Do "Digital Natives" Exist? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios 

"Access does not come packaged with understanding" -- I very much agree with this. I'm a middle school librarian and it's staggering the amount of 11-14 year olds who come down to the library to print out an assignment saved on a USB drive, and they don't know how to do it. They're not taught how to open a document from a portable drive and print in MS Word, because it's assumed they'll just have this knowledge innately. Of course some kids have computers at home, but many still don't. Or they have Macs at home and PCs at school, etc. A lot of kids don't have the fear of "breaking it" that some older people have when learning to use new technology, clicking around and figuring it out etc, but I find there are a lot of basic computer skills that are presumed as a given across the board that people still have to learn.

I think the distinction is too static. Technology is changing so fast that someone like me, a 'digital native' with regards to modern technology, might be soon completely lost when new technology comes out which I would have to learn, and therefore would be a 'digital immigrant'. There is certainly a difference in digital intuition between people - I'm much faster at using unfamiliar technology than my parents - but I think that comes from how much we use technology. If I stop using the latest technology, I'll soon find it harder to use even newer technology.

I think it's important to make the distinction between being comfortable with a world created by technology and being comfortable using that technology. For example, most people below a certain age think of social media as a given. The world of social media is one that they grew up in. ...But to use social media, you need a computer. And most people are very uncomfortable fixing, changing, or troubleshooting a computer. There are sort of two notions of tech-savvy: the tech-savvy user and the tech-savvy creator. I'd argue that "digital natives," if they exist, only exist as tech-savvy users. No has "native" ability to create or modify technology.

An extremely thoughtful analysis of a metaphor that has long since lived past its prime. It was a terribly helpful crutch for many of those so called "digital immigrants" when confronted with students, children, and "youngins" that seemed to magically know how to always change the clock on the flashing VCR, and navigate to a website in the blink of an eye. Having taught in a 1:1 computing environment for 7 years, I can tell you first hand that such a wide sweeping analogy does not hold water. What appears to be an inborn ability to masterfully manipulate all forms of technology is merely the outcomes of repeated practice, repetition, and use of technology by individuals who have been surrounded by it, and choose to develop more efficient means of using it. I regularly see students who have been surrounded by technology all of their lives, and still struggle with many technological skills, especially in the area of productivity.

Agreed. Digital natives is a bad metaphor. Knowing how to use social media to hang out with your close friends doesn't mean you can use it for professional growth, for instance.

I work in academic technology and the phrase "Digital Native" gets swung around like a cudgel almost daily. The problem we see is that educators tend to think anyone under 35 is automatically good with technology and extends no quarter to anyone who isn't. On the other hand, I think it also intimidates older people because the media has taught them that if they don't use twitter they must not "get" technology. This video has just strengthened my belief that we need to stop using this term.

My cultural identity was formed through digital interaction. My education takes place more through digital means than any real-world analogue. My friends, separated by vast physical distances, are just a few keypresses away. I don't think that this is an inherent state of my age or being born into technology, but I do believe that growing up around technology allowed me to develop this sort of familiarity. My talent with computers is grown out of how important they are to my social interaction. I believe that as computers insert themselves into the fundamental fabric of social interaction that the fluency with computing devices will increase simply by virtue of individual practice. So, while I agree with the idea that these traits are learned, I do believe that age does give an idea of how likely people are to have learned these skills.

Mostly when I encounter someone who doesn't understand technology, it is because they don't TRY. I bought my mom a laptop a year ago and she still calls or comes to see me to hand it to me almost weekly to do something for her she can't figure out. The only reason I figured out how to use software that confuses her is because I tinker and poked at them until I understood how certain features worked, actively trying to learn, taking failure (crash for instance) as a teaching tool. Same with hardware. You find things to read through google, learning from those who know more... it is an active thing. You have to try and most of the people who deem themselves tech stupid just haven't put time into it... which is why some of the most popular tech devices and programs/operating systems are based around simplicity and integration.

If I had to be labeled as anything I would think I could be classified a Digital Tom Bombabdil. At 50 I am a geezer but since I have been using the tech as soon as it was born, sometimes before, I have been using and part of it longer than most so called "natives". The idea of there being a "native" in this space is another one of those times that barriers/titles are erected where none should be. We are all shades of competent, passionate and prolific in this and other areas of life. Being born to a certain date does not make one any more or less those things in art, science, tech, music, craft, etc etc etc. Sure you might have better access but what you do with that, I hold, is not bound by your incept date. Participation and passion for those things will be the true tell. I know many younger folks who are brain dead to all but the techs that stimulate the lizard pleasure centers of their brain. Consumer sheeple who trend on life style pastures clueless to what the wide world of the intertubes really has to offer. I know folks as old as sin who make such use of the intertubualr offerings that I am left in humble awe of their ability to constantly adsorb the awesumsauce. So yea, age...feh. Use makes the truth.

I have to say that your videos have gotten better, which isn't to say that they weren't good before but when I watch old videos like "Are you a hipster?" or some of the b-sides everything is of a "better-ness" quality. You guys have adapted and improved so well and thank you for all your information, memes and jokes. They make the world a better place.

Thank you. I work with elementary school kids and while they understand and use computer technology on a regular basis, they aren't "native speakers" they still have to learn how to use them and they are still just kids.

I always thought the distinction was bogus. Spend a little time with students of any age and you will find some who are amazing with technology and some who are not. They are, however, more comfortable trying new things. But in my experience students tend to be more comfortable with any change than teachers are. This is probably more a function of age than generation and we see it manifest more with technology because we're looking for it.

I don't think there's such a thing as Nativity. There are a lot of young people who aren't quite as.. competent with technology. Obviously there's a lot more young people who are actually competent. People learn quicker, or in different ways. My Gran has use her tablet, laptop, and the internet rather well. Some of these "Immigrants" can learn a lot quicker than some "natives" We can't inherently know how to use a computer, but we can get a headstart. We learn a lot quicker the younger we are. I first used the internet when I was 12-13 years old, finally diving in around 14-15 years old. It's really hard to see most internet commenters as older than 30, but I imagine there are a lot more than we think there are.

