Journal criticisms

Overall, each article makes a valid point on modern culture and the digital era we currently live in. As I have grown up in this world, being accustom to this technological culture, I haven’t realised the extent that previous generations have had to adjust.

Journal one criticism
My disagreement with the first article is that I don’t entirely believe that there is nothing new under the sun. I agree with the point made that technology and culture develop, but the internet and television are two mediums I think stand out in there own right. The author also argues that new media has the task of “mapping out new media audiences”. I don’t believe this is entirely true, as often, there aren’t new audiences, but new ideologies and audience expectations, so it is more a mapping out of new ways to appeal to an existing audience.

Journal two criticism
My disagreement with this article is that it claims that children and young people don’t learn through printed texts in this day and age. Yes this is partially true, but it makes out that young people ‘don’t’ learn this way, as opposed to ‘choosing’ not too. The journal implies that today’s generation has moved on from traditional methods of learning, which isn’t wrong, but I feel that culture has developed so this way of learning is one of many, as it is still used in schools and suchlike. It also highlights how older generations deem text talk, and communicating online as needless, whereas, although I think there is a time and a place for it, it is another way of expressing yourself, in a way I’m sure older generations did by keeping diaries etc.

Journal three criticism
My first criticism with this journal is simply that it only focuses on 16 girls for the research. I know it is qualitative, but I think to get suitable and concrete results, more opinions are people are needed. My other criticism is that the article contradicts itself over the issue of power. In an early section, I think girls have more power online than the journal gives credit for. I feel that girls are more likely to express themselves and use the power of sexuality online. Although the article goes on to say how girls do have power, it uses an example of how boys can “trick girls” into doing things online, implying boys have power online. But later on, it gives examples of how girls make digs at boys online and provoke them, suggesting girls have the power. So this makes it confusing and contradictory.

Journal four criticism
My disagreement with this journal is the divide it puts between each type of learning method. Obviously there are differences between each one, but I see them as being interlinked which this journal doesn’t seem to do. We have the ability to read a printed text, access it online, watch a serialisation on the TV and so on, so who is to say that there is a right and wrong way of doing it? This article and many others highlight the fact modern learning doesn’t involve as much print reading, but surely the fact we have different ways to learn suits everyone better, as opposed to losing our traditional forms?

Journal five criticism
My main disagreement with this article is that the author explains that the gap between teachers and students (natives and immigrants) is down to the teachers to address and narrow. I think part of this is down to the students, because if you want to learn in a certain way, it is surely up to you to instigate this as well. The author is implying that teachers should automatically know what way suits people best, but this is down to the student. And I don’t see anything wrong with students helping to teach the teachers new and innovative learning styles if it suits both parties. If students are able to pass their knowledge on, they would be benefitting themselves as well as others. This is something the journal fails to imply.

Website crticism five

This website is also written in 2001, so for the same reasons as the last, may be dated in its relevancy. This site takes a look at Digital Immigration through medicine and science. It talks about how “Digital Native students” have become the way they are for psychological reasons. It also questions science’s view that the brain doesn’t change physically, by arguing that modern culture causes people’s brains to adapt. There is a lot of scientific evidence to show this, and the author delves into different fields, such as neuroplasticity. However, some of this includes research done on rats and ferrets, which surely doesn’t help when considering the effects cultural development no digital immigrants and natives. To my knowledge the ferrets are not that advanced yet. Being serious, the site is dated by 7-8 years, so any medical advances or changes could easily occurred in this time. The site suggests that natives have a short attention span when it comes to older and traditional learning methods, which again, highlights the struggle between natives and immigrants when communicating and developing one another. The site is well written, and uses lots of evidence, which makes it good and believable.

Website criticism four

This website is dated October 2001, which immediately suggests it could be out dated as this was 8 years ago. From the first line, it is written in a very descriptive and opinionated manner. The author talks also about students and the relationship between them and technological advancements. “Today’s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV).” It doesn’t say where these figures are sourced from, but if these were true, I’m sure they have only grown further since 2001. There are many rhetorical questions throughout, one of which asks what the new wave of students should be called. The answer is Digital Natives, and the site gives detailed descriptions and examples of both Digital Immigrants and Natives. The author’s best description for me is where he says that today’s parents are in the midst of learning a new language which the majority of kids already know. The site is very good at showing how the two struggle to comprehend one another, due to the difference in ‘language that natives and immigrants speak. Due to it being written a while ago now, the site is probably one of the first to talk about Digital Immigrants and Natives.

Website criticism three

This site is a blog dedicated to analysing the work of Marc Prensky, who seems to be the King Kong of the Digital Immigration/Native jungle. The author of the site gives a very insightful view of both concepts, and focuses on the differences in generations. There is a focus on students, and the changes in culture and how this has affected ‘us’. Students are categorised as “native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.” This is obvious in a sense, but also very true. The site is dated on the 5th December 2007, which, as with the previous site, means it is very up to date and relevant. It is very readable, as it is well written and laid out in a format which breaks each point down. There is also a section at the bottom for people and other users to write their own comments and respond to the article.
The only part of this site I am not impressed with is the fact the author uses Prensky’s work too much. He uses Prensky’s theory well and writes his own opinion on it at times, but this could be done more. As it is a blog, it should be more structured than it is. But the way each point is broken down, analysed and put into perspective makes the site very comprehendible.

Website criticism two

This website defines both Digital Immigration and Digital Natives, and talks of the distinction between the two. As both terms have been coined in recent years, the site begins by saying how the two terms have been accepted in higher education. It says the terms are a way of mapping out and understanding the rapid technological advancements that have shaped our culture. The site is dated December 2007, which means it is over a year old, so its extremely relevant due to its up-to-dateness. The site is a version of a speech given at a higher education conference in 2007. This means it is written very coherently, as it was written to be spoken and performed. In correspondence, this also makes it very formal. I like the way it talks about Digital Immigrants and Natives as binary opposites, which I find to be a good way of looking at it. What makes this site stand out for me was a table on the 2nd page. There are the two terms as headings, and listed underneath is an example of each with the other being a binary opposite of sorts. For example, under Native there is Student and fast, and under Immigrant there is Teacher and slow. It goes on to continue the argument of how it is the immigrants that need to change, not the natives. This site also quotes from Prensky; “If Digital Immigrant educators really want to reach Digital Natives – ie all their students – they will have to change” (Prensky 2001,p6). I think it practices what it preaches, in the sense that it makes a strong argument in a concise manner, and it clearly explains itself on a potentially difficult subject.

Website criticism one

My first criticism of this website is that it was written in May and June 2003....oooh did that give it away? This means that it is out-dated now by 6 years almost, so this is an obvious fault. This is because the way in which the author talks about technology and development may have changed alot since then, although the site is still relevant to contemporary culture.

My next criticism is that the author of the site uses many references and points made by others, in particular, Marc Prensky, who is deemed to have coined the term of digital natives and immigrants. The points made aim to back up Prensky's points in different words. The author points out that there is not much to distinguish between both natives and immigrants in a digital sense. This relates to previous blogs about how much new media and technology evolves, as the author questions how much change there is between each generation. I think that this is a good point, but I think there is a greater gap than the author implies. The author believes, through Prensky's work, that these digital natives are "teaching" digital immigrants, as opposed to going back to "old" methods. "The solution Prensky proposes is for today's teachers to learn the language of the natives..."

The site continues with a counter-arguement, which is effective, as it focuses more on the thoughts of the author rather than other critics work. The author goes on to say that the gap between digital immigrants and natives is reducing through the simplicity of certain websites and forums online.