What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make?
a) To socioeconomically related access issues within a society?
b) To global access issues across countries and regions?
I think that the implication here is that the digital divide, and its’ implications, will increase. As education moves towards: 1/ being more technology based and 2/more tailored to fit individuals needs (likely through personalised learning online etc as opposed to traditional f2f methods), the digital divide will become more a split between the educated and the uneducated. This in turn will become a divide between the employed and the unemployed, and the well off and the less well off. This said, education is becoming more accessible to those who are less well off thanks to government loans for students and institutions such as the OU. However, for those who grow up without even a chance to grasp technologies becoming increasingly popular in education, this may make little difference. As this cycle goes on, the digital divide can only increase.
Friday, 27 March 2009
WEEK 9 red. Tailored education problems
Is there a potential problem being stored up for people if 'education' is tailored to fit into their cultural and personal preferences?
I believe so. See my post here about education stretching a person: http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-9-q3.html
If education were tailored for each individual, then a very limited amount of ‘stretching’ would go on. Without being stretched beyond preferences, I’m not really sure how much education would actually be possible. To give an example, when I was in the younger years of secondary school, I hated English and much preferred maths and science. Had I been given the choice to do just these, or less of English based subjects then I would have taken it. However, by the time I came to choose my A-level options, I really disliked sciences and favoured the humanities. Having been given the choice of a tailored education, my options in later life could have been severely limited.
Psychologists like Bordieu (Zevenbergen) also make well established claim that general learning and development is a result of new information being struggled with a fit into either new or pre-existing schema. With tailored learning to ‘suit’ the individual, not only would the learning of specific content be limited, but genera; development itself may be stunted as a result of minimised struggle.
Finally, only learning a limited amount of subjects may have ethical implications. Only learning preferred topics may limit knowledge of the world outside of what directly affects the individual.
If this question, however, is talking about ‘tailoring’ in terms of learning methods rather than the actual contents of education, I cannot see as many problems.Although this may be limiting because it may mean that neo-luddites etc can put effort into being educated in their desired ways, or techophiles in theirs, it is unlikely that a balanced variety of skills will be gained despite making education accessible for more; the outcome will be less useful than if a wider variety of skills were taught. Again, this comes back to stretching and ideas of learning through struggle.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
I believe so. See my post here about education stretching a person: http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-9-q3.html
If education were tailored for each individual, then a very limited amount of ‘stretching’ would go on. Without being stretched beyond preferences, I’m not really sure how much education would actually be possible. To give an example, when I was in the younger years of secondary school, I hated English and much preferred maths and science. Had I been given the choice to do just these, or less of English based subjects then I would have taken it. However, by the time I came to choose my A-level options, I really disliked sciences and favoured the humanities. Having been given the choice of a tailored education, my options in later life could have been severely limited.
Psychologists like Bordieu (Zevenbergen) also make well established claim that general learning and development is a result of new information being struggled with a fit into either new or pre-existing schema. With tailored learning to ‘suit’ the individual, not only would the learning of specific content be limited, but genera; development itself may be stunted as a result of minimised struggle.
Finally, only learning a limited amount of subjects may have ethical implications. Only learning preferred topics may limit knowledge of the world outside of what directly affects the individual.
If this question, however, is talking about ‘tailoring’ in terms of learning methods rather than the actual contents of education, I cannot see as many problems.Although this may be limiting because it may mean that neo-luddites etc can put effort into being educated in their desired ways, or techophiles in theirs, it is unlikely that a balanced variety of skills will be gained despite making education accessible for more; the outcome will be less useful than if a wider variety of skills were taught. Again, this comes back to stretching and ideas of learning through struggle.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
WEEK 9 red. Prensky and CofP
How might Wenger's notions on practice communities relate to Prensky's on education?
A brief summary of both ideas:
Prensky made a divide between those who have grown up with digital technologies and those who have learnt to use them at a later stage in life. He argues that growing up with these technologies (Digital natives) effects the way the minds of the users work compared to those who have learnt at a later stage (digital natives) as brains develop differently depending on the type of stimulation they receive. He discusses the implications of this divide in terms of teaching and the problem that teachers are Dig immigrants while pupils are Dig natives.
Wenger’s notion of a CofP is that of a community brought together by a ‘joint enterprise’ with joint group goals and aims. A CofP is separate from official organisations and this reinforces the idea that the members of the community possess the desire to be part of it and improve at the joint enterprise themselves rather than being pushed by someone else.
