Elaborating on the Digital Native/Digital Immigrant debate

Distinguishing between the two groups of digital natives (DN) and digital immigrants (DI) might seem helpful to education on the surface, but needs to move beyond the attitude of radical change.

Indeed, learning systems need change, prompted by research and feedback, but the DI/DN argument should be recalibrated within more of a notion of digital literacy. Furthermore, some people (young or old) have high capacity to use various ICT tools in school and work, whereas others simply never learned. This does not mean that all people born after year XXXX are better or worse regarding digital literacy.

Some questions prompted by the research (Bennett, et al, 2008; Kennedy, et al, 2008) I found which should be asked by instructional designers:
1. Does DN usage, and supposed expertise of ICT tools, merit a fundamental change in education?
2. Even though DN use lots of ICT tools in their daily lives, what can they actually do with them?
3. What are the misassumptions of DN?

Some generalizations of DN include:

- The notion that they learn differently and have a preference and learning style which fits more into a constructivist framework (experiential learning, multi-tasking, problem solving, etc.

However, can educators then assume that DN want these types of learning structures. Furthermore, Bennett, et. al., (2008) commented on the fact that multi-tasking is not a new phenomenon in learners and that regarding knowledge acquisition, multi-tasking could cause ‘cognitive overload’.

- They possess sophisticated technological knowledge
o This may be true, but as Bennet states, their sophistication does not translate into content creation. For instance, a person who chats on the internet is not necessarily creating webpages.
o Another important point to consider is the socio-economic status of different students. Some may not grow up with a computer in their homes.

- The idea that a DN is net savvy – but being able to use a computer is not the same as being information literate

Education should use various technologies in curriculum, but not just assume that DN are capable, nor really want to, use the technology. Information literacy should be emphasized in learning, and not assumed - teaching ways to develop critical thinking skills.
Next week, more on information literacy.

The digital native/digital immigrant debate: A matter of information literacy

The next portion of my blog will focus on how learners approach ICT - concentrating on the debate within research literature on the divide between digital immigrants and digital natives. This initial distinction, although helpful in discussion, is somewhat inaccurate, but helpful in defining information literacy. As I have begun to define the differences between the groups and factors that prove or disprove them, a more productive and less binary distinction considers the discussion on information literacy.

The main point being that instructional design within educational technology needs to design and assess ways to improve information literacy, moving beyond the debate.

To briefly summarize, the notions of digital immigrants/digital natives were first postulated by Marc Prensky (2001), who divided learners based on their access to information technologies from a certain age. Because digital natives have grown up with the culture of new technologies such as the internet and video games, Prensky theorizes that their cognitive functions are different from the older generation of digital immigrants. The native and immigrant metaphors represent, in a way, how this debate is a matter of cultural differences between the groups and also a generation gap.

Here are a few characteristics of digital natives and digital immigrants:

Digital native	Digital immigrants
[N]et generation/[D] generation Immersed in technology Prefers fast information stimulus Multitaskers Visual appeal over textual Non-linear learning with random information access Has a learning preference different from traditional education Assumed to have better technology skills than what education offers them Belief that the world is the same, only more technologized	Digitally accented Seeks information from traditional sources first, internet second Reads manuals to learn software Prints emails Uses pen and paper for editing (not computer) Linear learner – raised under traditional education system Belief that the world is very different because of technology

As intuitive as these distinctions might be, the divide is not so clear and certain. Next week I will introduce the inconsistencies. For now, it is important to note how these distinctions are useful in discussing implementations and the beliefs each group brings (Lankshear & Bigum 1999).

However different these learners might be, the debate should consider what it means to be digitally literate, which is best defined outside of the debate.

A definition of information literacy should consider:

• Steeped in the native/immigrant debate – how each group views access and control, but really should be about change
• Certain skills are needed to process information and be ‘digitally literate’ within more of a native perspective
• Developing objectives beyond the traditional definition of literacy
• How individuals use technology to “create, communicate, design and self-actualize” (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006, p 8).
• Going beyond the glitz of the internet of Facebook and youtube
• How individuals develop critical thinking skills

Jones-Kavalier, B.R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21^st century. Educause Quarterly, 2, 8-10.

Lankshear, C., & Bigum, C. (1999). Literacies and new technologies in school settings. Curriculum Studies, 7(3), 445-465.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Virtual Learning implications part II

This being my second and also final posting relating to the topic of virtual learning, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the somewhat chaotic direction this inquiry analysis has gone.

I began with defining virtual learning within the context of MUVE – as shown in Second Life. This program/platform is new, exciting, and still in its infancy. However, as various academics and instructional designers are beginning to design and develop Second Life classrooms, I think that its important that the deeper issues of virtual learning be discussed. That is, even if a wonderful learning learning environment is created, there will always be the underlying question of: “Are people actually learning?”

