Introduction
The issue of Indigenous people and digital immigrants is controversial in education. Bennett et al. (2008) and Bullen et al. (2011) significantly contribute to this ongoing debate by bringing unique perspectives to Digital Aboriginality and its educational implications. This article will deconstruct Bennett et al. and Brun et al.’s advanced arguments by comparing their basic concepts, assumptions, and implications for practice. By examining the diverse perspectives of these scholars, we gain critical insight into the complexity of digital literacy and its role in current educational development.
Critical Comparison
In a critical analysis of the claims made by Bennett et al. (2008) and Bullen et al. (2011), it is essential to assess the supporting documentation that each author offers. According to Bennett et al. (2008), the idea of a “digital society” oversimplifies how individuals engage with technology. They question the literature supporting the idea of Digital Aboriginality, point out inconsistencies in research findings, and seek to highlight the many disadvantages of digital literacy. Bullen et al. (2011) suggest that generational differences are not the only factor affecting digital competence. They suggest that digital literacy is associated with personal learning experiences and cultural backgrounds.
Bennett et al. (2008) used a visual search and literature review to support their research. They reviewed the results of various studies and identified differences in the literature supporting a digital society. They also provide examples of educational strategies that fail to meet students’ digital literacy needs. In comparison, Bullen et al. (2011) support their claims with good data and design. They emphasized that social norms, as well as personal experiences, should be taken into account when making digital literacy decisions. They also provide examples of graduate programs that support diversity and change in digital literacy.
The argument presented by Bennett et al. (2008) is predicated on the idea that there are multiple dimensions to digital literacy, which make it impossible to attribute them to generational disparities. They postulated that factors other than age, such as socioeconomic status and access to technology, impacted a person’s digital competency. In comparison, Bullen et al. (2011) argue that focusing on generational differences in digital resources ignores students’ diverse experiences and backgrounds. They believe digital literacy is a multifaceted concept influenced by culture and personal learning.
Bennett et al. (2008) argue that teachers should integrate and adapt to digital learning. They propose instructional technologies that meet students’ digital literacy needs by challenging the concept of a digital society. Bullen et al. (2011) argue that knowing the cultural aspects of digital information is essential. They agree that education reflects diversity and considers students from different backgrounds and experiences when developing digital resources.
To sum up, Bennett et al. (2008) and Bullen et al. (2011) highlight the difficulties associated with digital literacy and how it affects schooling. Bullen et al. (2008) and Bennett et al. challenged the idea of a “digital society” and demanded a more thorough definition of “digital literacy.” Bullen et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of social norms and personal knowledge in creating digital resources. Their opposition overlooks the importance of critical educators assessing the current context of digital literacy and using inclusive strategies to meet the student’s diverse needs.
Identifying The Key Issues or Debates
Indicate essential points or arguments. Bennett et al. (2008) and Bullen et al. (2011) require understanding the author’s arguments and how they relate to broader debates in science education. First, the main points of Bennett et al.’s (2008) paper are a critical examination of the idea of Aboriginality and an assessment of the data that backs it up. The authors intend to challenge the oversimplified differentiation between digital natives and immigrants by emphasizing the intricacy of digital literacy and its implications for schooling. Their goal is to inspire educators and decision-makers to have a more thorough understanding of digital literacy and its application in real-world settings. The authors draw connections between educational technology, digital literacy, and pedagogy. Their target audience comprises teachers, researchers, and policymakers interested in technology education and digital literacy programs.
Bullen et al. (2011) adopt a different approach and state that generational differences are not the only factor affecting digital competence in higher education. Their main goal is to disprove the common belief that many Aboriginal people are mentally disabled due to their age. Instead, they promote a broader understanding of digital literacy, including personal and cultural learning. The author’s interests include instructional technology, digital education and higher education. Their target audience includes teachers, administrators, and researchers interested in digital teaching and student learning outcomes.
The concept of Digital Aboriginality and its impact on education forms the basis of the discussion in two articles. Bennett et al. Bullen et al. (2008) criticized this idea and suggested a more comprehensive approach. (2011) questions the assumption that generational differences define digital skills. The present discourse surrounding digital literacy is enriched by these two papers, which emphasize educators’ need to modify their technology in response to the evolving requirements of the modern student body.
Conclusion
The publications by Bullen et al. (2011) and Bennett et al. (2008) provide insight into complex conversations about indigenous peoples in the classroom. A more thorough understanding of digital literacy is demanded by Bennett et al., Bullen, and others, who critically critique the idea of a “digital society.” Push for more integration and refute the belief that digital competency is only determined by generational disparities. These factors demonstrate the complexity of digital literacy and the requirement that educators create adaptable lesson plans that consider various cultural and educational trends of the digital age.
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007. 00793.x
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/