Read and take notes on:
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants by Marc Prensky (Digital Divide)
“Generation Myth” by Siva Vaidhyanathan
(Check on the Readings page if you’re having trouble accessing “Generation Myth.”
Respond to the readings on Twitter and in the comments section of this blog. Which author do you agree with? Do you see a point of view neither of them see? Where do you see yourself in their paradigms? How do each use rhetoric to make their arguments (logos / ethos/ pathos)? How are they responding to each other?
Speak: Prepare a one minute (no more) speech on why you’re a digital native or immigrant
I believe that we are a digital generation as opposed to Vaidhyanathan’s take on the debate. Prensky reveals the media that encompasses a young adult’s every day life and recognizes the change concerning the generation. We are mostly digital natives.I feel like not seeing the effect media has on the young people is a way of walking blind, rather, not really seeing the whole picture. Technology has definitely become incorporated into young adult culture. There are constant needs to assuage the internet “fix” or the “itch” that is felt when Instagram hasn’t been checked or the Twitterfeed hasn’t been uploaded. There has been a shift towards a more technological society. In this generation, it is almost essential to use a computer in order to fulfill homework requirements or check the status of grades. In order to be a productive student in school, it is silently encouraged to buy a personal laptop because school work will be harder to get done without one. Schools implement technology usage into the curriculum maybe unintentionally but nonetheless it is still there. Society implements technology through the continuous upgrades and better media that either Apple or Microsoft etc. can provide. Everyday, students and teachers and mothers and fathers all walk around on their own personal technology devices, where they can check the time or make appointments. Everyday, we all succumb to that incessant need to fix our internet “itch” because if we don’t there’s a possibility of falling behind, becoming old or lacking the same value that was once had. Prensky brings up a great point that this generation doesn’t want to be old. This generation has no interest in the way things were done in the past because everything can be done a lot faster now and a whole lot easier. If one wants to share a website only a URL has to be sent. If one wants to check their email, they don’t have to wait until they get to a computer because it is right there, easy access. Easy access is an integral part of this generation’s need, and it is what makes it so hard to stay focused within the confines of a traditional, pedantic society. Society’s rules weren’t really made for us, they were made centuries ago, all with good intentions but not knowing where society would end up. I’m not necessarily happy with the way technology plays an integral role in everyday life, but I also recognize that it is happening it has happened and it will continue to happen if everyone is concerned with the next iPhone or how many likes were received on Instagram. There will always be those anomalies to the situation, ones who like reading books and who are in fact Digital Immigrants, but I feel like Vaidhyanathan refuses to acknowledge the present state of society. I agree with his point of not generalizing us into a huge category, but technology is definitely a defining factor concerning this generation of young people and that is something that must be acknowledged.
I agree with Prensky in the idea that there is a digital age upon us and that it is my generation. However, when he refers to “digital immigrants” and how they are completely separate from the “digital natives” I do not think he is 100% correct. I believe that it is not just the older generation that does not completely “click” with technology, it is also a variety of young adults. It all depends on the environment that you are living in now and the environment that you were raised in. I would consider myself the younger generation and it was not until about three years ago that technology started “clicking” with me. I still today get confused and hesitant about using a Mac computer because it was not what I grew up using and my parents were not completely tech-savvy. Vaidhyanathan is correct in saying that there are still college students that would rather have a textbook to study and highlight from than an e-book. I am one of those people. However, technology is everywhere and will continue to advance with every passing day. It is affecting everyone, even though according to Prensky, there seems to be a generation divide, where it is mostly the younger generation who are these “digital natives”. He is not wrong in saying this because for most people, the younger generation is more familiar or more automatic when it comes to using computers to find information or having the constant need to update Twitter or Facebook. However, there are still many exceptions to this general idea that it is the younger generation or the people that were born in the 1990s and early 2000s that are mostly affected by technology. Some exceptions are the middle-aged adults who are consumed with social media and have the need to upgrade their phone constantly or update their Twitter or Facebook. In addition, many adults are computer programmers so they have a very advanced knowledge about computer and are trained to be tech-savy. These people may be younger than 25 but they may also be over 25 years old. In addition, there are those few teenagers and young adults who are not tech-savy and are not “plugged in” to all of the social media. For example, I still have friends that do not have a Facebook account as well as they barely know how to install a printer. They would rather write their essays out on paper instead of type them. They are the younger generation but they are not fully “plugged in” to the digital generation. Therefore in general, I agree more with Vaidhyanathan more than Prensky. Prensky still makes some powerful and logical points. He has an abundance of logos and ethos in his arguments including the statistical information about how much college students spend playing video games and watching tv, but for me his argument was missing pathos. For me it was too extreme, too radical. However, it could be argued that because of Presnky’s extreme view he was able to appeal to people’s emotions and really make them believe that today’s children and young adults really are obsessed with the Internet and technology. It could be argued that because of his view he scared people into thinking that this was true and then out of fear they actually believed him. Vaidhyanathan on the other hand, was not as extreme and I felt like she gave a more balanced argument. She exhibited more pathos than Prensky. Both authors are correct in saying that the obsession with technology is getting out of control and like Vaidhyanathan said, it is affecting everyone, classifying people from all ages as the digital generation.
