This page within the website was posted in October 2007, so it is relatively up to date. The page argues with the concept of digital Immigration and its counterpart. The writer of the article thinks that the term digital immigration is a mere buzz word which has not succeeded in the reason why it was introduced.
The writer agrees with the main arguments of digital immigration that students now think “differently” to how they used too and that teaching institutions need to change. However he does not agree with the reasons for this as set out by X when he defined his definition of Digital Immigration and its counterpart. He instead believes that teaching institutions need to change because of their “increasing complexity of society and globalization”. He believed that students needed to learn how to function in the “world that is unfolding”. So his argument was that people need to know how to be technologically advanced for the future world, but they didn’t need too be taught via technology – “education plays a role in society that goes beyond reacting to emerging trends”.
To be critical towards the writer’s argument, I’d have to say that surely by accepting that students need to be educated so that they are prepared for the world that is unfolding, shows just how much the world has changed, i.e. it is now a lot more technologically dependant than before? However, I guess this doesn’t necessarily mean that technology is the only way students can learn. Or that they need to learn through technology just because of all the technology that is now available. “The school system is in need of overhaul, the overhaul is needed because society has changed, not because learners have iPods.”
Which leads me to think about ‘websites’ that are criticizing the terms of digital immigration and its counterpart when they are using the internet to ‘educate’ us on their opposing argument to digital immigration. Particularly when digital immigrations counterpart usually always check the internet first for information – so really this article is ‘educating’ them on something online, not by other methods… which surely demonstrates the whole concept that generations have changed and there is a divide in terms of how they learn through technology compared to how they used too learn a while back? So surely when the writer says that institutions don’t need to fit in with emerging trends – he, himself is fitting in with the ‘trend’ as he calls it, by educating people of his own opinions online.
This website is difficuilt to read in areas, I had to go over it a few times, but has some interesting points within it. It has a few references, which I think are good ones! It comes from a website which I think is potentially quite academic. It also allows room for people to leave comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good work Megan.
I think I agree with this author. I don't see why universities should have to provide 'on demand' Ipoducation. What works best from a teaching point-of-view is surely the watchword?
I know that the world expects our graduates to be able to do well in many situations -those where someone who can't present drones on interminably and then expects you to distill the sense into a few well chosen paragraphs of a report -or when there is half a clue about a topic which has to be researched online and distilled into a position for presentation to an audience the next day. So digital natives need to be prepared for the world that is still run by DIs, or they will be disempowered, and that's the opposite of education in my book.
(Old fogey rant over ;-) )
I agree that children should be taught in whatever way is most prefered by the teachers, the old traditional methods have never done anyone any harm, so why change them? Saying that though, the old TV without skyplus etc never did anyone any harm, and they're all still always being changed/improved!
I think that half the stuff we learnt at school is not really relevant to life now, but it was the basic's and we learnt just from the experience of learning those not so essential bits of information, so now, why do all these young children need to be so ready for the 'big outside world'?
Don't you think that the basics are still the same? Reading & understanding, arithmetic and logic? Anything else can be self taught (as is the case for most of what an adult knows, given that we forget more-and-more as we grow older!
I would agree that any and everything should be tried as necessary with youngsters who are struggling with reading and maths. But otherwise, I don't think education is improved by being limited to easy-to-consume media. Instead, abroad range of skills should be required by which to learn -as that will more fully empower the students to be 'lifelong learners'.
Post a Comment