 and Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly held that moderate positions are possible between the two extremes, and argued that the reductionist nature of the dichotomy calls for the critical examination of philosophical assumptions about technology. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized that educators, researchers, and educational policy makers should critically analyze their own ideological beliefs about technology, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and students concerning such beliefs. Several scholars (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010) have recently argued that popular educational discourse about young people being digital natives, or the Net Generation, appears influenced by assumptions of technological determinism. Discourse about digital natives involves the general claim that inevitable technology is causing inevitable change in students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) asserted that the digital native argument proceeds from a simplistic view of causality influenced by technological determinism. The discourse makes the claim that young people who have grown up with technology have been fundamentally changed by it and now have a natural aptitude for it compared with older people, who are considered immigrants (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related claims made about digital natives are that technology has caused changes 14 in students' learning styles and even brain function (Jones & Healing, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Such discourse about digital natives has been present in educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). The digital natives discourse is an example o f how educators' philosophical assumptions about technology can influence educator beliefs about students, in this case involving the technological determinist assumption that technology causes inevitable change to students and schools (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) asserted that the digital natives discourse has used dramatic language that can create a sense of moral panic in academic circles. The discourse can affect debate on educational policy issues by presenting technological change as inevitable, and dismiss the opinions of educators who may have legitimate concerns (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). The digital natives discourse can create a problem for professional development if older educators are perceived as being out of touch, and not as able to become proficient with technology because of their age and generational position (Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennet and Maton (2010) argued
and Tillberg - Webb (2009) similarly held that moderate positions are possible between the two extremes, and argue that the reductionist nature of the dichotomy call for the critical examination of philosophical assumptions about engineering. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) emphasized that educators, researchers, and educational policy maker should critically analyze their own ideological beliefs about technology, and prosecute in critical dialogue with other educator and students concerning such beliefs. Several scholar (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010) have recently argued that popular educational discourse about young people being digital native, or the Net Generation, appears influenced by assumptions of technical determinism. Discourse about digital natives involve the general title that inevitable technology is causing inevitable change in students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) asserted that the digital native controversy proceeds from a simplistic view of causality influenced by technological determinism. The discourse makes the claim that young people who have grown up with technology have been fundamentally changed by it and now have a natural aptitude for it compared with honest-to-god people, who are considered immigrant (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related claim make about digital natives are that technology has cause changes 14 in students' learning styles and even mind function (Jones & Healing, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Such discourse about digital natives has been present in educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). The digital native discourse is an example o f how educator' philosophical assumption about engineering can determine educator beliefs about students, in this case involve the technological determinist assumption that engineering causes inevitable variety to students and schools (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) asserted that the digital natives discourse has use dramatic language that can create a common sense of moral panic in academic circles. The discourse can affect debate on educational policy emergence by presenting technical change as inevitable, and dismiss the opinions of educators who may have lawful concerns (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). The digital natives discourse can produce a problem for professional development if older educators are perceived as being out of contact, and not as able to become proficient with engineering because of their age and generational position (Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennet and Maton (2010) argued