Reading Mark Prensky’s take on our generation, I was frustrated. He had grouped the era I have grown up in to be all digitally inclined, when I feel like that is not the case. Even if I am considered a “digital native” I would not agree that a new style of teaching is necessary. I learn better handwriting notes than typing them and also reading textbooks as paperback than online. There is definitely logic behind his argument though. Some of us are more digitally savvy than others, but if you asked me to connect my computer to the television set, I would be clueless on how to do it. Schools already offer both styles of learning. We are able to use iPads and computers, but for those people that like to handwrite notes, they are also capable of doing so. Prensky is coming from a more logos form of rhetoric because he is grouping our whole generation together and looking at it logically. He did also include ethos, since he used statistics relating to how much our generation plays video games and watches TV. There was no pathos in his argument, since I did not agree with what he was saying. Every individual is different, even if we grew up in the same generation with technology does not mean we also didn’t grow up in the age where we were still learning how to write cursive as well. Every person’s brain also works differently, just like how we have visual learners, compared to hands-on learners. “The Generational Myth” demonstrates a stronger understanding of college students in my generation. I think she is coming from more of an pathos point of view since she has witnessed the kids considered as “Digital Natives.” Since she is a professor, there is also a sense of ethos to her arguments. She also has a lot of evidence from other researchers. Agreeing with Vaidhyanathan, we should not be viewing the problems of the technological world as a generation issue.
I take on a similar position to that of Siva Vaidhyanathan, without fully disregarding some of the points made by Marc Prensky. I feel that it is absolutely valid to observe the challenge it is, and will continue to be, finding innovative and efficient ways of teaching. Technology is constantly expanding and altering the ways that humans perceive and interact with the world around them. It is necessary that we find ways to adapt. This being said, I do not agree with the assumption that all members of this generation are inherently experts of technology. I am an example of this not being the case. Though I participate in certain social media sites, occasionally watch television, use applications for leisure as well as academic purposes, and enjoy accessing information online, my attention and interests are not limited to these modes of interaction. First of all, I shy away from many advanced applications because I have no idea how to begin utilizing them. Secondly, I have a deep appreciation for face to face interaction and flipping through the pages of a printed book.
Prensky benefits from pathos, being that he has a lot of experience in the educational technology field and has an MBA from Harvard and Masters degree from Yale. He uses ethos through the passionate undertones within his writing, giving the reader the sense that this is a topic of great importance and suggesting that he/she should share in this concern. He uses logos by quoting individuals who have expressed relevant experiences and presenting real-life examples that back up his point.
Vaidhyanathan uses pathos by listing his status as a professor who often interacts with the subjects at hand. He uses ethos by infusing his writing with the same emotional and urgent undertones. He uses logos by presenting relevant examples and making historical allusions to further convince the reader of his perspective.
I agree with Siva Vaidhyanathan in that this whole “digital generation” thing really only accounts for a certain demographic of people… Back in the day, my household had ONE computer that my siblings and I had to take turns using. I didn’t get a cellphone until the sixth grade. We used CD players to listen to music. Yes, we actually bought albums and didn’t download music from online. I occasionally watched cartoons when I was young. But I also played “school teacher” and dress up with my sisters. Even now, despite having a personal laptop and cellphone among other things, I absolutely refuse reading literature digitally. I always prefer a physical copy. I love going to the bookstore and library (but only when I want to, not when I have a paper due in a class). I have cousins whose families are in different economic situations than my own and have never had their own computer or a smart phone. For them to experience a class where their teachers encourage or require the use of computers would be completely baffling and inhibiting to their educational experience. I don’t think “digital immigrants” are as foreign as Prensky makes them out to be. A while ago, my mom was completely baffled by how much I like Tumblr. I told her to make an account so that she could understand my fixation. She made an account and now she’s more hooked than I am. Point being, the only thing that separates my “generation” from hers is that my generation might be more willing to try out these new innovations whereas hers is reluctant and dismisses it as something set aside for people my age group. “Digital immigrants” can be just as fluent as “digital natives” if they abandon this preconceived notion that there’s something alien or difficult about using technology.
I’d consider myself a digital native who refuses to completely assimilate and abandon her non-digital roots. I may not have an “accent”, but I’m certainly bilingual, if you will. Again, computers and the like might have been available to the public when I was young, but I wouldn’t say I’ve developed some sort of attachment to them, nor is the digital way always my first resource.
Each author brings up valid points in regards to our “digital natives” generation. For Prensky, yes we are the first generation that grew up with digital technology, however, his assumption that the digital native generation all prefer the use of technology in education is rather categorized and stereotypical. I know many people my age who prefer the use of physical textbooks and handwritten notes in class, that being said, of course there are other’s who are the opposite. I personally enjoy using technology for textbooks, however I also tend to reach for a notebook when taking notes too. Like what Vaidhyanathan said, just because we grew up with technology doesn’t mean our generation can automatically master it. Personally, I enjoy learning the in’s and out’s of using my computer or iPad more effectively, but like many, there were many instances where I was just unable to figure out a complicated piece of technology. I see myself in a little bit both of the paradigms, as I feel many others in this generation would be too. In a way, we are stuck in between the old and the new, and we ourselves are still deciding which we like best. Yes, we are part of the digital native generation, but we are also incorporating traditional elements in our daily lives too, as not every one of us can or are able to use technology for everything we do.
