 Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Discourse about digital natives includes the general claim that inevitable technology is causing inevitable change in students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) asserted that the digital natives 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 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 in students' learning styles and even brain function (Jones & Healing, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Such discourse about digital natives has been widespread in educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). According to Bennett and Maton (2010) and Jones and Healing (2010) the discourse about digital natives is influenced by technological determinism and the assumption that technology causes inevitable and radical change to both students and schools. Scholars have argued that assumptions about digital natives may inhibit balanced debate from occurring in schools on some educational technology policy issues (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett et al. (2008) asserted that the digital natives discourse uses dramatic language that has created moral panic in academic circles. Jones and Healing (2010) observed the digital natives discourse created a panic 65 in schools whereby older educators were perceived as being out of touch, and not as able to become proficient with technology because of their age and generational position. Educational technology standards call for schools to prepare students with 21stcentury skills that will equip them to be successful in a global economy (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). This challenge can involve managing the transformation of educational practices, and leveraging technology as integral to the change process (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). However, the tone o f the digital natives discourse can dismiss the opinions o f educators who may have legitimate concerns, and portray educators who may resist more radical change efforts as being out of touch (Jones & Healing, 2010). Empirical research on digital natives. Bennet and Maton (2010) argued that educators should move beyond debate characterized by digital natives rhetoric toward rationale debate based on researchable issues. Jones and Czemiewicz (2010)
Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Discourse about digital natives includes the general title that inevitable engineering is causing inevitable change in student (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) affirm that the digital natives argument proceed from a simplistic scene of causality influenced by technical determinism. The sermon makes the call that young people who have grow up with technology have been changed by it and now have a natural aptitude for it compared with honest-to-god people, who are considered immigrants (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related claim made about digital natives are that technology has caused change in students' learning styles and even brain function (Jones & Healing, 2010; Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Such sermon about digital natives has been widespread in educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). According to Bennett and Maton (2010) and Jones and Healing (2010) the discourse about digital natives is influenced by technological determinism and the assumption that technology causes inevitable and radical change to both students and schools. scholar have argued that assumptions about digital native may inhibit balanced debate from occurring in schools on some educational engineering policy issues (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett et al. (2008) assert that the digital natives discourse use dramatic language that has created moral panic in academic circles. Jones and Healing (2010) observed the digital natives discussion created a panic 65 in schools whereby older educators were perceive as being out of touch, and not equally able to become adept with technology because of their age and generational position. Educational technology standard call for schools to prepare students with 21stcentury skills that will equip them to be successful in a global economy (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). This challenge can involve managing the transformation of educational practice, and leveraging engineering as integral to the change process (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). However, the tone o degree fahrenheit the digital natives converse can dismiss the public opinion o f educators who may have lawful concerns, and portray educators who may resist more radical change efforts as being out of touch (Jones & Healing, 2010). Empirical research on digital natives. Bennet and Maton (2010) argued that educators should travel beyond debate characterized by digital native rhetoric toward rationale debate based on researchable issues. Jones and Czemiewicz (2010 )
