The Myth of the Digital Native

    While I see validity in Prensky’s description of digital natives vs. immigrants, it has many gaps.  Boyd does an excellent job of pointing out these gaps and the holes in Prensky’s thinking.  There are clear generational differences in digital literacy for many individuals and in many communities.  Individuals born after the mid-1980s have been utilizing technology for most of their lives.  Technology is built into many of the things they have always done.  Whereas, for older individuals, many of the same life activities happened with the support of technology and can continue without technology.  

The danger in adhering to this mindset is that it overlooks gaps in digital literacy that exist amongst those Prensky would identify as natives.  Literacy does not rely solely on access.  On page 196, Boyd points out that digital literacy is related to how individuals interact with technologies, digital information, and other individuals and institutions.  This varies greatly amongst Prensky’s digital natives.  Just because an individual can use technology for social and entertainment purposes does not mean they are able to access it in a productive and effective way in other arenas.  If we assume that all of Prensky’s digital natives have a proficient level of digital literacy, individuals without the technology skills and knowledge will not have the opportunity to develop them.

I think the term “digital native” is dangerous because it assumes all young people possess the same level of digital skills and knowledge.  In reality, not all young people have the same exposure and access to technology.  So, using the term “digital native” can be misleading and allow institutions, like schools, to overlook the digital divides that exist in society, like limited access to technologies, language and cultural barriers, and discrepancies in educational settings