Let’s finish with digital immigrants!

Among other things, the provisions made for returning to schools this year include health examinations, “thorough cleaning”, gloves and masks, demarcation of space and time, tele-procedures and tracing protocols. One would say that there is no precedent in such a situation; and would be right. But like all great changes, this one has its history too. It doesn’t just happen, it doesn’t appear out of nowhere.

Restructuring of the educational system, as a bastion of the labor market (an issue that has been persistently and repeatedly raised by the game over assembly in recent years), is part of the overall restructuring we see these months happening in everyday life as a whole. So we can’t evaluate it separately.

Behind the “superficial” / symbolic arrangements that become the subject of dialogue, as preconditions for the opening of schools, for us there is a radical transformation in the way of managing the potential future workforce. Very briefly, we would describe it as a violent integration of digital immigrants into the customs and culture of the state on which they “happened to land”. Whether they are students or teachers.

Read the following text, translated and commented by game over 8 years ago, and maybe this brief description will become (at least) a little more understandable.

“Silence teacher, so we can hear the bird”

Digital natives, digital immigrants¹:

It is interesting to find (as a game over assembly) opinions and analyzes “from abroad” that illuminate the importance of analytical / political research and action which is one of our main contents. Greek society (as an abstract aggregate) and the greek student body (as an equally abstract subset) may consider the views we process and present as UFO’s, in relation to the real causes of the “educational collapse”… And, “suddenly”, one discovers a similar “reflection”, not from the ranks of the movement, but from some systemic ones, to one or another degree. What are we supposed to do then? We’ll do something simple. We will be presenting (adding, in the form of a comment, our own opinion so far) such an opinion, “from the outside”. Because the “aliens” are not the game over assembly – but the many more (we admit it) who are comfortable with us when we don’t understand.

The following text was written a little over 10 years ago. In the united states, though, where developments on our subject don’t necessarily have to be preceded by a decade, there may simply be more observant systemic guys in comparison with our lands. Author is Marc Prensky²…

Here is what an american educator said in October 2001 under the title digital natives, digital immigrants:

It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.

Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity³” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.

Today’s students represent the first generations to grow up with the new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Today’s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives.

It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and – p r o c e s s – i n f o r m a t i o n – f u n d a m e n t a l l y – d i f f e r e n t l y from their predecessors. These differences go far further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures, “ says Dr. Bruce D. Berry of Baylor College of Medicine. As we shall see in the next installment, it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed. I will get to how they have changed in a minute.

What should we call these “new” students of today? Some refer to them as the N-[for Net]-gen or D-[for digital]-gen. But the most useful designation I have found for them is D i g i t a l – N a t i v e s. Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.

So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them, D i g i t a l – I m m i g r a n t s.

The importance of the distinction is this: As Digital Immigrants learn – like all immigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree, their “accent,” that is, their foot in the past. The “digital immigrant accent” can be seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first, or in reading the manual for a program rather than assuming that the program itself will teach us to use it. Today’s older folk were “socialized” differently from their kids, and are now in the process of learning a new language. And a language learned later in life, scientists tell us, goes into a different part of the brain.

There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing out your email (or having your secretary print it out for you – an even “thicker” accent); needing to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen); and bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL). I’m sure you can think of one or two examples of your own without much effort. My own favorite example is the “Did you get my email?” phone call. Those of us who are Digital Immigrants can, and should, laugh at ourselves and our “accent.”

But this is not just a joke. It’s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.

This is obvious to the Digital Natives – school often feels pretty much as if we’ve brought in a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners to lecture them. They often can’t understand what the Immigrants are saying. What does “dial” a number mean, anyway?

Lest this perspective appear radical, rather than just descriptive, let me highlight some of the issues. 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. (Does any of this sound familiar?)

But Digital Immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the Natives have acquired and perfected though years of interaction and practice. These skills are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned – and so choose to teach – slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously. “My students just don’t _____ like they used to,” Digital Immigrant educators grouse. I can’t get them to ____ or to ____. They have no appreciation for _____ or _____ . (Fill in the blanks, there are a wide variety of choices.)

Although this passage is only half the concern of the american academic, it has already established the acknowledgement of the problem. And, we have to admit, he’s not wrong in principle. It is interesting, moreover, that “digitally natives” and “digitally immigrants” don’t come from different parts of the world. T h e y d o , h o w e v e r , c o m e f r o m d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s o f c a p i t a l i s t d e v e l o p m e n t ! But yes, it is true, new technologies (informatics, digital communications, internet) have already created their own vague but also distinct space-time. So that “a generation before” (the one that tries to make the old educational system functional) and “a generation after” (the one that has no need of this educational system as it is, but it’s subjected to it) are t w o w o r l d s i n l o n g d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e m .

