Respond to the class blog after reading Chapter 7 of Danah Boyd's book,It's Complicated. In Chapter 7, Boyd discusses whether today's youth can be considered "digital natives," and what the implications are for us as teachers and parents.
“It’s Complicated” could not be a more fitting title for how I felt after reading Chapter 7 of Boyd’s book. In order to continue the discussion of whether today’s youth are considered “digital natives”, it must begin with how the current education system does not adequately meet the needs of students in this digital age. Many school districts and educators are making progressive strives in meeting these digital needs, however it has to be a continuing, unifying, and collaborative effort from all in the system. In the classroom as well as other settings, youth need many opportunities with contemporary technology to engage and develop skills meaningfully. The education system should strive to challenge today’s youth to develop the necessary knowledge and skills toward becoming digitally literate. Regardless of age, digital literacy in a networked age requires experience, repetition, patience, creativity, and most importantly hard work from the participant.
The mentioned juxtaposition of the “native” and the “immigrant” expresses how today’s youth think and process information differently from their predecessors. I agree that today’s youth have grown up in a digital age, where the internet has always existed and has been readily available to them. However, this is a dangerous assumption because many have little understanding of new technologies and their uses. Digital literacy can be attained by anyone at any age when equipped with knowledge and experience. Chapter 7 states that neither teens nor adults are monolithic, and that there is no magical relation between skills and age. Today’s youth are not digitally native simply because they are deeply engaged with social networking sites. Do all of today’s youth make the most out of their online experiences? Most often they do not. There is a huge variation in knowledge and experience. Learning is truly a lifelong process. As educators and parents, we can provide the framework for today’s youth and assist them in critically examining what they consume so that all parties involved can be technically competent and literate as well as active participants in our information society.
I found Chapter 7 of Danah Boyd's book to be a refreshing acknowledgement of the complexity behind the popular terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant". She does a good job of explaining exactly why neither of the terms is very helpful when trying to understand how people of every living generation interact with digital media.
She does a good job of summarizing the current state of the digital divide. On page 179, she writes that the term digital native is dangerous because "it obscures the uneven distribution of technological skills and media literacy across the youth population, presenting an inaccurate portrait of young people as uniformly prepared for the digital era." I agree with her in this regard and she explains how socio-economic status contributes to this uneven distribution. From my own experience, I would like to add that the students I teach (who are mostly in their early 20s) exhibit a huge range of digital literacy skills even though they are all from fairly wealthy families. Among my students interests and personal traits seem to have a huge effect on digital literacy for them. I have seen this quite a bit in the Marketing classes I teach; some of my students were very familiar with Google's business model, but others were shocked to learn that when the first results for a search were often advertisements and this was indicated by a light yellow background. (An aside: Last November Google bowed to pressure and now has much clearer labeling of their ads.)
Lastly, I think that Ms. Boyd makes an excellent point when she writes on page 177 that, "Being exposed to information or imagery through the internet and engaging with social media do not make someone a savvy interpreter of the meaning behind these artifacts." I believe this is true and yet it is something that one rarely hears in the media discourse on these issues. It is the job of parents, educators, and savvy friends to teach the less savvy users of the Web and consumers of social media what lies "behind the curtain" so that we can all make informed decisions as consumers and citizens.
Mike; excellent connection between digital literacy and your own experiences as an educator. Based on your personal experiences with students, you shed light on the existence of a broad range of varying digital literacy skills. Despite socioeconomic status, I entirely agree that personal traits and interests prove to be a deciding factor in the acquisition/competence of digital skills.
From the very beginning of the chapter, there was a distinction presented that may not be central but I think has relevance to the state of education. This idea that children, youth, students, or digital natives - “think nothing of learning through the use of technology.” From the ramification of their homework exercises to the constant use of technology for research, paper writing, etc. or for their own interests, be it video games, learning to bake a cake, or sharing their cool skateboard moves on youtube. Children of all ages and backgrounds are engaging and learning through technology, and they do not question the concept.
However, the reverse is true in the formal classroom setting, much of the work is still being done using textbooks from K-12 grade, much of the learning is rote memorization, not project based or hands on. So to Ken Robinson's point, it is the educators and administrators who are behind on this, so call them immigrants or ludites, some catching up is in order.