 Mahon, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Mones & Czemiewice, 2010; Jones & Healjng, 2010). Diszourse about digital natives ibcludtf the general claio that invvitable rechiology is causinj inevitable cgwnge mn students (Jongs & Healing, 2010). Jones and Heanivg (2010) asserted that the digital natives argumemt proceeds from a spm[lisfpc view of causality influenced by tecinological detetminism. The discourse maked thf claim that young people who havq grown up wigh technology have beeh changed by it and now have a vaturcl aptitude fir lj compared wmth olqer people, wmp are wonsideted immigrants (Joies & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related rlaims made about didital nathvzs are that technologt yas cduseg chxbger ih xthdents' leerning stylss and even brain function (Jonts & Yealing, 2010; Jonea & Czeiiqwicz, 2010). Such discourse about digital natpves has been widespread in educational policy sjatements wnd popular rhetoric (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). According to Bxnvetu qnd Mxroj (2010) and Jones and Healing (2010) the discourse about sibinal natives is innluenced by technokohivwl determiniso and cge assumption that tfchnolody cayses inevytabke and radical change to borh students cnd schools. Scholars kave argued chat axsumpyions about digital natnves mzy inhibit halanced sdbate from occurfinn it schools on some educatiogal technilogv policy issoes (Bengett & Matoj, 2010; Jokas & Healing, 2010). Benneht et an. (2008) assertef that the digital natives discourse uses drakadic languagz that has created ioral panic in academnc cirzles. Jones and Heeling (2010) obserded the digitdp natives divcourse sreared q panic 65 in schools whrreby oldvr eduxators were perceiyed ar being out of tiucy, and not as abke go febomx proshcient with dechvoluby bezause of thcir age and generational povitikn. Educational tecnnjlogy stqndards sall for schopls to prepare stufents wivh 21stcrntory skills that will equip them to be sufcefsful in a gjobao economy (Sckrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). This challenge can involve managing rhe transformation pn educationak prastices, ang leveraging technoligy as integral tp the change process (Achrum & Levln, 2009; Striano, 2009). However, the tone o f the digital natives discourse can dismiws the opinions o r edicatogs cho may hwve pxgitimate concernx, and portray educators who may resist koxe radical change efforts as nekng out of tooch (Jones & Healing, 2010). Empiridal resesrch on digital natives. Bennet snd Maton (2010) argued that ecucators shoumd movv bxyond debate charactrrized by dugital batiyes rhetoric tuwatd rationalf deuatz based on researchable issues. Jobes ane Fzemiewicz (2010)
Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones 2010; & Healing, Discourse about digital that technology is causing change in students & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing asserted that the digital natives argument proceeds from a simplistic view of causality by technological determinism. The discourse makes the claim that young people who have up technology been by it and now have a natural aptitude for it compared with older people, who are immigrants (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Related claims made digital natives are that has caused changes in students' styles even brain (Jones Healing, Jones & Czemiewicz, Such discourse about digital natives has been widespread in educational policy statements and popular rhetoric (Jones & 2010). According and Maton and and (2010) the discourse natives is influenced by technological determinism that technology causes inevitable and radical change to students and Scholars have argued that assumptions about natives may inhibit balanced debate from occurring in on some educational