Prensky's terminology has been much discussed on the board so I will only allude to it here, of more interest to me is his underlying theme of using games for learning. This seems to be his ultimate raison d'etre allthough google Prensky's name and the 'immigrant' v 'native' debate is what is thrown up, more from a fortuitous choice of vocabulary - that were to become buzz words for an assumed divide - rather than from an original theory based on research. Anyway, Prensky on games:
A frequent objection I hear from Digital Immigrant educators is “this approach is great for facts, but it wouldn't work for "my subject.” Nonsense. This is just rationalization and lack of imagination. In my talks I now include “thought experiments” where I invite professors and teachers to suggest a subject or topic, and I attempt– on the spot – to invent a game or other Digital Native method for learning it. Classical philosophy? Create a game in which the philosophers debate and the learners have to pick out what each would say. The Holocaust? Create a simulation where students role-play the meeting at Wannsee, or one where they can experience the true horror of the camps, as opposed to the films like Schindler’s List.
The holocaust reference jumped out at me as a really tacky way to make a point, so I googled it - and you know what?
Eternity's Child Creator Attempts to Tackle the Holocaust
Yes, somebody did, and for educational purposes too:
Luc Bernard, the mind behind the upcoming Wii-Ware title Eternity's Child is already hard at work on a new and what is sure to be a very controversial game or the DS. Imagination Is The Only Escape is the story of a young Jewish boy living in France during the occupation by the Nazis in World War II. In order to escape the horrors around him, he imagines a fantasy land that becomes the basis of the game's world. The adventure platformer will attempt to educate players on the atrocities experienced by many children during the time of the Holocaust.
Here is a screen shot of the game:
Not that this validates Prensky's argument, or makes his parlour trick, I'm sorry, 'thought experiment' more impressive. It just surprised me that the concept of a holocaust game, which struck me as a (rarely) inappropriate use of a game in education was actually on the market for that very purpose. Maybe Bernard read Presnky.
Who did Prensky read? John Perry Barlow's A Declaration of Independance of Cyberspace (1996) maybe?
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants [my italics]. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
How long has this face-off between impotent un-plugged adults (parents, teachers) and potent wired kids been going on? Since the 60's? Or did it all begin with Oedipus Rex?
Anyway, I am not going to accept the label of immigrant (and I am certainly too old to be a native) because almost all of my experience with technology in learning and teaching has shown me that you cannot measure technological skill against a demographic like age, social class or even economic background, it is too complex. Rodger's (now rather dated) Innovation / Adoption curve is more meaningful in explaining those who embrace and those who are repelled by web technologies in an educational context, and explains why many 'immigrant' aged educator / innovators embrace what 'native' aged student / laggards avoid.
Turning 'it' (learning) into a game has been the bread and butter of EFL teachers for at least 20 years. But often the aim has been no more ambitious than to motivate students to remain engaged through for the duration of a single lesson, rather than the kind of Weschean 'pervasive' engagement we touched upon in our Second Life chat, edited extracts below:
Hirondelle Sciarri: I suppose the interactive aspect of web 2.0 is key to engagement
Dagma Kiranov: 'the narrative must become pervasive in the learning environment' Welsch
Klara Otsuka: Again i think we need to think about we use a word like "enagement" - we're not just saying activity, we're saying really committing (as Dagma said very much earlier) to something
Hirondelle Sciarri: yes, engaging.... meaning contributing, buying in, negotiating content
Klara Otsuka: also - that kind of engaging usually has a social element - which I think we can draw even from our own course is quite key at times to learning!
Marieiram Dubrovna: i really liked the concept of the students then taking over with their learning, even covering topics outside his knowledge
Marieiram Dubrovna: and him being in a wondefully awkward place
Klara Otsuka: So - if we had appropriate support, and engaging, meaningful, technologically appropriate materials - would it matter if our students were "native" or "digital"?
Allowing ourselves as educators to divide our intention to inspire into 60 minute game filled chunks is just as much of a crime as digital (illegal?) immigrancy - and, from my frequent observations of the EFL classroom, far more commonplace. What is the purpose of the games, role-plays and simulations that Prensky proposes? Are they to enable our students to discover or create content for themselves? Or tools to glam up rote learning and memorisation of facts? Even with simulation and role play allowing for some student creativity games, unless supported by a holistic and fully realised (by the teacher and student) learning purpose, are often merely useful accessories.
In my centre just gave our students a questionnaire to gather feedback on a variety of areas, from classroom management to use of technology. Feedback has been, on the whole, positive - however our students score us consistently poorly on two points: 'The lessons on the course link together well', and 'I am making progress on the course'. This I feel is because we approach our teaching from a discrete lesson to discrete lesson perspective. I would guess that it is our focus on materials and activities that is behind this. We create fun and motivating lessons as opposed to enabling fun and motivating learning.
Back to Prensky:
It's just dumb (and lazy) of educators – not to mention ineffective – to presume that (despite their traditions) the Digital Immigrant way is the only way to teach, and that the Digital Native's “language” is not as capable as their own of encompassing any and every idea.
Other than suggesting web2.0 inspired activities, games and speaking 'their' language and the "just do it" language of mass marketing (Nike? Please, that's immigrant footwear I am sure) Prensky highlights a divide and yet seems at a loss as to which methodology will breach it. The point Prensky misses is that passion for the "subject" combined with a willingness to experiment and take risks (with web2.0 technologies or whatever) with our students is what makes inspirational educators like Michael Wesch so successful. Wesch's world simulation doesn't work because it is a game, or because Wesch has learnt the lingo (and the gizmos) of his 'native' students. It works because he is passionate; he has worked to understand his learners' holistic needs and developed a personal "anti-teaching" methodology accordingly. He experiments and learns with them - in a world of digital pirates he is the pirate king. Web2.0 technologies, the supposed tools of the digital native (though developed by immigrants), with their focus on interaction and collaboration, user generated content and continual revision, process over product are a means of bridging the gap between teacher and learner - such a combination render the boundaries (temporal and spacial) in the native / immigrant divide meaningless.
“Mum, you’re not playing a game!”, my eighteen year old daughter exclaimed when she suddenly came into my study.