With the comfort that comes from growing up with something you stop seeing it as strange and dangerous. It removes the fear of it or the fear of it breaking. With the fear removed you are more willing to experiment and that is in many cases what you need to get to know something. Futher, the fact that a baby is able to pick up and use a tablet truly shows that we have come a long way in human-computer interactions.

I think it's completely impossible to define any generation with one sweeping name. Baby boomers might be appropriate in America and Europe but does that apply to Korea? Africa? Peru? All of these names only apply to very small fractions of the population, primarily Anglo-American populations. It gives the implication that as humans we can be put into boxes which contain millions of people. I think culture, class or race might say more about a particular group rather than the year of their birth.

I know people who are my age (24) or younger who aren't extremely adept at using computers, and know some who know a ton and some who are adept. Older people that I know fall along the same spectrum, but many of the more adept ones have learned out of obligation to their jobs. Then there are kids, some of them really young, as well as my own kid who is nearly 5, who are extremely adept. I would imagine it's easier for them to learn, because they're at phases in their lives where their brains more readily learn systems of thought, phases during which they can most easily and effectively learn languages. I really learned to become proficient with computers in high school, a lesser, but still important time for the brain, in which (I think) it has it's last good chance to learn a language.

But how about referring to a digital native as someone who grew up *in* the internet? As someone who absorbed and internalized internet cultured instead of the geographical cultural patterns around them? I've always felt alienated from every place I've lived and haven't ever felt comfortable except on the internet, and so whenever anyone asks where I'm from I feel compelled to reply "the Internet".

I think that while young people are more willing to adapt to new tecnology, most people only know how to use it on a surface level, which makes it all the more important to teach computer skills, but to come at it in a way that makes the students actually understand the technology that they use on a daily basis.

Learning in general is easier the younger you are, period.

What really amaze me (apart from all the interesting topics you guys come up with) is the fact that you talk really really fast but at the same time you modulate a lot so it allows me (a not native english speaker) to understand you all the same, so thank you a lot!! :D

hey mate, you said last video that you read every comment. let me take the time to say that i love everything you do, i love every thought you make me have and i never want you to stop. i hope one day to leave an insightful comment which gets featured and 4:40-4:50 made me crack up laughing- your mouth never ends. you are legendary, keep it up. lloyd

This brings to mind the changes in how we read words themselves, regardless of medium. For example, in Augustine's 6th Confessions book (chapter 3), we have the passage describing an anomaly of the time with the first recorded example of someone reading without moving their lips: "When [Ambrose, Bishop of Milan] read, his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought out the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still. Anyone could approach him freely and guests were not commonly announced, so that often, when we came to visit him, we found him reading like this in silence, for he never read aloud."

In linguistics, part of being a native (speaker) is acquiring a language in its entirety. Regardless of intelligence/other cognitive factors, every single person will learn the entire language system and know all the rules. This is not true at all for "digital natives". In my experience there is a huge difference in skill level from one 'millennial' to the next. This suggests its not a skill acquired automatically, but rather one that is learned.

I don't think Digital Nativism is a thing. We don't refer to people as post-industrialist, printing press natives, or any other "ism" or "ist" associated with technological advances. Also, this is a particularly First World distinction which does not apply to people around the world. And finally, even those of us who were born after 1980 (myself 1983) have been eclipsed by those younger than us in newer and different technologies. Every single person must learn new manifestations of technology, from changes to Facebook and iOS upgrades, to computerized cars and wireless home alarm systems. The constant and rapid evolution of technology makes us all digital immigrants in our own way.

Someone might argue that an AI could be digitally native simply because it was created on a computer, but due to the fact that our knowledge is gained through experience as explained in this video, then the same can be argued for us; if an AI is not digitally native, then we may not be native to the universe in which we exist, at least not in this form of intellectual nativity. All mammals have a part of their brain called the neocortex. It works with all mental processing; from visual processing, to motor skills, to imagination and creativity. You essentially are your neocortex. In the 1950s, it was discovered by Vernon Mountcastle that, despite being commonly considered to be made up of a large number of highly specialized circuits, all parts of the neocortex appear identical in structure to every other. He suggested that this means that there is no well defined visual cortex, motor cortex, etc., but instead, every part of the neocortex does the same basic function, and only appears specialized because it learns to work with specific patterns. It wasn't until 2004 that an actual theory as to what this function is was suggested; it was suggested by Jeff Hawkins in his book, "On Intelligence" (great book on neuroscience and artificial intelligence; I'd highly suggest reading it. I'm even using the idea to create my own AI) that the cortical microcolumns (a simple repeated structure of about 150 neurons that makes up the entire neocortex) simply is a bi-directional hierarchical memory system that learns, stores, recognizes, and synthesizes both spacial and temporal patterns that it receives; independent of what the information actually means. I won't go into too much information on it, but it's very interesting and explains everything from neuroplasticity to why it's hard to stop staring at a deformed person. In other words, the neocortex adapts to whatever information it's given; Jeff Hawkins has even been developing software at one of the companies that he started for predicting future trends in information based on how the neocortex does it. Because of this, if we are not considered digitally native simply because we learned how technology works through experience, we cannot consider ourselves native of anything in the same fashion. Maybe you could argue that instinctive behavior is an exception, but it still was learned over time through evolution.

