21st Century Learners

Some thoughts after having read the articles about 21st Century Learners.

Prensky (2001) was interesting to read. The simplicity of the idea of natives and immigrants was easy to understand, and his examples are easy to relate to (eg. the "Did you get my email" phone call). However, as I read on the dichotomy seemed too prescriptive. The two groups were presented almost as polar opposites. Furthermore, each group was described as homogenous. This seems to contradict research into personality and individual differences, not to mention learning styles. The description in the Prensky (2001) article would suggest that all digital immigrants are reflective, sensing, verbal and sequential learners, while all digital natives are ative, intuitive, visual and global learners. He then goes on to make recommendations for teaching these digital natives based on those characteristics. This struck me as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach (a point then mentioned in the Thrupp (2009) paper).

While the descriptions of the two groups seemed to me too generalised, I did take from the Prensky (2001) article the point that it is both the methodolody and the content that need to be reconsidered for teaching in the 21st century. For methodology, I don't agree that there is a new, one best way of teaching, as Prensky (2001) suggests. But rather, I think teachers need to build new technologies and methods into their teaching, and consider alternative, more contemporary approaches. In terms of content, I appreciate the distinction between 'legacy' and 'future' content. I have often myself questioned the relevance of that 'legacy' contect to learners today. As a teacher, it is necessary to work within the current curriculum, and there is bound to be 'legacy' content to cover. However, it will probably also be the case that I can look for opportunities to introduce 'future' content that will meet curriculum requirements just as well as 'legacy' content.

Prensky's second article (Prensky, 2005) presented the 'engage or enrage' argument. I take from that article the point that teachers need to consider new ways of engaging students, of embracing the digital technologies the students use, harnessing this, and making use of them where possible to enhance learning. Again, Prensky (2005) is over generalising and assuming one set of characteristics for the entire learner cohort. I don't believe every learner's experience of digitial technologies is the same. I also don't think the sweeping statements suggesting that all of today's learners have "short attention spans for the old ways of learning" is accurate.

I find I tend to consider how school, teachers and the learning done is preparing learners for life after school. The technologies that Prensky (2005) cites today's learners using are largely leisure activities. They are continually stimulated and entertained with these technologies. However, the reality is that everyday life and work is not like that. I think learners also need to develop the skills required for dealing with the less stimulating task and activities of working life. For example, in my work as a Psychologist I write many reports. It's not stimulating, but I have the conscientiousness to sit there nonetheless and write them.

The Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008) and Thrupp (2009) papers I felt were much more objective and realistic about the issue. As Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008) put it, "although the calls for radical transformations in educational approaches may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change solely in students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use" (p. 1). Thrupp (2009) notes that learners experiences of ICTs are varied, and that "one label is not applicable to all learners" (p. 1). Rather, ICT knowledge and use should be viewed as another form of diversity to consider when designing learning.