Bacaan
Let's Retire the "Digital Native"
(1) In 2001, the writer Marc Prensky described young people who had grown up surrounded by computers, video games, and the internet as "digital natives." The phrase caught on quickly, and more than two decades later it is still heard in school meetings, job advertisements, and newspaper columns. It is time we stopped using it.
(2) The problem is not that the label is unkind. It is that it quietly turns a fact about age into a claim about skill. Growing up with a smartphone makes a teenager comfortable with apps and quick at typing. It does not, by itself, teach anyone how to check whether a viral video is real, how a search engine ranks its results, or why a free app might be collecting their data. Being familiar with a tool is not the same as understanding it, in the same way that riding in cars every day does not turn someone into a mechanic.
(3) This confusion has real consequences. If teachers assume that their students already know how to judge online sources, they may never teach them to do so. In a survey of 300 first-year students at a university in Kota Rembulan (fictional), most rated their own ability to spot false news as "good" or "very good," yet fewer than a third correctly identified a sponsored article in a short test.
(4) The belief that young people are naturally skilled with technology is, in short, unwarranted. Digital skills are learned, just like reading and arithmetic, and someone has to teach them. Instead of calling students natives, we should treat them as what they are: learners.
Soal 1
Pilih satu jawabanWhich of the following best describes how paragraph 3 relates to paragraph 2?
Lihat kunci & pembahasan
Kunci: E
Kenapa benar
Paragraf (2) menjelaskan masalahnya: label itu mengubah fakta usia menjadi klaim keterampilan. Paragraf (3) dibuka dengan "This confusion has real consequences", menyebut akibatnya (guru tidak mengajarkan cara menilai sumber daring), lalu memberi bukti survei mahasiswa. Jadi paragraf (3) menunjukkan akibat masalah itu sekaligus memberi bukti.
Langkah
Ringkas paragraf (2): label digital native menyamakan terbiasa dengan memahami.
Baca kalimat pertama paragraf (3): This confusion merujuk ke masalah paragraf (2), dan has real consequences menandai akibat.
Lihat isi paragraf (3) selanjutnya: akibat (tidak diajarkan) + data survei sebagai bukti.
Tips: kalimat pertama paragraf sering memuat penanda hubungan (This confusion…, However…, As a result…). Baca kalimat itu dulu.
Kenapa opsi lain salah
- A.
Paragraf (3) tidak memuat pandangan lawan. Survei di dalamnya justru mendukung argumen penulis.
- B.
Usulan solusi (keterampilan digital harus diajarkan, siswa diperlakukan sebagai pembelajar) baru muncul di paragraf (4).
- C.
Sejarah istilah (Prensky, 2001) ada di paragraf (1), bukan paragraf (3).
- D.
Perbandingan dengan mobil hanya ada di paragraf (2). Paragraf (3) beralih ke akibat dan data survei.
Konsep
Organisasi teks argumentatif: masalah → akibat dan bukti → simpulan atau solusi, dikenali lewat penanda kohesi di awal paragraf.
Jebakan umum
Mengira setiap paragraf yang memuat data adalah pandangan lawan.
Mengabaikan kata rujukan This confusion yang mengikat paragraf (3) ke paragraf (2).
Status soal: Lolos cek otomatis · Belum ditelaah komunitas · Apa artinya?

