While I don’t find Prensky's use of the term' digital natives' for children born in the digital era objectionable, I do appreciate Boyd's approach of protection and foresight. Boyd's perspective seems to anticipate potential disparities in digital growth and literacy.
As a first-generation American, I can deeply relate to the concept of children born in the digital era simply being digital citizens. This parallels my own experience and that of my parents. I was born here in America, and despite Creole being my first language, English quickly became dominant due to my immersion in American culture. My parents, on the other hand, were born in Haiti and were more resistant to this cultural shift. They were born in a different culture and immersed in Haitian culture in their young adult lives until they moved to America. I found it hard-pressed not to see a common thread between this and Prenskys ideology on “digital natives and immigrants.”
Prensky was merely drawing connections. I concur with Boyd's assertion that we should not assume that children born in the digital era are automatically proficient in it. However, this is not a unique phenomenon. In the past, American children were often employed in factories without any legal requirement for education. This has since changed, and now it is unthinkable for Americans to send their children to work in factories and miss school. Children born in different eras have different opportunities and perspectives. Boyd identifies the academic or digital literacy gap as a concern, but it is a different systemic issue that society must address.
Now, although I stated that I don't find the term digital native offensive, I am more than open to hearing other perceptions if there is something I possibly missed. I truly would never want someone to feel offended, disrespected, or unheard.
No comments:
Post a Comment