Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants
From DigitalRhetoricCollaborative
“Digital natives” and “digital immigrants” are two terms coined by Marc Prensky in his 2011 article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” The article describes a generational divide between those who grew up after the technology boom in the 1980s and those who grew up before.
Prensky defined digital natives as those who were “born digital” and are “’native speakers’ of the digital language of computers video games and the Internet.” Digital immigrants, on the other hand, are those “who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in [their] lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology.”
Prensky asserted that this divide causes conflict in the workplace, where digital immigrants may struggle to adapt to changing technology, and in education, where digital immigrant instructors “who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”[1]
Many educators and parents embraced the terms as ways to identify learning differences between age groups.
[edit] Controversy
For various reasons, the field of composition does not universally agree on the use or connotations of the terms “digital native” and “digital immigrant.”
The term “digital native,” for example, suggests that all members of this age group are universally technology-savvy, ignoring other factors such as technology exposure and breadth of use.[2] It also does not address economic, cultural, or other divides that may lead to lack of access to the technology.[3]
The connotation of “digital immigrant” suggests that members of this group are slow to pick up on technology and may never quite master it the way digital immigrants can. Use of the term ignores that many members of this age group were in fact the pioneers behind the technology boom of the late 20th century, and that many digital immigrants actually surpass so-called digital natives in their fluency of technology. Furthermore, Angela Haas reminds us that using the term "native" as a metaphor in reference to digital technologies is an appropriation of Indigenous epistemologies. In a similar vein, using the term "immigrant" in this context projects negative deficit-based references to immigrant populations.
Questioning the empirical and theoretical validity of the terms, Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin argued in 2008 that the generation that a person is born into does not determine how well they learn to use technology and that the division between digital natives and digital immigrants is not supported by any empirical research.
[edit] Digital Residents and Digital Visitors
A more recently proposed framework for understanding differences in technology engagement uses the terms “digital visitors” and “digital residents.” Proponents of these alternative terms include David S. White and Alison Le Cornu, who coined the terms in their 2011 article, “Visitors and Residents: A New Typology for Online Engagement.”
As defined by White and Le Cornu, digital residents “see the Web as a place.” They spend time with others online, join digital communities, and use the internet to express opinions and form relationships. They are content with developing an online identity, and see the internet as a network.
Digital visitors, on the other hand, “understand the Web as akin to an untidy garden tool shed. They have defined a goal or task and go into the shed to select an appropriate took which they use to attain their goal.” They are not adverse to technology, but may be hesitant to create a digital identity – opting instead for technology platforms that provide some sort of “concrete benefit.” White and LeCornu asserted that the digital visitors and digital residents framework should be seen as a continuum, rather than a binary division.