However – and this is an important part of our research / analytical work as game over assembly – to discern this ongoing (but very big) change in learning model and ways of understanding “knowledge” and “reality” is a critical starting point, but not the whole comprehension of what is happening. Practically and theoretically, neither side, neither the “digital natives” nor the “digital immigrants” seem to understand what is happening (to them). The former because they consider digital reality to be completely “natural”; so they don’t wonder at all what it means for their lives. The latter because they can express emotional reactions of one kind or another to the digital world, but they definitely regard it as something “alien” – often, in fact, as something “hostile” or “dangerous”.

And this double ignorance is also an essential part of the overall decline of the existing educational system. In ways (and for reasons) that are worth pinpointing and analyzing, Gramsci’s well-known saying applies here too: the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear…

” (…) Digital Immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can’t. Of course not – they didn’t practice this skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can’t (or shouldn’t) be fun. Why should they – they didn’t spend their formative years learning with Sesame Street.

Unfortunately for our Digital Immigrant teachers, the people sitting in their classes grew up on the “twitch speed” of video games and MTV. They are used to the instantaneity of hypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamed messages and instant messaging. They’ve been networked most or all of their lives. They have little patience for lectures, step-by-step logic, and “tell-test” instruction.

Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today’s learners are different. “Www.hungry.com” said a kindergarten student recently at lunchtime. “Every time I go to school I have to power down,” complains a high-school student. Is it that Digital Natives can’t pay attention, or that they choose not to? Often from the Natives’ point of view their Digital Immigrant instructors make their education not worth paying attention to compared to everything else they experience – and then they blame them for not paying attention!

And, more and more, they won’t take it. “I went to a highly ranked college where all the professors came from MIT,” says a former student. “But all they did was read from their textbooks. I quit.” In the giddy internet bubble of a only a few months ago – when jobs were plentiful, especially in the areas where school offered little help – this was a real possibility.⁴ But the dot-com dropouts are now returning to school. They will have to confront once again the Immigrant/Native divide, and have even more trouble given their recent experiences. And that will make it even harder to teach them – and all the Digital Natives already in the system – in the traditional fashion.

So what should happen? Should the Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should their Digital Immigrant educators learn the new? Unfortunately, no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards. In the first place, it may be impossible – their brains may already be different. It also flies in the face of everything we know about cultural migration. Kids born into any new culture learn the new language easily, and forcefully resist using the old. Smart adult immigrants accept that they don’t know about their new world and take advantage of their kids to help them learn and integrate. Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible) immigrants spend most of their time grousing about how good things were in the “old country.”

So unless we want to just forget about educating Digital Natives until they grow up and do it themselves, we had better confront this issue. And in so doing we need to reconsider both our methodology and our content.

First, our methodology. Today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students. This doesn’t mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills. But it does mean going faster, less step-by step, more in parallel, with more random access, among other things. Educators might ask “But how do we teach logic in this fashion?” While it’s not immediately clear, we do need to figure it out.

Second, our content. It seems to me that after the digital “singularity” there are now two kinds of content: “Legacy” content (to borrow the computer term for old systems) and “Future” content.

“Legacy” content includes reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, understanding the writings and ideas of the past, etc – all of our “traditional” curriculum. It is of course still important, but it is from a different era. Some of it (such as logical thinking) will continue to be important, but some (perhaps like Euclidean geometry) will become less so, as did Latin and Greek.

“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. This “Future” content is extremely interesting to today’s students. But how many Digital Immigrants are prepared to teach it? Someone once suggested to me that kids should only be allowed to use computers in school that they have built themselves. It’s a brilliant idea that is very doable from the point of view of the students’ capabilities. But who could teach it?

As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change of methodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It’s not actually clear to me which is harder – “learning new stuff” or “learning new ways to do old stuff.” I suspect it’s the latter.

So we have to invent, but not necessarily from scratch. Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives has already been done successfully. My own preference for teaching Digital Natives is to invent computer games to do the job, even for the most serious content. After all, it’s an idiom with which most of them are totally familiar.

Not long ago a group of professors showed up at my company with new computer-aided design (CAD) software they had developed for mechanical engineers. Their creation was so much better that what people were currently using that they had assumed the entire engineering world would quickly adopt it. But instead they encountered a lot of resistance, due in large part to the product’s extremely steep learning curve – the software contained hundreds of new buttons, options and approaches to master.

Their marketers, however, had a brilliant idea. Observing that the users of CAD software were almost exclusively male engineers between 20 and 30, they said “Why not make the learning into a video game!” So we invented and created for them a computer game in the “first person shooter” style of the consumer games Doom and Quake, called The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy. Its player becomes an intergalactic secret agent who has to save a space station from an attack by the evil Dr. Monkey Wrench. The only way to defeat him is to use the CAD software, which the learner must employ to build tools, fix weapons, and defeat booby traps. There is one hour of game time, plus 30 “tasks,” which can take from 15 minutes to several hours depending on one’s experience level.

