Professional Documents
Culture Documents
While Woolf was talking about how writers view life, however,
Prensky was talking about how life itself has changed. On or about
1985, children were born into a world with Internet. These children
(now no older than in their late twenties) cannot live without the Web.
There are many other simplistic ways to distinguish the two types
of human beings. Digital natives share images instantaneously; digital
immigrants email. Digital natives ask Siri to get them a pizza; digital
immigrants go to a restaurant to eat a pizza. Digital natives who drive
cars change routes according to Waze; digital immigrants curse the
traffic. Digital natives who do not have cars call Uber or Grab Taxi;
digital immigrants stand on the street to hail a cab.
Prensky (as well as several others after him) outlined the crucial
problem with modern education due to the digital revolution. In the
USA and other technologically advanced countries, digital immigrants
are teaching digital natives. In the Philippines (where most educators
are not even on Facebook), digital aliens are teaching digital natives.
REACTION PAPER
Digital Education
MINI CRITIQUE / by: Isagani Cruz
The explanations of Prensky and other people cited in the article of Isagani Cruz
concerning the types of human beings with regard to the different generations and
technology, are relevant in the present situation of learners in our society. But in the
Philippines that is considered as one of the developing countries in the world, who has citizens
and families who are not totally drifted by the fast-phasing world-wide transitions in technology,
this is just slightly relevant.
Philippines is composed mainly of agricultural lands and rich natural resources. When
we will consider the geographical aspect of our country, it is composed of higher number of
individuals living in rural areas than that of in urban areas. And because of this, in connection
with the technological advancement and the use of technology as a source of information,
Cruzs explanation regarding the types of human beings is not as relevant as compared with the
real-life scenarios in our country. For example, here in Quezon Province, not all students in
elementary and high school have cellphones, laptops, and computers. Only those students who
can afford to buy can have these gadgets. Frequently, only the students in urban areas can
afford to have these. Most of the students who are living in rural areas are poor and less
fortunate to have one of these products of technology. In connection with the types of human
beings that were cited by Prensky and the others, for me, not all students who were born on and
after 1985 can be considered as digital natives because of the fact that not all of the students
have an access to these kinds of gadget, and most of the students in our country are living in
rural areas.
Moreover, it is true that the individuals who were born on or after 1985 can be
considered as digital natives, but not all of them. I think, article of Cruz happens to be like that
because he focused only on the usual scenarios in urban areas where laws, programs and
projects for education are primarily implemented by our government, but he forgot the real-life
situations of other Filipinos in rural areas. In that sense, Cruzs explanation is only applicable for
the learners who are living in the urban areas of our country. Likewise, even though our country
has more individual learners living in rural areas, they prioritize and take to consider more the
learners living in urban, where the products of modernization primarily take place. In that case, it
is easier for our government to implement a new curriculum like K-12 program (which is
promoting global excellence) in the urban areas because the technologies are accessible in
those areas.
We all know that there is a big difference when an individual is living in a rural area
rather than the one living in urban. They differ in culture, traditions, way of living and other
factors related to these. And these are the ones that really affect the learning preferences of an
individual living in a certain area, aside from the financial status of ones family and his literacy
in using new technology. That is why there is what we call a contextualization in the learning
materials and workbooks in different areas in the Philippines, that adapts the culture, tradition,
way of living, and activities of the residents in a certain area like city and municipality.
Before an idea regarding education and learning should be accepted, it must first seek
to know the possible stakeholders and beneficiaries of learning in a wider scope. I am talking
about the real general situations of students living in our country and our schools availability on
the instructional materials and technology for teaching. Our country is composed of learners
which mostly came from rural areas. Most of them are deprived of having gadgets and
computers. I gathered information regarding this situation in facebook, and I collected the
opinions of the teachers who also belong to the generation of the digital natives as referred to
Prenskys classification of human beings. And I can say that there are lapses in the column
article of Isagani Cruz regarding digital education, and it was explained in detailed above.
Perhaps, it can be really relevant to our country if our schools have these kinds of technology.
On the other hand, I agree to him that the teachers should become digital immigrants
who can adapt and be updated on the timely situations, issues, knowledge and information in a
local, national and world-wide scope. It is for the teachers advantage and preparation, to
prevent difficulty in handling his class. Who knows, sooner or later, our government can provide
these kinds of gadget and computers for the Filipino students. And who knows, sooner or later,
these gadgets are easily accessible in almost all areas in rural. It is better to be prepared than
not. And it is good to assume that all of your students are digital natives, because there is
always a possibility that a teacher can encounter one or few of this kind in his class. And in this
case, the teachers responsibility is to guide these students in processing which of the
information that these digital natives acquired from the internet are important, relevant, true and
correct. Also, it is advisable that the preparation should primarily start with the teachers because
they are the only resilient individuals in educating the learners.
Moreover, a teacher can be an efficient teacher to his students if he knows more things
on what he is teaching than his students. Inside the classroom, the teacher is the main provider
of information and learning that are needed by his students in his life and future career. He is
the guide on the students learning and the main facilitator of information inside the classroom.
And I also agree that the teacher should perform his duty as an agent of change, and that
change can be found in the creating level of the Blooms Taxonomy of Education. And to be
able to do that, a teacher should be proficient and efficient enough in performing the very
difficult requirements, duties and responsibilities in nurturing his learners future.
A teacher should learn to create and recreate himself before he can efficiently teach his
students how to create.