Prensky and Spiegel

 

 In regards to the two different positions of Marc Prensky, In terms of "digital natives" Digital Nativewas used to describe younger people who grew up with technology, claiming that they learn and think differently  than the digital immigrants." I thought that the idea itself was kind of an interesting concept but I thought it kinda oversimplified different realities.

Spiegel pushed back a lot because he made a good point of how students don't all have equal access to technology, so I think it's kind of at a bias because not many of those students have technology or even know how to use it in the ways that are intended. Although students have access in a way of accessibility doesn't really mean that they truly understand their functions or how to use them responsibly.

 

          In this case I agree with Spiegel on his stance of “Digital Native” because I feel it puts people in a place of making assumption that can lead to adults missing out on important digital skills like online safety, ethical technology use, media literacy and things of that nature. On the other hand Danah Boyd research also backed these claims up in regards to many different teenagers' usage is often but then they still needed help like navigating it responsibly and appropriately. I also think instead of having these far gone labels we have to the kind of look at digital skills in a lens of something that everyone can develop with the right guidance and without presumptions.

I look at MLLs and our students who need additional supports we must focus on all of our learners in their abilities and be more thoughtful and informed with this digital world, no matter the age or who they are as people. I also agree with Robinson when he talks about how education is not broken, but it's just being misused due to a lack of effort on investment.

 

If I bring it back to my own teaching experience or pre-teaching experience, I think of how standardization can feel kind of limiting. I remember being good at like memorizing  and still feeling like I wasn't truly like digesting what I was being taught.  I felt like everyone was being so focused on data and standardized test then on curiosity and creativity. I'll remember like when I was in my high school years I had a teacher named Mr Riley who like really encouraged us to ask those questions that you know most people wouldn't want to and he encouraged that creativity by basically saying like no question is a dumb question. It helps us to explore different ideas and use critical thinking and that classroom kind of stood out to me because you I could feel seen nd challenged to go outside the scope of what other classrooms that most times you interest are overlooked.

I love to like to read and write but they mostly likely celebrated scores or like ways of gaining higher percentages and data far as math. This in turn then felt like my creativity never really mattered in the classroom. The other topic of having a teacher who made a difference really stood out to me because it wasn't until I was in high school that I met my first teacher of African-American descent name Ms.Bennett, who really pushed me and encouraged me.

 Most times certain classrooms that I would see would be looked at like behavioral or lazy and really what they needed was different styles of teaching because not everyone comprehends on the same level. It kind of reminds me of the picture of the fish climbing the tree with all the other animals around it. All in all, I connected with Robinson's talk because as a student, I often felt that it was more about control and like babysitting than the creativity. The message that he conveyed helped me realize how powerful it is to teach where it sparks creativity and curiosity, and meets kids where they are.