I am a media educator and a media scientist. Am I a digital native? I was born 1968, so I grew up with playing on consoles (atari 2600) and early '80ies handhelds (nintendo game & watch), typing basic (c64) and pascal (pc10), the demoscene (amiga), and general gamitude. I played space invaders, boulder dash, ultima 1-5, elite, and oh so many more. I watched how-to-build-your-own-computer shows on the tv. I was there when music videos began. I actively used a radio (one with a magic eye) as my source of entertainment. When the internet was starting to go public, some of my friends had homepages (with rotating gifs). I was member of online communities when that meant forums. I wrote fan fiction for dungeon keeper 1. I can remember living in a household without telephone or tv, and I conciously lived through the digital revolution, it might not be finished though. I consider myself a native in both worlds, the digital age and the one before that. When I did my diploma, my thesis was on the conditions of media education. My central question, reflecting on my life so far, was: Has something changed since 1979? What exactly is it that has changed? The research for germany (as I'm german) shows, that by 2009 around 50% of the population above childhood are online only once a week or less. So there is a huge section of germany that seems to have problems, or maybe they are not that interested. At the same time, in the same studies, 100% (and I'm not making this number up) of the households with school children are online. They all have pcs. Not most, or allmost all, the studies read 100%. So imo the thought of a generational thing seems very apropriate here, although I never really researched that bit. The offliners (as shown in several large studies) are generally old and more likely to be female. The onliners are young, and/or have children. As usual, and as examplified in my biography, things are not as simple, but as a general picture the thing with the digital nativity has some truth to it. As a media educator, my position on the need for education is obvious. Understanding digital media is now as important as understanding text was in the 1950ies. And at the same time the internet and all the other cool toys like smartphones and tvs are changing rapidly. What does my child do online? Am I tagged in a photo without knowing? What does it mean to have a camera running constantly on your console or tv? Does my phone still listen when I switch it of? Google started 1998, facebook 2004, youtube 2005, kickstarter 2008. How are we supposed to be done with understanding the internet? I personally specialize in the education of educators. Makes sense in a transitional age. ;)

Sounds to me like being born after 80 only imparts the potential to become a digital native. Much like language if you are exposed to it from a young age, mastering it can be easy(not to say someone older couldn't learn to the same proficiency). The interesting thing to me is the fact that the obvious trend of how we interact with technology is becoming more and more human. I could see a world in the near future where interacting where technology becomes so human, anyone can use it with ease. (full disclosure I'm currently writing a blog post about this :O)

I'm sure someone put forward a similar argument when the car replaced horses and yet all these years later I don't even know how to change my car's oil.

Correction of correction: The Time Lords ARE a race, in that they are intrinsically, genetically different from the Gallifreyans. The position of Lord Cardinal or Lord President is a rank, but calling a Time Lord a rank of the Gallifreyan species is like calling humans a rank of the hominid species, which isn't true. To put it succinctly, the Time Lords and Gallifreyans are of the same Genus, but not the same species. Ergo, the Time Lords ARE their own, individual race.

Up until recently I spent three years working in an Apple Store and constantly heard "my kid's amazing with computers" and constantly met kids who were in no way amazing with computers. They were, certainly, more willing than their parents to look at the screen and work things out but they were just as useless when confronted with problem solving. The key difference is that they've grown up seeing technology as a normal thing and don't get to use the whole "I'm too old for this" excuses which their parents so love to lean on. One of my favourite moments was teaching a One To One customer what Facebook and Twitter are before she left for university. She was not a mature student.

I'm afraid I agree. Digital nativity is hyperbole at best. Teachers exclaim, "Ahha! We just have to digitize our classroom experience and the kids will buy in because they're digital natives and will learn better than any have ever learned before." Not true. When you try that, they all look at you funny and say, "Listen, Mr. Pope, we just use the stuff. We don't really KNOW any of it. And we really only can use the stuff we've used, like, I'm a total Twitter guy, but I know nothing about tumblr, and I can't I create my own website either... or blog. And I've tried to learn stuff like that, but it's hard... and stuff." Then you find out they're not only ignorant to the world outside Twitter, but all they've done on Twitter is started an account and learned what hashtags are. So, they're missing breadth AND depth. Sure a 3 year old knows all about Thomas the Tank Engine... but that doesn't make him an engineer... or a train mechanic... or well, anything less than a consumer. Which is what "digital natives" really are. They're just consumers of a small part of the digital spectrum. They just started earlier than we did, and have immersed themselves in it more... so compared to us, they appear to be as natives. But, clearly, they're not; they're just more involved consumers.

This doesn't pertain to the actual episode topic but I just wanted to say that I love this channel. It's one of the few havens where intelligence is aspired and strived for versus channels that fear intelligence

I would go even further. The whole idea behind digital natives is that we have a generation effect on how we use technology. However, there are huge differences in how technology is used. The Shell youth study of 2012 shows that there are four different types of internet users - networkers, gamers, functional users and multi users. Furthermore, if I look around Twitter or g+, I notice that there also is a huge difference in how the offline life and the online life of people relates to each other. The point is: a functional user may understand the capabilities of the internet and how to use the technology, but he doesn't how someone can gain deep friendships with online friends. They use technology differently, but not incorrectly. For me, the term "digital native" it is a bit like describing social inequality with the three estates.

I showed this video to my mom because I thought it's perspicuity would help support arguments that I've been making for years (Ex: You are too capable of learning to work insert-whatever-new-tech-thing-here) Her look of bewilderment taught me a valuable lesson. In her words, "What was he even saying?" Follow-up questions included what was the point? And why? Why, incidentally, is also my question. Gotta go uninstall apps from her phone that she claims she's never seen before and doesn't know how they got there... Foreigners...

I kinda want an episode about neil gaiman. I don't know why and I don't care what the episode's about, as long as is involves neil gaiman.

Just catching up on Idea Channel when BAM! 0:47, I'm surprised by the site of my own artwork. Internet famous for half a second!

Kids these days know nothing about computers. Growing up, I had to know HTML, Q Basic, C++, Python, and Javascript just to be able to operate a computer properly. Most people younger than me don't even know there's a difference between a slash and backslash.

That doctor conversation of seeing humanity as something worth saving made me want to see it.

I was a full time classroom teacher for several years for grades 7 - 12 and I can tell you the student belief and social belief that the kids a computer/technology wizards is really surface level understanding with a whole lot of familiarity. Even things they use constantly, they know nothing about and if they don't use something constantly they know even less about.

