In the article Listen to the Natives by Marc Prensky teachers are called to listen to the technological voice of their students.

The question to be considered seems to be adopt or adapt. The parts of Prensky’s article which did not resonate sounded like adopting. That is, adopting the “21st Century” technology as some magic potion for success with these “21st Century” kids. The suggestion to make math video games for instance seemed to suggest that simply making the game would lead to learning. “For example, students could learn algebra far more quickly and effectively if instruction were available in game format. Students would need to beat the game to pass the course. They would be invested and engaged in the process.” I think it is obvious there would need to be more to it than this. Too often in this article Prensky suggests adopting technology is THE answer. He says things like, “Our students are no longer ‘little versions of us,’ as they may have been in the past. In fact, they are so different from us that we can no longer use either our 20th century knowledge or our training as a guide to what is best for them educationally.” This is simply not true. Young people will still face the same fundamental problems people have always faced. There may be some surface factors which are different but the underlying human experience will be very similar. There are so many educational factors outside of technology which come into play.

Let me explain with an example from another field. Suppose, a 20th Century person and a 21st Century person both buy stock. The 21CP uses a computer to buy stocks and does research on the internet. The 20CP calls his broker on his landline phone and read a paper version of the Wall Street Journal for research. The 21CP is probably getting better transaction rates, quicker reaction times, and newer information. But none of the technology benefits necessarily equal success. Technology will make a difference, especially in the margins but just like education success goes far beyond the method. The 20CP probably has a lot of experience and knowledge which indicate which companies to buy and which to pass on. The 21CP would be wise to understand the values of the older 20CP. Also the 21CP would probably be more successful long term to skew toward the 20CP practices before 21.5 comes along and wins the technology battle. By comparison I think teachers have or should have a lot more to offer than methods which technology really is, just a method.

I do think though Prensky is probably more on the adapt side of the equation. On rereading the article, most of the things proposed are just examples and suggestions not lesson plans. So I think I can cut Prensky a little slack. Most of his ideas seem to be presented to help spur teachers to positive adapting practices. I certainly agree that teachers should adapt and treat their students with respect for their ideas. But this is not new, it just looks different. I would have like the article a little more if Prensky connected adapting as a fundamental teaching attribute and not something new.