Description
Journal Article by American writer, Marc Prensky, describes what he believes to be the ‘new students of today’, Digital Natives. He believes students of today are native speakers of the digital language and are extremely familiar with this modernised society (Prensky, 2001). Within recent generations this idea has been clearly identified, however, many disagree with Prensky’s beliefs, stating it is inaccurate.
Feelings
Before engaging with the topic of Digital Natives, I agreed with Prensky. Based from experience, my generation had an understanding of the digital language and the involvement of technology today, it evolved as we did. After further research, my strong opinion had weakened. It became evident there were solid arguments for why Prensky’s idea was inaccurate. These convincing arguments have led me to feel conflicted in my viewpoints, effectively changing my feelings towards the topic of Digital Natives.
Evaluation
The Digital Native theory has many strengths and weaknesses including:
Strengths | Weaknesses |
- A comprehendible idea in the metaphor - He makes valid points about technology in today’s society - Well researched and well written | - The specific words such as ‘native’ and ‘immigrant’ can be misleading - Some of his ideas are more generalised claims - The assumption all media is digital media - Does not cater to everyone |
Analysis
Terry Judd wrote an article titled ‘The Rise and Fall of Digital Natives”, which states he agrees with Prensky to an extent. Judd believes newer generations or millennials are conditioned users of technology and they think and behave accordingly (Judd, 2018). The Australian Bureau of Statistics also supports this increased use of technology finding that from 2004-2005 households with internet access used by children under 15 equalled 72%, while in 2016-2017, it had increased to 97.1% of households (ABS, 2018). Prensky’s article was understandable to read, even if disagreed upon, and was an engaging article.
Prensky’s theory has been questioned because of its general assumption that students entering universities have a universally equal idea of the digital world. This generalisation risk overlooks the mix of technological skills among the student population (Kennedy et al., 2008). Prensky did not mention a specific start or end date for who he considered to be a Digital Native, which is misleading (Judd 2018). It had been stated that the native/immigrant phrasing assumes all natives are comfortable in their native culture. The article also assumes that media, is just considered digital (Elliot, 2013). “The ability to read a newspaper does not imply the ability to think critically about its contents…Digital natives are not demonstrating a marked advantage over their immigrant… in this instance” (Elliot, 2013).
Conclusion
I still agree that Prensky formed accurate viewpoints. The idea of the Digital Native vs the Digital Immigrant are relevant in today’s age. Based off my own personal experience with the digital world, I can support these arguments and see myself as a Digital Native. However, the weaknesses of this theory, can be justifiable, which many I also agree with, such as the generalisation of the article, lacking examples. Prensky’s article would need adjusting to be considered a viable article in today’s society.
Action Plan
After researching Digital Natives, it became clear that staying on top of the technological times and advances is very important. With hopes of becoming a teacher in the future, I will consider the importance of ‘keeping up with the times’ of technology and helping my students understand the digital world.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018).
Household Use of Information Technology. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/technology-and-innovation/household-use-information-technology/latest-release
Elliot, D. (2013). Deconstructing Digital Natives: Young People, Technology and the New Literacies.
ELT Journal, 67(4), 510-512.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct046
Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 99–119.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3821
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1).https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1233
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1.
On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Dear Abbie,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog and have an appreciation for the time and effort you put into writing it. The layout of your blog is simple and the information it contains is very easy to read and understand.
Your use of a tabling dot points on the strengths and weaknesses of the driving question you are reflecting upon was a great idea, and allowed me to be introduced to your ideas before reading your analysis.
I feel as though an area in which could improve your analysis is by addressing the gap between digital natives and digital immigrants further. Prensky's belief is essentially that unless you are born into the digital world, it is to difficult to learn these digital skills, whereas M. Bullen states that it is more based on contexts (Bullen, et al.,2011, as cited in Creighton, 2018). By touching on this point you will strengthen your analysis and allow your audience an opportunity to see both sides of the driving question.
Kind Regards
Nick