This video really clarifies tech struggles we have at work. In my experience the "being born" line between natives and immigrants is drawn in the early to mid 80's. Me and my colleague are both born in 1985 and have no problems with tech at all. We both have a similar upbringing in the sense that we both had tech savvy dads working in telecommunications. Growing up we always had the newest tech like internet in the early 90's, dual ISDN phone lines in the mid 90's, a DVD player in 1997, ADSL in the late 90's. I even got a 650$ MiniDisc player for Christmas in 1998, that's like 950$ in today's money for something that only played music. From 2007 - 2011 I worked as a retail store manager in consumer electronics and I sit mostly the whole day in front of a computer in my current job. So I have to say that I feel very much like a digital native. But at my job there are huge contrasts, another colleague of mine (a mechanic) is only two years older than me (born in 1983) and doesn't even understand the concept of an online work calender. I mean it's just like Facebook (and he uses Facebook actively) , but with only access for company employees right. So you type in a URL, then your username and password and voila, access. You're name and picture is shown in the top right corner so you know you're the one logged in and when you post something your name is shown as the poster. It's not rocket science. So a few weeks ago he walks into my part of our building and says he wants to use a computer to access our online work calender and I show him to a computer he can use. He then types in the URL and asks me "what's the username and password to get access" and I'm dumbfounded. I say "don't you have your own username and password ?" and he replies "yes, but I only have the username and password for the computer I use down stairs". I then reply "there you go then, just use that to gain access" and he in turn replies "but will that work on this computer ?". I just stood there amazed that he sincerely didn't understand the concept of an online work calendar and was really surprised that there was such a large tech gap between the two of us with only two years separating our age.

Have you heard of the TED Talk which presented a very similar question? I can't remember the name, but it said that because "digital natives" cannot code, they are not really intimate with computers.

My niece is about 18 months old. My sister is making an active effort to keep her away from any technology that involves a screen. When they were visiting around Thanksgiving at one point I was on my laptop and my niece came up to me, touched the screen, and swiped. When nothing happened, she became confused and tried it twice more. Despite my sister's efforts, her very young daughter reflexively knows the basics of how to use a touch screen. I guess it wasn't a huge thing, but I found it fascinating when it happened.

If we accept natives as someone who simply accepts something as normal, then I insist that I am a sandwich native and that I am quantitatively different than those who existed before the Earl of Sandwich invented modernity.

Sometime my grandma marvels at how much faster I pick up computer savvy than she does. But then again, I don't have to square what I learn with a framework of fifty years of working with increasingly obsolete machines and software like my grandma does. I google what to do and then, as Steve Jobs would say, it just works.

Work in IT. You'll know in a heartbeat. There are no digital natives. Pure nonsense. I know this because, like the fella who invented packet switching or any of the technologies today, people who work in the industry are there because they acquired their "native"-ness. In reality, they just worked to be literate in the domain. No one is born knowing how to subnet or code, you learn it either through education or on your own. In my mind, no one is native. You just need become literate in technology to claim digital citizenship. Computers are no different than cars... just because you use it doesn't mean you can build it, fix it, maintain it... understand it.

I think 'digital accent' was the best touchstone of this whole discussion. My grandmother was the first in our family to own a computer, a cell phone, a netflix subscription. She is very well immigrated. However, if set up as a Turing test, some parts of her language wold betray her. I asked what she wanted Chrome's new tab to do "by default". She responded that it shouldn't have a bank account. Her understanding of the word came from before computers popularizing their interpretation of 'default' (maybe 1980?). Her accent is full of bits and pieces like this. That's what native and immigrant mean- not that the immigrant is a second class citizen, but that they learned about this language, these systems, with an adult mind. It's not the internet changing our minds, it's children learning faster than adults. To the inventor of TCP, the internet is an implementation of an idea he had. To a child, it's a fact of life. An immigrant has to adjust consciously where a child learns to tweet the same way they learned to cross the street or answer the phone. There's no internal narrator breaking down the steps for a native- their assumptions and their *default* setting happens to align with the digital world around them.

It seems obvious to me that most "millennials" may know how to use this technology, but at the same time have no idea how it actually functions. They have simply adopted it because it's easier to use. This is the same thing for television, audio, and even literature. It has nothing to do with comprehending it, just how much you're used to it.

Relating this to the learning of languages is the most compelling argument for the existence of digital natives. The constant immersion into this digital language at a young age allows it to be more easily absorbed, which many studies into the learning of your first language will back up. Thus, for people trying to "immigrate" into the digital world, it is harder and less intuitive, just as trying to learn a new language when out of childhood is.

I thought you were going to go an entirely different direction with this. Technology is becoming more advanced and pervasive at a rate that makes it hard to foresee how things are going to progress. So if at any point we who are currently digital natives become set in our ways and less eager to keep up, will technology outpace our familiarity with it and make us foreigners just as much as anyone could be today?

My dad always says things like, "Just ask River how to use the iPad; she's the young one." No, Dad, it's not because I'm young; it's because we've been using them constantly in my school for the past two years. Now if you were to hand me, say, an Android phone, it would quickly turn into, "Wait, what? What is-- Where is the home button? Wait how the heck does this work? Oh no I accidentally clicked something I don't know what to do now fix it for me."

As far as a digital generation, it all depends on parenting. If not, the kids will learn once they hit middle school or high school but if their parents don't introduce them to modern media, they won't know unless they take it upon themselves, which if they truly were raised in an anti-modernist family they may not want to.