So...According to Prensky’s ideas, the issue with education may arise when Educators do not understand the learner’s ways of learning ;Not understanding the ways their minds work (small chunks of non-linear information being preferred etc). In combating this issue, it is likely that they may form some sort of study group where they can study in the ways which suit them best- a CofP. This would be separate from the official organisation (school, uni etc), and the people in the group would have the shared aim of understanding work and succeeding in it. There would be no hierarchy as in traditional education, instead the CofP would be bound and motivated by their joint interest of understanding work in a way which suits them. Perhaps, as Prensky suggests, video games may be a part of this joint enterprise. New technologies allow gamers to connect via the internet and if playing the sort of educational games Prensky had in mind, a CofP could be formed in a way that both suits and encourages the learning of natives which is arguable poorly catered for by immigrant teachers.
A brief summary of both ideas:
Prensky made a divide between those who have grown up with digital technologies and those who have learnt to use them at a later stage in life. He argues that growing up with these technologies (Digital natives) effects the way the minds of the users work compared to those who have learnt at a later stage (digital natives) as brains develop differently depending on the type of stimulation they receive. He discusses the implications of this divide in terms of teaching and the problem that teachers are Dig immigrants while pupils are Dig natives.
Wenger’s notion of a CofP is that of a community brought together by a ‘joint enterprise’ with joint group goals and aims. A CofP is separate from official organisations and this reinforces the idea that the members of the community possess the desire to be part of it and improve at the joint enterprise themselves rather than being pushed by someone else.
So...According to Prensky’s ideas, the issue with education may arise when Educators do not understand the learner’s ways of learning ;Not understanding the ways their minds work (small chunks of non-linear information being preferred etc). In combating this issue, it is likely that they may form some sort of study group where they can study in the ways which suit them best- a CofP. This would be separate from the official organisation (school, uni etc), and the people in the group would have the shared aim of understanding work and succeeding in it. There would be no hierarchy as in traditional education, instead the CofP would be bound and motivated by their joint interest of understanding work in a way which suits them. Perhaps, as Prensky suggests, video games may be a part of this joint enterprise. New technologies allow gamers to connect via the internet and if playing the sort of educational games Prensky had in mind, a CofP could be formed in a way that both suits and encourages the learning of natives which is arguable poorly catered for by immigrant teachers.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
WEEK 9. 7c
A person known to you (could be you, but you don't need to admit it!) who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture.
I think the phrase ‘digital immigrant’ is much more subjective/flexible than it initially seems, depending on the technologies in question. Although by most definitions I am a digital native, certain occasions would suggest otherwise. When babysitting a 6 and 10 year old, I found that I had little idea about how to use the programmes they were using on the computer, and despite them teaching me I failed to pick it up very well. They then found games online which they had never played before yet still went on to beat me. As they had never played before, it suggests that their nativism to technologies which I am unfamiliar with means their brains have learnt to work in ways which mine simple doesn’t. By 11.00am (I’m usually quite a good babysitter, but I didn’t want to be outsmarted by a 6year old) I admitted defeat and realised that the game was not something I could just ‘learn’ in a few hours but that my brain just didn’t work like theirs.
This leads me to argue that while I class myself as a native for some technologies, I am an immigrant when it comes to others and just don’t possess what is required to learn them. 7 years younger than the supposed cut off for digital nativism, I feel that in these circumstances I am a young digital immigrant. As more technologies come about which I may not learn to use, I feel this might be the case more often in the future as a generation of new digital natives comes about.
I think the phrase ‘digital immigrant’ is much more subjective/flexible than it initially seems, depending on the technologies in question. Although by most definitions I am a digital native, certain occasions would suggest otherwise. When babysitting a 6 and 10 year old, I found that I had little idea about how to use the programmes they were using on the computer, and despite them teaching me I failed to pick it up very well. They then found games online which they had never played before yet still went on to beat me. As they had never played before, it suggests that their nativism to technologies which I am unfamiliar with means their brains have learnt to work in ways which mine simple doesn’t. By 11.00am (I’m usually quite a good babysitter, but I didn’t want to be outsmarted by a 6year old) I admitted defeat and realised that the game was not something I could just ‘learn’ in a few hours but that my brain just didn’t work like theirs.
This leads me to argue that while I class myself as a native for some technologies, I am an immigrant when it comes to others and just don’t possess what is required to learn them. 7 years younger than the supposed cut off for digital nativism, I feel that in these circumstances I am a young digital immigrant. As more technologies come about which I may not learn to use, I feel this might be the case more often in the future as a generation of new digital natives comes about.
