Prensky (2001) illustrates the difference between what he sees as two distinct types of tech and Web users: digital natives, and digital immigrants. Those who fall into the former category are people young enough to have grown up in a period when modern technology and the Web are already pervasive and established aspects of life; in fact they are so familiar with it, it is almost as if they have learned its use as instinctively as they learned their primary language. Digital immigrants however, have had to learn the language of tech later in life, and their past experience is almost seen as a limiting factor in their ability to adapt.
However, White and Cornu (2011) disagree with this categorisation, and prefer not to distinguish by age and experience, but rather by the way in which people use technology and the Web. They argue that all ranges of technical abilities and the levels of use of the Web, vary amongst all age groups and so instead propose two new terms: digital visitors, and digital residents. A digital visitor is someone who views the Web as a place to visit when they have a particular task to perform or a need of it, and is unlikely to have other kinds of online presence. A digital resident however, may view the Web as a place to spend time, often socialising and interacting with networks and media. Part of their lives are lived online, and the Web is more than just a means to an end. White and Cornu (2011) recognise that not everyone will fit perfectly into one description or the other, and expect that everyone will fit somewhere on a sliding scale between the two.
It is stated that digital residents are not necessarily more technically adept than digital visitors, they just view and use the Web in a different manner. It is also important to note, that different people are likely to have differing levels of online literacy for different uses of the Web. Online skills for one Web use are not necessarily easily transferrable for another. One example offered in the White and Cornu (2011) paper is indicative of my personal online experience. I have an online presence on social networks such as Facebook, where I will regularly post about things that interest me and view the content of my peers. However, I have tried and failed to become a regular user of Twitter, as the short frequent outbursts of content that it necessitates is not a style in which I like to interact. Regarding myself on the scale however, I would say I am almost 100% a digital resident as I spend a couple to several hours on the Web everyday: it is my primary source for most interaction, work, and entertainment. Another example of my digital residency, which matches an observation from White (2012), is that even if I am in campus in the library, I will always look at online resources for information first, and it is rare that I will actually look for a physical book to get more information.
Sources:
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-10.
White, D., & Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday , 16 (9).
White, D, S. (2012). Visitors and Residents and learner-owned literacies. Multimedia Information & Technology, 38,1: 23-25.
at16g13 
Hi! very informative post about residents and visitors. I agree with the fact that you shouldn’t categorize people depending on their age and experience as I have seen people from older generation that use the internet frequently and they are very good with it. I think the reason why web residents tend to have more knowledge on the web is simply because they use the web for everyday purposes so they just have a lot of experience in using it.
I read the (White, D et al, 2011) and was surprised to see what i found. I previously thought of myself as a visitor rather than a resident but after reading the paper and this blog i think I fit in to the resident category. My understanding of residents and visitors increased after reading this blog!!
LikeLike