As for the critical thinking skills- we have discussed it in other classes, that the heart of digital literacy might just be expanding how we critically analyze arguments to the internet and other online sources.
It shocked us a couple of weeks ago as a class, that so many teens were "actively" engaged in using the web, creating profiles, and digital identities without the least concern who was tracking them and why? (Think, Hunger Games girl for instance).
Yet, I think we all fall victim to the logic, that one can just "google" the answer and "there it is" - the fact you were looking for, rarely do we subject the website to the critical rigor suggested in this commentary such as:
—they need .... to ask questions about the construction and dissemination of particular media artifacts. What biases are embedded in the artifact? How did the creator intend for an audience to interpret that artifact, and what are the consequences of that interpretation?
Also gaining those skills goes back to critical thinking classes and lessons embedded in reading scientific texts, writing expository papers, and making arguments for and against ideas.
The key may be to take the great critical thinking lessons that are already in schools, being taught by parents, and overlay a digital component to them- rather than think that we have to start a new set of curriculum and criteria.
As mentioned in the article- "Educators (for decades have) argued that informed citizens needed to be able to critically evaluate the messages that surround them. As new genres of media proliferated, many were concerned that audiences could be manipulated into believing a particular narrative. Although fact-checking can often serve to combat certain aspects of manipulative messaging, people must also learn to question the biases and assumptions underpinning -
I think we all just a little mesmerized by how quickly information could be delivered to us, we forgot the basic principals of critical thinking, vetting sources, and looking for biases.
I agree when you talk about the educators being behind. A lot of teachers do not want to change or are not sure how to change. A lot of times they feel like if I use technology to instruct it is an experiment vs. teaching the way I know how.
Alysia; your post is very well articulated! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Particularly, how you touched on the notion that children of all ages and backgrounds are engaging and learning through technology. I see this firsthand and on a daily basis with many young children during tutoring sessions and while babysitting. These children do not question the concept. Rather, they effortlessly find it's effectiveness and are tremendously engaged with what technology is in current use. Ashley; I also entirely agree that many seasoned educators are obstinate with all things technology, simply because it does not fit into their practiced pedagogy that in many aspects has become stagnant and ineffective. So now, the questions remain.. how can progressive educators provoke those that are not willing to implement any new approaches to their curriculum/instruction? How can we assist those that are hesitant in becoming interested and more importantly invested users of all means of technology for the education of those currently and prospectively entrusted to their care? If only these educators would apply the approach you mentioned; to use technology experimentally in conjunction with the ways that they already teach. Is there one plausible solution or many? That is currently up for debate and I am honestly quite unsure. However, I will continue to ponder the possibilities and have thought-provoking discussions with like-minded individuals in hopes of solving this ongoing dilemma..
I was happy to see Boyd reference a better definition of digital natives from John Palfrey and Urs Gasser that goes beyond a simplistic categorization by age and acknowledges that “those who were not ‘born digital’ can be just as connected, if not more so….and not everyone born since, say, 1982, happens to be a digital native.” However, I agree with Boyd that the term ‘digital natives’ has so much momentum now within the media and general public that it would be difficult to get anyone to pay attention to a better definition of that term.
It was really interesting to read about the preconceptions that exist about Wikipedia and Google and the lack of understanding about these two critical Internet resources. I was not clear myself that Google’s algorithms are personalized so that two different people would get two completely different set of results using the same search terms.
These examples highlight the importance of providing more education around the platforms that today’s generation is using so they can not only use them, but understand how they work and the inherent limitations and biases that exist. This is similar to the program we watched on “Generation Like” that kids are using social media, but may not understand how they are being used as targets and tools of corporate marketing campaigns.
Lisa; thank you for highlighting the tremendous importance in providing students with more education around the platforms that today’s generation frequently uses. Educators can implement this education into a digital literacy lesson that can provide students with a necessary knowledge base. Once equipped with information surrounding these platforms, students will then be able to understand what they are using/how they are using it thus realizing the inherent limitations and biases that exist.
It was interesting for me to learn how Wikipedia works. I knew that is was crowd sourced, but I had no idea you could go on and see the previous edits and the conversations they created the edits.
I also started thinking about how in 2nd grade I don't let students google things, but when I don't know the answer I say, "Let's google it!" I think I am going to start talking to them more about the process and how I can not trust the first site that pops up. Even if they are not looking for credited resources, they can know I am, and the process.
