David Weinberger discusses the internet as a new world we have created for each other, a world that consists of no rules and believes that this is something that is important, so we are able to break away from our normal and arbitrary daily lives. [12] He states that “the internet is a new world to us that we are new to and are currently inhabiting, learning as we go. Similarly to settlers of a country, however there is no landscape, time or space”. [14]
Marc Prensky on the other hand, mainly discusses the differences between “Digital Natives” and “Digital Immigrants”. “Digital Natives” are discussed as being self taught, knowledgeable of the internet and are often of a younger generation, whereas “Digital Immigrants” are newer to the internet, ignorant of how to use many things online/via the internet and are often of an older generation. [7]
Why is the internet of such great importance to modern day society?
The internet is argued to be one of the best theoretical and practical learning tools available, and thus must take advantage of it as much as possible. David Weinberger and Marc Prensky discuss “e-learning” as an important modern tool in that it enables us to learn faster, more effectively and more efficiently through a mere click of a mouse. [7] [12] Not only can we learn individually through the internet but we are able to quickly share our knowledge with each other also, and thus are able to grow and evolve together. [3] Studies have shown that within the realm of education that teachers, parents, administrators and instructors must bridge the learning gap that exists between Digital Natives and the Digital Immigrants by becoming more up to date and computer savvy. [8]
“The single biggest problem facing education today is that our digital immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language”. [8] There are arguments toward the need to be able to steer in the right direction and find a common ground where children’s learning is facilitated through their preferred learning choice; the internet. [1] [6] David Weinberger discusses that the internet enables us to get away from the restrictions of our everyday world, and allows us to be as free as humanly and digitally possible. [12] When we go online we can become whomever we like and discuss matters that are taboo (such as women discussing sex or boyfriends in Iran) [5] or just plain embarrassing (such as discreetly looking for information about how to get rid of an STD). Online Weblogs can be thought of as an ideal place for such discussion and is important in one’s everyday freedom of speech, regardless of what country one lives in. [13]
Possibly one of the strongest arguments as to why the internet is so important to us now is “life after death” and evolution. Through the web, and as illustrated by Prensky, one can literally live forever and be remembered through posted words, pictures and video displays. [7] Not everyone leaves behind their legacies and is able to, or wants to create children. We all want to leave behind something; the internet is undoubtedly a perfect outlet for all beings to do so, regardless of age, sex or ethnicity. It can also be suggested that due to the curious nature of all humans, the search and thus development of the internet will not cease until it is mastered, as illustrated by Weinberger. [12]
However, criticism must also be taken into consideration when contemplating if Marc Prensky’s “Emerging Online Life of The Digital Native” [7] and David Weinberger’s “A New World” [12] are both accurate portrayals. It has been argued that the internet and Marc Prensky’s terminology of Digital Natives are incorrect. Opposing arguments state that the majority of students are in fact not very sophisticated or knowledgeable in their use of information technologies, and show very little intention of learning anything but the most basic skills. [4] Furthermore, studies have found that students were more eager to use computers at home than in school. Their reasons were that they felt too limited in the time they had to use the computers. It is also argued that people of a younger generation are better at using computers for things such as “looking up cheats for computer games”, although not for important things such as searching and accessing information for a school project. [2]
Not only have opposing arguments attempted to debunk the definitions of “Digital Natives”, but Weinberger’s outlook of a “New World” must also be thought about in somewhat of a critical manner. Studies conducted have found that Internet addiction is an emerging clinical disorder that can impair individual’s academic, social and occupational areas. [9] This suggests that even though we may in fact be moving towards and inhibiting a “New World”, [12] we must continuously be aware of the potential hazards that exist for individuals who spend too much time on their computer and fall victim to this modern addiction.
In conclusion, both supporting and opposing arguments must be taken into consideration since the viewpoints of the internet can become quite complex, and are far from concrete or objective. However, it can be said that the internet does not discriminate and the freedom it supplies is second to none. We may indeed make mistakes along the way, and it may have its underlying and apparent faults, although there is a need in continuing to find these faults and to constantly make and overcome these mistakes in order for our societies to learn, grow and evolve together. Even though we can be made aware of the criticisms against Marc Prensky and David Weinberger, we should still be attempting to make this “New World” [12] second nature to us, by becoming and maintaining ourselves as “Digital Natives”, [7] so as not to be left behind; because whether we like it or not change is inevitable.
References
[1] Adlington, Rachael, & Hansford, Diane 2008, ‘Digital spaces and young people’s online authoring: Challenges for teachers’, National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 1-13.
[2] Bennett, Sue, Maton, Karl, & Kervin, Lisa 2008, ‘The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 775–786.
[3] Downes, Stephen 2010, ‘Learning networks and connective knowledge’, IGI Global, pp. 1-26.
[4] Herold, David K. n.d., ‘Digital na(t)ives: Discourses of exclusion in an inclusive society’ (No journal).
[5] Hevern, Vincent W. 2004, ‘Threaded identity in cyberspace: Weblogs & positioning in the dialogical self’, Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 321–335.
[6] Mentis, Alexander n.d., ‘Virtual learning and the tech generation debate’, (No journal).
[7] Prensky, Marc 2004, ‘Emerging online life of the digital native’, (No journal), pp. 1-14.
[8] Rich, Jim n.d., ‘Prensky’s Digital natives versus digital immigrants: Urban legend, fact, or fiction?’, (No journal), pp. 1-17.
[9] Young, Kimberly S. 1998, ‘Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder’, CyberPsychology & Behaviour, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 237-244.
[10] Lyricsbox 2009, viewed 16 October 2009,
[11] Shorter College n.d., Livingston Libraries, viewed 16 October 2009,
[12] Weinberger, David 2002, A New World, viewed 9 October 2009,
[13] Weinberger, David 2008, ‘Everything is miscellaneous’, Topic Maps, Oslo. http://www.topicmaps.com/tm2008/weinberger.pdf
[14] Yee, Danny, 2002, Small pieces loosely joined: a unified theory of the web, viewed 16 October 2009,
