UoSM2008 – Topic 1

In today’s increasingly digital and dynamic world, it is no surprise that the conceptualisation of ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Immigrants’ by Prensky (2001) has been fiercely debated. Articles emerged just two years after Prensky’s original theory claiming that such a concept is outdated (White and Le Cornu, 2011), and this is testament to the digital world’s rapid pace of development.

Immigrants into Visitors?

According to Prensky (2001), older persons typify a ‘Digital Immigrant’. They are deemed ambivalent and perhaps ill-prepared to meet today’s technological demands. Digital technologies emerged later in their life, and therefore they are left with an ultimatum: attempt to adapt, or face becoming an anachronistic misfit. At least, this is what the traditional discourse leads us to believe.

However, the aforementioned ultimatum is not always applicable. Not all older individuals are incapable of adapting (Bennett et al., 2008). White and Le Cornu (2011) believe ‘Visitor’ is a more appropriate term as such individuals are hesitant to create an online identity due to privacy, and they use digital technologies in a simplistic manner (see Figure 1). They view online resources as just one of many tools to accomplish a task, and seldom use the Web as a means to participate in an online community (White and Le Cornu, 2011).

digital_immigrant_internet_usage

Natives into Residents?

Prensky (2001) writes that younger generations are experts in this digital age. In some contexts this is true, as it is hard to switch ‘off-line’, particularly with Information Technology being incorporated into educational syllabi.

However, there are young individuals who are not adept (Bennett et al., 2008Harris et al., 2010). Margaryan et al. (2011) indicate that while some young individuals are confident, a large proportion do not use technology for the benefit of their educational development. So, is it the case that type of use differs as opposed to age-related proficiency? Perhaps the generational divide is not as clear-cut as Prensky claims.

Digital ‘Residents’ typically assign great value to the Web (White and Le Cornu, 2011). It is viewed as a place where exchange and interaction is valued (Figure 2), rather than a space in which to merely obtain information. While online information may be preferred over the more traditional tools, such as books, it is argued that assessment of these resources is just as vital to ‘Residents’ (Siemens, 2005; White and Le Cornu, 2011).

digital_native_internet_usage

Whether ‘Residents’ and ‘Visitors’ should replace the terms originally proposed, is a debate still ongoing, however it is certainly clear that the original dichotomy should now be considered a continuum (where positions may change over time).

My experiences:

Do I consider myself to be a ‘Resident’? Of course! I have grown up in a digital world; a world with unimaginable quantities of data accessible in a matter of seconds. This fascinates me, and while I am well-aware of the risks to privacy, I am keen to learn and to become increasingly involved.

Indeed, I view the Web as a place; I have assigned it my own meaning. Through online communication technologies and social networks, I rely on various platforms not merely for identity formation, or for rapid international communication, but for research too. I wonder whether future generations will interact with the Web in an entirely different manner compared to today, and whether my ‘Resident’-status will change as a result.

 

References:

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775-786.

Harris, L., Warren, L., Leah, J. and Ashleigh, M. (2010) Small steps across the chasm: ideas for embedding a culture of open education in the university sector. In Education, 16 (1).

Margaryan, A. and Littlejohn, A. (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56, 429-440.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.

Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2 (1), 1-8.

White, D. and Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitors and residents: a new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16 (9).

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “UoSM2008 – Topic 1

  1. Hi Brad!
    I liked reading how you have explored the transition of how people who may have once been viewed as digital natives or immigrants are now instead classified as residents or visitors, in order to fully capture exactly what makes someone a resident or visitor in the digital world.
    As you mentioned in your blog the digital world is moving and developing at rapid pace, and because of this, and it’s increasing importance in everyday life do you think that the concepts of digital residents and visitors are something that we will still be using in the future, or that in time we will all be classed as digital residents?
    Thanks
    Rebecca

    Like

    1. Hi Rebecca,
      Thanks for your kind words about my blog post! I think that as time progresses we are likely to see the concepts of ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ transition into something entirely new. I am sure that these terms will still have relevance in the future, in a similar way to Prensky’s ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ today. At the same time, when considering the rapid pace of technological development and the fact that innovations can be largely unprecedented (take Moore’s Law for instance), perhaps there is a significant chance of ‘digital resident’ becoming universal.

      What do you think?
      Bradley

      Like

  2. In your post you look at a criticism of Prentsky’s belief that younger people are more likely to be active online, criticising the “Generational Divide” idea.

    According to the Office for National Statistics “Almost all adults aged 16 to 24 years were recent internet users (99.2%), in contrast with 38.7% of adults aged 75 years and over.”

    While I agree that age doesn’t necessarily indicate how capable any individual is of using online resources, surely this suggests there is some basis in the idea that there is still a generational difference in online access to be accounted for.

    Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2016

    Like

    1. Hi ‘parcherlock’
      This is a great counter-argument that you raise. I do believe that in the UK, this narrative rings true. In this country we largely have sufficient resources, and a syllabus-led education system (where digital literacy is emphasised at an increasingly early age), therefore it becomes a little clearer as to why a greater proportion of the UK’s younger generation are digital adept. In other, perhaps less developed countries, this may not be the case.
      It is also worth noting some flaws with the statistics used. These proportions only refer to the respective age group, therefore do not allow for ideal comparisons, as the UK’s older population is smaller than the young adult population. The definition of ‘recent’ internet use is unclear as well, and may hide other internet use by older individuals.
      Brad

      Like

  3. Sorry I hav8&n#e217;t been able to get back to you any sooner. Now that I finished our cloud migration project I’ve some more spare time Did you already find a solution for your problem?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s