My favorite part of this chapter was about Wikipedia. As a teacher, I had lots of students tell me they weren't allowed to use Wikipedia or weren't allowed to cite it as a source. This caused me to take time to teach students about Wikipedia, how it's made, how it's checked for accuracy and explained why some people are afraid of it. I showed them how to double check the sources that are cited on Wikipedia and how to use easybib.com to create bibliographies. Students told me that their English teachers didn't show them how to analyze web sources or how to use a bibliography website like easybib.com. It's possible that the teachers didn't know about it, don't know how to do it themselves, or don't want to find out.
Admittedly, it can be tough to keep up with all the latest and greatest things out there in the technology world. When you are in the midst of a crazy school day, the last thing you are thinking about it the latest technology trend. However, we do ourselves and our students a disservice when teachers aren't learning to adapt to use the materials that are available. I think the APUS history teacher at the school I used to work in would love to have students read the arguments on Wikipedia about the American Revolution. What an incredible resource!
To the "digital native" vs "digital immigrant" argument...there will always be problems when you attempt to divide the human race into only two categories. Even saying "male" and "female" isn't enough. It's complicated.
Boyd asserts that using the term “digital natives” to describe youths is not only inaccurate and misleading but also dangerous.
Boyd explains while the term digital natives describes a generation that was born in an age where technology was prevalent, it has spiraled to implicitly mean that this generation is tech savvy and more skillful and engaged with technologies than older generations referred to as digital immigrants. In her research, Boyd states that she interviewed many teens that have demonstrated a wide scope of technical skills, knowledge, and experience with technology ranging from teens that used programming scripts to teens who didn’t know the difference between a web browser and the internet. Boyd states, “teens may make their own content media, or share content online but that does not mean that they inherently have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume.” She adds, assuming that teens are digital natives suggests that they are automatically informed about technologies. Such an assumption distracts from the need to understand and address the challenges that youths face while navigating a networked world.
We will be making a huge disservice to our students if we believe that by being exposed to a wide range of technologies from a very early age they are inherently capable of using these technologies in an efficient, meaningful, safe, responsible, and ethical manner. Now, more than ever, the need to develop a media literacy program and integrate it in curricula at all levels is pivotal. In a world that has become overburdened by data and information, students need to be aware of how information and content is created, shared, remixed, vetted, manipulated, and personalized. They should be able to critically evaluate and judge the information they encounter and develop advanced literacy skills.
Boyd maintains, “ Becoming literate in a networked age requires hard work, regardless of age.” Being able to use digital gadgets and devices does not mean that we are able to use technology efficiently and meaningfully. Learning about the politics of algorithms was eye-opening to me and asserted the importance of literacy skills. It is our responsibility as educators to learn about and show students how technology works and help them build literacy skills that will allow them to evaluate the authenticity of information and challenge their biases and preconceived notions when they search for information.
As Boyd mentions, it may be hard to dissuade media from using the term digital natives; however, understanding its roots and implications on addressing issues of literacy is very important to educators who should be helping students develop the skills to become critical consumers, creative producers, and valuable contributors in a digital age.
I like that Danah Boyd's shed light on the complexity of the term, "digital native" and the clarification on the term to not be exclusive to people born after 1982 – such an arbitrary idea for those who experienced the transformation of technology before that date.
I relate this idea of students not being born with the skills to Allan Curtis Kay's quote, "The music is not in the piano." We cannot expect that because a person has access to the technology, they have the competent skills to make the technology meaningful beyond consumption. Personally, I'm self-identified advocate for the pedagogical uses of technology and using multimedia platforms for creation, collaboration, curation, and participating in personal and political conversations.
In addition to this great idea behind rethinking the definition of "digital native", I really enjoyed Boyd's critique on how youth need "new literacies." This entails translating the skills and concepts that already exist onto digital platforms. For example, understanding and distinguishing authentic/legitimate news articles; being able to read an opinion editorial along in a blog and decipher the stance that the writer and comments have on the issue; using online blogs to communicate and collaborate remotely and bridge those conversations in the classroom experience. Media Literacy also includes how a person is able to navigate between platforms and understand how information is portrayed differently in different settings (ie. email vs. posting a fb status, twitter vs. blog post, LinkedIn profile vs YouTube profile).
