Feedback on Peer's Blog Posts

https://ckharoufehcomm140.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/changes-in-technology-and-impact-on-way.html?showComment=1506569254017#c3800086949828477274

https://taylahsearle98.wixsite.com/primaryteacher/single-post/2017/09/04/BLOG-1-Do-Digital-Natives-Exist

Blog Post 3: The Impact of Technology on the Way Humans Communicate.

Pre-digital age, individuals communicated with peers, family and colleagues by speaking directly to them, either on the phone or face-to face. They did not have the advanced technology of today and thus had to interact more closely with others. Information was unable to be readily accessed nor instantly publicised globally.

‘Beginning in the late 1970’s’ (Gasser & Palfrey, 2008) however, ‘the world began to change – and fast’ (Gasser & Palfrey, 2008). With the proliferation and advancement of ‘communications, media and digital technologies' (Brown, 2011) individuals are now able to ‘perpetually communicate and to immediately exchange’ (Festl & Quandt, 2016) information with others.  Events, information and knowledge that previously remained within a group of people or towns can now be spread globally through the use of smartphones and instant communication. The internet ‘increases the speed, reach and frequency of viral events; it enables a “many to many” communication flow where virtually anyone can republish the information’ (Panzic, 2015). This can be both positive and negative. On the one hand, individuals are able to access academic knowledge and world news, as well as communicate with individuals from other countries. On the other , this spread of information and communication technologies opens the door for cyberbullying - particularly ‘via popular social medial platforms such as Twitter and Facebook’ (Panzic, 2015).

There is ‘no common definition of cyberbullying and it takes many forms’ (Chadwick, 2014), however it can be argued that cyberbullying is the ‘electronic version of bullying. Usually social media is used to carry out this activity’ (Ince, 2013). Unfortunately, ‘the Internet provides greater opportunity for apparent anonymity’ (Panzic, 2015), encouraging individuals to ‘say or do things they never would in person’ (Panzic, 2015). Furthermore, as nearly everybody has a smartphone, ‘nearly everybody can be reached at any time’ (Festl & Quandt, 2016), making it almost impossible for victims to escape cyberbullying, and the extermination of cyberbullying a complex and difficult task.

References

Brown, T. (2011). Are you a digital native or a digital immigrant? Being client centred in the digital era. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(7), 313. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/ps/i.do?

Chadwick, S. (2014). Impact of Cyberbullying, Building Social and Emotional Resilience in Schools. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04031-8_1

Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2016). The Role of Online Communication in Long-Term Cyberbullying Involvement Among Girls and Boys. Journal of  Youth & Adolescence, 45 (9), 1931-1945. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/docview/1876552341?accountid=8194&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2008). Born digital : understanding the first generation of digital natives. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au

Ince, D. (2013). A Dictionary of the Internet (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/view/10.1093/acref/9780191744150.001.0001/acref-9780191744150-e-4467.

 Panzic, S. F. (2015). Legislating for e-manners: Deficiencies and unintended consequences of the harmful digital communications act. Te Mata Koi Auckland University Law Review, 21, 225-247. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/fullText;dn=749422233954874;res=IELHSS

Blog Post 2; No more Death by PowerPoint! Why is it important to leave PowerPoint behind?

Having been around for generations, ‘Microsoft's PowerPoint program is the most commonly used presentation software’ (Amare, 2004). The program is efficient, and has many templates and tools designed to assist the presenter in creating and delivering an informative and engaging presentation.  Furthermore, due to its ‘more automatic and easily accessed features’ (Amare & Manning, 2005), even those who do not feel confident working with technology are able to create a decent digital presentation using PowerPoint.

As digital technologies progress and become more advanced, many have come to criticise and ‘dislike the tool’ (Amare, 2004) preferring to use new digital tools such as Prezi to develop their presentations. According to some, PowerPoint presentations are outdated and do not engage audiences. Furthermore, the ‘concisely summarised information’ (Naik, 2016) presented using PowerPoint has been accused of ‘obscuring data’ (Amare, 2004), both confusing and ‘boring audiences’ (Amare, 2004).

It can be argued however, that these criticisms against Microsoft’s PowerPoint are not necessarily due to the fault of the program itself.  In fact, ‘these defects are generally due to an orientation… toward images rather than diagrams, toward perceptual decoration and object indication rather than toward visually mediated, iconic representations of verbal information’. (Amare & Manning, 2005). In other words, the fault lies in the users of PowerPoint who have either forgotten or are uneducated about how to develop and present engaging, informative and interesting presentations, which audiences will learn from and remember. This fault will not disappear simply through using another presentation tool.

Individuals should be taught therefore, the most effective ways ‘in which talk, gestures and body position work in combination with the manipulation of written texts and material objects’ (Lehtinen & Nissi, 2016). The answer to resolving the issue of boring, uninformative PowerPoint presentations therefore lies in education.

References.

Amare, N. (2004). Technology for technology's sake: the proliferation of PowerPoint. Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings. International.

Lehtinen, E., & Nissi, R. (2016). Negotiation of expertise and multifunctionality: PowerPoint presentations as interactional activity types in workplace meetings. Language & Communication, 48, 1-7.

Manning, A., & Amare, N. (2005). Using visual rhetoric to avoid PowerPoint pitfalls. Professional Communication Conference, 2005. IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International, 281-287.

Naik, N. (2016). Dual PowerPoint presentation approach for students with special educational needs and note-takers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32 (1), 146-152. 

Week 6: ‘Do Digital Natives Really Exist?’

Upon first hearing of the term ‘Digital Native’ (Prensky, 2001), I assumed that it referred to an individual who felt comfortable operating in and around the digital world. Through research, I have come to a greater understanding of the term. ‘Digital natives’ are individuals 'born after 1980’ (Gasser & Palfrey, 2008). They have grown up surrounded by technology and thus 'have a familiarity with communications, media and digital technologies' (Brown, 2011) – all of which they use on a regular basis. 'Digital natives' have 'access to networked digital technologies' (Gasser & Palfrey, 20018) as well as the skills and knowledge to use them.

 The concept of ‘digital natives’ is often used in comparison to ‘Digital Immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001); referring to individuals born before the 'digital age', who vary in their 'level of exposure to, and competence using, technology' (Brown, 2011). The vast majority of 'digital immigrants' lack fluency in their understanding of the digital world. 

Due to the differences in their exposure to digital technology whilst growing up, ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital Immigrants’ experience extreme discrepancies in ‘learner and teacher characteristics' (Kurt, Günüç, & Ersoy, 2013).  Where the ‘digital immigrant’ prefers to teach, and learn ‘slowly, step-by-step, … individually’ (Prensky, 2001), ‘digital natives are used to receiving information really fast’ (Prensky, 2001). They thrive through networking and multitasking, often seeking their information through the internet – as opposed to the library.

It is important to know of these differences as many of today’s educators are ‘digital immigrants’ and all students (in high school, and below) are ‘digital natives’. These variances may cause ‘digital immigrants’ to teach students using ineffective methods as they are unaware of and do not understand how ‘today’s students think and process information’ (Prensky, 2001). In future, we as educators should endeavour to understand, utilise and immerse ourselves in how our students think, feel and learn. This will lead to more effective and efficient teaching in practice.

References

Brown, T. (2011). Are you a digital native or a digital immigrant? Being client centred in the digital era. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(7), 313. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/ps/i.do?


Kurt, A. A., Günüç, S., & Ersoy, M. (2013). The current state of digitalization: Digital native, digital immigrant and digital settler. Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 46(1), 1-22. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/docview/1466273396?accountid=8194

Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2008). Born digital : understanding the first generation of digital natives. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/docview/214629645?accountid=8194