I find myself approaching generation-based assumptions with a great deal of skepticism, probably because I know so many people who just do not fit the labels ascribed to their cohorts. With that having been said, however, I have recognized over the years some of these trends in my own high school students (who have all been Millennials). Students today have lower tolerance for long processes and are much more demanding of why specific content is important to them. We used to say that students would check out any day when the dog and pony show did not show up--today I suppose the dogs and ponies better come in HD and Dolby 5.1 with co-op online multiplayer.
I have not worked with any kids from Generation Edge in a classroom context, but all my nieces and nephews fall into this group. I find sweeping assumptions about them to be premature, but it seems reasonable for some of the trends having affected Millennials to continue and perhaps to intensify. Using Prensky’s terminology, Digital Natives will be at the forefront of early adoption and assimilate new technologies into their everyday lives quickly and as seamlessly as possible. What I just said marks me a Digital Immigrant--not exactly a Luddite, but my penchant for historical research in dusty tomes supersedes my “need” to replace anything technological before it actually dies. My husband and I have smart phones as well as a painstakingly rewired rotary telephone (which still functions just fine on our fiber optic phone service).
Prensky lost me when he launched into the discussion of methodology and content. Prensky’s “legacy” content versus “future” content struck a nerve. One can neither teach nor learn any of the fields listed by Prensky--”ethics, politics, sociology, languages…”--without “legacy” content. His distinction is specious. If this is an issue of theory and application, that has nothing to do with a past/future divide. Also, the term “edutainment” makes me cringe, as does the idea that everything could or should be a video game. My local school district, Fairfax, VA, (mentioned in the Unit 1 Conclusion) uses digital textbooks, pays for Blackboard, and pretends that every family has enough online computers at home for every child to do his/her homework simultaneously. All the online content, no matter how accessible or relevant, makes no difference as long as computers are toys and not tools. Being “tech savvy” does not amount to much if it means that students can send record numbers of texts each day but cannot tell the difference between a browser and a website
Much of the content in the videos has almost become conventional wisdom here in the DC-Metro Area. Our hands are tied by the dual realities of trying to prepare students for jobs that do not yet exist while pushing content instead of skills. Meeting students on their own terms makes sense. One of the most important principles I learned as a beginning teacher was that we teach students, not content-area subjects.
Rebecca thanks for sharing your thoughts i tend to agree that everyone does not fit in the same box and education can not always be like a video game however we must find a better way to reach this generation of students because the old way of teaching is not going to work. We must come together to find lessons that are stimulating and outside of the norm. The blackboard and chalk way of teaching is dead and this new generation are not going to learn that way because it is to slow for them. They are used to doing more than one thing at a time and technology is what they know so we have to incorporate it in our lesson plans. Together we can to do it it just learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and I don't know any teachers who do not heavily incorporate technology into their lessons because it can work well to encourage real learning--however, Prensky struck a nerve with me when he implied that everything must be a game. I can say from experience that whenever students have walked into my classroom and seen a laptop cart, the high-fives and smarmy comments about a "free day" begin. This speaks volumes about how they use computers.
DeleteOh...there are still many teacher who don't...actually refusing to incorporate it. I've seen it.
DeleteThis comment struck me: Students today have lower tolerance for long processes and are much more demanding of why specific content is important to them.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder whether our beliefs that students have changed over time with how they learn is a matter of the technology that surrounds them or the culture shift in how children are raised. How could we tell the difference?
Honestly, I don't know if parsing that is really possible. I think that the conventional notion of brain change is potentially due to socialization and changing expectations of behavior as much as to actual neurological development. Does proliferation of accessible technology lead to the rewiring of brain patterns? The brain is surprisingly adaptable, but putting too much faith in that cause-and-effect relationship seems like we may be building a correlation-causation fallacy.
DeleteCorrect, it does become a chicken/egg argument of sorts. My goal was to possibly spur discussion that maybe it's NOT technology's 'fault' that our students have a perceived shorter attention span.
DeleteFollowing on Dr. Siko's comment about students complaining about "long processes" I hear it all the time, if an article they have to read is more than one page typed, "It's too much!" they want to read a paragraph and write a few sentences and be done. Even the students that use the on line reading program will complain about the length. Students seem to want very short burst of learning followed by praise followed by other short bursts. This happens with technology or without, instant gratification does not always work with learning.
ReplyDeleteOk, done with that rant, going back to what you wrote about Prensky's word "edutainment" and how it makes you cringe, I totally agree. Prensky's uses it to refer to the Monkey Wrench game and for engineering students to learn from, that is advanced students who have already learned in "legacy" way the fundamentals of engineering. I do not believe one method of learning can replace the other, but we must work at combining them.
Rebecca I agreed with several points in your points. I truly believe that students do have a short tolerance for long processes. My students are unable to sit through a story so I have decided to have small group instruction. I often walk around my classroom and notice students looking out of the window or playing with their nails. I then decided to create centers. So yes we do need those wonderful engaging lessons to grasp and keep our students attention. My question is always why? Why can't they sit and listen and be engaged without my basically rapping about the Civil War?
ReplyDelete