Shawer and “Digital natives: where is the evidence?” by E. J. Helsper and R. Eynon yielded ample amount of information to me. The overall purpose of the articles, their theoretical framework and methodologies used were relatively conveyed in the first encounter itself. While the former article sought to eliminate the unempirical demarcation between the young and adult users of technology by offering scientific evidence in support, the latter looked forward to establishing the utility of communicative-based techniques in teaching and learning through analysis of data collected in a survey. However, a certain degree of ambiguity and obscurity persisted in the proper understanding of few terms and jargons used in the articles But a second reading enabled a better understanding of those explicit terms and jargons used by the authors. For instance, the meaning and significance of the terms like “digital native”, “digital immigrants” and “breadth of experience” used by Helsper and Eynon and acronyms like “CLT” and “EFL” used by Shawer became clearer following the second reading. The second reading thus helped in closing the gaps that were created in the first reading.
Both the articles deal with the interaction of learners with technology and the extent to which technology plays a role in their learning process. Helsper and Eynon’s study attempts to challenge the popularly held belief that people’ ability to engage with technology is a function of generational differences. They assert that the previous researchers had not considered the influence of social and cultural factors on learning. But Helsper and Eynontake into account these influences as part of their ontological and epistemological position. Their work seeks to defy the premise of correlation between age and technology use by establishing the fact that there are