention spans may be shorter for many students, they are also still capable of focusing for long periods, given the proper motivation.
I agree with what Quinn said (Paragraph 6) with regard to Prensky's thoughts on 'Future Content.' Future Content is primarily going to be digital and technological, but it will also continue to include things like ethics, sociology, politics, languages, etc. And "this is very much an argument for the 'repurposing or remastering' of old or existing learning."
I think Quinn's final statements (Paragraph 8) say it best: "This is our current and future reality. Using technological tools or media changes the way we do things, but core human needs, activities and behaviours persist. Education
must change how it does its business, whilst preserving, repurposing
and remastering the best of what it has always done. A user-determinist approach is still appropriate – we are still in charge and pedagogy should always drive technology. Users (both lecturers and students) still make choices about how (or how not) to use technology"
What that says to me is that using technological tools may change how we do things as educators (and as students); however, educators must still find ways to preserve and repurpose what has worked in the past to meet the needs of today's digital learners. WE can control what we teach and how we teach it so that we can be as effective as possible as teachers. We have choices as teachers, as do today's students.
Tina,
ReplyDeleteMy original answer was no, that they are the same as when we went to school. I also graduated in 1984. The one part I cannot get my hands around is the different brain logic. The article states very likely, but no proof. Now we both have children as you stated, and I have had my share of "attention span-less" children moments. But I don't see how the brain would have changed in those 20+ years. Also, I agree that things come at the Digital Native generation WAY faster than it did for us. But, we also had video games (had to pay), and maybe if you were lucky, Atari systems, and me and my friends would play for hours, because we love the challenge, and the stimuli. But, you can go through history and look at recreation and entertainment cycles, and yes, kids/students love the stimuli, of whatever is available at the time. This is why I believe, while fun, most of today's natives don't want to go back to the old games. But when they do, they get just as much fun out of it. They key to me is that you have to make it interesting, and that is also what marks a good educator.
Thanks,
You make very good points, Christopher. It makes me look at this from a different perspective. I'm still leaning toward kids processing info in different ways. But I don't think I'm 100% sure about it at this point. The more viewpoints I read, the more questionable it all becomes to me. But that's a good thing; I like when other points of view make me question my own. :)
DeleteThank you for including that article. I am going to replace the DT Quinn post with that next term. Excellent, academic find!
ReplyDeleteThank you! It was definitely an interesting read so I thought it was worth sharing. :)
Delete