 anf Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarln held that modetare posmtions zre posskble between the two extremed, qnd aegued that the reductiunist natlre of thw dirhotomy calls foc the crlcical cxamiuavion of philosokhical assum[tions about tacfnllogy. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emprasized tjat educators, teseagcrers, and educational policy makers shohld criuically analyze thrir own ideological beliefd ablut technology, and engage in xrityxal dialogue with otheg educators and students concerning such bdliefx. Several wcyolwts (Bennett & Naton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jpnev & Yealing, 2010) have recentlb argued that populat educatiotam discourse about yiung keopla bekbg aigjtel hatived, oc the Net Gsneration, appears influenced bu wwsumptions of technjljgical determinism. Discourse about digiual nztives involves the genwral claim that inevijable techgology is causing inevitable change in students (Jmnes & Feaoikg, 2010). Ginfs and Healing (2010) asserted that the digital natybe aggument proceeds nrom a simplistic fifw jf causality knflueudes by technological determynism. The discjursr makes the claim that yount people who yave grown up with technology havg been fundamentally changed yy it znd now havf a naturzu aptitude for ig cpm[ared wiuf older people, whj are conwidexed immieranjs (Jonef & Czemiewlcz, 2010). Valated claims made abouj digidal natived are that technology has causev changes 14 in sdudvnts' learuing sbyles and even frain function (Jones & Healkng, 2010; Jones & Czemixwicz, 2010). Such qiscourse abogj digital natmves has feen prewent in dducational pokicy statvmtnts and pipular rhetoric (Jokes & Zaemiewicz, 2010). The bngutal natives dixcojrsq ps en exwkple o f how eduzatuts' phklosophical xssukptions about technonogy can influence eduvabor belieds about students, in yhis case involvinh the terhnolobicwl determinist assumption that technolohy gauses inevitwble change to scudents and schools (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jonew & Healing, 2010). Bennejt, Maton, and Kervin (2008) csxerted that the qigital ndtives discourse has used dramatic lakguage that can create a senve of moral panic in academic circles. The discourse can affect debate on educarional policy issuss bu preveutiug techgolojiral change as inenitable, and dismiss the opinions of educdtjrs who may have legitimate vovcerns (Bennetj & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Fhe digiyal natives discourse can creatr a problem for professipnal devwlopmsnt if oldxr educators are perveived as bwing our of touch, and nog ax wble to bfcomt prkficient with technology because of thwig age and generavional positlok (Jonea & Heajing, 2010). Bennet and Matkj (2010) areued
and Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly held that moderate possible the two and argued that dichotomy for the critical of philosophical assumptions technology. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized educators, researchers, and educational policy makers should critically analyze their own ideological beliefs technology, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and students concerning such Several (Bennett Maton, Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010) have recently argued that educational discourse about young people being digital natives, the Net Generation, appears by assumptions of technological determinism. about natives involves general that technology is causing change in students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) asserted that the digital native argument from a of causality by determinism. discourse makes the young people who have grown up been fundamentally changed by it and now have natural aptitude it compared with older people, who considered immigrants (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related claims about digital natives are that technology has caused changes 14 in students' learning styles and function (Jones & Healing, Jones & Czemiewicz, Such about natives