there are 3 discussion questions and one mini research need to write

timer Asked: Dec 28th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $35

Question description

You can find questions and material from attachment which was called "question and material".

Each discussion need 150 words and mini research need 300- 500 words.

I also post rubric so please read it first and totally follow it pls.

Reading material 1. “What is digital culture” “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” Marc Prensky (attachment) 3. Herbert Marshall McLuhan (July 21, 1911 – December 31, 1980) was a Canadian professor, philosopher, and public intellectual. His work is one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory. McLuhan is known for coining the expression "the medium is the message," though in the book published with Quentin Fiore due to an error the title was typecast as "massage," but McLuhan loved the typo and decided to keep it. So the title has four different readings, Message, Mess Age, Massage, Massage. McLuhan is also noted for predicting the World Wide Web almost 30 years before it was invented. He was a fixture in media discourse in the late 1960s, though his influence began to wane in the early 1970s. In the years after his death, he continued to be a controversial figure in academic circles.With the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web interest was renewed in his work and perspective. For more background check out this short documentary! 4. The Medium is the Massage Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore(attachment) 5. Singularities-Technoculture, Transhumanism, and Science Fiction in the 21st Century-Introduction Joshua Raulerson (2013)(attachment) 2. 6. this) 7. Watch: “White Christmas” (Black Mirror, Season 2 Episode 4) (2014)(find it on youtube) Response Question1: How does Prensky define "Digital Natives" and "Digital Immigrants"? In what ways do you feel like one, both, or neither of these labels in your everyday life? Prensky's article is from 2001, does it still ring true today? Response Question2: To what extent has society changed in the ways that McLuhan predicted? Does the Internet fit into McLuhan's conception of an electronic medium? What might he have to say about the Singularity theory? Response Question3: Quoted in "After New Media: Everywhere Always On": "The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it" (161). Discuss this quote in light of the Black Mirror episode "White Christmas," please provide specific examples from the episode Mini research question: Please conduct a short Interview (~15 min) with someone in your life or that you know that experienced the “technological turn,” Parents generation or even grandparents. Ask them about their personal experiences, how it was before, how it is now- what do they see in the future? Would they rather go back to the way things were before? Please include direct quotes. Your paper may have integrated audio or video. Please summarize the interview, briefly include your personal reactions, and then discuss the interview in light of the readings and media we have explored this week. What can learn about our current position on the Digital Culture "time line"? How can we predict what it might be like moving foward? [FORMAT: The paper should be 300-500 words and feature your name, Times-NewRoman 12, double spaced]
Paper Grading Codes I. Title II. Introduction Distinguished Proficient Developing Novice 1. Interesting title anticipated a strong and unique reading of the text(s). (2) 2. Title anticipates a narrow reading of the text(s). (1) 3. Title is too broad and general. (0.5) 4. No title. 5. Title equals title of text(s). (0) 1. Compelling & original way of framing the texts 3. Strong introduction, offered a good motivation for the paper and/or a good background to the texts. 5. Introduction was unclear or incoherent in its phrasing. 9. No introduction 6. Your introduction was structurally disorganized. 10. Introduction is excessively short. 2. Original and thought provoking way of responding to the question(s) asked. (12) 4. Your introduction provided a clear understanding of the topic and a direct response to the question. (10) 7. Introduction did not offer enough background/motivation for the paper. 11. Introduction clearly does not address the question/assignment. (6) 8. Your introduction did not directly respond to or relate to the question/assignment asked. (8) III. Thesis Statement 1. Your thesis was incisive and highly original. 3. Your thesis was somewhat limited but presented a clear and worthwhile argument. 5. The thesis of your paper may have been clearly stated, but was excessively vague or broad. 2. Anticipated and refuted counter-arguments in a compelling way. (17) 4. Your thesis highlighted the structure of the paper to come. 6. It was not clear what the structure of your paper would be from your thesis. (15) 7. The thesis of your paper did not advance or attempt to defend an argument. 9. No thesis. 10. Irrelevant thesis that does not address the question/assignment. 11. Thesis statement is based on major inaccuracies. (11) 8. The thesis of your paper did not advance or attempt to defend an argument—because it hinged on a personal opinion that went undefended in your paper. (13) IV. Overall Structure & Organization 1. Lively, well paced, exciting to read. A distinctive and engaging prose style. 2. Original and thoughtful way of proceeding through your argument. (15) 1. Very strong and compelling development of your ideas. V. Topic Sentences 2. Topic sentences thoughtfully related back to your thesis, often in an original way. 3. Well-organized and clear overall structure, made your paper easy to read. 4. Good transitions between ideas and subarguments (between the thesis and your body paragraphs) (13) 1. Suggested a strong command of the readings. 8. Unclear or absent structure. 6. Poor, insufficient, or absent transitions, made reading the paper difficult. 9. No transitions. (9) 7. Paragraphs are inconsistently long or short for no obvious reason. (11) 3. Your arguments were highly consistent. 