Frankly, I am not the biggest fan of Second Life, but I am intrigued by it. At this point, I would like to let the trailblazing academics, doctoral students, and entrepreneurs shape Second Life as a virtual learning platform and instead focus on what it means to be a virtual learner.

Its also important to ask that no matter how fancy and 'real' a virtual learning environment can be, does humanity really want to spend its time there?

Think of the movie “The Matrix” - or go back further and read “The Allegory of the Cave”, or the “Brain in a Vat” argument. The debate then becomes a questions what is 'real' vs. 'unreal' in our experience. Sorry for getting philosophical here, but when throwing around the word 'virtual', I tend to cringe a bit, wondering why 'the real' isn't good enough.

Back to learning then.

So, we create a virtual learning environment (design, develop & evaluate it) and place students in it, then expect learning to occur, but perhaps it is not as effective as we had hoped.

One reason could be due to learner cognitive style – how people think and act to analyze and solve problems. Different cognitive styles could have different experiences within the virtual learning environment. Without elaborating on this issue, virtual learning experience needs to keep in mind how different individuals approach the virtual experience within cognitive styles (global – big picture/local narrow picture; introverted-extroverted) and build into the learning system a way to create some “cognitive flexibility” (Liu, X., Magjuka, R., & Lee, S., p. 845, 2008; Sternberg, 1997 in Liu, et al.).

My future blog will focus more on these resistance issues such as the 'digital immigrant - digital native' divide and hopefully come full circle into understanding how to best design e-learning instruction.

My final question is how can we utilize the technological virtual learning tools AND create the best learning environment possible for all learners without compromising their individuality nor the technological tools?

References

Liu, X., Magjuka, R., & Lee, S. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students' learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 829-846.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Virtual Learning implications - Part 1

Over the past several weeks, my discussion has focused on a specific use of virtual learning within MUVE such as Second Life. During the next couple of weeks I would like to generalize the discussion towards virtual learning based on the discussion in current research literature on the topic within other realms of virtual learning.

Virtual learning environments (VLE) after all, are defined within the domain of e-learning, which could encompass a-synchronous environments, such as Blackboard, and synchronous environments, such as 3D environments like Second Life -- used by schools to facilitate classes from a distance (Bromham & Oprandi, 2006; Nishide, et. al., 2007).

Questions relating to VLE that I have been asking myself throughout this exercise concern how a real learner approaches virtual learning experience. More specifically, how well are changes in learners facilitated by the virtual learning experience as compared to traditional environments? And, are the changes which take place influenced more by the technology or the pedagogy?

Bromham & Oprandi (2006) studied how the virtual learning experience assisted learners especially when hybridized with face to face classes to create metacognitive change in developing self-study and self-assessment skills in learners. This study would seem to relate with the assumption that learners would need more than just a text based learning environment like Blackboard to best learn. Nevertheless, many learners have completed 100% online classes through Blackboard.

Consider how easy it might be to place someone in a virtual learning environment, noting how the technology creates the environment, and also influences a learner's perception. What I am getting at here is how instructional designers need to consider the holistic nature of virtual learning and how it has implications that are just now being explored. The virtual learning environment is an 'environment', which needs to be analyzed the same as we would analyze a classroom or work environment.

Refernces

Bormham, L. & Oprandi, P. (2006). Evolution online: Usine a virtual learning environment to develop active learning in undergraduates. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 21-25.

Nishide, R., Shima, R., Araie, H., & Ueshima, S. (2007). Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(1), 5-24.

Links and Reflection

As I have been continuing my research into Second Life as a virtual learning environment I have begun to face a serious technical issue. That is, Second Life software does not fully support Windows Vista, thus the program keeps crashing. Since this blog is part of an assignment, and not really a soapbox, I will limit my comments about VISTA to one word: USELESS!

Enough said!

Since I can't explore Second Life as I would like, my post this week will focus on introducing a few useful links for educators in Second Life.

First off, is EDTECH Island's site http://edtechisland.wetpaint.com/?t=anon hosted by Boise State University.

The site has links to a few lectures which discuss implications of Second Life education as well as the list of classes for BSU students. One lecture worth noting for instructional designers is the Webinar by Dr. Lisa Dawley, the designer of EDTECH island, who addresses the issues of needs analysis and course design in Second Life. She stated that traditional ID models such as ADDIE are too strict for virtual learning environments and technology enhanced learning. Since most of us are just beginning to learn about these models its nice to hear a different perspective.

Another website worth mentioning is the Second Life Education wiki http://www.simteach.com/wiki/index.php?title=Second_Life_Education_Wiki
This site provides information and links to various Second Life materials for educators.

Finally, the site http://sleducation.wikispaces.com/educationaluses – Second Life in Education provides links and information for both experienced SL users and newbies.

