ARTICLE 1
The article doesn’t directly use Prenskys concept of “digital native” it simply relates to it. Surely by adding Prenskys explanation into the article would make readers immediately aware of it’s points. It begins by suggesting that “kids” cope well with new technology and so the idea of “teaching” them seems “almost silly.” In some respect I disagree because they obviously need to learn about the academic side of technology, which teachers can successfully provide. The likes of “downloading music’s,” “publishing of their blogs” or using converged media forms such as the IPhone isn’t going to help them with research say at college or university, skills that I regard as important. These articles however do address the negative side of such technology but not to great lengths. The article highlights how individuals want to take technology to the next level and make it “a part of life,” one suggesting they want to” provide a laptop to each of the schools one hundred students.” But the article doesn’t take into account the detrimental effects of having technology in children’s lives, it could greaten the society of couch potatoes kids, encourage them to stay in and isolate themselves from others, "few people are active in their neighborhood than in the 1960's" (Kenal and Singh. 2004: 8).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems an odd academic article that doesn't reference its main sources?
ReplyDeleteOn the 'Bowling Alone' syndrome; I'd say that more recent evidence points to the empowerment of activities IRL by online networking. The early fears of 'desocialisation' seem only valid for people with pre-existing problems. Evenso, online networking may develop into offline engagement.