WEEK 9. 7D
Describe the daily frustrations of a fictional neo-luddite at university now in the UK.
The life of a neo-luddite at university today would presumably be filled with struggle and overcoming the use of technology which is rapidly dominating the way a student’s life works. To start with, student timetables are available online. For some courses timetables change weekly and must be checked every weekend. Any last minute changes to these timetables are then either emailed to student’s university email accounts or posted on Blackboard. Without the use of these facilities is would be almost impossible to receive up-to date information on what classes are being held where. Of course the neo-luddite could ask friends for updates but the fastest ways to receive these updates are again technology filled; by text message, mobile phone call, email or maybe via a SNS. The next issues the neo-luddite may face come with university work. Research without using a library database online, online journals, websites etc etc would be an initial problem (after the unavoidable use of technology via swipecard to actually enter the library!). The work then has to be submitted in a word processed way, unless it is an online unit like NMC…both unavoidable as a student but disliked by the neo-luddite. University social life is then mainly arranged through a variety of technologies; A recent MCC night out has been discussed and arranged on Facebook, with messages and updates from the organisers, instant messaging on MSN and text messages also giving updates. The neo-luddite could hear about these things IRL but would fail to hear up to date changes or plans as quickly as they may do online.
A neo-luddite would simply not be able to function at university without overcoming their dislike of technology. While some aspects of this are just an inconvenience, others are ingrained into the way university works and are unavoidable aspects of being a modern day student.
The above eg suggests several things. Firstly Livingstone's notion of literacy; Having avoided technology for so long the neo-luddite is likely to struggle with any university course and it's demands for technology, even to make graphs or word process at the least. This would need to be learnt before it was possible to complete a degree. Secondly it has implications on a digital divide. It suggests that a digital divide is likely to increase between those who posess higher education and those who don't. This also means that a neo-luddite may fail to find employment because a lack of a degree and the failure to demonstrate desired technologcal skills required in a range of jobs. This divide may also then reflect socio-economic status' in community.
The life of a neo-luddite at university today would presumably be filled with struggle and overcoming the use of technology which is rapidly dominating the way a student’s life works. To start with, student timetables are available online. For some courses timetables change weekly and must be checked every weekend. Any last minute changes to these timetables are then either emailed to student’s university email accounts or posted on Blackboard. Without the use of these facilities is would be almost impossible to receive up-to date information on what classes are being held where. Of course the neo-luddite could ask friends for updates but the fastest ways to receive these updates are again technology filled; by text message, mobile phone call, email or maybe via a SNS. The next issues the neo-luddite may face come with university work. Research without using a library database online, online journals, websites etc etc would be an initial problem (after the unavoidable use of technology via swipecard to actually enter the library!). The work then has to be submitted in a word processed way, unless it is an online unit like NMC…both unavoidable as a student but disliked by the neo-luddite. University social life is then mainly arranged through a variety of technologies; A recent MCC night out has been discussed and arranged on Facebook, with messages and updates from the organisers, instant messaging on MSN and text messages also giving updates. The neo-luddite could hear about these things IRL but would fail to hear up to date changes or plans as quickly as they may do online.
A neo-luddite would simply not be able to function at university without overcoming their dislike of technology. While some aspects of this are just an inconvenience, others are ingrained into the way university works and are unavoidable aspects of being a modern day student.
The above eg suggests several things. Firstly Livingstone's notion of literacy; Having avoided technology for so long the neo-luddite is likely to struggle with any university course and it's demands for technology, even to make graphs or word process at the least. This would need to be learnt before it was possible to complete a degree. Secondly it has implications on a digital divide. It suggests that a digital divide is likely to increase between those who posess higher education and those who don't. This also means that a neo-luddite may fail to find employment because a lack of a degree and the failure to demonstrate desired technologcal skills required in a range of jobs. This divide may also then reflect socio-economic status' in community.
WEEK 9. 7b
The youngest digital immigrant you know.
The youngest digital immigrant I know is probably a 9 year old who I babysit. She has older parents and therefore her household is fairly limited in terms of technology. A television is probably the most technology available to her and before school she never had access to a games console, a computer, the internet or a mobile phone. Since starting school, she has begun to use computers as part of her education but was describing to me that everyone else is better than she is at the tasks they perform on a computer. This suggests that missing out on early use of a computer means that she failed to learn to use this technology as her friends did before school and that she isn’t equipped to learn as fast as they are.
However, according to Prensky’s ideas, as she is so young and with his thoughts on neuroplasticity she is likely to pick up the new technologies very quickly now that she has begun to use them and will probably become a native fairly soon. After all, I class myself as a native (when it comes to computers) and wasn’t using them at this age; more evidence that the idea of DN/DIs is less rigid than initially suggested.
