The Digital Melting Pot: Bridging the Digital Native-Immigrant Divide

      Over the past decade or two a term has been generated and  passed around the educational field.  Teachers are noting their students can run computers, and all computer "things" at a very young age and seem to live, eat, and breathe technology.  The teachers themselves may feel at a loss, or even stupid, by comparison.   Thus,  a belief has been growing and it is that the children entering and passing through our schools now are technological superiors and the educators inferior.     Also, many educators assume that education must be reformed to suit the current generation's penchant for all things digital.

       Thus, civilization is being divided into two camps: digital natives--our wee ones, and digital immigrants--the old folks who had to learn technology rather than being figuratively spoon-fed it.   As the commonly held belief goes, the digital natives know it all.  They can produce professional-grade web sites in preschool, they can run camcorders--palm sized--and create movies of their kindergarten peers in the sandbox.  In short; educators,  possibly the public at large, assume the new generation knows it all, simply because they were born with technology being advanced all around them.  Digital immigrants, however, have had to learn all this.  Nevermind that digital immigrants created the technology the natives play with (Stoerger, 2009).  Generally, digital  immigrants are all those born before 1980 and therefore were not  assimilated into a technologically-saturated society.  

      Unfortunately, as Stoerger makes the point, just because the natives are surrounded by technology, they do not necessarily have a command of it,  nor are they automatically prepared for life and work after their education due to their intense exposure to technology. Despite the wide held belief  that they can do anything with a computer, research is showing they actually cannot,  nor does the technology teach them high-level thinking skills, improve their reading comprehension, or increase their test scores.   Moreover, the natives themselves do not want increased technology in their education.  Stoerger points to the research to show this fact and provides a way to bridge the digital native-immigrant gap.  

      Stoerger explains the natives and immigrants further.  She gleaned definitions from the dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989):  'native' is defined as one who belongs, among other terms, and the 'immigrant' is someone who arrives in a new place.  She goes on to say that the native, then, belongs, and the immigrant never will.  I assert that this  need not  be the case--and essentially, so does she.  But what I add is that even though the 'immigrants' have just arrived and need time to adjust, it does not mean they will never belong.  They may be a unique group that are known for being different, but in time can be also be known for their particular abilities and knowledge.

      The research is diverse but overall it shows that natives are not as skilled as they appear.  They are familiar with computers, use the internet, and access digital files.  However, natives mostly use technology for entertainment, rather than for learning opportunities.  Also, as noted by Herring (2008), and Howe and Strauss (2003) students see technology as tools to make their lives more convenient and do not view technology devices as high-tech, whereas the immigrants may.    Further, educators have noted that while these young, tech-savvy students come to the classroom able to use technology, "these individuals come into the classroom with different competencies (Oblinger, 2008). Just because students can open up Google in their Web browser does not mean that they know how to find quality information resources" (Stoerger, 2009).    Essentially, students do not know how to think nor can any amount of exposure to  technology teach them to do so.  They themselves realize this and, despite research presented to the contrary (by Duderstadt, 2004), do not want more technology in their education.   Other studies showed that "students hold conventional positions with regard to teaching and learning"  (Garcia and Qin, 2007; Lohnes and Kinzer, 2007) and "preferred moderate amounts of technology in the classroom" (Salaway and Caruso, 2007).  Finally, as Wesch (2009) stated, 'educational changes should be about the social spirit enabled by new technologies — collaboration, interaction, and participation — not the technologies themselves' (Stoerger, 2009).

     Stoerger sums up her paper by offering a link between natives and immigrants.  She quotes Prensky (2009) who called this link a digital melting pot.  She says:  "the term digital melting pot refers to the blending of individuals who speak with different technology tongues. Instead of segregating individuals based on their skills or lack thereof, the digital melting pot is a place where all individuals, including those with low levels of competency, experience technology in a way that fosters opportunities without barriers" (Stoerger, 2009).   Clearly, though she dissuades educators from believing digital natives are the technological leaders of our generation, she does so only to show there is work to be done.   She offers a peaceable understanding and encourages educators to know their students and serve them as their needs demonstrate.