At the end of this interesting and stimulating topic I have learnt much about how people might define their interaction with the Web. In particular, the ideas of White and Prensky. Previously, I had only heard of digital ‘natives’. However, through extensive reading and discussion of my peer’s blog posts and other resources my knowledge of these theories is vastly greater than it was.
I commented on several different blogs, and in all of these cases a stimulating thread of conversation developed. Firstly, on Ji’s post there was an interesting discussion around different people’s use of LinkedIn. Was LinkedIn was a ‘visitor’ or ‘resident’ type platform? After a diffusion of our opinions and experiences, Ji insightfully concluded that “it is how the user perceives […] their interactions […] which dictates whether they are a digital visitor or resident”. This highlights the importance of people who use these services rather than just the platforms themselves.
Another dissuasion that expanded my knowledge of these ideas was on Callum’s blog. This discussion started when I asked him to clarify where on the ‘visitor’ to ‘resident’ spectrum he saw himself. He responded that both at work and at home he has played both roles. In particular, this was in his academic work, for example MOOCs. I also noted that technical skill does not necessarily define someone’s position on the scale between ‘resident’ and ‘visitor’.
Again, when reading Catherine’s post. One of the themes in this was whether these kind of paradigms are still appropriate given the complex nature of human interaction with these technical system. It came out of this that White’s ideas were extensible, therefore helpful.
All in all, this is a fruitful and thought-provoking area that has been enjoyable to research and discuss over the last couple of weeks.