There are many social norms that emerge out of these social networks. This includes the generous amount of time spent checking for notifications or being mindful of how what you post in your private life is revealed in a public setting. These are skills that are not necessarily intuitive for everyone but they emerge out of seeing how other people use their own social networks to essentially brand themselves.
I agree with Danah Boyd’s central argument that today’s youth needs to be media literate and to develop technological skills, but we can’t expect this of them solely because they’re rendered “digital natives”. The term is often used a bandage covering up the bigger issue of digital inequality. Boyd quotes media theorist, Henry Jenkins: “Talk of digital natives may make it harder for us to pay attention to the digital divide in terms of who has access to different technical platforms and the participation gap in terms of who has access to certain skills and competencies or for that matter, certain cultural experiences and social identities.”
Boyd brings up a point about how we are to address who is to bring about change – is it more of a systemic or individual problem? If we think of it in terms of fixing it on an individual level, we as educators need to be aware that digital natives aren’t always equipped with the necessary tools to make the most of their online experiences in a digitally networked world. Teens can share their own media / content online, but this doesn’t mean they have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume; exposure is not equivalent to being a savvy interpreter. Both teachers and parents must realize the importance of prioritizing digital competency and technical skills to affect any type of formal change.
I found it interesting that Boyd used Google and Wikipedia in this chapter to highlight the flawed perspective young students have today about two huge internet players. Combing through Google searches isn’t always an easy task - it depends on what search query you use, what companies are paying for advertisements, etc. It’s an important skill that young students need to master; the internet is the most powerful research tool they have right at their fingertips and is likely the first place they go in order to find answers to their questions. They must realize Google isn’t giving them a direct answer to their question, they still must search for it. On the other side of the coin we have Wikipedia, which is vastly underrated as an educational tool. Students could learn so much from a crowd-sourced environment - Boyd used the American Revolution as a perfect example. In the edit and history section of its Wikipedia page, we see the debate over things such as using the word “patriot” or “insurgent” or “revolutionaries” - this alone shows how different things are viewed depending on where you are in the world and what one’s biases might be which wouldn’t be found in a textbook or found as easily using Google.
“It’s Complicated” could not be a more fitting title for how I felt after reading Chapter 7 of Boyd’s book. In order to continue the discussion of whether today’s youth are considered “digital natives”, it must begin with how the current education system does not adequately meet the needs of students in this digital age. Many school districts and educators are making progressive strives in meeting these digital needs, however it has to be a continuing, unifying, and collaborative effort from all in the system. In the classroom as well as other settings, youth need many opportunities with contemporary technology to engage and develop skills meaningfully. The education system should strive to challenge today’s youth to develop the necessary knowledge and skills toward becoming digitally literate. Regardless of age, digital literacy in a networked age requires experience, repetition, patience, creativity, and most importantly hard work from the participant.
ReplyDeleteThe mentioned juxtaposition of the “native” and the “immigrant” expresses how today’s youth think and process information differently from their predecessors. I agree that today’s youth have grown up in a digital age, where the internet has always existed and has been readily available to them. However, this is a dangerous assumption because many have little understanding of new technologies and their uses. Digital literacy can be attained by anyone at any age when equipped with knowledge and experience. Chapter 7 states that neither teens nor adults are monolithic, and that there is no magical relation between skills and age. Today’s youth are not digitally native simply because they are deeply engaged with social networking sites. Do all of today’s youth make the most out of their online experiences? Most often they do not. There is a huge variation in knowledge and experience. Learning is truly a lifelong process. As educators and parents, we can provide the framework for today’s youth and assist them in critically examining what they consume so that all parties involved can be technically competent and literate as well as active participants in our information society.
I found Chapter 7 of Danah Boyd's book to be a refreshing acknowledgement of the complexity behind the popular terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant". She does a good job of explaining exactly why neither of the terms is very helpful when trying to understand how people of every living generation interact with digital media.
