a change is gonna come

I remember my first computer, an Apple IIgs from my grandma. She was a teacher and got the computer through a program at her school (in 1988). I played Oregon Trail, Math Blaster, Number Muncher, and any other game I could get my hands on. I loved the computer so much I used to type my 4^th grade spelling words three times (instead of writing them, as assigned).  Digital native?  Yes, I am.

I've always be interested in technology as a means to efficiency.  I have an uneasy relationship with technology, though, because my minimalist beliefs are in conflict with the constant barrage of information produced by technology. As Prensky (2001) explains, “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.” It's essential for me to be the boss of my technology. So much stimulus can make the technology seem like it's running the show. I didn't get a cell phone until I was 25. Though I now have a smart phone, I have turned off any instant notification features. I enjoy finding elegant solutions to common problems using technology. Our grocery list is on a shared task management application, linked to a Google calendar for meal planning. 

 

As a gamer, I'm also a digital immigrant because I came to video games as an adult. I'm partial to Nintendo products, and love anything Mario (Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time is a favorite). Gaming has taught me a lot about teaching and learning. In a video game, a person can, without consequence, test different strategies and take many tries before continuing. Often, there are multiple paths from start to finish. As a digital immigrant, many opportunities for practice were essential in achieving any level of success. Gamers exhibit qualities we'd love to see in all students. Prensky (2001) explains the advantages of a brain trained as a digital native: “thinking skills enhanced by repeated exposure to computer games and other digital media include reading visual images as representations of three-dimensional space (representational competence), multidimensional visual-spatial skills, mental maps, “mental paper folding,” … “inductive discovery,” … “attentional deployment,”, and responding faster to expected and unexpected stimuli.” Jane McGonigal's TED talk, “Gaming can make a better world,” eloquently elaborates this point:

As learner, I've used technology as a tool for self-directed learning. In high school, we used computers to type papers in English. In history class, we'd make videos (VHS, mind you) in response to project assignments, but it wasn't part of the curriculum to use video. In college, I used technology as a research tool. None of my classes used any technology beyond class listservs (1997-2001). As a research tool, technology definitely improved my learning experiences because I was able to pursue specific topics of interest to me without regard to resource scarcity in my school library.

Prensky's articles reinforce my belief that technology must be integrated into classrooms to engage today's students. He poses a challenge: “Today’s kids are challenging us, their educators, to engage them at their level, even with the old stuff – the stuff we all claim is so important, i.e. the “curriculum” (2005). We must meet this challenge or we will fail to educate our students. My only reluctance is access: though students may have access to technology at school, some students will not have access at home. Doesn't this put such students at a disadvantage because they won't be able to develop technological proficiency at the same rate as their affluent peers? Equity issues make integration of technology into schools with large at-risk populations essential, since such students may not have other opportunities to develop said skills.