The divergent positions of Boyd and Prensky

What do you make of the (divergent) positions of Boyd and Prensky?  What do you hear each of them saying about who youth are?  Where do you stand on the “digital native” terminology?

    I connected to what Professor Bogad mentioned in her Screencastify presentation of Boyd and Prensky's theories when she mentioned that she first was introduced to computers when her father, a school teacher, brought home the Apple II and the Apple IIe from his school for her and her sister to use. My father was a school teacher as well and he brought home his classroom's Apple IIe every weekend for me to work on and play with during the early 1980s as well. My father became interested in how students could benefit from technology and started to pursue, and ultimately earned, a CAGS in education and computer technology. He eventually purchased his own Apple IIe for our home as he pursued his certificate. His CAGS project was titled, "The Use of Computer and Software to Improve Reading Comprehension Skills, Improve Attitudes Toward Reading, and Motivate Reluctant Readers". His study basically showed that, in addition to traditional direct instruction, the reluctant readers who indicated that they were very motivated by computers and who then actively engaged in the assisted computer reading programs as outlined in his study, did exhibit increased comprehension rates. However, the converse was true for the students who were disinterested with technology and did not engage in the computer reading programs. Their reading growth during the time of the study was not substantial. While in my reading specialist role for the past 15 years, I have supplemented my curriculum with computer reading software programs and found my father's findings to be true. Students either really gravitate to computer-assisted technology software, and such enrichment and supplementation can be useful towards their literacy growth, or they do not find such enrichment motivational and prefer other modes of instruction.

    This reflection caused me to think about how I interacted with the technology that was shown to me at such a young age when absolutely no one in my class had a computer at home. My dad did show me some Logo programming books where you could program a little arrow to make or do things, but I just wanted to play "Oregon Trail" and this Olympic simulation game that I found more fun. In high school, my friends would ask to come over my house so that they could type their term papers and projects on our Apple IIe. The computer class that was offered in 1987 in my high school focused on textbook readings into operating systems and careers that you could pursue in technology. At the end of class, the teacher let us play Monopoly on the computer, that a partner and I shared. My first job after college in 1994 was at Henry Barnard School as a teacher assistant. I was invited to join the professors on their professional day where we met at a campus computer room and engaged in the use of Macintosh computers. I already owned a Macintosh as I received one for a college graduation present from my parents. I remember knowing how to do everything the presenter asked so he asked me to help him help the professors who were struggling with the new technology. I remember this was an odd occurrence as I looked up to the professors at the school and I was shocked that they needed direction. However, I think although I was ready to grow with technology, the field of education was not ready to grow with technology. As I went into other teaching positions, technology was not used at all by the students unless I booked a trip to the computer lab so that they could research or type their essays or other writing projects. I did not have technology in my classroom. So although I could have been a native, and maybe started out as one, the technology moved too fast, it moved too slow in the field of education, and because I did not have technology in my classroom to work on, and the students did not have technology at home to use, my skills became stagnant. I became a Prensky "immigrant". I think another reason why I did not really pursue skills or courses in technology was that I viewed computer technology as a male-dominated field. Of course, at nearly 50, I could kick myself for believing this but these were the societal norms and beliefs that I grew up with and as my father used to say, 'hindsight is 20/20". My parents were in their forties when they had me, which was unusual for the 1970s, so I was raised by parents who were born during the Great Depression and those generational views on traditional gender roles were passed down to me.

    Prensky's views reminded me of Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory of "Universal Grammar" that came into vogue in the mid-20th century and was widely accepted by linguists and those in the cognitive field as a way to make sense as to how children could come to learn their native language without any direct or systematic instruction. The main principle of Chomsky's theory is that children to be born or hardwired with a mental template to learn grammar. Other linguists then delved into Chomsky's theories and argued that there that went against his "hardwiring" rules. Chomsky's theory purported that immature memory, attention, and social capabilities masked the universal capabilities in children. This is probably how Prensky views those who criticize his theory. Researchers Ibbotson and Tomasello in 2016 feel that Chomsky's views are wrong. I am sure that they would say that Prensky is wrong as well. Ibbotson and Tomasello propose that people inherit the mental equivalent to a Swiss-Army knife or as a set of general all-purpose tools that facilitate language acquisition. These skills include the ability to categorize, the ability to read communicative intentions, and analogy making, It is in practicing these skills in social contexts that people build the grammar rules needed in communication and to learn languages. I feel that Ibbotson and Tomasello's views mirror Boyd's views on technology development. Students need access and opportunity to use technology in meaningful ways for authentic purposes in social contexts. To assume one is "hard-wired" or gifted is not appropriate in my view. Technology skills can be developed when one is given access, motivation, and opportunity. As educators, we need to equalize the technology playing field, understand that students do not all have the same skill set in technology, and work with all stakeholders so that education can support students in becoming responsible and informed digital citizens.

Relics of a bygone age. My father's CAGS study and the family Apple IIe. My dad passed away in 2018. His study is normally safely kept on my living room bookshelf.