5. Your topic sentences did not signal the evidence to come. 9. No topic sentences. 4. Your arguments/topic sentences offered us a good sense of transition between your larger argument and your close readings or evidence. 6. Your arguments were not internally consistent. 10. Topic sentences reveal an inaccurate reading of the text(s). (4) (8) 7. Where your topic sentences should have provided an argument or sub-argument, you offered a summary or quotation. 8. Your arguments (about form) needed to be framed more aggressively in literary terms. (6) 5. The body of your paper was presented in a structured and orderly way, with a clear general 9. Despite a clear and interesting thesis, yours was a paper with insufficient supporting evidence. (10) VI. Body Paragraphs/ Evidence 5. Poor or unclear overall structure or organization 13. The paragraphs do not hold together; ideas do not develop between sentences. flow of ideas. 2. Incisive and highly relevant sub-arguments. 3. Streamlined presentation of your thoughts. 6. Your sub-arguments were clear and germane, and organized around a main idea that directly related to your thesis. 10. Your paper did not use supporting evidence well. It was insufficiently discussed or explained and ultimately unpersuasive. 11. Your selection of evidence was not directly related to your argument. As a result your body paragraphs lacked coherence. 7. At times your prose was somewhat unwieldy and 4. Highly original connections between the readings. needed to be streamlined or made more clear, but your overall purpose and general intention carried through. (20) 14. The paper is highly repetitive. 15. Evidence is not relevant to the argument. 16. Evidence is contradictory or inaccurate. (14) 12. Your evidence needed to be framed more aggressively in literary terms. The body of your evidence often lapsed into summary rather than analysis. (16) 8. At times it was unclear how your evidence supported your claim. (18) 1. Compelling, thought provoking conclusion. VII. Conclusion 3. Good conclusion to the discussion. Added a sense of coherence and cohesion by bringing together the main points of the essay. 5. No clear conclusion to your paper. 4. Concluded with one or two strong, relevant questions (if left unanswered) raised by the paper topic. (8) 7. Conclusion restates or paraphrases the introduction. 1.Required length for the assignment is met. 2. Essay may be lengthier than required but there is a clear and convincing argumentative reason for this. (3) 3. Length for the assignment is almost met (more than half way of last page). 5. Length for the assignment is barely met (top of last page). 7. Length is not met. 6. Essay is “padded” with repetitive and circuitous wording. (0) 4. Essay is shorter than required but this does not sacrifice quality. (2) (1) 1. Bibliographical materials and references are clearly and deftly cited in the text and in the Works Cited page. 2. Excellent use of references. 3. References are from peerreviewed sources or reputable academic sources. (3) 4. Essay contains a Works Cited or Bibliography but it does not follow a specific style (MLA, Chicago, APA, etc). 5. References are used to hide original arguments. (2) 6. Essay contains references in the body but does not contain a Works Cited or Bibliography page. 7. References are not from peer-reviewed or reputable academic sources. (1) 8. No references used. 9. No Works Cited or Bibliography page. 1. Excellent presentation 3. More than two or three major proofreading or spelling errors. 7. Your paper had more than 5-6 mechanical faults—major errors in grammar and spelling. This made the paper difficult to read. 9. Filled with mechanical faults, errors in grammar and spelling. This made the paper distracting or impossible to read. 4. Good overall presentation, but a few suggestions for improvement. 8. Heavy repetition of sentence structure. 2. Thoughtful, innovative connections beyond the scope of the assignment. (10) VIII. Length IX. Bibliography or Works Cited, & References Used X. Overall Presentation 2. Perhaps a proofreading error or two—but easy to overlook given the overall strengths of the paper. 6. Conclusion was taken from other parts of your paper verbatim. (6) 5. Try to vary the way you present your evidence/quotations. 6. Consider varying your sentence structure to make your prose more lively and engaging. (6) (0) (2) (4) (8) 8. No conclusion evident. (0)
COMPLIT 236 Digital Culture Winter 2018 Short response and comments grading rubric Content & creativity 50% Voice & Style 20% Use of digital tools 20% Courtesy 10% 100% Excellent (A) The post is focused and coherently integrates examples with explanations or analysis. It considers multiple perspectives when appropriate, and it reflects in-depth engagement with the topic. The post reflects the author’s unique critical understanding of the topic and the writing is engaging, coherent and language brings the topic to life. Authors selects and inserts multimedia elements when appropriate and shows understanding of the tools at hand. The post was written on time and the writing style is thoughtful, clear, and appeals to the reader. 85% Proficient (B) The post is reasonably focused, and the analysis is mostly based on examples, and/or there are fewer connections between ideas, or ideas are not fully developed. The post reflects moderate engagement with the topic. The post reflects a bit of critical understanding of the topic, and/or there are some structural issues while author tries to be engaging. Author selects and inserts multimedia elements that enhance and clarify the content. The post was written on time but there are some typos and/or grammatical issues. 70% Underdeveloped (C) The blog post is mostly description or summary, without consideration of alternative perspectives, and few connections are made between ideas. Engagement with the topic seems limited. The post reflects almost no critical understanding of the topic and little attempt is made to engage the reader. Language choice is ineffective or boring. The choice of multimedia elements does not contribute to the content in any meaningful way. The post was written on time but stylistic issues make reading challenging, and/or was written reasonably late (the weekend after due date). 