To really understand virtual learning, we as educators need to experience it as learners. The virtual learning environment of SL can be intimidating, or like Tim said, “"The Sims" on steroids”, but I feel that we need to really explore and get a feel for it as soon as we can. More than that, as instructional designers we need to see how virtual learning is understood through the various filters of learning theories and eventually step back to develop and/or support new theories that can help drive our instructional design. We might not particularly be using SL for our future careers, but the implication for our careers in the instructional design field is tremendous.

MUVE and behaviorism

Since many of us in the IDD&E core classes are beginning to learn more about learning theories, I thought that this week would be a good opportunity to relate to how virtual learning in MUVE such as Second Life (SL) might be understood through the filter of the behaviorist learning theory. In a way, this is also my learning situation to consider for my knowledge base.

I must admit however, that I am a little shy about exploring Second Life, namely because I don't really have the time to chat with everyone I come across. Its very easy to get 'sucked in' and not do things like write my blog, or read course materials. Nevertheless, what drives my exploration of virtual learning involves reading the literature and research presented in SL conferences and on SL learning websites, which offers much for virtual learning theoretical analysis.

This theoretical drive has led me to the exploring the behaviorist learning perspective within SL, or any other virtual learning environment.

A friend of mine, who had studied Psychology years ago, once told me that most first person video games and no better than a 'rat in a cage'. Sounds like operant conditioning Dr. Skinner. This led me think that even though there are volumes of literature written on the constructivist perspective of virtual learning, the medium was designed from a behaviorist model. Ask yourself, how does learning occur in video games?

Ummmm...stimulus...response. After killing the bad guy at the end, or reaching a goal, what response is given? Usually some visual que, or radical 'explosion' on the screen.

Another question: ever play a video game with a 'shock' controller. Sounds like a punishment to me and indeed very behaviorist (Ormrod, 2008).

Specifically relating to SL, Weusijana et. al. (2007) created a kind of Skinner box in SL where users have to navigate through a maze by solving puzzles. The research focus was to teach students the concept of adaptive expertise by experiencing it in a problem solving situation. During the experiment participants had to try to get through a virtual maze of rooms both using the adaptive expertise concpets of efficiency and innovation. If a wrong choice was made their avatar was stunned. Although this study did not have a behaviorist objective, the idea of learning to adapt was reinforced by stimulus.

Learning then occurs beyond just reading about it, but by experiencing what it feels like to be the rat in the change.

References

Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Human Learning. (5^th edition). Pearson: New Jersey.

Weusijana, B.K., Svihla, V., Gawel, D., Bransford, J. (2007). Learning about adaptive expertise in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the Second Life EducationWorkshop 2007. Retrieved September 9, 2008 from http://facstaff.buffalostate.edu/polvinem/SL/slccedu2007final.pdf#page=73

What does Second Life have to offer?

Greetings from Second Life's
EdTECH island!

In this posting I will focus on Second Life from an educators perspective and list some advantages and disadvatages of this enormous multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) application.

As I dive into the academic research on MUVEs and specifically Second Life, a whole world (virtually and literally) begins to reveal itself. In essence, as with considering learning technology, research on MUVEs is describing learning from a constructivist perspective with students being "co-creators of their own learning environments" (Evans, Mulvihill & Brooks, 2008).

However, as instructional designers, we need to as focus on the prescriptive aspects of developing a pedagogy, which focuses on how to best foster the construction of knowledge. Doolittle (1999) pinpoints some excellent assumptions and recommendations, which have somewhat guided my advantage/disadvantage list.

Advantages of Second Life

• the application is synchronous with virtual face to face communication
  
• communicating with others in a learning situation fosters a sense of belonging and camaraderie as virtual immigrants
  
• the MUVEs bring a human quality of images (bodies, faces, buildings) unlike text based learning environments such as Blackboard
• the learning environment of MUVEs are best used in learner centered curriculum

Disadvantages of Second Life

• difficult to navigate
• the program requires familiarity with navigation, so a Second Life 101 type class would be needed for new users before focusing on other content
• the Second Life teacher should be a pro user and strictly organize lessons - teachers really need to rethink their strategies when using the program (does constructivism always explain learning then?)
  
• Second Life on the surface is economically focused with many people selling services or objects in $L (which are traded for real US$)
• the economic focus and shear size of the Second Life virtual world is overwhelming - you have to know what you are looking for
  

Despite my reservations, I feel that Second Life as a learning environment is going to be the wave of the future. The technology is still so new, however as educators, we should at least start to become familiar with this MUVE, as a precursor for what's yet to come.


Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online education. Virgina Polytechnic Institute & State University. Retrieved September 8, 2008 from http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/tohe/text/doo2.pdf

Evans, N., Mulvihill, T., Brooks, N. (2008). Mediating the tensions of online learning in Second Life. Innovate 4 (6). Retrieved September 11 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=537