Monkey Wrench has been phenomenally successful in getting young people interested in learning the software. It is widely used by engineering students around the world, with over 1 million copies of the game in print in several languages. But while the game was easy for my Digital Native staff to invent, creating the content turned out to be more difficult for the professors, who were used to teaching courses that started with “Lesson 1 – the Interface.” We asked them instead to create a series of graded tasks into which the skills to be learned were embedded. The professors had made 5-10 minute movies to illustrate key concepts; we asked them to cut them to under 30 seconds. The professors insisted that the learners to do all the tasks in order; we asked them to allow random access. They wanted a slow academic pace, we wanted speed and urgency (we hired a Hollywood script writer to provide this.) They wanted written instructions; we wanted computer movies. They wanted the traditional pedagogical language of “learning objectives,” “mastery”, etc. (e.g. “in this exercise you will learn…”); our goal was to completely eliminate any language that even smacked of education.

In the end the professors and their staff came through brilliantly, but because of the large mind-shift required it took them twice as long as we had expected. As they saw the approach working, though, the new “Digital Native” methodology became their model for more and more teaching – both in and out of games – and their development speed increased dramatically.

In math, for example, the debate must no longer be about whether to use calculators and computers – they are a part of the Digital Natives’ world – but rather how to use them to instill the things that are useful to have internalized, from key skills and concepts to the multiplication tables. We should be focusing on “future math” – approximation, statistics, binary thinking.

In geography – which is all but ignored these days – there is no reason that a generation that can memorize over 100 Pokémon characters with all their characteristics, history and evolution can’t learn the names, populations, capitals and relationships of all the 101 nations in the world. It just depends on how it is presented.

We need to invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using our students to guide us. The process has already begun – I know college professors inventing games for teaching subjects ranging from math to engineering to the Spanish Inquisition. We need to find ways of publicizing and spreading their successes.

A frequent objection I hear from Digital Immigrant educators is “this approach is great for facts, but it wouldn’t work for ‘my subject.’” Nonsense. This is just rationalization and lack of imagination. In my talks I now include “thought experiments” where I invite professors and teachers to suggest a subject or topic, and I attempt– on the spot – to invent a game or other Digital Native method for learning it. Classical philosophy? Create a game in which the philosophers debate and the learners have to pick out what each would say. The Holocaust? Create a simulation where students role-play the meeting at Wannsee⁵, or one where they can experience the true horror of the camps, as opposed to the films like Schindler’s List. It’s just dumb (and lazy) of educators – not to mention ineffective – to presume that (despite their traditions) the Digital Immigrant way is the only way to teach, and that the Digital Natives’ “language” is not as capable as their own of encompassing any and every idea.

So if Digital Immigrant educators really want to reach Digital Natives – i.e. all their students – they will have to change. It’s high time for them to stop their grousing, and as the Nike motto of the Digital Native generation says, “Just do it!” They will succeed in the long run – and their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them.”

Anyone who reads both parts of this text will, in principle, be convinced that it is factual – regardless of the opinion one will make. The profound epistemological breakthrough described by Marc Prensky in 2001 has been caused by capitalist (technological) development itself, and one cannot claim that it is a factoid or an obsession. On the contrary, the obsession is not to be recognized as such – with the terrible consequences it has, whether one thinks of the educational system or the competition in it.

The second thing that the reader should realize is the reasons why such issues are not discussed in our lands, neither by the bosses of the current educational system, nor by their (supposed…) opponents. The combination of stupidity and conservatism weighs equally on the heads of the various “wise men” who are paid to design the “modernization” of the educational system and the heads of the learners. The former have managed to reach the (notably lucrative for the relevant contractors) “giant touch screens” in schools, which they even consider a “great step”… The latter, on the other hand, pupils and students, prefer to live an epistemologically double life, which simply destroys their thinking, feelings and lives, rather than refusing in a deep, critical and militant way to become the rubble thrown into the gap of the epistemological Paradigm Shift.

Although it is not us (as game over assembly) who will save anyone, we insist and we will insist on that (as well). The (increasingly uncritical) defense of the “old” as a whole, which has actually failed, is on the one hand a political and cognitional failure itself (therefore part of the problem…), but on the other hand leaves us – as social subjects – completely exposed in front of decline of the old and the advance of the new, which is already taking place outside the educational system, and some (unknown…) day will become educationally dominant officially. Gramsci had once written that the old is dead, the new is not born, in the meantime morbid phenomena appear. In our opinion, the “new” is constantly being born; and what everyone has to choose is whether one will be part of the morbidity of the transition, or will criticize it.