I was going to do this using sticky tags, but I may have to put on a hold on diigo for a few days.
I've previously mentioned David Buckingham's excellent Beyond Technology (2007) and his discussion of Presenky and Gee. Here are a few quotes:
"Like explorers returning from distant lands, both writers see their role as being to explain the activities of this exotic new species for the benefit of their confused and puzzled teachers and parents" (105)
"Prensky's argument is reinforced by what he regards as definitive evidence about the 'plasticity' of the human brain have not adapted sufficiently over thousands of years to enable all of them to read and write, it appears that, within the space of one generation, technology has brought about fundamental evolutionary changes that are making children unrecognizable event to their own parents" (105).
It can be awkward to extract quotes sometimes, but hopefully this provides a sense of the issues with Prensky's comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment reflects a basic misunderstnding about the brain, neuroscience and "evolution" that is that is, unfortunately, widespread. It is generally accepted in neuroscience that an individual's brain is plastic, and does adapt, in a person's lifetime, to the input it gets. What is hotly debated is whether such changes can pass down generations in a short amount of time (this is generally referred to as the Lamarckian view.) It was, until recently, rejected by the mainstream of neuroscience, but as a neuroscientist friend recently commented to me, "With respect to evolution, the Lamarcian idea of the inheritance of aquired traits has been roundly denied by Western scientists for years -- however, there is now some evidence that some version of this may occur. I seriously doubt, however, at the level of brain structure, but who knows. Brains and biology are still largely a mystery - and the only thing we can say for sure is that both are almost certainly more complex and sophisticated than we now realize."
ReplyDeleteIn the end, my argument is that *inputs* have changed, and that indiviual brains have changed, as they always do, as a result of this. Inherited? Who knows. We know far too little to jump to any definitive conculsions either way.
--Marc Prensky
Thank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with the discussion in 'Beyond Technology' that I've pointed to here?