Reflections on Prensky

I've been reading some articles by Marc Prensky as part of the required readings this week: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants and "Engage Me or Enrage Me," What Today's Learners Demand.

It's definitely thought-provoking!

Prensky presents some pretty radical observations of today's learners, and suggests a massive overhaul of teaching and pedagogy is needed in order to engage today's learners. It seems that he is suggesting that we take "play-based learning" to a new level.

Interestingly, as a "digital immigrant", as Prensky calls me, I find myself considering the situation that he paints with a grain or two of salt. He would accuse me of being biased, because I have not been immersed in the technology the same way my kids will be. I don't seek to defend myself in that regard - my first experiences with computers occurred at age 10 (1987), being introduced to the "cutting edge" Commodore 64. Our household didn't get a computer until I was 18 (1995), and I didn't have internet in my house until well after I'd moved out (2002). I'm trying to catch up and stay on board, but I find myself wondering how much of it is really worth it. 

Prensky's ideas have some merit, in that often times curriculum and pedagogy can be pretty dull and boring compared to a solid session of a child's favourite video game. Teachers have much to learn from the marketing and engaging techniques that are employed by video game marketers. Students are engaged by the language used in these games, as well as the games themselves. The constant movement and bright colour of a video game is enough to suck anyone in, and it takes a strong young mind to tear away from this and focus on something else. According to Prensky, the level of engagement of the average classroom lesson needs to be beefed up so that some students don't just zone out. But in another light, there are some considerations that need to be looked at:

Enrage? Really?

1. Who's going to design and pay for it all? 

School budget is one big issue. It's all well and good to ask for tech to be prevalent in the classroom, but who's going to pay for all the shiny new iPads? Especially in the State system, where it's sometimes hard enough trying to get a new set of reader books for the class, let alone individual tablets.

Additionally, the cost of such high-end games is sometimes phenomenal. For example, in 1997, Square Enix poured $64.23 million into the development of Final Fantasy VII alone (adjusted for inflation). Compare that to ACARA, the government division entrusted with developing our entire National Curriculum, who had an annual budget just shy of $3.5 million in 2009. It's great to say that our students need to be engaged on a new level, but it would involve scrapping the curriculum as it stands and starting again from scratch, which is an expensive exercise. To develop it to the level of quality that Prensky suggests (and that students "demand") would possibly involve more money than a government would be prepared to pay.

2. When is it going to catch up? If at all?

Development of a new curriculum is slow. Governments move at glacial pace. The government is flat out pulling together a "standard" national curriculum as it is. And, the government is full of old fuddy-duddies that are probably the worst of the digital immigrants that ever came in by boat. They're probably the last people on the planet to ask about how to harness the constant avalanche of technology and put it to use in the classroom. 

Implementing the new curriculum is also slow. By the time a new digital curriculum is rolled out (assuming that it was fully developed), it will quite conceivably already be surpassed by new technology that is far beyond what the current curriculum can cope with. 

Current teachers can stay abreast of technological developments in their own way, but a lot are the "digital immigrants" that Prensky describes. They need to learn new content and pedagogies themselves before they can teach effectively. Even the "digital natives" that become teachers in the future will be faced with new technology that will be beyond their ability to comprehend properly, and teach with effectively. It's likely they will stick to the tried and true "old ways" (to them), and face the same problems we are faced with now, on a different level. 

It's not all bad, though.

Prensky has some grand ideas that are definitely worth considering. Why not make the most of technology in the classroom? We're already seeing the rollout of laptops/iPads in some schools, and interactive whiteboards at the least in most others. There is no doubt that current technology allows us to teach on a different level than was ever previously possible. But Prensky's school of thought is on the extreme end of the scale. Budget and time constraints mean that there needs to be some compromise. Tech can be creatively used to enrich what is already being taught, but not always to replace it completely. 

As a teacher, if I can be open to new methods of teaching using ICT, I will be enriched myself, and I will stand a greater chance of engaging my whole class (who are incredibly diverse learners). My own learning curve will be steep, but I think I will be better off for the experience.

Your thoughts? I'd love to hear opinions on this one. For all I know I could be on the wrong track altogether! Sound off in the comments.