ReplyDeleteShe does a good job of summarizing the current state of the digital divide. On page 179, she writes that the term digital native is dangerous because "it obscures the uneven distribution of technological skills and media literacy across the youth population, presenting an inaccurate portrait of young people as uniformly prepared for the digital era." I agree with her in this regard and she explains how socio-economic status contributes to this uneven distribution. From my own experience, I would like to add that the students I teach (who are mostly in their early 20s) exhibit a huge range of digital literacy skills even though they are all from fairly wealthy families. Among my students interests and personal traits seem to have a huge effect on digital literacy for them. I have seen this quite a bit in the Marketing classes I teach; some of my students were very familiar with Google's business model, but others were shocked to learn that when the first results for a search were often advertisements and this was indicated by a light yellow background. (An aside: Last November Google bowed to pressure and now has much clearer labeling of their ads.)
Lastly, I think that Ms. Boyd makes an excellent point when she writes on page 177 that, "Being exposed to information or imagery through the internet and engaging with social media do not make someone a savvy interpreter of the meaning behind these artifacts." I believe this is true and yet it is something that one rarely hears in the media discourse on these issues. It is the job of parents, educators, and savvy friends to teach the less savvy users of the Web and consumers of social media what lies "behind the curtain" so that we can all make informed decisions as consumers and citizens.
Great Summary Mike. I also find the critical thinking skills to be at the heart of this commentary.
DeleteMike; excellent connection between digital literacy and your own experiences as an educator. Based on your personal experiences with students, you shed light on the existence of a broad range of varying digital literacy skills. Despite socioeconomic status, I entirely agree that personal traits and interests prove to be a deciding factor in the acquisition/competence of digital skills.
DeleteFrom the very beginning of the chapter, there was a distinction presented that may not be central but I think has relevance to the state of education. This idea that children, youth, students, or digital natives - “think nothing of learning through the use of technology.” From the ramification of their homework exercises to the constant use of technology for research, paper writing, etc. or for their own interests, be it video games, learning to bake a cake, or sharing their cool skateboard moves on youtube. Children of all ages and backgrounds are engaging and learning through technology, and they do not question the concept.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the reverse is true in the formal classroom setting, much of the work is still being done using textbooks from K-12 grade, much of the learning is rote memorization, not project based or hands on. So to Ken Robinson's point, it is the educators and administrators who are behind on this, so call them immigrants or ludites, some catching up is in order.
As for the critical thinking skills- we have discussed it in other classes, that the heart of digital literacy might just be expanding how we critically analyze arguments to the internet and other online sources.
It shocked us a couple of weeks ago as a class, that so many teens were "actively" engaged in using the web, creating profiles, and digital identities without the least concern who was tracking them and why? (Think, Hunger Games girl for instance).
Yet, I think we all fall victim to the logic, that one can just "google" the answer and "there it is" - the fact you were looking for, rarely do we subject the website to the critical rigor suggested in this commentary such as:
—they need .... to ask questions about the construction and dissemination of particular media artifacts. What biases are embedded in the artifact?
How did the creator intend for an audience to interpret that artifact, and what are the consequences of that interpretation?
Also gaining those skills goes back to critical thinking classes and lessons embedded in reading scientific texts, writing expository papers, and making arguments for and against ideas.
The key may be to take the great critical thinking lessons that are already in schools, being taught by parents, and overlay a digital component to them- rather than think that we have to start a new set of curriculum and criteria.
As mentioned in the article- "Educators (for decades have) argued that informed citizens needed to be able to critically evaluate the messages that surround them. As new genres of media proliferated, many were concerned that audiences could be manipulated into believing a particular narrative. Although fact-checking can often serve to combat certain aspects of manipulative messaging, people must also learn to question the biases and assumptions underpinning -
I think we all just a little mesmerized by how quickly information could be delivered to us, we forgot the basic principals of critical thinking, vetting sources, and looking for biases.
I agree when you talk about the educators being behind. A lot of teachers do not want to change or are not sure how to change. A lot of times they feel like if I use technology to instruct it is an experiment vs. teaching the way I know how.
DeleteAlysia; your post is very well articulated! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Particularly, how you touched on the notion that children of all ages and backgrounds are engaging and learning through technology. I see this firsthand and on a daily basis with many young children during tutoring sessions and while babysitting. These children do not question the concept. Rather, they effortlessly find it's effectiveness and are tremendously engaged with what technology is in current use. Ashley; I also entirely agree that many seasoned educators are obstinate with all things technology, simply because it does not fit into their practiced pedagogy that in many aspects has become stagnant and ineffective. So now, the questions remain.. how can progressive educators provoke those that are not willing to implement any new approaches to their curriculum/instruction? How can we assist those that are hesitant in becoming interested and more importantly invested users of all means of technology for the education of those currently and prospectively entrusted to their care? If only these educators would apply the approach you mentioned; to use technology experimentally in conjunction with the ways that they already teach. Is there one plausible solution or many? That is currently up for debate and I am honestly quite unsure. However, I will continue to ponder the possibilities and have thought-provoking discussions with like-minded individuals in hopes of solving this ongoing dilemma..