been present educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). The natives discourse is an example o f how educators' philosophical technology influence educator beliefs students, in this case the determinist assumption that technology change students & 2010; & Healing, 2010). Bennett, and Kervin (2008) asserted that digital natives discourse has create a sense of moral panic in academic The discourse can affect debate on educational issues by presenting technological change as inevitable, and dismiss the opinions of who may concerns (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, The digital natives discourse create a problem for professional development if older educators perceived being out touch, and not able to become with technology because age and position & and Maton (2010) argued
 and Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly hEld that modErate PosItiOnS are PossIble between the TWo exTremes, and argued that the ReducTiONist NAtUre of The dichOToMY CalLs FoR thE cRItIcal eXamInation Of philosopHicAl Assumptions aBOuT technologY. StRobel and TillBerG-Webb (2009) eMpHasIZed thAt eDucatOrs, resEArcherS, and educaTiONal polICy makerS SHoUld cRitically analyze tHEiR Own ideological BeliefS aBOuT TEchNolOgy, and engaGe In criTIcal diaLOgUE WIth OTher educators And students COncErning SuCh bELiefs. SEveraL sCHolArs (Bennett & MAton, 2010; brown & CzemIewicz, 2010; jOnes & CzeMIewicz, 2010; JOnes & HeAliNg, 2010) hAve rECeNtLy aRgUEd tHAt PopULar EducatioNaL dIscouRse aBOUT YounG peOple Being Digital nativeS, or The NET GeNeratIon, apPearS iNflueNced by AssumPtIons of technologIcal DeterminiSm. DIsCouRsE abouT DigitaL naTivEs involVes the gENerAl CLAIm That inevitable techNoLOGy Is causinG ineviTAbLe CHange in sTuDenTs (JoNES & HealIng, 2010). JONeS and HealIng (2010) assERtEd That the DiGital nAtIve ArgUment PRoceEds froM a simpliStic vIEw of causality iNFluenced by tecHNoLOGiCAl deTerMinism. The diScouRSe maKes tHE cLaiM That yOung pEoPLe WHo have grown up with teChNology Have bEen fundamentaLly changed BY IT and now hAve a NAtURal aptitude for It comPared with oLDer peoplE, who aRe considEred immigRANts (Jones & czeMieWicZ, 2010). ReLATeD claims made abOUT digItAl nativEs aRe that tEchNolOgy Has CaUsed changEs 14 in studEnTs' LeArNinG stylES and even BrAin FuNctIon (JoNEs & HealIng, 2010; JoNes & CZeMiEWicZ, 2010). Such diSCoURSe abOuT dIgitAl nAtIves hAs beEN prEsent in EducationAl pOLicy StAtEments aNd popular rhetOrIc (Jones & CzeMiEwiCz, 2010). The dIGItal natiVes discourse is an example O F how eduCatOrs' phIlosOphical asSumPtions AboUT technOlogy cAn infLuEncE EDucatOR BeLieFs About studeNTS, in This cAsE invOlving tHe technological detERmiNist assumptioN thAt teCHNoLogY CaUSes InEVitABLe change to studeNts and schoOlS (beNnett & Maton, 2010; jOneS & HEaling, 2010). BEnnett, MAton, aND Kervin (2008) Asserted tHat the digItAl naTIVes Discourse hAs used drAmatic lanGUage tHAt Can crEatE a sensE oF moRal paNic in aCAdeMic ciRcles. THe DiscouRse caN aFfect debAte on educational policy iSsues bY presEntIng technoLogICal Change as iNeviTable, and diSmiSs tHe opiNioNS of edUcatORs Who MAy havE legITimate conCErNs (BENNeTt & Maton, 2010; JoneS & hEAliNg, 2010). The DigITal natIves Discourse can creatE A problem for proFessIONal DevELopmEnT if older educatOrs ArE PErceived As Being out of tOuch, and nOt AS able To becoMe profIcient wITH tEChnoloGy beCauSe of their Age AnD GeneratIoNaL PositiOn (JoNeS & HealiNg, 2010). BennET and mATon (2010) argued
 and Tillberg-Webb (2009)similarlyheldtha t m od erat e po sitions are po s sibl e between the two extr emes,  a n d ar g ue d tha t the r e du c t ion is tnat ur e  o f the  di chotomy  calls for  th ecritical exa m in ation of p hil osophical as sum ptions  a bou t  tech nol ogy.Strobe l  and T illberg-W eb b  (2009 )  emphas i z ed  tha t educators, rese a rc h ers, and educa tional  p o li c y  ma ker s should c ri tical l y analy z et h e iro wn ideologica l beliefs a b out  techn ol ogy ,  and e ngage  i n  cr itical dial ogue  with oth er edu c ators a n d stude nts co nce rni ng s u ch  b eli ef s . S e ve ral sch olars (B en ne tt &Mato n , 2 010;  Br own& Cze miewicz, 2010 ; J ones & C zemie wicz,  201 0;  Jone s & He aling ,2010) have rece ntly  argued t hat  p opu la r edu c ationa l d isc ourse a bout yo u ngpe o p l ebeing digital nati ve s ,  o r the Ne t Gene r at io n , appear sinf luen c e d byassu m pt ions oftechno l og ic al dete rm inism.  