I grew up seeing my dad use a computer that DIDN'T have a mouse. The first word processing program I used on my own was Windows 3.1... But I also grew up in a time when we still went to the library to get information and sending snail mail instead of email. That being said, I'd like to believe that I'm perfectly adapted to the digital-era. However, there's still that part of me that clings to the "old ways" - e.g. I still prefer leafing through a "real book" as opposed to scrolling through one on an e-book and am convinced that hand-written letters are still the way to go - if one wanted to convey sincerity. Gadgets, the internet and technology - I use them in my everyday life but should the world go into technological apocalypse, I think I could live without them. My ESL students, on the other hand, grew up with an iPhone as a pacifier. I think their eyes are more well-adjusted to reading things on a screen. Even their attention span is different courtesy of their early exposure to media. The appeal of "real books" seem lost to them - not when e-books have animation AND sound. Why would they need library skills when they can just "google something" or learn it on RU-vid? I imagine that THEY would be more hard-pressed to survive in a world with no technology. I think the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" are lacking as metaphors. Maybe its more like we're amphibians. Some of us undergo a metamorphosis that enables us to thrive on different planes - digital and non-digital. Others have adapted to the point of bypassing certain stages of metamorphosis. Some of us are betters suited for one plane rather than another - like some amphibians who do not develop lungs but breath totally with their skin. Maybe that is why my students will always be more comfortable using technological means rather than "the old" way. How's that for an idea?

It has been my experience that smartphone users (digital natives) have been dumbed down to technology (ie unable to fully use laptops and desktops) because of their over-reliance on smartphones and simple OS's

i think another point to look at here in terms of digital nativity is that because this technology has become so much advanced, cheaper and accessible, younger generations are just naturally more curious and predisposed to sinking in more effort into understanding such devices. For older people, they never had to use technology in the way it is used now, and so don't have that same curiosity.

Careful there at 8:22. British =/= English. Peter Capaldi is Scottish if I'm not mistaken.

I think it's more of a gradual change, since it's very hard to come up with generations, since people are born every second. Thinking about it mathematicaly, we can't have a discontinuity in something that is inherently continuous. As time progresses, people become more comfortable with technology, and even though there _was_ a big leap in the 1980's, it wasn't as big as some of us make it out to be. I mean, it was huge, but it wasn't instantaneous. We tend to forget that Facebook wasn't around before 2006, which leads me to think this may be a case of the fallacy where people say "this is how it was before, this is how it is now", without realizing it's a gradual change. (Do you know what I'm referring to? I think it has a specific name, but I can't remember what.)

Due to the non-natural nature of it, I don't think being a digital native is like flipping a switch and of course it's not generational. It's more like a slider. The more you've spent time with technology of course makes you more adept at it(hopefully). If you want to put a label on it like "Digital native" that's fine. I just don't think it really means more than "being brought up in a technological world." I mean really it's about a personal question of where, when and how close to technology you were raised.

I definitely love the concept of nativity in regard to a certain 'world'. The internet is a world on its own, with its own rules, motifs and structure, which are not manifested physically but purely in terms of information, systems, and mechanics. This is essential to the distinction between digital natives and immigrants, and I argue this from a cognitively developmental viewpoint: Humans in their early years are in a stage of exploration, familiarization, and adaptation to their environment. They prepare their computational system -the brain- for optimal use in the environment they're in. They acquire concepts, both abstract and concrete, of systems, phenomena, mechanics, ideas, objects, relations, patterns, which contribute to constructing various paradigms and perspectives which are essential to their mental interface with which they interact with the world. This applies to everything, and must be taken very literally and seriously. For example: There were tribes who never lived in the presence of straight lines, and therefore couldn't think in terms of those or recognise them properly, the same phenomenon has been replicated in animals. They just don't have a concept of straight lines and barely know what to do with them, even though it's something so simple! Now the same can be said about technology and the internet. These are things so new and unique in how they work, so systematic and logical, that you need to grow up with them if you are to work with them efficiently. You need to have grown up with these things which are in many senses, enormously abstract, but also very logically intuitive. For example: Why babies as young as 2 can work with an iPad (and african tribe children independently learned to hack them), is because these are extremely intuitive and simple tools, because the way their content and mechanics is structured is logically consistent and coherent. This makes it easy to understand it if one applies logic and builds a paradigm for using it from the bottom up. The problem with most immigrants is that their brain isn't flexible enough to create a new paradigm for handling technology, and still use paradigms used for analog, less logically systematic tools, and try to understand it in terms and templates not fit for technology. The concept of digital natives is just a prelude to the enormous revolution that the world will undergo, mediated by revolutions in science (cognitive neuroscience mostly), spirituality (Ideas of spirituality will be distilled from religion and philosophy), and technology (mostly AI/Information Technology). Humanity is growing intimately intertwined with technology, our collective being is being expanded with our intellectual fruits and works. I love thinking about the future. It just fills me with wonder, excitement, and most of all awe for the human race.

As a member of a more recent generation (How does that make any sense? Generation boundaries don't make any sense?) I believe the other era is just reluctant to learn because of these stereotypes. My grandmother had me set the clock on her camera so I just mashed buttons until it came up. The problem isn't that they aren't good at using technology, just that they won't. I seriously can't use commands or code unless it's Minecraft.

I was born in 1985 and I live with my Grandparents and my Dad. I won't ever claim to be a "computer wiz" but I've been trying for about two months to teach my dad to use my laptop so that he check the email that I set up for him. He still can't figure out which arrow lets him see more of the screen (he's only 58). My pop's problem is not that I'm a bad teacher but that he approaches technology with a "I don't know anything about this" attitude. Similarly my grandma can't watch a movie if I leave the house because she believes she won't be able to operate the DVD player, my grandpa refers to my computer as "that machine in your room" and anytime someone in my house want to find something out the ask me to "look at that thing in your pocket that knows everything." (My iPhone). Yes I am a digital native and my family are most definitely digital foreigners.

I don't think there is such a thing. The technology that was developed in the 1980's was built on past technology.

For me, the distinction is cultural, not technological. For example: I understand how Snapchat works. From a technological standpoint, I probably understand it better than most high schoolers. But at first I couldn't understand the NEED for it, whereas high schoolers flocked to it. To me it was interesting, but not useful. But to high schoolers, it was useful not only for "sexting" but to embody the impermanent nature of our interactions. Another example: my parents can use Google. But when my parents fail to recall the name of a Tom Hank's movie about living alone on an island, they give up, whereas I pull out my phone and Google "Tom Hanks alone island" without a second thought. In both of these situations, the distinction was not the ability to use the technology, but rather the understanding of technology's purpose and usefulness to us.