60% Limited (D) The blog post is unfocused, or simply rehashes previous comments, and displays no evidence of student engagement with the topic. The post does not reflect the author’s critical engagement with the text and there is no attempt to catch the reader’s attention. Language is careless, repetitive and/or inadequate. No use whatsoever of multimedia content and/or poor use of the blogging platform. The post was written beyond reasonable lateness and/or stylistic issues make it unreadable. 0% The blog post is missing. COMPLIT 236 Digital Culture Winter 2018 Comments grading rubric 100% Excellent (A) The blog comments are completed on time and demonstrate considerable effort to engage with the topic as it was proposed by the other student. Comments reflect the author’s thoughts and opinions and are thoughtful, constructive, and respectful. 85% Proficient (B) The blog comments are completed on time and demonstrate some effort to engage with the topic as it was proposed by the other student in a respectful way. Comments fail to fully develop ideas while trying to be constructive and add to the discussion. 70% Underdeveloped (C) The blog comments are completed within reasonable lateness and/or fail to engage with the topic as it was proposed by the other student. Comments are standard and do not reflect the author’s thoughts and opinions. 60% Limited (D) The blog comments are completed beyond reasonable lateness and/or demonstrate no effort to engage with the topic as it was proposed by the other student. Language is faulty, unreadable, and content misses the point of the original post. 0% The blog comments are missing, are disrespectful, or show complete disregard for the original post or its discussion.
Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants By Marc Prensky From On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001) © 2001 Marc Prensky It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. Today‟s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century. Today‟s students – K through college – represent the first generations to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Today‟s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives. It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today‟s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures, “ says Dr. Bruce D. Perry of Baylor College of Medicine. As we shall see in the next installment, it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed. I will get to how they have changed in a minute. What should we call these “new” students of today? Some refer to them as the N-[for Net]-gen or D-[for digital]-gen. But the most useful designation I have found for them is Digital Natives. Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many 1 Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them, Digital Immigrants. The importance of the distinction is this: As Digital Immigrants learn – like all immigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree, their "accent," that is, their foot in the past. The “digital immigrant accent” can be seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first, or in reading the manual for a program rather than assuming that the program itself will teach us to use it. Today‟s older folk were "socialized" differently from their kids, and are now in the process of learning a new language. And a language learned later in life, scientists tell us, goes into a different part of the brain. There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing out your email (or having your secretary print it out for you – an even “thicker” accent); needing to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen); and bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL). I‟m sure you can think of one or two examples of your own without much effort. My own favorite example is the “Did you get my email?” phone call. Those of us who are Digital Immigrants can, and should, laugh at ourselves and our “accent.” But this is not just a joke. It‟s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our 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. This is obvious to the Digital Natives – school often feels pretty much as if we‟ve brought in a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners to lecture them. They often can‟t understand what the Immigrants are saying. What does “dial” a number mean, anyway? Lest this perspective appear radical, rather than just descriptive, let me highlight some of the issues. Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work. (Does any of this sound familiar?) But Digital Immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the Natives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice. These skills are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned – and so choose to teach – slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously. “My students just don‟t _____ like they used to,” Digital Immigrant educators grouse. I can‟t get them to ____ or to ____. They have no appreciation for _____ or _____ . (Fill in the blanks, there are a wide variety of choices.) 2 Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ Digital Immigrants don‟t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can‟t. Of course not – they didn‟t practice this skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can‟t (or shouldn‟t) be fun. Why should they – they didn‟t spend their formative years learning with Sesame Street. Unfortunately for our Digital Immigrant teachers, the people sitting in their classes grew up on the “twitch speed” of video games and MTV. They are used to the instantaneity of hypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamed messages and instant messaging. They‟ve been networked most or all of their lives. They have little patience for lectures, step-by-step logic, and “tell-test” instruction. Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today‟s learners are different. “” said a kindergarten student recently at lunchtime. “Every time I go to school I have to power down,” complains a high-school student. Is it that Digital Natives can’t pay attention, or that they choose not to? Often from the Natives‟ point of view their Digital Immigrant instructors make their education not worth paying attention to compared to everything else they experience – and then they blame them for not paying attention! And, more and more, they won‟t take it. “I went to a highly ranked college where all the professors came from MIT,” says a former student. “But all they did was read from their textbooks. I quit.” In the giddy internet bubble of a only a short while ago – when jobs were plentiful, especially in the areas where school offered little help – this was a real possibility. But the dot-com dropouts are now returning to school. They will have to confront once again the Immigrant/Native divide, and have even more trouble given their recent experiences. And that will make it even harder to teach them – and all the Digital Natives already in the system – in the traditional fashion. So what should happen? Should the Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should their Digital Immigrant educators learn the new? Unfortunately, no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards. In the first place, it may be impossible – their brains may already be different. It also flies in the face of everything we know about cultural migration. Kids born into any new culture learn the new language easily, and forcefully resist using the old. Smart adult immigrants accept that they don‟t know about their new world and take advantage of their kids to help them learn and integrate. Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible) immigrants spend most of their time grousing about how good things were in the “old country.” So unless we want to just forget about educating Digital Natives until they grow up and do it themselves, we had better confront this issue. And in so doing we need to reconsider both our methodology and our content. 3 Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ First, our methodology. Today‟s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students. This doesn’t mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills. But it does mean going faster, less step-by step, more in parallel, with more random access, among other things. Educators might ask “But how do we teach logic in this fashion?” While it‟s not immediately clear, we do need to figure it out. Second, our content. It seems to me that after the digital “singularity” there are now two kinds of content: “Legacy” content (to borrow the computer term for old systems) and “Future” content. “Legacy” content includes reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, understanding the writings and ideas of the past, etc – all of our “traditional” curriculum. It is of course still important, but it is from a different era. Some of it (such as logical thinking) will continue to be important, but some (perhaps like Euclidean geometry) will become less so, as did Latin and Greek. “Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. This “Future” content is extremely interesting to today‟s students. But how many Digital Immigrants are prepared to teach it? Someone once suggested to me that kids should only be allowed to use computers in school that they have built themselves. It‟s a brilliant idea that is very doable from the point of view of the students‟ capabilities. But who could teach it? As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change of methodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It‟s not actually clear to me which is harder – “learning new stuff” or “learning new ways to do old stuff.” I suspect it‟s the latter. So we have to invent, but not necessarily from scratch. Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives has already been done successfully. My own preference for teaching Digital Natives is to invent computer games to do the job, even for the most serious content. After all, it‟s an idiom with which most of them are totally familiar. Not long ago a group of professors showed up at my company with new computer-aided design (CAD) software they had developed for mechanical engineers. Their creation was so much better than what people were currently using that they had assumed the entire engineering world would quickly adopt it. But instead they encountered a lot of resistance, due in large part to the product‟s extremely steep learning curve – the software contained hundreds of new buttons, options and approaches to master. 4 Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ Their marketers, however, had a brilliant idea. Observing that the users of CAD software were almost exclusively male engineers between 20 and 30, they said “Why not make the learning into a video game!” So we invented and created for them a computer game in the “first person shooter” style of the consumer games Doom and Quake, called The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy. Its player becomes an intergalactic secret agent who has to save a space station from an attack by the evil Dr. Monkey Wrench. The only way to defeat him is to use the CAD software, which the learner must employ to build tools, fix weapons, and defeat booby traps. There is one hour of game time, plus 30 “tasks,” which can take from 15 minutes to several hours depending on one‟s experience level. Monkey Wrench has been phenomenally successful in getting young people interested in learning the software. It is widely used by engineering students around the world, with over 1 million copies of the game in print in several languages. But while the game was easy for my Digital Native staff to invent, creating the content turned out to be more difficult for the professors, who were