On (Marc Prensky, 2001) Take on Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants

In (Prensky, 2001) paper on this matter, he creates a clear cut between digital natives and immigrants as if they were two different species. I personally believe in the differences but not to that black and white extent.

Our students have changed radically. Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. 

Prensky begins his paper with two major claims. I totally agree with the later, and the pedagogy, the tools, the content and even the role of formal education are to be questioned (Bennett & Maton, 2010). However, the first claim is what I don't justify. Based on what research was this established? The opportunities changed, and the technology is spreading, but there isn't enough solid scientific research to support the claims that the students brains changed internally and physically. When Prensky quotes Dr. Bruce by saying that experiences lead to different brain structures, he jumps to conclusions that their brain changed, but this argument is not solid. Another gap is that he assumes that their brains are all into learning through games, but this runs counter to his idea of 'singularity' and to the major tendency in recent researches and papers in favor of personalization of learning. No one can claim that all learners from this generation prefer to learn all subjects using only games. 

Prensky also assumes that digital natives are fast learner and multi-taskers while many of them are diagnosed with ADHD.

He asks some valid questions but fails to provide sufficient solutions as games may not be everyone's preference:

Should the Digital Native Students Learn the old ways, or should their Digital Immigrant educators learn the new?

Neither seems valid to me hence words like old and new are widely subjective. Is 2001- the year Prensky wrote his paper in- is now considered old or new. A better solution is to unify the people involved and to  question the content, the methodology, the outcomes expected and the means behind formal education today. Instead of highlighting 'the Immigrant/Native Divide', more practical, adaptable and most importantly versatile solutions are better offered by Prensky

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2FysgEiJXM

Andy Tattersall, the creator and presenter in the video above, challenges Prensky and his ''black and white'' definition of people in terms of their relation to technology. Age should not be the deciding factor to whether  one is a native or an immigrant. Prensky also does not focus on the adaptability of this approach: can immigrants who fully abandoned the traditional ways be classified as natives? 

Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives has already been done successfully.

Here is another claim to be questioned. What is the new meaning for 'successfully'? It is another vague and subjective terms that Prensky uses to support his argument. Does it refer to competence, involvement, production or consumption of information? 

Learners aren't the only over generalized group here, for the author also makes a lot of general assumptions about educators. Assuming that they are heavily accented for doing such such as printing emails or reading actual books doesn't necessarily disqualify them as educators. Nonetheless, many of those "tech-savvy- learners" may do the practices mentioned above, so what do teacher do to them? This black and white framework by Prensky overlooks individuality and does not offer in depth insights regarding the reality of the situation nor valid suggestions to overcome the drawbacks in the current educational system. 

References:

Bennett, S., and K. Maton. "Beyond the ‘digital Natives’ Debate: Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students' Technology Experiences."Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2010): 321-31. Print.

Prensky, Mark. ''Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.'' 2001. On the Horizon 9, 5, MCB University Press.