Immigrants? Natives? That's so "terra". Can I be a digital Alien?

When thinking about this, I was reminded of something I recently read about how we learn math. There's really two ways: Learn to do mathematical functions by rote and generalize, or learn how to think mathematically and then apply that thought process to different problems. Having learned by rote, a deeper understanding could later be developed, but once you know how to think mathematically it probably isn't going away. I think this is the difference between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives have learned to think with technology, by exposure if not purposeful teaching. After a few minutes of playing with a new program or device, they can get the basics down. Digital Immigrants, on the other hand, learn technology by rote. They read the manual to learn how to use the program or device. As an example, my father knows much more about computers than I do - he can build, code, and debug a computer. But even after years of using Apple products he's still surprised but what I can do in some of the basic programs - despite the fact that I use Windows devices almost exclusively. This is because while he has learned how to use the programs, I have a better sense of them. Even if I haven't seen or used a function before, I know it will be there, because it makes sense for it to be there. He can use technology. I think technologically. Some people use math. Some people think mathematically. This isn't to say that people who "think technologically" don't need to be taught. Just as understanding math doesn't mean you know every formula and symbol and can do advanced calculus, understanding technology doesn't mean you have all the knowledge behind it. It is, however, easier to learn if you already understand the principles what you're learning is built on. As for the terms, I tend to agree with "Digital Native" and "Digital Immigrant," if you really have to use terms at all. However, I don't think that the divide is a generational gap - I think age is more of a coincidence. If you haven't had enough exposure to technology - by choice or circumstance - to learn to think techologically, you're a "Digital Immigrant," regardless of age. Likewise, some adults - like those who designed for and built the first versions of the technology we regularly use today - think technologically. They're Digital Natives, despite age. People can go from being Digital Immagrants to Natives, but just as some people just never get the hang of math, some people are never going to develop that understanding of technology.

I think kids are getting worse at computing. Instead of having to tinker for hours with your modem and running through codes to try to get Doom to run on your Commodore 64 (with the little rubber coupler onto your phone receiver) there are things like iPads, which might as well work on magic. Kids have ZERO appreciation of how or why technology works these days. (My best imitation of an old coder, myself being a high school student, but it still stands)

I was born in 1971 and my earliest days were spent playing Pong, then Space Invaders, then the first arcade games, then programming on a Vic 20 and Commodore 64 computer in grade school, then using a modem to login to BBS's and playing with Main Frames... So the claim that digital natives are born after 1980 is bogus.

You made the point that Vint Cerf invented TCP/IP and can I assume that you were implying that he can never be considered a "digital native" seems odd to you? Lets suppose a nation was just founded (on the moon??). Those who were adults when the nation was founded may have helped make that nation what it is and understand and live the precepts behind it's charter, however they will never see or experience living in that nation the same way as someone just born into it. They may understand exactly what it was _supposed_ to be better than someone born into it but the native may always have a better intuitive sense which I think you were saying. Think of video game creators and those that play them. Just because you created something does not mean you will the most about it, it is more akin to discovering something. The gamers that play a video game all day and night find flaws and ways to play the creators never knew about. So yes I believe it is apt that those whom are born into this digital nation be called natives, there is something they have that we will not. We cannot understand what it is to never live without being connected just as much as they can never understand what it is like to have lived without being connected. I do agree that potentially we read too much into what it means to be a digital native though. I think your point about assuming we don't have to teach them because they are natives is very well taken.

I am very glad that you brought this up. even though I am less than 20 years old, and I need to do loads of school stuffon the pc, I am still VERY bad with these things. I know how to internet and such, but thats about it. (to demonstrate, up and untill 2 years back I still had a nokia 3310, but then I "upgraded" to another, slightly newer nokia, because I wanted a camera) but whenever I run into computer trouble, teachers just say "youre a digital native, it shouldnt be a problem for you". while I might be born in the right time, I never really used computers much, and so I never learned how to use them properly etc. etc. so I think the way you are raised also very much defines how much nativity (?) you have.

I wonder if the real question was if there is such a thing as being Native, or, rather, is anything inhate, or is everything learned. To some extend, pretty much everything you argued against digital nativenessy could be said about nativenasse in general, and thus no one is a native of anything. But there are natives, as people who live, learn and are a part of a certain culture, and I do genuinely believe we are part of a much more mediatic, computerized society, and we excel in that society from a very young age, so we are, in a sense Digital Natives. The thing about immigrants, though, is, in my opinion, because we reached or grew in the time of modern technology, whereas they meet it at a much more advanced age. Both for lack of motivation, or simply because the brain isn't as well adapted to sponge any knowledge of the outside, as a baby's, child's, teen's is, and thus are less proficient in them, have a harder time adjusting to modern technology and even, sort to say, speak our language, sometimes never even losing the accent, aka, typing with just one finger and actually clicking the "search" button, instead of tapping enter. Btw, after the whole spam thing, I'm actually very grateful for the new comment system. We can really express ourselves much more with the new character limit :)

Thank you for making this video, it strikes quite a personal chord with me. There is no such thing as a Digital Native. I currently work for a wireless company, and I see examples of what you discuss daily. One of the phrases I hear over and over is, "I am to old/to stupid for a smartphone." (usually followed by an annoying chuckle) I really try and push back on these folks, not in a rude way, but I am really trying to help them. Digital media is VERY comparable to a language, and it is shockingly easy to learn... but these people are convinced that iPhones are these highly complex devices that are just unknowable, which is where the sell themselves short. The tech in an iPhone so much more streamlined and efficient than the older model flip phones! Quite often they say to me, "I will never use everything on that phone." In this there is another parallel to language, because you can speak and understand a language but only use a small fraction of it for your entire life. You don't refuse to learn a language just because the Dictionary is a really big book. When we are young, we don't have concepts of "impossible" yet, so learning a language isn't something we think would be "hard" to do. Once we reach a certain age and understand the concept of limitations, we begin to naturally apply those concepts to ourselves. The problem is we often use an emotional bias for out limits instead of a logical one I actually think that some older folks use their age as a cop out excuse: They simply don't WANT to have a computer or smartphone because it is outside of their comfort zone. I have seen for a fact that smartphone and tablet tech is so user friendly that anybody can do anything with it. I had an 80 year old man buy an android device so he could keep up with his peach trees, and it took him about 2 weeks to really learn to use his device in a way that really worked for him. He came back to me show me how he had cameras and thermometers set up all over his orchard, how he took pictures of his trees, could predict insect problems before they even happened, and more. Despite being 50 years older than me, he showed ME a new way to "speak the digital language." It makes me wonder if the concept you discuss here isn't actually digital natives vs. digital immigrants, but a much broader concept of a non-stop wave of "information immigrants." Did people resist electric lighting because "they were to old to understand it?" Did people refuse to switch from horses to cars (despite one being clearly better than the other) for similar reasons? When you put it terms of "information immigrants vs. information natives," I think it becomes pretty clear. Outside of some very basic survival instincts, we are not born with information. Nobody would ever say you were a "mechanical native" because you grew up working on cars. ...so, yeah. No such thing as a "Digital Native." :)

The world cannot defined by the technology of the world. the world is physical, not digital. So there is no"digital native". All people are "digital immigrants" to certain degrees, meaning that they are simply imitators of the people before them and that the imitation takes time to perfect which varies per person . The same way that I could have learned Swahili instead of English if I had had different parents and lived in a different area.

I am an NYC high school teacher and the term "digital native" is used pretty frequently by teachers and educational professionals to describe students. However it usually is used in the context of comfort and not knowledge. We have students who do not have enough to eat at home but have an iPhone with a data plan. And they are on facebook a lot. And when they go to the computer lab to do their homework they have no idea how to save a document or attach it to an email. Digital nativity (at least to NYC teachers at my school) implies that students have been taken for granted and are never taught how to practically use and understand computers. It is a real problem that schools will be starting to address in the next decade.

I feel like young people think they're good with computers, but rly suck balls, and this is coming from a 13 yr old. Of course, everyone in my grade can use snap chat, which is a simple app that takes minutes to learn, but only me and a friend of mine know how to code minecraft servers and websites. Another example, my dad doesn't know how to use Instagram, but knows JavaScript like a second language. Think about that.

I don't know if you'll ever see this comment, but to the dude in this video - I don't care how much of this content you actually create yourself, or whatever, but your delivery of these videos is entertaining as hell. Bravo, entertainment man. Brah-voh!

There isn't a link to the tweet of the week. :/

as part of my degree I just about to do a lecture on this very subject so i ran to this video again :) knew finding this channel would pay off :D keep up the good work guys

I think there's some truth to being a digital native or immigrant. But since using technology and technology itself is not ingrained in us at birth (I suppose I fall into the "generation" that is Millennial *grumble grumble*), I don't believe that it's as native as Prenskey seems to propose. Like language, technology "speak" (not to be mistaken with l33t speak) is native to a culture, but not innate. One can learn to use the English language to create the simplest sentences and understand others who use the same language, but the linguistic skills of one individual can vary greatly with that of another, even if they speak the same language. For instance, not everyone knows the difference between "who" and "whom" or "I" and "me," which suggests a baser knowledge of English than someone who studies grammar. Similarly, I can search for something on Google and find my answer, but other people my age, who have grown up in the same technology boom as I and we'll suppose had the same opportunities I did, can code an app -- something I can never even hope to understand. That being said, I also have friends who are older and outside the Millennial sphere, who have far more skills with computers and technologies than I, even though they are technically "digital immigrants." To liken this back to language, there are many English foreigners (i.e. people who grew up in cultures whose native languages are not English) who speak English far better (at least correctly, if possibly slower) than a native English speaker. But isn't the most important thing to be slow and correct rather than quick, but mistaken? So, yes, I do believe that digital natives -- those who grew up with technology -- and immigrants -- those who did not -- exist. But it's neither generational nor innate in those generations, it's a matter of culture and learning. Just because I'm 24 doesn't mean I'm a computer whisperer, but I would still call myself a "native."

"Gimme a second while I Google to figure out what the point of all this is." I applaud you, sir. No, seriously, I started clapping when you said that.

I "hacked" my school at 9 years old, the teachers were too illiterate to fix it and got scared. it was hillarious

I'm only 20 and I think Google Docs is magic. When I got my first iPhone at 17, I thought it was magic (I still kind of do). I think members of this population of digital natives can still find awe in new forms of technology.

now wait a sec! i was born before 1980. i am a software developer, a pretty good one if i may add. i am pretty sure i have more knowledge about computer chips than most of the "digital natives" in fact, basic knowledge about how it works continues to be lost in the new generation. much like ppl in the 1950 used to know more about how cars work than ppl today. how is that for an idea?

Now I'm old enough to have vague memories of a time before the Internet was used the way it is now. (16) I remember when the internet was used once per day to quickly email and check emails and that was about it. I think it's amazing how it's gone from something that was used for just practical things like communication onto a thing for porn, cats and entertainment.

I'm still unsure how I feel about the term "digital native" myself. I especially am concerned by the idea that there is some mythical cut off date that delineates "native" from "immigrant" as there are tons of my cohorts that I wouldn't consider in any way shape or form "native" to the digital world even though they fall below the cut off date. I think it's possible to think about digital "nativitidness/nativasity/nativitasity" in terms of how freely we are willing to give up, or give in, to the idea that our digital selves are no different than our "IRL" self, and therefore we are more free with our personal life details than previous generations were. I mean think about it, before Facebook became the go to place for internetting it was unthinkable to place your real name and real face on the internet. Now it is not uncommon for us "digital natives" to not only share our real names and pictures, but also details about where we are at any given time (foursquare) and what we are eating while we are there (Instagram). Perhaps the true sign of "native" is that we are ambivalent (at best) about the encroaching privacy evaporation that is baked into the social web.

