Are digital natives a myth or reality?, explores the concept of ‘digital natives’ which refers to the students of today as “‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Key to Prensky’s (2001) argument is that everyone born after 1984 is automatically a digital native. Initially, I agreed with this viewpoint as the classification of digital native resonated with me because growing up, I have always had access to technology and have never known a world without it. However, having looked further into the topic, I came across an opposing viewpoint in an article written by Kirschner and Bruyckere (2017) who argue the non-existence of the term ‘digital native.’ They suggest that just because those raised in the contemporary technological era have always had technology at their fingertips, it does not necessarily mean they are better equipt in using these technology devices (Kirschner and Bruyckere, 2017). Having read Prensky’s (2001) article, I felt I had proficient digital skills, such as that I could use software programs like Excel, however, after reading Kirschner and Bruyckere (2017), I realised that this is quite a surface level skill and I am not nearly as advanced enough to demonstrate more complex digital skills such as programming or coding. Hence, by comparing the two approaches I have discovered that the idea that digital natives are more information-skilled because they have never known a non-digital world, is not an accurate assumption. It is too broad to assume that all people born after 1984 are automatically more digitally proficient than those born before. Additionally, Prensky suggests that current teaching methodology and content must undergo a radicalised change, as digital immigrant instructors speak an “outdated language (that of the pre-digital age)” (Prensky, 2001, p. 3). In doing so, instructors are supposedly not adapting to the fast-paced multitasking learning style of digital natives, which as a result, is causing attention levels to drop and a general disinterest in learning topics (Prensky, 2001). I found that Loh and Kanai (2016) challenge this by suggesting that diminishing concentration and lack of interest in learning stems instead from the notion of multitasking, or rather, continual switching between different devices. Loh and Kanai (2016) were significant to my findings as they used empirical research to support their argument, whereas Prensky relies simply on questionable assumptions, such as when he states “... it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed...But whether or not this is literally true…” (Preksny, 2001, p. 1), which is relatively less convincing. As a future teacher, these new insights have highlighted the importance to me of committing to a practice that is up to date with the latest technological advancements and getting to know the needs and learning styles of my students. In general, after having consulted various forms of literature, I neither agree nor disagree with the existence of the term ‘digital native.’ Should those born after 1984 automatically be considered a digital native? What digital skills should a digital native possess? These are questions that we must consider to refine our understanding and the classification of the term digital native. References Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001 Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2016). How has the Internet reshaped human cognition?. The Neuroscientist, 22(5), 506-520. doi: 10.1177/1073858415595005 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf *press the '0 comments' button to type a comment
1 Comment
|
AuthorMy name is Luana Di Stefano! I am currently studying a Bachelor of Education (Primary/Special Education) at the ACU Strathfield campus. |