In my showcase post, I will be elaborating and providing further insight into the “Wow and Wonder” I constructed in week 4, in an attempt to further my understanding of the prevalence of inequality that surfaces in the media to date.

In the article “Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement” it showcases a new continuum of ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’ in place of Marc Prensky’s digital ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’. Through analyzing the critiques of Prensky’s typology, I was quickly made aware of the far from suitable language utilized, demanding the action of other academics to dismantle the current distinction of digital users. Prensky refers to ‘digital natives’ as students who are all “native speakers” in the digital language found in computers, phones and Ipad’s (White & Cornu, 2011). Though his “theory”, does not align with the actions of the entirety of our population. For the reason that, regardless of age, some individuals choose to forego their cellular device and refrain from daily digital use. A women named Rachelle, a student at Royal Roads University refutes the theory constructed by Prensky, explaining that “[her] son is not computer literate, and he has no passion for being apart of social or professional digital platforms (Rachelle, 2018). However, according to Prensky’s theory, her son should be well versed in digital networks and be classified as a “digital native” owing to his age. However, this is simply not the case for her son, and for many globally.

I must owe the “wow” factor I experienced to my complete utter shock, that one could confidently divide users in the digital world into two categories, according to their age.  Not only does Prensky fail to recognize the issue behind using the term “digital native” and “digital immigrants” but he is also notorious for casting generalized presumptions determined by age, focussing solely on the technologically adept youth.  However, it should be noted that amidst a global pandemic, when online learning was the seemingly only option, teachers and students were forced to shift to distanced learning. With that being said, less than 10% of K-12 students had experience with or acquired the proper technological skills to successfully adapt to a new learning network (Yan et al., 2021). This lead to many students feeling overwhelmed and dissatisfied with their grades. More importantly, it proves that one’s age doesn’t translate to one’s technological capabilities, referring to the inconsistency in the ‘digital native’ defined by Prensky. To my disbelief, Prenski gave further proof of his ageist and ableist beliefs, through directly labelling the elderly population as “handicapped learners”(White & Cornu, 2011). It was quite relieving to hear the critiques made by academics alike, to devalue the pertinent of this dichotomy. The alternate continuum created to replace ‘digital natives and immigrants’ with ‘visitors and residents’ allows for both children and adults to consume a vistor or resident technological identity, regardless of age. In addition, it positively addresses the freedom one has to transition from a visitor to a resident over their lifetime, by making use of the the innumerable instructional resources found online. 

Furthermore, it is with curiosity that I,  as well as Mia (a member of my learning pod) wonder how might Prensky respond to the criticism made by others academics in regards to his strong voice, confidence and beliefs that contributed to his illustration of the entire populations engagement in the web. Mia further notes that “It is ironic how Prensky argues that older folks were socialized differently than younger ones in relation to technical proficiency, since the nature of how Prensky was socialized may have given him ageist conscious or unconscious biases.” I thought this argument made by my classmate was especially powerful, for the majority of critiques stem from Prensky’s pre-existing biases. Additionally, I wonder what his main objection (if any) would be to the new proposed continuum ‘vistors’ and ‘residents’. 

One of my fellow classmates, Emily Lehoux bravely added to this discussion, sharing her personal experience reading through Prensky’s typology. Being that she comes from mixed K’omoks and settler, she was able to provide me with direct insight to the offence, anger and shock she was faced as a person of indigenous herritage. It’s saddening to hear that to date, despite our attempt to reconcile with the original inhabiters of our land, we still continuously make strikes leading to indigenous individuals feeling isolated or less than. Though I am far from able to speak on behalf of the indigenous community, I do understand the impact our actions and words hold, allowing me to be a more vigilant character in my future academic career.  

With all this being said, the much critized typology outlined by Prensky proves there is value to showing these kind of articles to students, in an attempt to further the conversation and discuss apparent biases and prejudices amongst many well-educated professionals. 

After soaring the world wide web, I came across this photograph of what looks like an elderly man and his grandson, sitting on a couch with eyes intently viewing the screen of a lap top. The displayed photo is yet another attempt to prove age does not classify one’s technological adaptability or capability. 

References:

Rachelle. 2018. “The Role That Technology Plays In My Life: The Visitors and Residents Typology Map”. Royal Roads University. Malat WebSpace.

White, D. S., & Cornu, A. L. (2011). “Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement“. First Monday.

Yan, L., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Guan, Q., Wen, G., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2021, May 4). “Students’ experience of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A province-wide survey study“. British journal of educational technology : journal of the Council for Educational Technology.