Prenksy uses pathos the most, especially since his argument benefits those in my generation, since he is playing on the audience’s self-interest and emotions. Vaidhyanathan uses ethos and logos the most, since he states that he’s a professor, and he appeals to logic. By using ethos, he is able to make the audience linger on the idea that he knows what he’s saying. For logos, he is using logical reasoning to back up his ideas. Vaidhyanathan responds to Prenksy by acknowledging his argument and critically responding with him own ideas.
Penske talks about how todays learning are different, which I agree to. There are so many new way to learn to day that are not restricted by buying a book, attending a lecture or going to a university. Todays students are experiencing a very different way of learning and seeing the world, as oppose to their parents. Today, learning has to be creative and somewhat entertaining, which not many teachers can uphold. I don’t thin one can demand that Digital Natives go backward nor that Digital Immigrants more too much forward, I guess that in our time, where both generations are present, only a compromise would be winning. Meaning, that learning Excel should be required but lets not forget that we also need handwriting that is readable.
As Vaidhyanathan mentions, not all young people are technologically experienced. If a family can’t afford owning modern technology, the student will not learn it from home, which makes it even more important that the learning is done in school. Being a young Digital Immigrants does not work in this world and will only have negative consequences on the students studies as well as future career. There is so much more to modern technology than meet the eye. Where would we be without GPS who can track a missing person, Facebook who can start a fundraiser, The Weather Channel who can alarm us of a storm? Technology is even opening boarders, keeping people in touch and can fly us across the Atlantic. If all that is possible, I think we can endure the occasional net slang or selfie on Instagram.
Finally, being a digital Native does not mean the end for printed sources or libraries, it simply mean that technology opened up new doors.
“Digital Natives” is clearly more logos and ethos filled, persuasion came in the form of facts and information from authoritative sources. On the other hand, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” was a more evenly fused with rhetoric; it had a little pathos, a little ethos, and some logos. I feel stuck in between both arguments. While I do believe that my generation is a generation surrounded by technology, I also agree with Vaidhyanathan’s argument about it not being ethical to group people in such a way. I understand that not everyone has access to the same type of technology but I also think that it is almost impossible to avoid digital technology. Digital technology is everywhere; at school, at work, on the streets, even in our own homes. I see that Vaidhyanathan is not seeing the point that in this age its almost impossible to escape technology and that this generation has become so accustomed to digital technology and multitasking. Likewise Prensky fails to address the subject of grouping a whole generation that in itself it’s so different. Vaidhyanathan responds to Prensky in a way that at first glance seems unscholarly and rude even, but once you get past all the sassy language, you get to appreciate a valid argument that needs to be considered.
I agree with both authors. They each make very valid points that resonate in my life. For example, Prensky talks about how digital our generation is and I do have to admit, I am using a computer or phone almost all day. However, I prefer paper back books as opposed to books online, and I like a break from technology once in a while. I take notes on paper not my computer, which is now considered an old school way to take notes. I still don’t know how to work a lot of different technologies, which is what Vaidhyanathan is saying. Just because I was born in the generation of technology, does not mean I’m a technology wizz. In fact, i feel like I definitely could use some help learning how to use a lot of things. I think I try and have a balance between the two opinions.
Before reading both articles, I thought I would disagree with Prensky’s article and agree with Vaidhyanathan’s article, however, it turned out to be the opposite (somewhat). I found myself agreeing with Prensky’s idea of how our generation was instantly assimilated with technology. As children, we would watch tv for both educational and entertainment reasons. As Prensky mentioned in his article, children have been watching Sesame Street and other children tv shows to learn their basics. While I agree with Prensky in that our generation does rely on technology and that it has somewhat wired our brains differently, I also find myself disagreeing with some things he would say. For example, I personally prefer to read or study from a textbook compared to an iPad or tablet device. I grew up with textbooks so doing math problems from an iPad would be weird for me. As for Vaidhyanathan’s article, I did not agree with most of what she had to say. Yes, not all of our generation is necessarily “tech-savy,” but are past generations all bookworms? Do most past generations know how to even use an encyclopedia? Can all people from past generations even read? A lot of this debate can delve into wealth, for some people could not afford to get an education back in the day. Therefore, their knowledge with books was not necessarily good. Similarly, not all people today can afford technology or an education that includes technology. Therefore, not all people “know how to program or even code text with Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)” (Vaidhyanathan para. 5). Vaidhyanathan’s article seemed to make too many generalizations and statements that did not seem totally correct. Regardless, both articles bring up their separate, solid opinions; however, at the end of the day, I find myself agreeing with Prensky more.