used to teaching courses that started with “Lesson 1 – the Interface.” We asked them instead to create a series of graded tasks into which the skills to be learned were embedded. The professors had made 5-10 minute movies to illustrate key concepts; we asked them to cut them to under 30 seconds. The professors insisted that the learners to do all the tasks in order; we asked them to allow random access. They wanted a slow academic pace, we wanted speed and urgency (we hired a Hollywood script writer to provide this.) They wanted written instructions; we wanted computer movies. They wanted the traditional pedagogical language of “learning objectives,” “mastery”, etc. (e.g. “in this exercise you will learn…”); our goal was to completely eliminate any language that even smacked of education. In the end the professors and their staff came through brilliantly, but because of the large mind-shift required it took them twice as long as we had expected. As they saw the approach working, though, the new “Digital Native” methodology became their model for more and more teaching – both in and out of games – and their development speed increased dramatically. Similar rethinking needs to be applied to all subjects at all levels. Although most attempts at “edutainment” to date have essentially failed from both the education and entertainment perspective, we can – and will, I predict – do much better. In math, for example, the debate must no longer be about whether to use calculators and computers – they are a part of the Digital Natives‟ world – but rather how to use them to instill the things that are useful to have internalized, from key skills and concepts to the multiplication tables. We should be focusing on “future math” – approximation, statistics, binary thinking. In geography – which is all but ignored these days – there is no reason that a generation that can memorize over 100 Pokémon characters with all their characteristics, history and evolution can‟t learn the names, populations, capitals and relationships of all the 101 nations in the world. It just depends on how it is presented. 5 Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky _____________________________________________________________________________ We need to invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using our students to guide us. The process has already begun – I know college professors inventing games for teaching subjects ranging from math to engineering to the Spanish Inquisition. We need to find ways of publicizing and spreading their successes. A frequent objection I hear from Digital Immigrant educators is “this approach is great for facts, but it wouldn‟t work for „my subject.‟” Nonsense. This is just rationalization and lack of imagination. In my talks I now include “thought experiments” where I invite professors and teachers to suggest a subject or topic, and I attempt– on the spot – to invent a game or other Digital Native method for learning it. Classical philosophy? Create a game in which the philosophers debate and the learners have to pick out what each would say. The Holocaust? Create a simulation where students role-play the meeting at Wannsee, or one where they can experience the true horror of the camps, as opposed to the films like Schindler’s List. It‟s just dumb (and lazy) of educators – not to mention ineffective – to presume that (despite their traditions) the Digital Immigrant way is the only way to teach, and that the Digital Natives‟ “language” is not as capable as their own of encompassing any and every idea. So if Digital Immigrant educators really want to reach Digital Natives – i.e. all their students – they will have to change. It‟s high time for them to stop their grousing, and as the Nike motto of the Digital Native generation says, “Just do it!” They will succeed in the long run – and their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them. See also: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: The scientific evidence behind the Digital Native’s thinking changes, and the evidence that Digital Native-style learning works! Marc Prensky is an internationally acclaimed thought leader, speaker, writer, consultant, and game designer in the critical areas of education and learning. He is the author of Digital Game-Based Learning (McGraw-Hill, 2001), founder and CEO of Games2train, a game-based learning company, and founder of The Digital Multiplier, an organization dedicated to eliminating the digital divide in learning worldwide. He is also the creator of the sites , and . Marc holds an MBA from Harvard and a Masters in Teaching from Yale. More of his writings can be found at . Contact Marc at . 6

Tutor Answer

School: Boston College

please find the attached file. let me know if you need any adjustments. i look forward to working with you again. good bye


How Digital Technology has Transitioned Life
Student’s Name




How Digital Technology has Transitioned Life
Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants
Technology development has played a key role in influencing the different generations.
The groups of people that are born during the digital era and in a context technology endowed
society are the digital natives according to Prensky. The generation is a native speaker of the
digital language (Prensky, 2001). However, the digital immigrants are the generation that has
witnessed the transition from the analog world to the digital world and has adopted into the new
digital world. When I reflect on the ideas of digital natives and digital immigrants I would rank
myself as a digital native as I grew up in a digital society though technology development was
not intensive. Although the ideas of Prensky were developed in 2001 they still make sense as
technology growth and development takes place at a rapid pace (Prensky, 2001). The digital
immigrants still exist especially the parents and teachers who constantly have to question some
issues like phone settings and applicat...

flag Report DMCA

Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors