This website is very recent, which already makes the article on 'digital immigration' relevant and probably more relevant to the user as previous websites have shown articles that were written years ago and may now be outdated. It states how theres three writers, all from an academic background, which is promising. Prior to this i read someones blog, who worked for a mobile company, they said how 'digital immigrants' are just ignorant, no references but just based on experience. I decided not to focus my attention to this.
The article has 'draft' written on it, which said to me that maybe it wasn't finished properly, spelling mistakes etc. However as i read through the article, it was very easy to read, it had an array of references, which are all listed in a Harvard style at the bottom and most importantly it took both stances. It didnt preach about 'digital immigration', it said how it may be flawed,
Out of all of the websites so far, this is by far the most all rounded, not only did it tell me more about Prensky's work, but also answered many queries that i had from reading other websites.
Therefore, its up to date, uses references and comprises of a full academic argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be careful about the difference between "reliable" and "relevant" or "up-to-date". This article is indeed up to date but that doesn't make it reliable - although as you have checked out the authors' backgrounds you can see it is likely to be. Intersting that they liken the digital debate to a "moral panic" though - why do you think this might be?
ReplyDeletek i'll change the word now. thanks alison. i think it has been considered a moral panic because the work of Prensky may have caused concern within society. Saying how teachers are these 'digital immigrants' with an incapacity to teach a child who is considered different, may provoke a fear that their childs education is at risk.
ReplyDeleteI think the commentors of comparing Prensky work to moral panic (Bennett, Maton & Kervin:2008) did so because much of his work wasn't debated on a large scale; you mentioned 'digital immitives' but i've looked at loads of articles on his work and i didn't once come across the term. Therefore without any disagreement, many people would accept Prensky, without considering other contributions, which again initiates a moral panic.
I'm sorry Micha - I was being flippant when I said "digital immitives". That'll teach me!
ReplyDelete