Upon my initial read of the material surrounding this topic, I was decisive in my belief that Prensky’s definition of digital ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ was not as appropriate as it may have been when it was theorised because of the progression of technology, especially the internet, and its new-found uses (i.e. social media). In light of this, I naturally had an affinity to White and Cornu’s digital ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ concept because it struck me as more inclusive of people who lie in the middle of what they called their continuum.
However, after reading Jordan’s post, I was able to take a critical approach when looking at the idea of digital ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’. As stated in my comment, from my own research, I hadn’t considered the evaluation of context being so significant to the classification of a person’s digital literacy. As well as this, Harriet’s blog post also highlighted to me that digital literacies can develop based on several different motivations. Although I was aware that a digital ‘visitor’ may be categorised as such because they don’t have the intention to reside online, I hadn’t accounted for a person having the desire to improve their use of digital resources, but already being restricted by a certain label.
Despite this being my first post, I have already learnt a lot from reading other people’s interpretations of the topic. I have also learnt a lot about my own digital literacy. As I mentioned in my own blog post, I evaluated myself on the continuum, and I believe much like other people, occupy the middle of the two ‘opposites’. For that reason, I feel that the two can operate harmoniously and by accounting for context, as stated by Jordan, the idea of ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ can be applied more effectively applied.
Word Count: 299
Featured image: Self-produced