2
This chapter briefly compares Prensky’s work, Digital Native, Digital Immigrant, Part 1 (2001), and the work of Sharon Stoerger (2009). First, Prensky spends a good portion of the article bemoaning how present day educators, basically “digital immigrants,” seem incapable of educating the young people of today, whom he refers to as “digital natives.” The premise is that digital natives have grown up with technology, learning to incorporate various forms and levels of technology into all areas of their lives. Digital Immigrants on the other hand, cannot even begin to understand the “digital language” of the Digital Natives and may as well be “teaching in a foreign language” (Prensky 2001). Prensky seems to suggest digital immigrants will never be able to catch up to, or keep up with, the new generation of learners.
To justify this theory, Prensky states digital natives obtain information almost immediately, using technology that provides instant answers. Young students use social media, music, and game playing as methods to learn and identify with the ever-expanding world. Digital immigrants are stuck in the past, using old school methods to acquire information, using printers to print out information rather than see it online, and calling people into an office to dispense information rather than sending email. Prensky states that the language of digital immigrants is foreign to digital natives (2001). He also makes the claim that the physical brain structure of digital natives is different than digital immigrants, this making it extremely difficult for digital immigrants to “learn” the new language of the natives.
In order to counter this problem, Prensky suggests teachers have to learn the language the students know in order to communicate effectively and enhance learning. He further breaks content down into two areas (1) Legacy content and (2) Future content. “Legacy content” is the application of traditional pedegogies, i.e. “traditional curriculum.” “Future content” includes the use of digital and technological tools to acquire and understand application of that information.
By comparison, The Digital Melting Pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant Divide, Sharon Stoerger claims “today’s students are technologically savvy content creators and consumers whose mindset differs from previous generations” (2009). She asserts digital natives and immigrants are different in terms of how each has incorporated technology. Stoerger seems to prefer a new metaphor, “digital melting pot.” This refers to the integration of digital natives and immigrants rather than classifying them as completely separate classes. Stoerger’s premise looks at the use and incorporation of technology rather than an individual’s innate ability to use it.
Stoerger provided her own definitions of “native and “immigrant.” “Native” reflects someone who belonged, whereas “immigrant” is someone from the outside who came to a place to settle. Stoerger stretches the metaphor to ind