it's complicated: prensky versus boyd

"I believe that the digital native rhetoric is worse than inaccurate: it is dangerous. Because of how society has politicized this language, it allows some to eschew responsibility for helping youth and adults navigate a networked world. [...] a focus on today's youth as digital natives presumes that all we as a society need to do is be patient and wait for a generation of these digital wunderkinds to grow up" (boyd 197).
Reading danah boyd's chapter challenging Marc Prensky's use of the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants," I realize that maybe the tension between the two ideas isn't the problem -- but the labels themselves. "Digital native" and "digital immigrant" are, as boyd points out in the quote above (and in further detail throughout the chapter), loaded with ideologies that can create division. In my last entry, I reflected on islands, and being from one and traveling to the other, whereas so-called "digital natives" are born on the latter, but I realize now that this sort of perspective ignores the intersectional realities of youth and adults where technology and digital media are involved. And that's not right.

That said, I appreciate that boyd takes the time to unpack why the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" are so problematic! And it's so interesting, too, how readily we receive material -- such as Prensky's -- without following through critically and compassionately in thought and action.

When quickly searching for information on digital literacy -- ways to help all students become not only critical consumers, but critical creators as well (because as boyd points out, no single student is inherently a "digital native") -- I came across an article put out by "Resource Ed" that names eight facets that compose digital literacy, and why digital literacy is so important. Included are "creativity" and "collaboration," but also "e-safety" and "critical thinking and evaluation." 

That said, it's interesting that digital literacy, in this article's eyes, is not the same as computer literacy, which boyd touches upon. Which makes me wonder -- with terms such as "digital native" and "digital immigrant," can we adequately make the distinction between the two, and why youth are not inherently "computer" savvy but perhaps are "digitally" savvy in the realm of social media, blogging, and other media? I think, after reading boyd, they are definitely too broad, and unfair. It's a lot of responsibility to put on a kid's shoulders, to assume that just because they know how to use x and y, they automatically have mastered z...

Comments

  1. J DelSignoreJune 24, 2019 at 6:52 PM

    I agree. Just because a student is able to navigate through a new program, game, social media app, etc., it doesn't make him/her a master at it. It could just be that that child is more flexible at learning and savvy at figuring out the ins and outs. There may also be unlimited time the child is dedicated to mastering one of the above. As I stated in my blog, with the demand comes the need to learn. It is up to the learner to sink or swim, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CEOteachJune 24, 2019 at 8:53 PM

    I agree, that the terms can be problematic and I think it is important that we are able to think critically and "unpack" them as you say. I also thought it was interesting that computer literacy and digital literacy were considered different things, I hadn't thought of it that way until reading this. Also I love the picture you choose!

    ReplyDelete
  3. albarrosJune 24, 2019 at 10:14 PM

    I also agree. The student could just be touching the surface. It does not necessarily mean the student is a genius. Learning takes time and hard work. Is it impossible for the student to master it after working hard and going beyond the surface? Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brittany PysczynskiJune 25, 2019 at 4:43 AM

    When you say, "When quickly searching for information on digital literacy -- ways to help all students become not only critical consumers, but critical creators as well (because as Boyd points out, no single student is inherently a "digital native")" I immediately think of the difference in knowing and understanding. Sometimes students know what to do , but they do not understand the where it is coming from, even though they are a "digital native." On the other hand the "digital immigrant" must learn how to do something and that may help to give a stronger understanding.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

final reflection

Image
WHO I WAS Student teaching was probably the most stressful event of my life. Not moving from Rhode Island, a state with a population of 1 million-plus, to South Dakota, where cows outnumber people . Not navigating my way through college courses AGAIN, after a five-year gap of unfulfilled, stale dreams at the family business. Teaching.  This past spring, when I entered the classroom in the Providence school where I would be teaching a senior section of British literature, I did not know what I was getting into. Sure, I knew the bones of teaching -- the stuff gleaned from classes over the past two years in RIC’s MAT program. I had read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein before, and I had almost-kind of finished 1984 when I was a senior in high school. I knew that social justice would have to be “factored in” when it came to designing my lessons, units, questions… I had the formula, right? But what I didn’t know, is how physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted ...
Read more

turkle and wesch

Image
"When students recognize their own importance in helping to shape the future of this increasingly global, interconnected society, the significance problem fades away," writes Michael Wesch in his article "Anti-Teaching: Confronting the Crisis of Significance." When we step away from the retelling of a narrative (but adding new pieces here and there, as time will permit), and invite students -- and by extension, people -- into the "conversation," (to borrow a word from Sherry Turkle )... that's when, and where, dialogue and change, begin.  After reading both the perspectives of Wesch and Turkle, I do not find they are at odds with each other, but rather, addressing the same issue with different terminology and phrasing. When Turkle says we "have sacrificed conversation for mere connection," Wesch says the need for significance is driving students to that very connection -- a connection that he sees falling flat in his classroom enviro...
Read more