"Digital Native" Homework Blog Post

Blog #2

Homework Blog Post

Jun 30, 2025

Prensky and Spiegel both explain how one’s media use is reflected by their age and comfortability with digital platforms and media. I tend to agree more so with Spiegel’s work, which argues against Prensky’s binary of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants.” 

    Prensky seemingly assumes that because technology is essentially ubiquitous in modern society, young people who grow up with the technology will inherently be what he refers to as a “digital native.” These students, or “natives,” have grown with the technology itself, and as a result, they will be comfortable utilizing and accessing digital tools through which they can learn. Digital “immigrants,” on the other hand, must work to learn the language and modalities of technology, as they were born before a time of widespread technological relevance in education and communication. Prensky’s model represents technology as a language that students already know. As a result, children come to school with knowledge about media and technology that does not need to be overtly taught in the classroom. Spiegel purports that this depiction is overly simplistic. 

Spiegel sees technological use, not as an indication of generational delineation, but as a more complex web of interactions between cognitive networks built by students’ past experiences. For Spiegel, the way that one’s brain is primed to view technology will impact how those utilize the technology. For example, digital “socialites” may use technology for social media, but may lack skills to use platforms outside of these networks, or the ability to conceptualize ideas of online appropriateness or harm through digital communication. 

I tend to agree more with Spiegel, but think the writing is overly critical when reflecting on temporal influences of Prensky’s work. Written in 2001, Prensky could not have anticipated the evolution of technology and its implications on human interaction. For its time, Presnky’s work makes a valiant effort in an attempt to make sense of technology’s learning curve. With a modern lens, however, Spiegel’s argument holds more validity. It is easy to challenge the idea of anyone being a “digital native” as the media landscape is constantly changing, simultaneously influencing and being influenced by users. Spiegel outlines the myriad ways in which technology can serve human purposes. If technological applications are so far-reaching, it would be illogical to assume that anyone with an understanding of one area would be well-versed in all others. In this way, I too would push back against accepting Prensky’s model of the “digital native” and the “digital immigrant.”