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was happy to see Boyd reference a better definition of digital natives from John Palfrey and Urs Gasser that goes beyond a simplistic categorization by age and acknowledges that “those who were not ‘born digital’ can be just as connected, if not more so….and not everyone born since, say, 1982, happens to be a digital native.” However, I agree with Boyd that the term ‘digital natives’ has so much momentum now within the media and general public that it would be difficult to get anyone to pay attention to a better definition of that term.
DeleteIt was really interesting to read about the preconceptions that exist about Wikipedia and Google and the lack of understanding about these two critical Internet resources. I was not clear myself that Google’s algorithms are personalized so that two different people would get two completely different set of results using the same search terms.
These examples highlight the importance of providing more education around the platforms that today’s generation is using so they can not only use them, but understand how they work and the inherent limitations and biases that exist. This is similar to the program we watched on “Generation Like” that kids are using social media, but may not understand how they are being used as targets and tools of corporate marketing campaigns.
Lisa; thank you for highlighting the tremendous importance in providing students with more education around the platforms that today’s generation frequently uses. Educators can implement this education into a digital literacy lesson that can provide students with a necessary knowledge base. Once equipped with information surrounding these platforms, students will then be able to understand what they are using/how they are using it thus realizing the inherent limitations and biases that exist.
DeleteIt was interesting for me to learn how Wikipedia works. I knew that is was crowd sourced, but I had no idea you could go on and see the previous edits and the conversations they created the edits.
ReplyDeleteI also started thinking about how in 2nd grade I don't let students google things, but when I don't know the answer I say, "Let's google it!" I think I am going to start talking to them more about the process and how I can not trust the first site that pops up. Even if they are not looking for credited resources, they can know I am, and the process.
My favorite part of this chapter was about Wikipedia. As a teacher, I had lots of students tell me they weren't allowed to use Wikipedia or weren't allowed to cite it as a source. This caused me to take time to teach students about Wikipedia, how it's made, how it's checked for accuracy and explained why some people are afraid of it. I showed them how to double check the sources that are cited on Wikipedia and how to use easybib.com to create bibliographies. Students told me that their English teachers didn't show them how to analyze web sources or how to use a bibliography website like easybib.com. It's possible that the teachers didn't know about it, don't know how to do it themselves, or don't want to find out.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, it can be tough to keep up with all the latest and greatest things out there in the technology world. When you are in the midst of a crazy school day, the last thing you are thinking about it the latest technology trend. However, we do ourselves and our students a disservice when teachers aren't learning to adapt to use the materials that are available. I think the APUS history teacher at the school I used to work in would love to have students read the arguments on Wikipedia about the American Revolution. What an incredible resource!
To the "digital native" vs "digital immigrant" argument...there will always be problems when you attempt to divide the human race into only two categories. Even saying "male" and "female" isn't enough. It's complicated.
Boyd asserts that using the term “digital natives” to describe youths is not only inaccurate and misleading but also dangerous.
ReplyDeleteBoyd explains while the term digital natives describes a generation that was born in an age where technology was prevalent, it has spiraled to implicitly mean that this generation is tech savvy and more skillful and engaged with technologies than older generations referred to as digital immigrants. In her research, Boyd states that she interviewed many teens that have demonstrated a wide scope of technical skills, knowledge, and experience with technology ranging from teens that used programming scripts to teens who didn’t know the difference between a web browser and the internet. Boyd states, “teens may make their own content media, or share content online but that does not mean that they inherently have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume.” She adds, assuming that teens are digital natives suggests that they are automatically informed about technologies. Such an assumption distracts from the need to understand and address the challenges that youths face while navigating a networked world.
