This is the place for us to SHARE, ASK, REFLECT UPON different issues. Cathartic corner? Why not?
A place for teachers taking the course in Región 5: A. Brown, San Vicente, Pte Perón and E Echeverría
I've got the strong impression that the DNs Prensky depicts are the few that come from privileged backgrounds; those who can afford access to ICT and private schooling. But what about those who can't (e.g. the vast majority living in slum areas in our country)?Then, up to what extent any of the Ss we teach at any state school in our country can be regarded as a DN? It's true; they spend long hours texting and surfing the Net simultaneously. They are able to stay focussed playing computer games for long hours; their coordination of vision and touch is simply outstanding!Now, do all these things mean they're developing their high-order thinking skills? Can they really take in all the info they're bombarded with? Can they use this info and their 'skills' to solve real-life problems?
I cannot agree more. As we discussed in our first meeting, I was against Prensky idea o nativelikeness having my ss in mind. I used to wonder whether these characteristics were shared by adolescents from richer countries.However, I started to find similarites between those teenagers and my own ss. As a matter of fact there are several detractors to Prensky's theory. Can anybody contribute with any article that is against his theories? Read Prnesky's paper in detail, ar there any coincidences with your ss?As for thinking skils, I guess it's the teachers' role to provide tasks that resort to HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills), not only LOTS (Lower Order Thinking Skills). We cannot rely on the market/business, can we? It is the school's role to promote thinking.Maximiliano says that our ss are used to playing games only, or mostly. Has anybody come across any game that can be used for educational purposes (explicit or implicit purposes)? Would you share it with us?Let's go oon discussing.stella :-)
It seems to be true; the students I teach seem to have many of the features described by Prensky. But that doesn’t mean he’s absolutely right. There may be other possible explanations.I’ve just finished reading the 2nd part of that article; very interesting, indeed. Now, I’ve got the whole picture. In that article, he says that he presents evidence for his argument. But the second part is as inaccurate as the first one to say the least….[keep on reading]
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
Basically, he states that the human brain maintains its neuroplasticity and malleability for life, which allows us to develop different pattern of thought in response to the input we’re exposed to in our culture. He even goes on to say that our supply of brain cell is replenished constantly. I’ll stop here.
Well, though I haven’t searched the Net for Prensky’s detractors’ arguments, anybody with a minimum amount of knowledge about biology can tell there’s something wrong in this claim. As far as I know, neurons (but for neural stem cells and a few other types of neurons) don’t undergo cell division; that is, they can ‘reproduce’ or ‘regenerate’. There is strong evidence for generation of new neurons, but only for the hippocampus and the olfactory bulb. Hmhm, I think, the hippocampus is thought to play an important role in memory (information storage) and space (mapping or coding space). Hmm, maybe, Prensky might be right at this point: our students process and store information in a different way (?!)
Anyway, you can look up this information in any encyclopaedia, biology textbook or on any serious website about neuroscience. You can even consult any biologist, neurologist or physician. Then, draw your own conclusions.Then, what about the other claim about DNs having cognitive structures that are parallel and not sequential? Is this claim backed up by the latest research into PDPs (parallel distributed processing)? I won’t use much space and time discussing this here.The thing is if an argument is presented as a bunch of scientific facts in an article, it must bear some scientific rigour. The source of his claim on neuroplasticity is a showbiz magazine article by Paul Perry in American Way (15th May 2000). Draw your own conclusions.
That’s why I think this guy is just trying to sell teachers his ‘learning’ games. Doesn’t he own a company that design and manufacture these so-called ‘learning’ games? Hasn’t he amassed a fortune selling those games to the US military?
WOW, this looks like a debate.Let's see what M. Prensky has to sayYou can get into his official web site (available at: http://www.marcprensky.com/) and click on Writings. Here is an interesting article that deals with concepts such as "neuroplasticity", "malleability" . This is his second seminal paper: "Digital natives, digital immigrants. PART 2. Do they really think diferently?", available at:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf. Retrieved March 11, 2012.How can the rest collaborate to this debate?stella :-)
just one thing: I made a conceptual mistake in my 3rd post above. Where it reads "neurons (but for neural stem cells and a few other types of neurons) don’t undergo cell division; that is, they can ‘reproduce’ or ‘regenerate’.", it should have been "neurons (but for neural stem cells and a few other types of neurons) don’t undergo cell division; that is, they CANNOT ‘reproduce’ or ‘regenerate’."Sorry, I'm just a human being ^^