The youngest digital immigrant I know is probably a 9 year old who I babysit. She has older parents and therefore her household is fairly limited in terms of technology. A television is probably the most technology available to her and before school she never had access to a games console, a computer, the internet or a mobile phone. Since starting school, she has begun to use computers as part of her education but was describing to me that everyone else is better than she is at the tasks they perform on a computer. This suggests that missing out on early use of a computer means that she failed to learn to use this technology as her friends did before school and that she isn’t equipped to learn as fast as they are.
However, according to Prensky’s ideas, as she is so young and with his thoughts on neuroplasticity she is likely to pick up the new technologies very quickly now that she has begun to use them and will probably become a native fairly soon. After all, I class myself as a native (when it comes to computers) and wasn’t using them at this age; more evidence that the idea of DN/DIs is less rigid than initially suggested.
WEEK 9. 7a
The oldest digital native you know.
I would class my Dad as a digital native. Despite being born over 40 years too early to fit Prensky’s view of digital nativism, he possesses many qualities which I believe allow him to fit the category: He usually owns new Technologies before I do, works from home on the computer, has a better mobile phone than I, and spends hours a day on the internet doing daily tasks like working, banking, emailing and reading online.
Although Prensky’s theory might initially suggest that he is a digital immigrant and probably still retains some ‘accent’ which proves he didn’t grow up surrounded by such digital technologies, he also points out that people’s brains can actually change throughout their lifetime as a result of the stimulation they receive. Therefore I would argue that as a keen, regular and competent user of up to date technologies since the digital revolution, my Dad may be classed as a digital native, despite his age.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
I would class my Dad as a digital native. Despite being born over 40 years too early to fit Prensky’s view of digital nativism, he possesses many qualities which I believe allow him to fit the category: He usually owns new Technologies before I do, works from home on the computer, has a better mobile phone than I, and spends hours a day on the internet doing daily tasks like working, banking, emailing and reading online.
Although Prensky’s theory might initially suggest that he is a digital immigrant and probably still retains some ‘accent’ which proves he didn’t grow up surrounded by such digital technologies, he also points out that people’s brains can actually change throughout their lifetime as a result of the stimulation they receive. Therefore I would argue that as a keen, regular and competent user of up to date technologies since the digital revolution, my Dad may be classed as a digital native, despite his age.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
WEEK 9. Q3.
Should education 'stretch a person do you think? (What do you mean by 'stretch'?)
I consider ‘stretch’ in terms of education to mean pushing the boundaries of knowledge which a person already possesses. I don’t think that without doing this, it can really be classed as education. To simply recap what a person already knows isn’t teaching them anything new and well established psychological theories support that fitting NEW and previously unknown information into ways of thought is how people learn (Bordieu).
I’m sure most people can recall a time when work has been struggled with and overcome. This leaning is a result of stretching ourselves and struggle; had we found it easy initially it is unlikely we would have been learning anything new. I’ve given an eg you may be able to relate to in this blog of Kayley’s: http://kayleya.blogspot.com/2009/03/w9-task-3-should-education-stretch.html#comments
I consider ‘stretch’ in terms of education to mean pushing the boundaries of knowledge which a person already possesses. I don’t think that without doing this, it can really be classed as education. To simply recap what a person already knows isn’t teaching them anything new and well established psychological theories support that fitting NEW and previously unknown information into ways of thought is how people learn (Bordieu).
I’m sure most people can recall a time when work has been struggled with and overcome. This leaning is a result of stretching ourselves and struggle; had we found it easy initially it is unlikely we would have been learning anything new. I’ve given an eg you may be able to relate to in this blog of Kayley’s: http://kayleya.blogspot.com/2009/03/w9-task-3-should-education-stretch.html#comments
Friday, 20 March 2009
WEEK 8 red. What is Digital Nativism/Immigration?
Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.What Is it? Who cares about it? What sort of general attitudes have been based upon it?
Digital immigration, and it’s counterpart digital nativism are terms coined by Mark Prensky. It is probably best to understand these terms by understanding the latter first. Digital natives are those who are ‘native’ to the technologies of the digital revolution; those who have been born and brought up with digital technologies. As Prensky explains, Digital Natives 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" (Prensky, 2001a, p. 1).
Immigrants, on the other hand, have not grown up surrounded by such technology. Instead, they have learnt how to use such digital technologies at a later stage. Although they make competently learn to use this technology they do in a fundamentally different way to DN’s, retaining the ‘accent’ of an immigrant.