We will be making a huge disservice to our students if we believe that by being exposed to a wide range of technologies from a very early age they are inherently capable of using these technologies in an efficient, meaningful, safe, responsible, and ethical manner. Now, more than ever, the need to develop a media literacy program and integrate it in curricula at all levels is pivotal. In a world that has become overburdened by data and information, students need to be aware of how information and content is created, shared, remixed, vetted, manipulated, and personalized. They should be able to critically evaluate and judge the information they encounter and develop advanced literacy skills.
Boyd maintains, “ Becoming literate in a networked age requires hard work, regardless of age.” Being able to use digital gadgets and devices does not mean that we are able to use technology efficiently and meaningfully. Learning about the politics of algorithms was eye-opening to me and asserted the importance of literacy skills. It is our responsibility as educators to learn about and show students how technology works and help them build literacy skills that will allow them to evaluate the authenticity of information and challenge their biases and preconceived notions when they search for information.
As Boyd mentions, it may be hard to dissuade media from using the term digital natives; however, understanding its roots and implications on addressing issues of literacy is very important to educators who should be helping students develop the skills to become critical consumers, creative producers, and valuable contributors in a digital age.
I like that Danah Boyd's shed light on the complexity of the term, "digital native" and the clarification on the term to not be exclusive to people born after 1982 – such an arbitrary idea for those who experienced the transformation of technology before that date.
ReplyDeleteI relate this idea of students not being born with the skills to Allan Curtis Kay's quote, "The music is not in the piano." We cannot expect that because a person has access to the technology, they have the competent skills to make the technology meaningful beyond consumption. Personally, I'm self-identified advocate for the pedagogical uses of technology and using multimedia platforms for creation, collaboration, curation, and participating in personal and political conversations.
In addition to this great idea behind rethinking the definition of "digital native", I really enjoyed Boyd's critique on how youth need "new literacies." This entails translating the skills and concepts that already exist onto digital platforms. For example, understanding and distinguishing authentic/legitimate news articles; being able to read an opinion editorial along in a blog and decipher the stance that the writer and comments have on the issue; using online blogs to communicate and collaborate remotely and bridge those conversations in the classroom experience. Media Literacy also includes how a person is able to navigate between platforms and understand how information is portrayed differently in different settings (ie. email vs. posting a fb status, twitter vs. blog post, LinkedIn profile vs YouTube profile).
There are many social norms that emerge out of these social networks. This includes the generous amount of time spent checking for notifications or being mindful of how what you post in your private life is revealed in a public setting. These are skills that are not necessarily intuitive for everyone but they emerge out of seeing how other people use their own social networks to essentially brand themselves.
I agree with Danah Boyd’s central argument that today’s youth needs to be media literate and to develop technological skills, but we can’t expect this of them solely because they’re rendered “digital natives”. The term is often used a bandage covering up the bigger issue of digital inequality. Boyd quotes media theorist, Henry Jenkins: “Talk of digital natives may make it harder for us to pay attention to the digital divide in terms of who has access to different technical platforms and the participation gap in terms of who has access to certain skills and competencies or for that matter, certain cultural experiences and social identities.”
ReplyDeleteBoyd brings up a point about how we are to address who is to bring about change – is it more of a systemic or individual problem? If we think of it in terms of fixing it on an individual level, we as educators need to be aware that digital natives aren’t always equipped with the necessary tools to make the most of their online experiences in a digitally networked world. Teens can share their own media / content online, but this doesn’t mean they have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume; exposure is not equivalent to being a savvy interpreter. Both teachers and parents must realize the importance of prioritizing digital competency and technical skills to affect any type of formal change.
I found it interesting that Boyd used Google and Wikipedia in this chapter to highlight the flawed perspective young students have today about two huge internet players. Combing through Google searches isn’t always an easy task - it depends on what search query you use, what companies are paying for advertisements, etc. It’s an important skill that young students need to master; the internet is the most powerful research tool they have right at their fingertips and is likely the first place they go in order to find answers to their questions. They must realize Google isn’t giving them a direct answer to their question, they still must search for it. On the other side of the coin we have Wikipedia, which is vastly underrated as an educational tool. Students could learn so much from a crowd-sourced environment - Boyd used the American Revolution as a perfect example. In the edit and history section of its Wikipedia page, we see the debate over things such as using the word “patriot” or “insurgent” or “revolutionaries” - this alone shows how different things are viewed depending on where you are in the world and what one’s biases might be which wouldn’t be found in a textbook or found as easily using Google.