My opinion leans towards Siva Vaidhyanathan’s piece more than it does to Marc Prensky’s. There is a reason why newspapers, books and other types of printed material are largely still favored over ebooks, online news and kindle applications that allow you to read online. The reason being that it is still easier to do so, and thus, as Vaidhyanathan argues, not all children of this generation are tech-savvy or have the know-how of going about such materials. However, I need to agree with Prensky’s argument that this generation is far more compatible with technological advances made in the world than the generation before us. I use facebook, twitter and other applications far more often than my elder sister or my parents. Moreover, as far as my friends or classmates are concerned, the students use technology far more than teachers do. However, it is quite impressive to see a few teachers making use of technology to teach their material in U.S universities. In addition, one view point that I would like to point out here, which struck me the most was the fact that most children in this generation are not able to afford gadgets or access technology the way other children do. I come from the continent of Asia, and I cannot seem to avoid the fact that poverty is in an all-time high in a lot of countries. Children of this generation are very quick in adapting to technological changes but that is if they are able to do so. Many children are not availed the same services or luxuries as other children and I believe that this should be taken into account when answering this argument. As I was convinced more by Vaidhyanathan, the piece had more Pathos, which was conveyed through the examples and experiences. This made it more persuasive for me as I could relate to the piece more than I could of Prensky’s which had more facts and logic, depicting the use of ethos and logos.
I mainly agree with Prensky on his statements of digital natives. I believe our generation is highly involved with technology and we were raised a different way from previous generations. My mom tells me stories about how she would only have three channels on the T.V. when they first got one. She was also only allowed to use it for certain times, which I have found true for many other older people. Our generation is constantly influenced by technology. It is in our homes, in our schools, even if someone wanted to grow up without it, it would be extremely hard to do. I also agree with his point on how we need to be taught differently. He brings up good points in that kids are bored with school and can not focus. I can agree with that, and I also agree with the fact that learning with technology would help kids pay attention more. If a kid is constantly surrounded by technology most of their life, how do you expect them to drop it and do something they are less accustomed to. Although I agree with Prensky on these facts, I disagree with how he talks about digital immigrants. He makes them seem almost as if they are slow with technology, when that is usually not the case. Most adults do not still print out emails and edit things by hand. If there is an easier way to do things why would people waste time doing things the “old fashioned way.” In most cases technology knowledge is needing for jobs and for simple daily life. I think that although digital natives may need to be taught differently, there is not really a difference between them and digital immigrants. Most people know their way around a computer, it does not matter what age you are.
I agree with the article titled “Generation Myth” written by Siva Vaidhyanathan. I feel that this article is more accurate than the article titled “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” written by Marc Prensky. Although we live in an era where technology has become more common, I think that there are places in the world especially outside of the United States that do not have access to technology. Therefore, I disagree with Marc Prensky’s generalization that because our generation has grown up in a society where technology is constantly surrounding us, everyone should be extremely familiar with it. Although I disagree with most of the article that is written by Prensky, I do agree that our generation is a lot more technologically savvy when it comes to things such as social media. Before our generation things such as social media were non-existent when surfing the web showing that our generation in a sense has caused a revolutionary trend in the use of technology. The rhetoric that is used by Siva Vaidhyanathan in her article is pathos. I would say that the rhetoric that is used by Prensky in his article is logos. In my opinion, I agree with Siva Vaidhyanthan because she uses pathos causing the article to be easily relatable.
I agreed more with the article written by Siva Vaidhyanathan. I think his perspective on our generation is a unique one. Furthermore, I disagree with what Marc Prensky says, especially his point that “our single biggest problem facing education today is that our digital immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language, are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” Firstly, I acknowledge that our generation is different, but that by no means implies that we speak an entirely new language. Secondly, teachers being unable to communicate with students is not our single biggest problem today, as far as education goes. Sure, I have had some teachers in the past whose teaching styles I did not necessarily comply with, but for the vast majority of my time in school, “digital immigrant instructors” have not been the source of any problems that barred me from reaching my full academic potential. Some bigger problems in education that I can think of off the top of my head include the countless number of children who do not even have the chance to be educated because they cannot afford it, or our tendency to look at getting good grades just for the sake of getting good grades, instead of looking at school as an opportunity to learn and permeate our minds with knowledge. All of this said, I agree with Prensky in the sense that this generation is more adaptable to the technology that is given to us compared to our parent’s and grandparent’s generation. I use my phone and laptop far more often than my parents do. Yet, at the same time, I agree with Vaidhyanathan in that not all of us in this generation are “tech savvy.” Just because we were born in a certain time frame does not mean that we can be automatically allotted into a particular category of a set of skills. I think that Presky’s argument did not persuade me because it used logos and facts and logic, whereas I am more influenced by pathos and emotions that I can connect to experiences, which Vaidhyanathan used.
It’s difficult to completely agree with one author over the other, as I find some elements in each of their arguments to be valid. While I do believe all of us are born into this digital age as a digital generation, I don’t think that should necessarily generalize all of us into a particular skill set or learning ability. Growing up at the time we did, it’s undeniable that we are accustomed to a different culture than generations before us. It’s true that considering these changes is important. But our generation is not completely overrun by technology, as Prensky implies. Because we were raised by a generation that did not group up with the same advancements, we can still appreciate what a world without such technology might have been like. In fact, many seem to have a fascination with things before our time, such as Polaroid cameras and vinyl records, things we consider “vintage.” We also have an appreciation for hard copy books, mixed CDs, and handwritten notes, even when eBooks, iPods, and emails are much more easily accessible. Furthermore, not all of us can be considered “technologically savvy.” I myself can admit that I only know the basics of my own Macbook Pro laptop. So while I can label myself as a “digital native” because of the culture of my generation, I don’t necessarily fit into every generalization that term insinuates.
