Pensky (2001) makes a distinction between what he calls “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. Digital natives, according to him, are those born digital and enjoy a digital sensitivity and show skillful use. In contrast, digital immigrants are those who have possible adaptation problems to technology around them. However, White and Le Cornu (2011) contradict Prensky’s (2001) distinction and argue that it is impossible to assert that digital immigrants will never be competent and at ease within a digital environment. On the contrary, an ‘immigrant’ stage is only the start of a digital journey, which eventually leads to being a ‘native’.
Therefore, White and Le Cornu (2011) argue that we should look into how individuals engage with technology instead of Prensky’s two distinct categories. He proposes an entirely different conception reflected in their metaphor “Visitors & Residents”. White and Le Cornu (2011) ensure that we should consider this as a continuum rather than a dichotomy as individuals can navigate the Web as visitors or as residents. When in Visitor mode, individuals can serve the Web to undertake specific tasks, such as searching for information online, reading online, and viewing content without leaving any social trace. When individuals go online to connect with others, share posts, and comment on other posts, they enter the ‘resident mode’ as they attempt social visibility.
Now, while I entirely agree with White and Le Cornu’s (2011) criticism of the flawed metaphor of “Natives & Immigrants”, I also consider White, and Le Cornu’s (2011) metaphor as a bit too simplistic or maybe does not reflect the word “residency”. The word ‘resident’ bears a sense of belonging to an abode where you socially co-exist within that place, but most importantly, where you act UPON that place: change it, alter things in it, and manipulate it. Being a resident, in my opinion, is not just about leaving traces on the internet. Instead, it is about the capacity and the knowledge of using it for different purposes beyond their apparent use and the ability to act upon them. For instance, children have round-the-clock access to a myriad of multiplayer online role-playing games, such as Fortnite, Roblox, and many others, as part of their extramural activities (Sundqvist, 2009). They have accounts and play with others from all over the world. They talk live and through writing, create groups, and comment on each other’s experiences, which, according to White and Le Cornu (2011), is what it takes to be a resident. But does this make them residents? Do they have the capacity and knowledge to use these games for other purposes? I don’t think so!
In my opinion, children can be great gamers, but only teachers can use games as learning resources. My own experience with teaching various age groups indicates that students who are born digital are not inherently capable of understanding or using digital tools, whereas teachers are relatively competent in manipulating digital resources for a variety of educational purposes. Therefore, students use these games for entertainment purposes, but teachers can use these games for learning purposes. And this is what it takes to be a resident: to act within that environment and upon it.
References:
Prensky. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Sundqvist, P. (2009) Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary. PhD, Karlstad University Studies, 2009:55, Karlstad.
White, D. & Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9).
