Are Digital natives myth or reality?

This driving question explores the key debate of whether Digital natives and Digital immigrants exist in society. Within Prenky’s (2001) article, the central topic is that ‘Digital natives’, as in those that are born after 1984, now process information in a way that is radically different to the way ‘Digital Immigrants’, those born after 1984, do.

Without reading any further than this article, ‘Digital natives’ seem plausible to exist. Prensky (2001), suggests that the “rapid dissemination of digital technology” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) has increased the frequency of interaction students have with technology. Consequently, they are able to understand it more fluently, leading to an ability to “ process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors”. In Prensky’s article he emphasises that “students' thinking patterns have changed” (2001, p. 1) and furthermore establishes that it is “likely that they have physically changed” (Prensky, 2001, p. 3).

In the absence of empirical evidence, Prensky’s (2001) article proposes a fundamental change in how students born after 1984 “parallel process and multi-task” (Prensky, 2001, p. 3), and insists that the educational system, and the ‘Digital Immigrants’ that teach them, should adopt a new approach, to support this new generation (Prensky, 2001).

After my initial reading of this article, I did not question Prensky’s views on the existence of ‘Digital natives’. However, the conclusions made by Kirshner and Bruyckere (2017) object to the claims that a ‘Digital natives’ are fundamentally different to that of ‘Digital immigrants’ by using empirical evidence to show that biologically, “multitasking and parallel processing” (Prensky, 2001, p. 3) is not an ability that a certain generation has acquired from technology.

At the centre of Prensky’s arguments, he establishes that this new generation of ‘Digital natives’ are better equipped with a skillset of multitasking. Kirshner and Bruyckere’s (2017) article disputes this theory by stating that the experiments completed by Gladstones, Regan, and Lee (1989) and Pashler (1994), showcased that cognitively speaking, humans are better at completing one action or task at a time, and not many at the same time (Kirshner & Brukchere, 2017, p.138). The article strongly disputes the possibility of a biological shift, and primary emphasis is on the concept of multitasking. Kirshner focuses on the flaws in Prenky’s article, however it becomes apparent that his article has its own weaknesses by not discussing environmental influences that challenge the younger generations and might affect these students' learning.

Kirshner's stance is supported by drawing on conclusions from Helsper and Eynon (2013). Prensky’s article claims the existence of a ‘Digital native’ based on a birth date of before, or after, 1984 (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Helsper and Eynon (2013) question the validity of Prenksy’s age argument when he also determines that a ‘Digital native’ is predetermined by the “sheer volume of their interaction with it”(Helsper & Eynon, 2013, p. 504). Helsper and Eynon (2013) concur that if being technologically intelligent is adjacent with interaction, then generalising a shift in a certain generation’s thinking patterns is unsuitable, as anyone can eventually become a ‘Digital native’ with experience.

Within my own experience as a ‘Digital native’, I do sense a cultural shift on the way my generation uses the internet. Although, as supported by Margary, Littlejohn and Vojt (2010), this shift is not necessarily a more in depth understanding of technology, but "quantitatively rather than qualitatively different” (Margary et. al., 2010). I do not necessarily agree on aspects of a complete biological shift, or a definite age where one becomes a ‘Digital native’, nonetheless I do agree that the interaction with technology has changed and will continue to change.

As a future teacher, my teaching strategies would include aspects from my ‘Digital native’ understanding of technology, including reflective, collaborative, and digital formatting that supports a new “technological landscape” (Prensky, 2001, p.1).

---

REFERENCES

Gladstones, W., Regan, M., & Lee, R. (1989). Division of Attention: The Single-Channel Hypothesis Revisited. The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology Section A, 41(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402350

Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence?. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227

Kirschner, P., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching And Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816