Comments on: Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives

By: VYonkers

VYonkers — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:27:25 +0000

I agree Col. If you look at the “culture” of technology, then just like any cultural stereotyping, you are going to misrepresent whole groups within a “culture” if you assume all fit the stereotype.

On the other hand, by using a cultural approach to learning and technology, these terms allow us to understand the knowledge base from which our students base their understanding of technology and its use. I personally like Hall’s framework of high context/low context cultures, in which those from high context cultures have many implicit rules that those from outside of the culture have trouble learning unless they were brought up within that culture. Thus, it is difficult for a foreigner to assimilate into the Japanese culture because there are many subtle nuances that are learned behavior which are contextually based. Low context cultures on the other hand have a few iron clad rules, but otherwise are very flexible, thus allowing non-natives to assimilate quickly into the culture. The US and Canada are considered low context cultures.

I wonder if we could use the same categories for technologies, which would make more sense in the use of digital natives and immigrants concepts in our teaching. For example, blogging seems to be a low context technology. There are few iron clad rules (comment control, length of posts, tagging) that makes it easy for anyone to start blogging. On the other hand, some social software, such as facebook or myspace, have some very advanced, subtle nuances that is difficult for “immigrants” to understand. A “foreigner” to myspace or facebook will be a stranger for a long time and will stick out to “natives”.

By: col

col — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:24:47 +0000

Hi George – you make a fair point about pigeonholing or oversimplifying but I don’t think that the terms are completely without usefulness or validity.

I seem them as shorthand descriptions of the participants in a cultural shift as much as an age based definition.

Something else worth considering is that if you extend the native/immigrant analogy, you could say that immigrants often benefit by working harder in embracing their new environment and everyone there benefits as a result of it.

I don’t quite get the point about young people not understanding the technology – if it works for them, why does it matter? Maybe not being as caught up in what is conventionally done with a tool leads to more, unexpected uses being found.

Just a few thoughts anyways.

By: George Siemens

George Siemens — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:22:08 +0000

Hi Doug – thanks for the link to your earlier post. Your statement (in the blog post) that we’re dealing with a spectrum of skills rings true with my thinking. On some levels, we use simplifications and frameworks as sensemaking devices (or at minimum as a means of looking at the world). Simplification is fine on some levels. But the natives/immigrant distinction is too simple. It doesn’t accurately reflect the concepts it is trying to help us understand.
Take care
George

By: Doug Belshaw

Doug Belshaw — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:16:23 +0000

I reckon it was around the middle of last year when people started using the terms all the time. It prompted a post towards the end of the year on my blog entitled Digital Natives, Mountain Men, and Pioneers where I argued that putting people in pigeon-holes isn't very helpful. I stand by that opinion: I've got students who really don't like using technology...

By: George Siemens

George Siemens — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:59:59 +0000

Hey Alec, you’re right – these terms are opposites and intended to reveal differences based on age/experience. Like most things, a gradient view is more likely to be accurate.
Take care
George

By: George Siemens

George Siemens — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:55:42 +0000

Hi Dean – I agree…I imagine that the digital habits of many “40 somethings” fits more closely into the profile of natives than immigrants. The big error I see with immigrant/native thinking is assuming that experience creates different beings – i.e. because someone can’t remember a time without a cell phone, they are somehow fundamentally different than someone who can. Based on my experience, the defining attribute is one of attitude and willingness to experiment…

By: Alec Couros

Alec Couros — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:14:15 +0000

Thanks for this, George. I share your feelings on these terms as together they are polar representations and absolutes. It’s great to see that others feel this same way, and are expressing their views.

By: Dean Shareski

Dean Shareski — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:09:03 +0000

Very true. The term coined a believe by Prensky is used to too often to shock and reaffirm to many teachers that they just don’t get it.

It’s polarizing. My experience is the term often leads to people debating the lifestyle and habits of young people rather than exploring as you state the powerful networks and participatory opportunities.

Obviously as a 40something who uses this stuff everyday, I would likely be considered more of a native which shows it’s not exclusive to age and nor should it be. It’s about those who are comfortable with and are leveraging the power of networks to connect and learn.