Academics such as Prensky (2001) and Gee, (2003) have spent almost two decades arguing for the attention of educational professionals to understand and incorporate digital environments and the lessons we gain about learning in them, into their practices in order to both maximise the learning of ‘digital natives’ and best use digital environments to meet 21st century learning needs. While there are examples of educators making these ideas part of their practice, the true importance and nature of the ideas largely go unexplored or, perhaps, ignored. And so, discussions on embedding these theories are essentially the same as they were 15, or more, years ago with proponents arguing for learning spaces to reflect the digital spaces inhabited by students just as Gee and Prensky have done for the better part of two decades.
One of the key barriers to the implementation of digital environments is funding. The usually inadequate level of funding provided for the implementation of digital environments not only leaves digital platforms well behind in desired functionality compared to other digital experiences students and staff are having beyond education but it simply lacks the functionality to encourage staff to invest fully as traditional model of delivery are usually needed to at least supplement lessons.
Most recently, the continuing creep of Google into our lives has continued with Google Classrooms, a platform which provides little more that a notice board and drop box for assignments. Educators in the ACT are frustrated with this as digital delivery spaces have not reached the functionality enjoyed in the mid 2000’s when Prensky and Gee’s ideas were taking hold. Over a decade on, the much enjoyed My Classroom platform is still sorely missed and has since been attempted to be replaced twice before the Education Department settled of the easy decision to use Google (its free – for now). CLC, with much promise, failed on functionality and was overly complex for teachers to learn quickly with at best, limited training and its successor, Life, didn’t get off the ground. Teachers were left with a gaping hole in this educational space between 2010 and 2015. It is therefore, no wonder, that teachers in the ACT are disillusioned with digital spaces – they simply don’t give them everything they need to invest in their use, a situation compounded by an absence of training and ongoing support. The reality is though, that while administrators have been searching for platforms to provide a digital space, the model still being implemented has become outdated. Carvalho and Yeoman (2018) identify the ongoing approach to educational delivery that includes direct instruction, inauthentic assessment and rote learning” (2018, p.1121). Spaces, including digital, for learning are inauthentic and decontextualised and their unique qualities are not used to purposefully deliver educational experiences (Carvalho and Yeoman, 2018).
While Prensky (2017) still supports the idea of meeting the needs of ‘digital natives’, he also voices the idea that problem-based learning provides the key to educating current and future students. He further presents the argument that continuing to fund educational hardware and software is not only no longer sustainable, but it does not meet the needs of students, a situation also identified by Fraser (2014) and Sparrow and Whitmer (2014) in their discussions of next generation learning spaces. Models that reinforce the traditional subject based model of education no longer meet the needs of students; instead, almost everything they need is already available when they need it through the ubiquitous use of Web 2.0 environments . This of course presents a second barrier due to the lack of personal engagement and interest in these spaces by teachers as the majority don’t participate in these readily available spaces themselves nor in the same ways as their students – the generational divide is wide.
Thornburg’s (2013) discussion of learning spaces reflects the learning gained from Gee’s (2003, 2007) discussions of what we can learn about good video games. Both academics reflect on activities people engage in when learning best and propose sets of conditions ideal for learning. In my journey through this unit, there were not a great deal of new ideas as I was heavily engaged with the work of Prensky, Gee and others some years ago. I am both somewhat disappointed with the development of these ideas and frustrated that the lessons are still so relevant – we have not learnt them and certainly not implemented them. The progression of the ideas in taking the learning priorities out of the digital spaces and using digital learning to support what we do with physical spaces excites me. It is in classrooms where teachers have the power to overcome some of the traditional barriers associated with digital learning spaces and implement the lessons we learn from them in the physical space. From Gee (2013), Thornburg (2014) and Prensky, (2018) we learn that learning spaces, both digital and physical, should be varied; they should provide opportunities to learn about and solve real world problems; they should allow students to act as designers and co-author the educational experience; and, they should provide opportunities to practice 21st century learning skills of personal and social capability, ethical and intercultural understanding, critical and creative thinking and, communication (ANCARA, 2019).
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019) F-10 Curriculum: General Capabilities. Retrieved From: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/ Date accessed: 5/10/2019.
Carvalho, L. & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connection theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6). 1120-1137.
Fraser, K. & Tight, M. (2014). The Future of Learning and Teaching in Next Generation Learning Spaces. Emerald Publishing Limited. Retrieved from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/CSUAU/detail.action?docID=1766280
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Videogames Have to Teach Us about Learning. Palgrave/Macmillan. Ney York.
Gee, J. (2007). Good Video Games + Good Learning. New York. Peter Lang Publishing.
Gee, J. P. (2013). Games for learning. Educational Horizons, April/May. DOI: 10.1177/0013175X1309100406.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Retrieved from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31169414/Digital_Natives_-_Digital_Immigrants.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDigital_natives_digital_immigrants_part.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20191007%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191007T093111Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1bcb861ad655ffc2dac079a79bae0f7e007aa75704f75d5495b3b7f753466924.
Prensky, M. (2018). Do we really need dedicated ed tech? No we don’t!. Edtech Digest. Retrieved from: http://marcprenskyarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Prensky-Do_We_Really-Need-Dedicated_Ed-Tech-FINAL.pdf
Sparrow, J & Whitmer, S. (2014). Transforming the student experience through learning space design. In Fraser, K. & Tight, M. (2014). The Future of Learning and Teaching in Next Generation Learning Spaces. Emerald Publishing Limited. Retrieved from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/CSUAU/detail.action?docID=1766280
Thornburg, D. (2014). From the Campfire to the Holodeck: Creating Engaging and Powerful 21st Century Learning Environments. Wiley. San Francisco.
Leave a Reply