technology policy issues (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett (2008) asserted that the natives discourse uses language has moral in academic Jones and Healing (2010) observed the digital natives discourse created a 65 in schools whereby older educators were perceived as being touch, not as able become proficient with technology of age and generational position. standards for students 21stcentury that will equip them be successful in a global (Schrum & Levin, 2009; involve managing the transformation of educational practices, and technology as integral to the change process & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009). However, the tone o f the digital discourse can opinions o f educators who may have legitimate and portray educators who resist more radical change efforts as being out of (Jones Healing, 2010). research on digital Bennet and Maton argued that educators beyond debate by natives debate based on researchable issues. Jones Czemiewicz
 Maton, 2010; Brown & Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones & czemiewicz, 2010; jones & heaLinG, 2010). DIscoUrse About digital naTIves Includes the general claiM that InEVitaBLe TechnOlogy is CAuSINg iNeViTabLe CHaNge in StuDents (JoNes & Healing, 2010). jonEs And Healing (2010) asSErTed that the DigItal natives 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 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 In stUdeNts' lEarniNg styles and evEn bRain FUncTion (JOnes & HEaliNg, 2010; jones & czemieWicz, 2010). SUcH discourse about DigiTal nativeS haS bEen WiDesprEAd in edUcaTioNal poliCy stateMEntS aND POpUlar rhetoric (Jones & CZeMIEwIcz, 2010). AccorDing to bEnNeTT and MatoN (2010) aNd JOnes AND HealIng (2010) tHE dIscourse About dIGiTaL nativeS iS influEnCed By tEchnoLOgicAl deteRminism aNd the ASsumption that tEChnology causeS InEVItABle aNd rAdical changE to bOTh stUdenTS aNd sCHools. scholArS HaVE argued that assumptiOnS about DigitAl natives may iNhibit balaNCED debate fRom oCCuRRing in schools oN some EducationaL TechnoloGy polIcy issueS (Bennett & MATOn, 2010; Jones & HEalIng, 2010). benNetT ET aL. (2008) asserted that THE digItAl nativEs dIscoursE usEs dRamAtiC lAnguage thAt has creAtEd MoRaL paNic in ACademic cIrCleS. JOneS and HEAling (2010) oBservEd thE dIgITal Natives DIsCOUrse CrEaTed a PanIc 65 In schOols WHerEby oldeR educatorS weRE perCeIvEd as beiNg out of touch, aNd Not as able tO bEcoMe profICIent with Technology because of theiR Age and gEneRatioNal pOsition. EdUcaTional TecHNology StandaRds caLl For SCHools TO PrEpaRe Students wiTH 21StcEnturY sKillS that wiLl equip them to be sucCEssFul in a global eConOmy (SCHRuM & LeVIn, 2009; sTriAnO, 2009). thiS CHallenge can invoLve managinG tHE tRansformatIOn oF eDucatioNal pracTices, ANd leverAging techNology as iNtEgraL TO thE change proCess (SchrUm & Levin, 2009; StRIano, 2009). HOWeVer, thE toNe o f thE dIgiTal naTives dIScoUrse cAn dismIsS the opInionS o F educatoRs who may have legitimate cOncernS, and pOrtRay educatOrs WHo mAy resist mOre rAdical chanGe eFfoRts as BeiNG out oF touCH (JOneS & healiNg, 2010). EmPIrical resEArCh oN DIgItal natives. bENNet And MaTon (2010) ARgued tHat eDucators should movE Beyond debate chAracTERizEd bY DigiTaL natives rhetorIc tOwARD rationaLe Debate based On researChABle isSues. JoNes and czemiewICZ (2010)
 Maton, 2010; Brown & Czem iewicz, 20 10; J one s &  C zemi ewic z, 2010; Jones & He aling, 2010). Discours e abo ut digi t al  nati ves inc l ud e s  th ege ner al cl aim t hat  inevit able techn olo gy  is causingi ne vitable ch ang e in student s ( Jones&Hea l ing,201 0). J ones a n d Heal ing (2010 )a sserte d  that t h e  d igit al natives argume n tp roceeds from a  simpl is t ic v iew  of  causality  i nflue n ced byt ec h n o log i cal determini sm. The dis c our se mak es  th e  claim  that  y o ung  people who  hav e grown u p with technol o gy have  beencha nge d by it  a ndno w  ha v ea n a tur al aptit ud efor i t co m p a r ed w ith  old er pe ople, who are  co nsid e red  immi grant s (J on es &Czemie wicz,  2 010). Related c laim s made ab out  d igi ta l nat i ves ar e t hat  techno logy ha s  ca us e d ch anges in students'  l e a rn ing styl es and ev en brain fu nc tio n (J o n es &Heal i ng , 2010;Jones&  C ze miewicz ,2010).  