Reading Response for September 23
What do you think are Boyd’s most important claims? Why?
- Boyd’s most important claims include that today’s teens are “digital natives” because they’ve grown up around technology whereas adults that are apart of Gen X, are considered “digital immigrants” (176). This is an important claim he makes because today’s teens are deeply engaged with technology consisting of social media and media networks. Boyd compares this to the literal meaning of “natives” and “immigrants”- that digital natives are extremely familiar with this ground and the ins-and-outs, while digital immigrants are new to this and have a lot to learn within the technological dimension, due to lack of foundation. The foundational aspect is important because Boyd states that today’s teens are learning with technology, while adults learned with physical materials such as books, paper, posters, etc. Another important claim that Boyd makes is that Another important claim is that despite being digital natives, the youth must be media literate. Boyd explains by censorship or inaccurate data provided online can interfere with critical thinking. The youth must be media literate because they must dissect and analyze media artifacts when they are engaging with consumers via the internet (181). Along with this, technical skills are needed to understand the fundamentals of advertising and the uses of computer systems that aren’t clear but are necessary.
Boyd claims the “rhetoric of digital natives” has been damaging. List some problems Boyd associated with the concept.
- Some problems that are associated with this concept is that it’s dangerous to assume that digital natives are automatically informed. There are mismatches across the scene of technology that could lead you to be- misinformed. Another damaging aspect of the rhetoric of digital natives is that this platform is not available to the entire youth population (179). Because of this, Boyd invites a sense of privilege to those who have access to media 24/7. Since we are moving into an extremely technological dependence as a youth, it would be a disadvantage to those who cannot keep up because of priorities (low-income/poverty/ raised to not believe in technology). Along with this, you have to be comfortable using media/ technology to have a good-paying job, managing medical care, engaging with government, etc. (180).
Caulfield also thinks digital literacy has been defined incorrectly. What are his main claims? Do either Boyd or Caulfield’s solutions seem useful?
- Caulfield claims “media literate” students are unable to identify fake stories, misinformation, disinformation, and other forms of spin which is why he believes digital literacy has been defined incorrectly. Caulfield’s solutions consist of knowing the web reading like fact-checkers, Caulfield used examples of “fake” octopi, fake websites, and fake flowers as a “shock factor,” which ultimately is false, while Boyd used examples like Wikipedia and google- the unreliability. I believe their solutions are good in theory, but not in practice. I wish we could all truly know the web 100% and scroll through the web like fact-checkers, but is every individual going to do that? Humans by nature are lazy when it comes to media. The reason why we use it is to search for things quickly, rather than search through dozens of different search engines. However, if we were doing thorough research then this wouldn’t be the case. But usually, we put our trust in the first one or two answers we come across. Caulfield and Boyd’s solutions are useful, to the extent that individuals are going to do this.
Hi Asia!
This is a great response! I really liked that you mentioned their claims are good in theory but not in practice. I strongly agree with this because they did not give any executable actions to implement their desires of media literacy.
When speaking about who is media literate, you mentioned the separation between physical and digital learning platforms. I’ve found that humans are better suited to remember things through physical platforms, but are more efficient time-wise with digital platforms.
Further, I noticed your equivalence of platform availability to literacy. I know it is mentioned in the readings, but I think the implication is that people are drawing this false equivalence and shouldn’t be. The metaphor I sued to describe this is being able to read a book versus being able to find the book. If you can read it, you are able to get the information you need and get the job done, but if you can’t easily find it through the Dewey Decimal system, you are likely to be slowed in your process of information search.
Thank you for the great read!!
LikeLike
Hey Asia!
I like that you identified Boyd’s claims as the youth being digital natives and digitally literate. These concepts form the foundation of her argument and need to be well-defined before identifying what’s wrong with them. Therefore, I think you could’ve added some insight on what the issue is with digital natives existing and whether or not the youth are actually digitally literate.
I took a similar approach to discussing the problem with digital natives by addressing the societal divide between those that can afford devices and thus become more digitally literate and those that have limited use. I found it insightful that you took it one step further to address how this will affect the youth in the future, as employers will be looking for those that are tech-savvy and digitally literate which will increase this gap between the two.
I agree that their solution is not realistic because it is so easy for us to believe the first thing that sounds right that Google gives us. I think it’s important for our education to foster better research habits early on so that we are accustomed to finding and using credible sources. Personally, I’ll admit to my laziness and am more likely to use what comes up on the top of a Google search.
LikeLike