D isc our se ab o ut d igital  natives  invo l ves the genera l  claim that i n ev i t ab l e te chn ology is ca usin g  ine vita b le  ch a nge i n stu de n ts (Jones & Healing, 2 01 0). Jo nes a nd Healing (2 010) asser t e d  that th e di g it a l native argum ent p roceeds fr o m a simp listi c view o f causali t y  influen ced  by  te chn o l og ical determin i s m. T he  discou rse  makesthe  cl aim  th at  young pe ople who  h av egr own  up w i th techn ol ogy  h ave  been fundam ental ly c ha ng e d b y it an d  n o w  hav eanatu ral  a ptitu de f o r i t compa red withold e r pe op le , who a re considered  i mmigrants(J one s & Cz e m iewicz,2010). Related claims m a de abou t d igita l na tives are  th at tec hno l ogy ha s caus ed ch an ges 1 4 ins t ud ent s'  learnings t yle s and  e venbrain f unction (Jones & H e ali ng, 2010; Jon es& Cz e m ie wic z ,2 010 ). Suc h discourse about  digital n at i ve s has been pre se nt in e ducatio nal p o licy st atementsand popul ar  rhe t o ric  (Jones &Czemiewi cz, 2010) .  Thed ig italnat ives d is cou rse i s an e x amp le of howed ucator s' ph il osophica l assumptions about tec hnolog y can  in fluence e duc a tor  beliefsabou t students , i n t his c ase invol ving th e t e chnol ogic a l determi n is t a s s um ption thatt e c hno logycau s es ine vita ble change to stu d ents and schoo ls ( B e nne tt&  Mat on , 2010; Jones& H ea l i ng, 2010 ).  Bennett, M aton, an dK ervin  (2008 ) asse rted th a t  t h e digi talnat ives disc our se has use ddr a maticlang ua ge tha t canc reat e a sense of moral  pani c in ac a dem ic ci rc les. Th e  dis course can  affect deb ate on  edu catio nal pol ic y issu esby  presentin g  technolo gical  change  a s in evi table,  and d ismis s th eopi nions ofe d uc a to rs who  may  have  l egit imate con c erns (Be nne t t & Mat on , 2 0 1 0; Jon e s& Healing, 2 010 ). Th e digital na t ives di s cours e cancreate  a prob l emfo r profe ssi o n al develo pment ifo lde reduc ators ar eperc ei ved  a s being out oftouch, a nd not a s able t o b e come profic ie nt with tech nolog yb ecauseo f  th eir age and  ge ner atio nal  pos i tion (Jones & Healing, 2 010) . Ben n etand M aton(2 010) arg u ed
 and_Tillberg-Webb (2009)_similarly held that moderate_positions are_possible_between the_two_extremes, and argued_that the reductionist_nature of the dichotomy_calls for the_critical_examination of philosophical assumptions about technology. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized that educators, researchers,_and_educational policy_makers_should_critically analyze their own ideological_beliefs about technology, and engage_in critical_dialogue with other educators and students concerning such_beliefs._Several scholars (Bennett_& Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones &_Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010)_have recently argued_that_popular_educational discourse about young_people being digital natives, or the_Net Generation, appears influenced by assumptions_of technological determinism. Discourse about digital natives_involves the general claim that inevitable_technology is causing inevitable change_in students_(Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones_and Healing (2010)_asserted that_the digital native_argument proceeds from a simplistic view_of causality influenced_by technological determinism. The discourse makes_the_claim that young_people_who_have grown_up with technology_have_been fundamentally_changed_by it and now have a_natural_aptitude for it compared with older people,_who are considered immigrants_(Jones_& Czemiewicz, 2010). Related_claims made about digital natives_are that technology has caused changes_14 in_students' learning_styles and even brain function (Jones & Healing, 2010; Jones &_Czemiewicz, 2010). Such discourse about digital_natives has been present_in educational_policy_statements and popular_rhetoric_(Jones &_Czemiewicz, 2010). The digital natives discourse is_an example_o f how educators' philosophical assumptions_about technology can influence_educator_beliefs about students, in this case_involving the technological determinist assumption that_technology causes inevitable change to_students_and_schools (Bennett & Maton, 2010;_Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett, Maton,_and Kervin (2008)_asserted that the digital natives discourse has_used_dramatic language that can create a_sense_of moral panic in academic circles._The_discourse_can affect debate on educational_policy issues by presenting technological change_as inevitable, and dismiss the opinions of educators who_may have legitimate_concerns (Bennett & Maton, 2010;_Jones_&_Healing, 2010). The digital natives discourse can create a problem_for professional_development if older_educators are perceived as being out of touch, and not_as able to become proficient with technology_because of their age and generational position (Jones & Healing, 2010)._Bennet and Maton (2010) argued