With the implementation of technology and its constant evolution in the world today, everyone of all ages is always trying to keep up and adapt to these changes. Regardless of age or what technology they grew up with, people still must learn how to be digitally literate. Danah Boyd argues this point further, by challenging the stereotypes of “digital natives,” the term for young millennials born into an age of technology, and “digital immigrants,” the term for older generations that have had to adapt to technology. She disagrees with the idea that digital natives are automatically well-equipped and tech-savvy, because many millennials and young people must in fact learn the ropes to technology. She also combats the idea that digital immigrants are so out of touch with technology that they can never be natives, they will always be one step behind the natives because they didn’t grow up using technology. Although this may be true for some, many adults and older people are actually better adapted to technology than younger people. This conversation is very popular among many authors, and this essay will outline the many different opinions and feelings these authors have towards digital literacy across different generations.
Many other authors also have opinions on the conversation of digital immigrants and digital natives, some of which agree with Boyd. Nigel Coutts extends Boyd’s argument that these terms given to different generation are in fact not realistic and do not accurately represent a whole generation of people. He makes an important and new point that technology does not always mean in a classroom or work setting, but many “digital natives” are in fact digitally intelligent on things like video games. He claims that digital natives “rely on instant gratification from game play but lack the required grit and resilience to move forward when this is lacking,” and that they instead should be “shown how to learn and how to use their digital tools for learning” (Coutts). This furthers and extends Boyd’s claims by arguing that digital natives may not be universally tech-savvy in terms of work, but most of them do know a thing or two about video games. If they used this knowledge in a work setting, they would be much more useful and be respected by older people.
Although people tend to think that younger people, or digital natives, are naturally more in-touch with technology because of when they were born, Coutts agrees with Boyd on the fact that this is not always the case. He writes, “The reality is that it is not one’s age which determines one’s level of engagement with technology but one’s disposition towards it” (Coutts). Many older generations are actually quite up to date when it comes to technology, because they want to be or because their work forces them to be. Other people may choose not to get on the bandwagon of using the internet for everything, but that is their choice. This does not mean that digital immigrants are unable to adapt or learn, however. Coutts even admits that, “some of the most successful integrators of technology I have encountered are (in my politest voice) ‘older members’ of the profession” (Coutts). This further extends Boyd’s argument that their generation does not determine level of knowledge on technology. Nigel Coutts and Danah Boyd both claim that digital natives can be out of touch with technology, and digital immigrants can actually adapt and learn about technology if they wish to.
Another article, written by Ofer Zur and Azzia Walker, agrees with Boyd’s argument about how the terms digital natives and digital immigrants should not be used to determine different generations and their relationships with technology. They further her claims that digital natives can be out of touch with technology, while digital immigrants can actually be in touch. Although they agree with Boyd’s claims, they also extend her ideas by adding different subcategories of digital immigrants and digital natives. The three subcategories of digital immigrants are “avoiders, reluctant adopters, and enthusiastic adopters” (Zur). Going back to Coutts’ article, these subcategories are based upon one’s disposition towards technology. If they want to use technology, they will enthusiastically adopt it, while people who don’t want to use technology will instead avoid it. Digital native also have three subcategories, which are “avoiders, minimalists, and enthusiastic participants” (Zur). Although young people tend to love and thrive on technology (the enthusiastic participants), there are people who are more hesitant and either choose to use it a minimal amount, or not at all. Although this article goes more into depth on the kind of digital immigrants and digital natives there are, it still agrees with Boyd’s argument that there are very different kinds of people in each of these terms. No matter what generation they were born in, there are still natives that wish to avoid technology, and there are immigrants that choose to adopt it.
Works Cited
Coutts, Nigel. “Revisiting Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” The Learner’s Way, 18 Oct. 2015, thelearnersway.net/ideas/2015/10/18/revisiting-digital-natives-digital-immigrants.
Zur, Ofer, and Azzia Walker. “On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institutions, and the Workplace.” Record Keeping Guidelines in Private Psychotherapy and Counseling Practice, by Ofer Zur, Ph.D., Offered by the Zur Institute for Psychologists, MFTs, SWs, Nurses and Counselors, www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html
Deegan Roecker 