Website Critcism 2

This website article was written in May/June 2003 which means that some of the arguments and examples could be updated to make sure the arguments and facts are correct. In his counter argument he talks about the bombardment of the internet in people’s every day life and that this has an effect on making sure the students think a lot more critically about what messages they accept. 6 years later is this still the case? Or have the audience become desensitized to the bombardment of the internet and accept it as the norm and consequently weakened their critical thinking about what they read on the net?

This website considers the counter argument rather than just accepting the concept of Digital Native and Digital Immigrants; this is good for the reader because it makes them think a lot more critically of the terms and gives those ideas about how to think differently about them. Other ideas which are raised that criticise Prensky’s ideas is ‘are all students exposed to video games?’ and other pieces of technology which may effect how they learn, the answer to this is no which questions some of his ideas. Prensky's idea gives a generalisation to society which i don't think is neccessarily true. Just because you are catergorised under a definition doesn't mean you will act like it. Some children prefer to use technology, when others prefer to play sports, yet there is no mention of this in his theory.

However, because this writer is only explaining his point of view, it could question the usability of the site because it is just one persons opinion. There are no proven facts or figures which suggest his ideas are true, or that the students who use computers will get worse grades etc.