I found this topic really interesting an relatable. Though I like to consider myself very independent from the digital generation I’m surrounded by, it’s clear that I truly am a digital native. I use technology for literally everything, even this assignment, and I know if I were forced to have to hand write these blogs I would absolutely resent the work. In Vaidhyanathans excerpt I totally disagreed with allot of what he was saying, especially when he undermined the power and opportunity these technologies give us. Another false point he made, was that you had to be wealthy to use technology. In this day and age you can walk into a library and have technology at your every beacon, it’s almost too easy to get. But I will agree with Vaidhyanathans point of explaining how poor allot of our generations verbal skill and verbal morality has become. Prenskys passage was way more relatable and eye opening for me, because up until now I never realized how appealing technology really is to me. I also think this effect comes from Prenskys wise use of pathos and ethos in his writing, where Vaidhyanathan mainly used what he assumed to be true as a form of ethos.
What was intriguing to me was both of these articles approached the idea of a “digital generation”, yet didn’t seem to directly counter the other. They both brought very unique perspectives about the issue. While “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” focused on how the technology is affecting education, the “Generation Myth” focused on how “digital generation” is an inappropriate term. For me, what separates the opinion of these two authors is their definition of generation. Marc Prensky (Digital Divide) uses generation as a wider term for describing not only individual but the over all way society functions. This is much broader than Siva Vaidhyanathan’s understanding of generation. Vaidhyanathan argues that a digital generation doesn’t exist since not everyone is tech savvy nor necessarily has the resources to own or access technology. Although I appreciate that Vaidhyanathan acknowledges those who aren’t as privileged I disagree that a digital generation doesn’t exist. A digital generation can exist regardless of individuals who don’t own a digital device. Even though there are those who can’t afford computers, smart phones etc. and those who chose not to engage with technology completely, it is impossible to escape the reality that our society is now digitally driven. For me trying to avoid our digital age is nearly impossible. Even if we chose to not engage with it ourselves we are still linked to it indirectly. Take the US postal service for example. Mailmen now carry scanners with touch screens to organize mail and take signatures from customers. Even though I am taking the non-digital route of sending a letter in the mail, I cannot control this use of technology from happening. Thus the existence of technology is something we have to come to except, whether we engage directly with it or not. Therefore, to me a digital generation does exist. It is made up of individuals that are not necessarily technologically savvy but are living within an age where technology has been integrated as a part of life.
Thus, I agreed with “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrant” much more than “Generation Myth”. From personally watching my father struggle to navigate the internet I know there is a large divide between generations. I feel it would be beneficial to change teaching methods. My generation now has an expectation of higher levels of engagement and of immediate access to information. By changing teaching methods there is a chance that students will not only learn more, but we may be able to increase the efficiency of learning in general.
Interestingly enough, Marc Prensky made several arguments regarding the generation of Digital Natives as opposed to the generation of Digital Immigrants sparked an intriguing realization within my mind. Society itself has shifted from one that has technology as a mere side to life to one that cannot progresses without it. However, the point that Prensky made that I believe to be quite accurate is that there needs to be a perfect balance between “Legacy” and “Future” as to all things in life. This societal and sociological shift to a world governed by technology has brought forth advancements that made access to digital media and technology available to practically all populations whether disregarding all differences culturally or financially. This ready-access stems from people’s need to use technology to allow their life functions to become more spontaneous as I am now, typing this response after reading the articles on my smartphone. It is not a thing about marketing or profits to any corporations or group, but more of a thing of progress, and human society is professing faster than ever. That is where Viha’s argument seems invalid as he argued that technology proficiency is only available for a certain parameter of society, but our world has progressed to the point where the Digital Immigrants with the heaviest accents could still log on to Facebook and chat with their friends through their language even though they do not speak a single word of English. Hence, our educational system must not refrain from following the trend of progress because being fast, random and spontaneous does not mean you have to sacrifice quality and quantity; it should mean an increase in those features of education as the advancements of the digital world provide us with vast number of tools to accomplish such feats. As Viha quoted that people from before had to learn programming through punch cards which make them true digital natives; this is false logic because back then, the tools available were limited for one to utilize technology. Today, one does not need to know such skills because the advancements of digital approachability, usefulness and necessity give us the advantage in order to come up with further advancements to bring society’s progress further for our children, and the ones that follow while we must learn the past that brought us to where we are within the frame of time, and the future that we will live in so we do not be lost in the continuous stream of human development.
I strongly agree with Marc Prensky when he states, “today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (1). Our new generation grew up in an age surrounded by technology and social media. We almost intuitively understand operating systems in a way that our grandparents would need a tutorial to understand. His views on how we learn also have some merit. Perhaps a new instructional method is needed to better connect with students, but not nearly as drastically as mentioned. Prensky seems to exaggerate his point a bit much, however, when he comments on a student’s addiction to the “instant gratification and frequent rewards” they can find while networking. This reward-based manner of teaching is not the most efficient nor the most practical. A better improvement could be having a social media site exclusively for students to interact with an online text, quizzes, and tests while also being able to talk to each other and professors. Having the ability to quickly connect with a teacher could revolutionize our classroom experience.
It is safe to say that neither author was able to completely convince me of their arguments as each had certain elements that left me skeptical and uncertain. While the articles were not exactly opposing sides to an argument, they both addressed the same issue at hand: the digital world. In order to effectively attempt to persuade the audience to his side, author Marc Prensky, in his article “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, has components of pathos, ethos and logos in it. The same can be said of the second article as well. According to the definitions set by Prensky, I would no doubt be labeled as a Digital Native as I have no problems nor doubt when it comes to searching for a synonym on thesaurus.com or when it comes to contacting a possible news source for an interview through a wide variety of media platforms. But I draw the line when it comes to the idea that everyone in my “generation” is exactly the same as me: fortunate enough to have grown up in the heart of the digital world and the birthplace of innovators that have led to leading technology and digital media giants such as Apple and Facebook. As author Siva Vaidhyanathan wrote in his article “Generational Myths”, not every person has the same resources as another. While that still holds true as of today, times are changing and quiet rapidly at that. Soon most, if not all, children will have some accessibility to the digital world, whether it is through their homes, schools or peers. While I currently agree with points brought up by both Prensky and Vaidhyanathan in their respective articles, I believe with time that the opinion held by Prensky will become truth.
I agree with Prensky in the sense that we of the new generation that have grown up all our lives with new and constantly changing technology. New jobs have opened up revolving around the sudden growth of technology while others are slowly disappearing at the same time. New focuses on what and who people want to become is happening as well, where the more blue collared jobs were wanted before hand, but now people are striving for white collar jobs wanting to work around these new technologies because it’s something that we are accustomed to. The older generation has to adapt to this sudden movement, so there are a lot of mis-communications among the different generations that are involved in this new digital era. New forms of communication is beginning to occur while others are slowly fading away. With the means to talk to others via a computer and/or cell phone screen is rising quite exponentially, the means to communicate via dialect is slowly diminishing because this new era has new ways that was quite unexpected. It’s pretty much you hop on to this new train going toward new ways of life, or get left behind.
My viewpoints align more with Professor Vaidhyanathan because of my own personal observations that not all members of my generation are tech savvy. Prensky seems to be making hasty generalizations regarding the younger generation that are not only risky, but lack significant evidence to support them. This lack of evidence leads his argument to almost a stereotyping of this generation. Addressing the contrast between digital immigrants and digital natives, I find Prensky’s argument significantly weak as it fails to recognize the fact that technology is always changing by nature and therefore the users must be consistently learning, thus making them all digital immigrants. Prensky purposefully makes bold claims in order to appear as credible to the reader and ultimately writes the piece for an older reader who may share similar viewpoints. Professor Vaidhyanathan’s argument is supported by more significant and relevant evidence such as statistics from studies and similar claims made by other authors. He also refutes claims of the opposition in order to strengthen his position. Professor Vaidhyanathan’s piece is in direct response to the bold claims stated by Prensky and because he is disagreeing, he appropriately uses evidence to strengthen his side. In regards to specific rhetorical devices that authors use to their advantage, Prensky uses a great deal of pathos through his stories to connect with the reader (this is successful given that the reader is older and shares similar viewpoints). Vaidhyanathan takes the more 21st Century Logos approach with more statistics and specific quotes from credible sources to support his claims (thus possibly appealing to the more educated audience and/or younger).
While I do see what Prensky is saying about the characteristics of digital natives vs immigrants, I personally agree more with Professor Vaidhyanathan. When I reading the Prensky article, I did not fully agree with the way he portrayed digital natives. I do agree that there are children as young as one years old who know their way around an iPhone and our world is very heavily dependent on technology in today’s world. However its not as black and white as Prensky describes it. Take my generation for example. Millennials grew up watching Sesame Street, but we also went outside and spent hours playing hopscotch on the sidewalk. A majority of us still want to hold an actual book in our hands and read, or take notes by hand instead of typing. However, we also know our way around Twitter, Facebook and other social media and use it well and often. What Prensky fails to acknowledge was that we are all digital immigrants at some point, its just that people are learning sooner and quicker than before due to the technological advances. I remember ditching my walkman for a CD-player, and my CD player for an iPod nano or my flip phone for an iPhone. Prensky made digital immigrants seem like backward people who did not want anything to do with technology, which I do not think is true. Many of the older generations now use modern technology and social media just like everyone else. Both of my grandparents have MacBooks and iPads and even Facebooks. I like that Vaidhyanathan presents more of a balanced view of looking at digital immigrants and natives. Its important to recognize that we grow and adapt along with new advances in technology, and that there are a lot of people who know how to enjoy life with and without technology.
I believe that we were born into this new generation in which technology is relied on by so many people. We are constantly using social media to connect with colleagues, friends, and family. Students are using the internet to research topics and find sources to us in their essays and research papers. Teachers are also using new technology in classrooms to improve the learning experiences of their students. I agree with Marc Prensky in that, I would totally be more interested in a learning a boring topic with the integration of some sort of game. It would just make the learning experience more engaging and interesting.
However, I do not completely agree with Marc Prensky when he refers to us as either digital natives or digital immigrants. Adults and older people are using new technology as well. I have aunts and uncles that use social media such as Facebook. My grandparents on both my mom and dad’s side have their own iPads. A lot of people also prefer reading the physical copies of books. I prefer reading from a physical book rather than a screen. If the online version is free however, I am all for reading it online as opposed to buying the physical book.
I agree with Siva Vaidhyanathan when he says that the digital generation contains a certain group of people. Not all kids or teenagers grow up constantly using the latest and greatest technology. Some parents have different ways of raising their kids. Also, economic status plays a part in this because some families simply cannot afford the latest and greatest. Some of my peers in high school did not get a smartphone until junior or senior year because it was not a necessity.
While Prensky addresses an important perspective that many fail to consider, his argument that “Digital Immigrant educators” should adapt to a more technology-based method of teaching seems drastic and even a little bit inconsiderate of the anomalies in his generalization. First of all, not all people in our generation are as tech-savvy and fluent in the “digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (1) as Prensky makes us out to be. In fact, I could name a few of my friends who needed me to teach them how to use their phones or laptop, not because they were necessarily new or foreign to the digital world, but because technology has become so advanced these days. While it’s easy to say that the vast majority of our generation uses social media, there are still quite a few people that don’t have a Facebook or Instagram account, many by choice. Vaidhyanathan addresses these exceptions to the generalization, discussing how “young people rush to adapt to those changes that we assumed all along that they wanted” and that we “assume that all young people love certain forms of interaction and hate others.” However, while Vaidhyanathan emphasizes the issue of “ethnic, national, gender, and class biases” and associates such factors with the people who are exceptions to the digital generation, I’d instead think about the people that don’t participate purely by choice as I find that also important to consider. Vaidhyanathan drew from a lot of sources to support his argument, but in the end, I would actually side more with Prensky. Even though he does make many bold statements and tends to exaggerate in his article, I was able to relate more with what he was saying. I’d definitely consider myself a digital native, perhaps even on the more extreme side of that because I rely so much on my technology and also, I admit, because I get so frustrated with those that aren’t as “fluent” in the digital language.
I agree with Prensky’s remarks considering the digital divide that exists between our generation and the older generation when it comes to our technological language. I constantly feel like I have to explain apps and websites to the older adults that are in my life. However, I favor Vaidhyanathan’s views that our generation is not created technologically equal. While we may universally reach for our laptops instead of a hard book if we want to research something, most of our skills with technology are limited. I personally could not tell you how a computer is built, how coding works, how to create a website, and countless other things. In my opinion, the only thing our generation has entirely mastered is social media. You want to know more about someone you just met? Within a matter of minutes we can find out all sorts of information about a person. I could tell you who their friends are, where they go to school, who they are suspected to be dating (as displayed by their snapchat best friends list), and much more. In regard to the rhetoric that these authors use, Vaidhyanathan uses ethos and pathos by distinguishing herself as a well experienced professor who spends a lot of time with the newer generations. Prensky uses logos through his use of statistics and an overall well explained argument.
Growing up, on the weekends, I remember being sitting at home waiting until my mother would leave for work. As soon as I heard the “click” of the door closing, I would feel a rush of adrenaline running through my body and I would immediately run towards our old PC. I would power it on and wait for the computer to boot up. It was such a rare occasion for me to be able to hop onto my mother’s office chair and be able to use her computer that I treasured playing those simple computer games. As much as I enjoyed these games, my life was not centered around my use of a computer. Nor do I think that the way I learn has necessarily been impacted with the way I interacted with technology growing up. It is because of this that I think Marc Prensky is right in assuming that our generation has become a digital native generation. There are various points of contention for this, but one of the biggest ones I find myself resting towards is that I question how much a 54 year old man knows how my generation learns. I will agree with Prensky that this generation is more fluent when it comes to using technology but this is just the same way that my parent’s generation would be able to operate a record player much more efficiently than I ever could. In terms of how this newer technology affects us, I agree Siva Vaidhyanathan with the argument that many of the stigmas that are placed on our generation are unjust: “We should drop our simplistic attachments to generations so we can generate an accurate and subtle account of the needs of young people — and all people, for that matter.” Overall, I found that many of the arguments that were presented by both authors was not entirely convincing. After reading both their articles, I was not able to find myself swaying either way.
Reading these two articles reminded me of two physics professors we had in my high school. Even though they both are around the same age, they both held very different perspectives about methods of teaching that can almost be considered opposite. One of them (teacher A) required for the students to manually learn most mass, length, and time conversions as well as physics formulas. The other teacher (teacher B) would tell us that it was a waste of time to do that because in the work force, we will be able to have access to calculators, computers, and programs that would do that for us. For teacher B, it was more important for us to understand the process and theories of physics rather than spend time with things that could be done for us. Personally, I liked the theory of teacher B because it allowed me to spend more time exploring the theories and problems so that my critical thinking skills improved rather than spend my time with flashcards memorizing things I can have access in a matter of second through the internet. After reading Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, I realized how much young people are attached to technology. Most of my little cousins (ages4-10) have iPads or some kind of tablet. The youngest one is about to turn three and he knows how to search up Sponge Bob episodes on YouTube. My brother and sister have some of their homework due online through a website even though they’re just in 6th and 7th grade. Growing up, I wasn’t as tech savvy as all the younger kids are today. More than having “generation” of people who are “Digital” I feel like society as a whole just advances more and more in technology and as this happens, people catch up and the kids grow up with it. More than classifying it as a digital generation, digital advancement continually happens and people just progress with it. Our society today does depend on technology but I agree with Siva Vaidhyanathan that not everyone grew up being attached with technology because of so many different factors having to do with the environment children grew up in. My uncle and aunt live in an apartment and every time we visit, then children are playing outside with all the other kids without using technology. On the other hand, when we visit my godparents who live in a house, their kids are always on their computers or tablets.
I agree more with professor Viadhyanathan. I don’t think a “digital generation” really exists. Yeah, I use google to search things on the internet as opposed to looking it up in an encyclopedia, but i don’t think that constitutes a digital generation. After all, there are several adults who were born decades before I was, who are capable of doing the exact same thing. I think Marc Prensky relies too much on Pathos in his article. It’s great that he earned an MBA at Harvard and a Master’s degree at Yale but that doesn’t justify his lack of Logos. Most of his article is entirely opinionated and lacks facts to support his claims. He also over-generalizes when he talks about a digital generation as if everyone has had the exact same access to technology, which, as Viadhyanathan argues, is not true. As far as adjusting the way students are taught today, I completely disagree. Here’s an example of why: last semester my Calculus teacher made us turn in our homework online via a website known as WebWork. The problem was that it took me twice as long to type in the answers than it did to actually solve the problem if I were to do it on paper. In fact, this technology was more beneficial for her (a digital immigrant) than it was for me (whom Prensky would call a digital native) because it was easier for her to grade the homework since the computer did it for her. This completely contradicts Prenky’s argument that technology would benefit the new generation that was born into technology. In high school the school bought iPads for each student in my Government class, and I felt like it significantly hindered our learning. Instead of moving through the material at a smooth pace, we spent half the time trying to figure out how to work the apps we were given on our devices, like DropBox for example. I think this also supports Viadhyanathan’s claim that not everyone in this so called “digital generation” is at the same level in technological understanding, since some students struggled with the iPads while others did not. After reading both articles I feel like I am more of a digital immigrant. If it were up to me, I would stray away from the use of technology in the classroom, and continue the same way of teaching/learning that people have used for centuries.
Presky is right. That those of this generation are going to be those of an upcoming technological age where tech is going to pretty much run everything. Technology has become so important to the everyday life. Not just with the everyday social media and tech communication, but with being able to secure jobs. My mom was one of the heads of a big organization and stopped working for almost 15 years. She decided to go back recently, but they would not hire her unless she was able to keep up with the tech that the same job required (she had to get tanning just for her to have the same job). Yes Presky makes so incorrect claims like that everyone wants and needs to use new tech to succeed in school, but he is probably some what right if he was talking about the near future. How much longer until major tech innovations are REQUIRED for students to learn and use in an education sense. Silva is also right by saying this “digital age” is only inclusive to some people of this generation. Not everyone has the same equal opportunity. But in the future, I believe that everyone is going to have to be caught up in this digital age if they wish to 1) get a higher education 2) what to get a job in an AVERAGE work place. Only time will tell.
In respect to both authors, Vaidhyanathan and Prensky, I would have to agree with Pensky. This idea of the first generation and growing up with a new sense of technology is absolutely accurate. What defines the kind of the generation that individual are in, is through looking at how either older or younger people would respond to the current generation. In today’s New technology age is difficult for people such as my dad to log onto simple social media’s. This is an age where there is a steep learning curve and I would have to agree with the fundamental aspect that our students have changed radically.The best example that I can point to personally is my friend, who not necessarily applies himself the best in the classroom, however is an extremely intelligent individual, due to the fact that he spent so much time online and researching topics. Vaidhyanathan does being a good point to the table that, there are individuals who are technically within the age of this generation, but do not have simple smart phones. In comparison, Mark also addresses that by arguing that no matter who the individual of the age is, they are aware that there is this technology available to them. Both authors contain the logos and ethos of the argument, but respond to each other through the pathos element. Regardless of the passion that each of these have, the simple fact is that this is a generation in which simple you all are or an email can be sent and knowledge is gained immediately. There’s not a single classroom, or university that does not use this new email or a database in which technology is utilized. I would definitely consider myself a digital native due to the fact that I am able to understand technology fairly well such as the Internet. When I look at a new project or thing I don’t understand, I rarely look at instruction manual or an almanac to understand the new technology, I simply just type in the object or thing that I am looking for into the Internet. This idea that there is a language to this new generation is totally true and has resulted in coming the characterization of a digital native verses a digital foreigner. If it wasn’t true then why is it so difficult for others to understand the concepts that are necessarily the same age as those that do understand technology well?
Today there are fields that study this new form of language and culture. Fields of study, like computer science and animation are vastly growing fields and has become the new native element of the digital world. Technology is such a huge part of our world today in every aspect and only those that carry the pathos of nostalgia are the only ones that cant necessarily see the change because they are convinced that the old ways are still the best and that it is a base of everything. They believe that this new world is not the norm but a generation that has created this thing that shouldn’t be the new culture. It is part of an evolutionary process that people know and grow up with.