Earl Aguilera (2019) compares two studies done on the integration of technology into the teaching of young students who have grown up in (and only know) a world with computers and the internet (i.e. “digital natives”). The first study, conducted by Christo Sims, focused on a sort of experimental school conceived to incorporate, “videogame-based pedagogies, media-production practices, and digitally networked out-of-school learning (Aguilera, 2019),” and how this method ultimately fell short due to its “disruptive fixation,” (the school was more interested in disrupting the current educational system than it was in creating actual improvements). The second study, conducted by Antero Garcia, found an inner city educator observing the technological leanings already displayed by his students, and harnessing them to bring technology into the classroom. Ultimately, Garcia’s method is found to be a more beneficial teaching strategy, as it, “points to the ways that we, as students, parents, teachers, and communities, might take action to advance our own visions of equitable and impactful education for all (Aguilera, 2019).”
Jason Theodore Hilton’s (2016) case study explores two veteran social studies teachers integrating technology into their teaching by first using the SAMR method, then using the TPACK method. The findings of the study tended to favor SAMR, showing it, “to most easily connect to student-centered design in that each activity is examined for specific opportunities to imbed technology in a manner that improves the independent learning capacity of the students (Hilton, 2016),” while finding the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge center of TPACK to be an almost unattainable ideal.
Smith, Kahlke and Judd (2018), provide definitions and discussions of the terms “Digital Natives,” and “Digital Literacy,” and make a case for focusing on the latter as it “presents an opportunity to move toward evidence-informed dialogue about learning and technologies across generations.” Finally, the authors outline a model for incorporating the tenets of “Digital Literacy” into “Learning Design,” (described as authentic teaching and learning activities, learning goals ad feedback assessment) as a way, “to provide a foundation for fostering effective digital practices (Smith, et al., 2018).”
In this week’s final article, Erika E. Smith (2012), first defines the concepts of “Digital Natives” and “Digital Immigrants,” while relaying the history of the terms and the early scholarship associated with them. She goes on to explain modern criticisms with these terms/methods of looking at technology in education. These include a failure to update the thinking on/definitions of these terms over the past two decades and their inability to account for differences in socio-economic status.
A major takeaway from the reading this week is how using the idea of “Digital Natives” as a justification of teaching methods or pedagogy can lead to significant missteps. Sometimes this can result from a sort of “cart before the horse” scenario as Aguilera (2019) describes in his analysis of Simms’ study, “how cycles of techno-philanthropism and attempted educational reform can fail in their interventional goals.” In this case, designing a curriculum for “Digital Natives, for the sake of designing a curriculum for “Digital Natives” ultimately proved how, “educational reform efforts (technologically-driven or otherwise) often fail their intended beneficiaries (Aguilera, 2019).”
Similarly, Smith (2012), provides almost a checklist of the way in which accepting the idea of the “Digital Native” at face value can prove ill-advised particularly when making broad assumptions about their characteristics. Smith points to Jones et al. stating these “Digital Natives, “showed ‘significant variations’ in technology use amongst Net generation students (Smith, 2012).” Additionally, in showing variances of digital literacy amongst the “Digital Native” class, Smith references Hargittai who “found socio-economic status, including race and gender, to be a significant factor and an important predictor of technology skills, abilities, and habits (Smith, 2017).”
Ultimately, the problems inherent to this approach and manner of thinking about “Digital Natives” is remedied by the ideas presented in the videos this week. Heitner (2014), presents many sample ideas of ways students can more successfully navigate the digital present, but at the core, each of these ideas boiled down to “empathy.” The concept of “empathy,” of “putting yourself in another person’s shoes” can be a means of counteracting the problems with making assumptions about “Digital Natives.” For example, instead of taking for granted that a student has a high level of computer literacy simply based upon when he/she was born, take some time to speak to and listen to this student. Understand where he or she is coming from and consider that just because someone was born after the year 2000, they are not necessarily tech savvy.
Rushkoff (2018) similarly provides ideas that might remedy the problems that develop out of teaching to “Digital Natives” for the sake of teaching to “Digital Natives.” The tech billionaires Rushkoff discusses have created a sort of dystopian digital future (zero-sum winner take all) in their attempt to create a digital future for the sake of creating a digital future. This mirrors the failed experimental school Aguilera (2019) points to in his analysis of Simms’ study. It is possible that the solution Rushkoff provides would work for future schools setting out to teach directly to the “Digital Native”; “it’s a matter of retrieving the values that we’re in danger of leaving behind and embedding them in the digital infrastructure of the future (Rushkoff, 2018).” In other words teach to the students and if this means incorporating technology, then at times incorporate technology. Do not teach technology and if this means incorporating the students, then at times incorporate the students.
References:
Aguilera, Earl. (2019). On disruption and integration: two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14:1, 78-87. DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2019.1565668
Heitner, Devorah (2014). The challenges of raising a digital native [Video file]. TEDx. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRQdAOrqvGg
Hilton, Jason T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms.The Social
Studies, 107:2, 68-73. DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Rushkoff, Douglas (2018). How to be “team human” in the digital future [Video file]. Ted Salon. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_human_in_the_digital_future?language=en
Smith, Erika E. (2012). The digital native debate in higher education: a comparative analysis of recent literature. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology., 38:3, 1-18. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRsbYUENyA2fDLV8kZfKu35e-Y7-46Fr/view
Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R., & Judd, T. (2018). From digital natives to digital literacy: anchoring digital practices through learning design.design. In M. Campbell, J. Willems, C. Adachi, D. Blake, I. Doherty, S. Krishnan, S. Macfarlane, L. Ngo, M. O’Donnell, S. Palmer, L. Riddell, I. Story, H. Suri & J. Tai (Eds.), Open Oceans: Learning without borders. Proceedings ASCILITE 2018 Geelong. 510-515
Nossen_CI5630_Final Project EPortfolio 