I must revisit my initial idea of peer-feedback, after some very constructive critical comments on the discussion board. Indeed, the ‘thumbs up and down’ idea could be subject to abuse with colleagues giving each other more positive notes than to other members of the board.

But I will still maintain that some peer-feedback would be of use. One focusing only on positive feedback, where the ready-given responses to feeds/entries could be as such:

“How would you rate the above entry in terms of its relevance to the discussion topic?

·        OK

·        Very relevant/useful

I am beginning to realize the problem a lot of people have with online marking, responses or criticism is that, unlike spoken words given here and now, the online feedback stays there permanently. We don’t want to hear of our flaws (in deeds or in thinking), and if we already do, then the right course of action is to reflect and move on. Negative online feedback is a painful remainder that on that particular occasion we were wrong.

Adding to certain valid points on the discussion board, I am also thinking that Louise’s (the tutor’s) reaction was really over-the-top. Honestly, since she is well able to deal with exactly the same situation face-to-face, why now shouldn’t she just say calmly sth like “I’m sorry but this really is your task to find out. I can’t help you anymore.” Job done. bob's your uncle. No hard feelings.

Leaving the tutor's reaction aside, the likely truth is that once such ‘advice’ is given to a student, such ‘invitations’ for help will never cease...

“the thing about the online discussion is freedom of speech and everyone has the right to have their own opinion(…)”

Meeh, freedom of speech in this case has nothing to do with what’s happened here. Especially mentioning the fact of an ‘online discussion’ doesn’t change the simple fact of absolutely uncalled for verbal aggression on the Flamer’s part.

Surely, we get used to the idea of hiding behind a safe veil of the internet and our physical remoteness from the first time we use the web to chat, IM, give opinions, criticize. We are seduced to think we are invincible every time we vent our anger at someone we only acknowledge as a virtual, not physical being. Just like in a game.

It is sometimes easy to forget that the person sitting on the other side of the screen is exactly like me, with feelings and aspirations, etc.

I am thinking of an allusion to a game, more than that, I am thinking specifically of the latest GTA games or any of the Sims game. You meet other virtual beings and play by imitating real life to a certain extent. But you come to a point when you want to try something you’d never try in your life: set new boundaries, break the game’s laws, drive on the wrong side of the road, abuse a pedestrian, not feed your dog, etc. And when you are tired you switch off the game or restart it.

I have tried to put some sense into understanding where the discussion of ‘digital natives’ vs. ‘digital immigrants’ stems from. And I don’t mean the basic definition that the former – in the most simplistic terms – are those growing up surrounded by technology and the internet.

What I mean is more concerned with why the notion was coined in the first place. I seem to have found part of the answer in Dworschak’s article.

“The example of the dot shows how normal the Internet has become, and debunks the idea that it is a special world in which special things happen. Media are used by the masses if they have some relevance to everyday life, (…) and they are used for aims that people already had anyway.”

This could suggest that before advanced information and communication technology permanently present in our lives became the omnipresent reality, such notion was revered and dreamt of by the biggest brains on the planet. It was the time when possible uses of the internet and likely improvements to every man’s life where almost limitless. It would seem that all too often, however, people tend to treat the internet simply as a different (more convenient, perhaps) way of performing the tasks they would do otherwise offline.

All in all, the term ‘digital natives’ seems valid and worthy of in-depth research during the current transition period. The transition being from no or little technology present in our lives to the stage where technology permeates our lives to the extent when it is hard to imagine living without it, or when lives start to depend on it.

(I wonder what term in the future the then-ubiquitous digital natives will give to the technologically impaired oldies’ minorities…)

The digital natives of the future such as the 20-month old Clementine:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdjjhf_when-a-baby-discovers-the-ipad_tech