The ‘visitor’ and ‘resident’ topic was of interest and challenge. My engagement with other posts, collaborative peer discussions and now personal reflecting, it is clear there is no definitive answer to the ‘visitor’ ‘resident’ model.
My prior understanding of Prensky’s model was seen as a weakness to my discussion, as I presumed knowledge from my readers. As Jess rightly mentioned, I could have briefly discussed the development from the ‘Native-Immigrant’ model to the ‘Visitor-Resident’ model.
My initial impressions still remain, in White and Le Cornu’s model doesn’t solidify an individual into one defining concept, which challenged my thinking from the start. It was widely acknowledged that this model is viewed as a continuum (a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct). Thus, this still leaves me to question: whether we will ever be able to define a person solely as a ‘resident’ or ‘visitor’? And how and who is to judge?
Din’s blog reflects my initial and (remaining thoughts),whileWhite and Le Cornu too can’t box a user into one or the other, emphasising instead a person’s ‘motivation’, (which I hadn’t come across in my own research) and removal of generational division.
Charlie’s and Sophie’s blog also suggests that age is not a defining factor, which I agree, since web experience may be enhanced or gradual depending on factors like context, purpose and platform.
Even though my first impression remains, Anna reinforced my opinion and clarified that the continuum of this model reflects an inconclusive image of a ‘visitor’ or ‘resident’. Her inclusion of White and Le Cornu’s video challenged my thoughts about the (potential) blur between ‘professional-social’ and ‘visitor-resident’ if they are all (supposedly) interlinked.
Needless to say, I still stand in my belief that ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ cannot be prescribed.