Prensky argues that the way DN’s and DI’s think, learn and process information is therefore fundamentally different. A key implication of the DI/DN divide is that of teaching; the argument that teachers are not only having to teach a generation who use different technologies but whose brains actually work differently. Prensky criticises the entire education system and claims that it is outdated and does not cater for DN’s.
One point i think worth mentioning re: Prensky’s theory is the idea that it is not a timeless one; in ten years time when DN’s are those doing the teaching, will his work still be relevant? Or will the learners have progressed yet further and be learning in different ways again? This is hard to say as envisaging future technology is near impossible but I still feel the future of the DI/DN divide is something that should be considered.
WEEK 8 red. Article Abstracts and References
Article 1.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
Abstract: Zevenberg discusses early childhood learning (focusing on pre-school children) and uses sociologist Pierre Bordieu’s theories of learning as a basis for how the teaching of youngsters should change to incorporate technology. The article suggests that even pre-schoolers have the qualities of digital natives and suggests that even childhood play should involve digital technologies to prepare them for education involving these.
Article 2.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: Furthers Prensky’s initial ideas from part one of this article that digital natives brains work fundamentally differently to those of digital immigrants. This is used to suggest that digital games are a suitable learning tool for digital immigrants and that these should be used in new education. The article cites scientific research that the brain has a ‘plasticity’ that allows it’s structure to change throughout life, not just in the early stages. The main implications discussed are that education must change to fit the ways young people’s minds now work if it is to be successful.
Article 3.
2/ Van Eck, R (2006) “Digital Game Based Learning: It’s not just the Digital Natives who are restless”. Educause. 41 (2) http://www.seriousgamesystems.com/Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning%20Its%20Not%20Just%20the%20Digital%20Natives%20Who%20Are%20Restless.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article looks at the recently increasing popularity of DGBL (Digital Game Based Learning) and considers the difference between entertainment and education in games, and the balance between the two needed for DGBL. It also addresses some of the logistical problems of creating games which serve to educate but retain aspects of entertainment. Previous scepticism of DGBL is challenged and the criteria games must fill to be suitable for learning are discussed, such as fitting the curriculum and design of the games,
Article 4.
Kennedy et al (2008) “First year student’s experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article is based on a 2006 study of university students. It first questions wether students are natives for all technologies or just certain more common ones, and moves on to looking at student’s preferences for using technology in their studies. It analyses result in light of a review of Prensky’s work about the implications of Digital nativism within technology. Findings and implications of the study suggest that there is a huge variance of students wanting/not wanting to use technologies within their studies depending on what technology is in question.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
Abstract: Zevenberg discusses early childhood learning (focusing on pre-school children) and uses sociologist Pierre Bordieu’s theories of learning as a basis for how the teaching of youngsters should change to incorporate technology. The article suggests that even pre-schoolers have the qualities of digital natives and suggests that even childhood play should involve digital technologies to prepare them for education involving these.
Article 2.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: Furthers Prensky’s initial ideas from part one of this article that digital natives brains work fundamentally differently to those of digital immigrants. This is used to suggest that digital games are a suitable learning tool for digital immigrants and that these should be used in new education. The article cites scientific research that the brain has a ‘plasticity’ that allows it’s structure to change throughout life, not just in the early stages. The main implications discussed are that education must change to fit the ways young people’s minds now work if it is to be successful.
Article 3.
2/ Van Eck, R (2006) “Digital Game Based Learning: It’s not just the Digital Natives who are restless”. Educause. 41 (2) http://www.seriousgamesystems.com/Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning%20Its%20Not%20Just%20the%20Digital%20Natives%20Who%20Are%20Restless.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article looks at the recently increasing popularity of DGBL (Digital Game Based Learning) and considers the difference between entertainment and education in games, and the balance between the two needed for DGBL. It also addresses some of the logistical problems of creating games which serve to educate but retain aspects of entertainment. Previous scepticism of DGBL is challenged and the criteria games must fill to be suitable for learning are discussed, such as fitting the curriculum and design of the games,
Article 4.
Kennedy et al (2008) “First year student’s experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article is based on a 2006 study of university students. It first questions wether students are natives for all technologies or just certain more common ones, and moves on to looking at student’s preferences for using technology in their studies. It analyses result in light of a review of Prensky’s work about the implications of Digital nativism within technology. Findings and implications of the study suggest that there is a huge variance of students wanting/not wanting to use technologies within their studies depending on what technology is in question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