As a young educator, I’m labeled the tech geek on campus. What I noticed while working with teachers and students, is the great confusion between digital literacy/citizenship and the ability to use social media. Students can tweet and all that other stuff, but when it comes to using the Google Drive, or even the Microsoft suite, they do not understand how or why to use it. With teachers, they may not be used to the new technology, but most are willing to learn. By definition since these young people are born into a world with technology, they are in a way native. However, this does not mean they can use technology any better than anyone else.

i think young kids shouldnt be taught the Ipad till they're 12 or older. it destroys their brains and lives as they become completely obsessed with it. just my opinion.

While there is a strong socioeconomic argument against digital nativity, I think another interesting point to make is that of the culture surrounding technology. In the technological nativity theory, technology is likened most strongly to a language, such that, even if one can easily go onto the internet or other activities that are ubiquitous in modernity, one might be considered 'fluent' in this language. However, the most important factor I have seen (as a student and as a member of internet culture) is the various social rules that are followed on the internet. Much like the etiquette and safety rules that must be taught to a child in social contexts, the use technology is both a procedural (although with user friendly computing, this is less of a problem) and a social activity, and both should be taught, none are innate.

The claim that the people that "invented the Internet" aren't "digital natives" is fair, I think. Considering "Internet culture" (disgusting phrase, eh guys?) is more of a side effect of the technology than an intentional creation. _This comment is full of air quotes and brackets and stuff because I think that the entire concept is weird and uncomfortable._

I think what "digital native" is really saying is that there are people who are more readily willing to accept the ways of being of modern technology; they've never known anything else. The people who know best how to use computers aren't phobic of the technology. That's why technical ineptitude is more common in older generations, but not all-encompassing.

Question headlines: are they overdone?

My Grandpa used a tuning fork to tune his trombone. My mom used a xylophone to tune her violin. I use a pitch pipe to set the key for my singing. Like computers, all these technologies were used because of the user's familiarity and availability. Unlike computers, they can all be used effectively with minimal learning. I say there is truth to the "digital native", but the idea that there are only natives and immigrants is a false binary. What you learn very young is cemented much better in your brain than what you learn later in life, even if it takes longer to learn it. People who get a head start on computer technology when they're young have a huge foundation to build on later, and so are more "naturals" with computers than those who did not.

2:08 Wait..... WTF!

Having been a librarian at Concordia University for over a decade, I have spent my entire career with what some would call "digital natives" but, and I must stress this, my office is often the scene of a young learner "coming out" quite emotionally about their lack of knowledge of digital technologies. I have taught research skills to over 10000 undergrads so far and I hope to reach a few orders of magnitude more. I have found a shift in how students approach researching - perhaps they are better at manipulating a mouse - but the underlying issue of ignorance of how information is created, spread and used is still a dire impediment to many. Thank you for highlighting how a catchy meme may ring false upon further consideration.

8:20 the new doctor is scottish. theres a difference

I'm definitely a native English speaker, but I still don't understand how it works. I think I understand the rules of French better having learned it as a second language. English just works because it sounds good. So I think digital native makes sense.

There is no such thing as a Digital Native. It's something you learn just like everyone else. The only reason anyone would adopt such a title is to somehow prove that their generation is superior in something, when in fact it's completely wrong. More lines drawn in the sand, more separation over stupid things that don't even matter, all to boost one's own pride, to belong to a certain group simply because you exist. Sigh.

I should share this YouTubles with my dad. He's always having me come by to fix the most inane, simple computer problems. He says to me 'Please! What is simple for you is a nightmare for me!' Like he thinks that I had computer instruction manuals piped in via umbilical chord when I was a baby. Yes, it IS simple for me. Because I've taken the time and effort to figure out how to do things on my own. When I have a problem, I Google how to fix it. And then there's one more thing I never have to Google again. Its not magic. That said, I do think younger generations have a leg up. Some of the basic thought patterns of computer-interface logic are more readily understood by those who grew up with them. He still needs to stop calling me everytime there's a windows update.

Thank you so much. I had been involved in the digital humanities academia scene at a fairly young age, and was the 'Token Native' in a lot of respects. I had my failings with the word, and told them that if they wanted a real opinion on how "Digitally Native" my generation was, that they should spend half an hour in a Campus Computer Lab Help desk. A lot of people today understand computers and the internet in the same way that I understand my car: I press a button, it goes, I turn a wheel, it moves. Anything beyond that is a mystical voodoo. There *is*, of course, another significantly more subtle use of the term 'digital native', one that imparts no unique skill upon the generation, but rather demarcates a time where people lived with revolutionary tools like, say, Hypertext. This is a far more interesting idea to me: studying out the underlying effects of digital nativity (A generation growing up with the ability to message anyone they know at any time, and take a picture of anything they want, all from a device in their *pocket*) rather then the idea that people born after 1980 are just real whizbangs with the computermatron.

My GF's 9 y/o son recently came out of his room as he was listening to a radio station on a small radio, and stated 'I lost the wi-fi signal in my room' instead of realizing portable radios don't work via wi-fi lol.

Being born in the right time period and being surrounded by technology most certainly does not make one good with it. In fact, the majority of people I am, surrounded by are just as bad with technology as my grandma. There are many factors, in my opinion. One of which is simply curiosity. You have to want to know.

I'm a geek that was born in 1968 that has been on the internet since 1990 and I think I'm more "Native" than many of the younger people I run into who only know how to use SnapChat, Instagram and Facebook. I find the biggest divide is between normal people and geeks. The younger non-geek will understand how to use specific stuff while the younger geeks groks it deeper and will probably keep pace with whatever tech changes happen over their whole lives. I bet you will find in about 15 years the current "Digital Natives" will start getting lost in whatever new stuff comes down the pipe while the geeks will just eat it up.