S uch  di scour s e ab out di gital na tives has been wides p read in educa t io n a lp olic y s tatements a nd p o pula r rh e to ric (Jone s & C ze m ie w icz, 2010). Accordi ng  to Be nnett  and Maton (2 010) and J o n e s and He alin g  ( 2 010) the disco urseabout digi t al nativ es is  influen ced by te c h nologica l d ete rmi nis m an d the assumpt i o n th at  techno log y cause s i nev ita ble  a nd radica l change  t obo th  st udent s  and sch oo ls.  S cho larsh ave ar guedthat  a ss u mpt ions ab o ut d igit al  n ativ esma y inh ibit bal anced d ebate fro m o c curr in gin scho ols on some e du cational t ec hno logy p o l icy issu es (Bennett & Maton, 20 1 0; Jone s &  Heal ing,  2010). B enn ett et  al .  (2008 ) asse rtedth att h e dig i t al  na ti ves discou r s e u ses d ra mati c langu age that has creat e d m oral panic in  ac adem i c  c irc l es .  Jo ne s  an d Healing (2010)observed t he di gital nati v esdi scourse  create d a p a nic 65in school s whereby  o lder e duc ators were  perceiv ed as bei n g out of  touc h,and no tasableto bec o meprofi cientwi th tec hnolo gy  because  of their age and gener ationa l pos iti on. Educa tio n altechnolog y st andards ca llfor  scho ols to pr epar e  s tud e nts w ith2 1stcentur y  s kil l s  t hat will eq u i p  th em to  be succes sful  in a global econ o my (Schrum & L evin , 200 9;S tria no , 2009). Thischa ll e n ge can i nv olve managi ng the t ra n sform ationof edu cationa l pr a ctices , an d l everaging  te ch n ology a sin t egralto t he  chang e proc e ss ( S c hrum & Levin, 20 09; S t r iano, 200 9). H ow ever, t h e to ne o f the  digital na tivesdisc ourse  can di sm iss th e o pi nions o fe ducatorswho m ay have  l egit ima te con cern s ,  andport ra y e ducatorsw h om ay  r e sis t mo re ra di calchange ef f orts asbei n g out o ftou c h  (Jone s  & H ealing, 20 10) . Emp i r ical resea r ch o n  d i gital  nativ es. Be nnet an d  Ma to n (2010 ) a r g ued thateducators sho ul d mo ve beyon ddeba te  ch ar acterized by di gital na tives rh e t oric t owa r d ra t ionale  d ebate basedon re se a rchable i ssu es. Jon e s a ndCze miew icz  (20 1 0)
 Maton,_2010; Brown_& Czemiewicz, 2010; Jones_& Czemiewicz,_2010;_Jones &_Healing,_2010). Discourse about_digital natives includes_the general claim that_inevitable technology is_causing_inevitable change in students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) asserted that_the_digital natives_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 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 in students' learning styles and even_brain function (Jones & Healing, 2010;_Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Such_discourse about_digital natives has been widespread_in educational policy_statements and_popular rhetoric (Jones_& Czemiewicz, 2010). According to Bennett_and Maton (2010)_and Jones and Healing (2010) the_discourse_about digital natives_is_influenced_by technological_determinism and the_assumption_that technology_causes_inevitable and radical change to both_students_and schools. Scholars have argued that assumptions_about digital natives may_inhibit_balanced debate from occurring_in schools on some educational_technology policy issues (Bennett & Maton,_2010; Jones_& Healing,_2010). Bennett et al. (2008) asserted that the digital natives discourse_uses dramatic language that has created_moral panic in academic_circles. Jones_and_Healing (2010) observed_the_digital natives_discourse created a panic 65 in schools_whereby older_educators were perceived as being out_of touch, and not_as_able to become proficient with technology_because of their age and generational_position. Educational technology standards call_for_schools_to prepare students with 21stcentury_skills that will equip them to_be successful in_a global economy (Schrum & Levin, 2009;_Striano,_2009). This challenge can involve managing_the_transformation of educational practices, and leveraging_technology_as_integral to the change process_(Schrum & Levin, 2009; Striano, 2009)._However, the tone o f the digital natives discourse_can dismiss the_opinions o f educators who_may_have_legitimate concerns, and portray educators who may resist more radical_change efforts_as being out_of touch (Jones & Healing, 2010). Empirical research on digital_natives. Bennet and Maton (2010) argued that_educators should move beyond debate characterized by digital natives rhetoric toward_rationale debate based on researchable issues. Jones and_Czemiewicz (2010)