Digital Natives: Implications for Pedagogy

      There are two subthreads to the whole "Digital Native vs. Digital Immigrant" discussion (see articles by Marc Prensky), with neither having a clear answer. It is clear that our children are very different from us -- at least statistically. (My daughter, previously the anti-computer college student, was quite different from me, the avid digital user. That's atypical. But, then, nobody is actually "average!")

1) Do we have an obligation to teach to these new implied student learning styles?
              From an article written by Prensky ("Do They Really Think Differently?", On the Horizon, Vol. 9, #6 [Dec. 2001]) ..."Children raised with the computer 'think differently from the rest of us. They develop hypertext minds. They leap around. It’s as though their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential'" (p. 4). Does this imply that, in fact, our instructional practice needs to reflect this learning style? What implications do such an approach have for our pedagogy?...our instructional goals?...our interests in differentiated instruction?
        Online instruction, as it is often practiced, can be very much more linear than face-to-face learning experiences. It is sequenced over time, and it's sequenced in terms of instructional goals, whereas face-to-face classes do not require a fixed sequence, making it possible for the instructor to re-direct or branch at will. Although the inclusion of visual and aural content online might help, it doesn't help with linearity. (Many observers note that video and sound content is very much more linear, since scanning, skimming, and jumping around in it is more difficult!) How does asynchronous online instruction successfully address this difference in learning styles?
       Of course, the implications of these remarks is that delivered instruction is consumed instruction. That is true in face-to-face classes, but is almost invariably not true online. There, students can easily follow hyperlinks, provide for multiple browser windows, even include paper-based resources, while still fully participating in the online experience. A spontaneous question can be instantly answered or asked, even in the absence of experts. This is Prensky's "parallel cognitive structure." It also reflects that, in the world of the digital native, access is instantaneous, providing deep implications for what it means to know something. Although a digital native may not be able to recall information quickly, s/he can find it almost instantaneously, if provided the connection. Of course, "accessed" isn't equivalent to "informed." Addressing that problem points to another difference in teaching digital natives, which I address below.

2) Do we have a moral obligation to fit our instructional practice into current socialization patterns, or, do we have a moral obligation to attempt to correct such patterns?
              During the early TV explosion, teachers often felt that their responsibility was to teach to the shortcomings of television-delivered instruction, to correct for their tendency to encourage passive consumption of information and experiences. Do we have a similar obligation now? Should we be consciously attempting to teach linear research and reasoning patterns as an important way in which students can learn and improve...one that's currently missing from their experiences? Or should we simply assume that that isn't possible?
        Linearity, of course, is one issue, and I do feel that we have an obligation to teach the thoroughness and formality that linear instruction implies. But if we always force a linear approach to pedagogy,not only will we confront a serious disconnect between learning styles, we'll also be ignoring the implied power of digital learning, where divergent, self-driven knowledge construction experiences can motivate digital natives, and improve their participation in the learning process.
But there are important shortcomings which the phrase "digital native" might imply, and we have an obligation to address. Current research shows that digital natives may have improved their access to information, but their ability to differentiate between information sources has not met the challenge -- they tend to consume rather than select and evaluate that which they find. Critical thinking is probably one of the most important learning goals implied by the characteristics of a digital native. Access is merely the first step. Without the ability to critically assess and evaluate what you find, your ability to learn, construct, and decide based on that information will be very limited.
        In addition, digital natives tend to be "short form" writers, reflecting not only limits to text messages, tweets, social networking platforms, and small devices, but the general tendency to ignore subtlety and complexity, a natural extension of the difference between being a digital consumer and a digital user. As teachers, we have an obligation to reflect learning style (parallel vs. linear, access vs. memorization). However, we cannot become simple consumers of all of what we observe in our digital native students. Much of the content we must teach is nuanced and complex, so our approach must leverage how our students learn, without forcing that content into the limits of information consumption and short form expression, the unfortunate side effect of their tendency to be digital consumers.