# data[].attributes.body
Photo by McKaela Taylor on Unsplash

# data[].attributes.body
Photo by Crina-Miriam Cretu on Unsplash

# data[].attributes.body
A ‘digital footprint’ refers to an individual’s traceable digital interactions (Weaver & Gahegan, 2007). As technology becomes increasingly integrated into modern society, the longevity of our digital activities has come into question. Comprehending the impact of digital footprints is critical in the process of understanding how to effectively utilise them.

Before perusing academic literature surrounding digital footprints, I associated the term with a career-jeopardising bank of ‘invisible’ information that could be used against me. Having considered applicable research, I now understand the potential for this information to serve as a positive and advantageous resource when responsibly managed.

The perspective that digital footprints are permanent is supported by multiple researchers, as they describe the trail of personal information, messages, images, social media records and other ‘crumbs’ remaining within the digital landscape as a result of online activities (Leonardi, 2020; Weaver & Gahegan, 2007). Chris Jones & Associates (2010) affirm that an individual’s digital footprint is perpetually updated as they interact with the online environment. Buchanan et al. (2018) also state both the positives and negatives of these intimate records; while they aid in developing digital literacy, reputation management, and online community building, they also pose potential security threats and may lead to cyberbullying and exploitation. The conviction that digital footprints are temporary is not supported by the literature, as the digital landscape is simply too dynamic and complex to be monitored in entirety.

Analysing academic literature yielded further evidence supporting the notion that digital footprints are permanent. I can apply these findings to my personal life: even if I deactivated an email or social media account, these records would remain archived and accessible to the provider (Leonardi, 2020). Being raised in a digitally-connected world combined with studying Information Technology as a high school student has educated me regarding the permanence of online activities and the reality of ‘deletion’. However, along with many young Australians, I had not considered that my digital footprint could be positive through showcasing my “achievements, skills, identity and interests” (Buchanan et al., 2018; Weaver & Gahegan, 2007) to potential employers.

To summarise, present academic research applicable to the driving question supports the judgement that digital footprints are permanent, a sentiment that I personally agree with. However, this online presence is not an inherently bad thing, and when properly curated can assist in building a positive reputation, create networking opportunities through professional platforms such as LinkedIn, promote businesses, and more (Chris Jones & Associates, 2010; Buchanan et al., 2018).

Going forward, I aim to diligently monitor my online presence in order to shape a digital footprint that positively serves me and my career.  Additionally, as a future educator I feel it is my duty, particularly in today’s climate, to educate students on the permanence of their online activities, and the implications - both positive and negative. Furthermore, I will seek to change the stigma surrounding the ‘digital footprint’, and push for a curriculum that educates students to utilise this online reputation as a beneficial tool in the tech-centred modern world.

After receiving constructive feedback, I have elected to rework and annotate the above reflection concerning the longevity of digital footprints. While I only received one piece of feedback on this piece, I have also taken the feedback from my previous reflection into account as I feel it makes suggestions that would also benefit this work. Several small alterations have been made, and marked in red, boldfaced font. As the reader found the words ‘indelible’ and ‘ephemeral’ difficult to understand and jarring, I have replaced them with ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary” respectively. I feel it is crucial to ensure that reflections are accessible and simple to read, as this allows my peers to peruse and potentially learn from them. Subsequently, I appreciated this piece of feedback especially. To further improve the readability of this piece, I have reworded several sentences to make them more concise as suggested. Received feedback also recommended that I remove a semi-colon in my third paragraph; however, I have elected not to alter this as I believe my grammar is correct. Finally, I have responded to feedback through adding images into my blog, in order to both better engage my readers, and support visual learners.

# data[].attributes.headline
CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK (PLEASE CLICK TO EXPAND)

# data[].attributes.subject
CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK (PLEASE CLICK TO EXPAND)

# data[].attributes.headline
REFLECTION 2 - WILL MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT REALLY LAST A LIFETIME?

# data[].attributes.subject
REFLECTION 2 - WILL MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT REALLY LAST A LIFETIME?

# data[].attributes.body
A ‘digital footprint’ refers to an individual’s traceable digital interactions (Weaver & Gahegan, 2007). As technology becomes increasingly integrated into modern society, the longevity of our digital activities has come into question. The importance of comprehending the impact of the digital footprint is critical in the process of understanding how to effectively utilise it.

Before perusing academic literature surrounding digital footprints, I associated the term with a career-jeopardising bank of ‘invisible’ information that could be used against me. Having considered applicable research, I now understand the potential for this information to serve as a positive and advantageous resource when responsibly managed.

The perspective that digital footprints are indelible is supported by multiple researchers, as they describe the trail of personal information, messages, images, social media records and other ‘crumbs’ remaining within the digital landscape as a result of online activities (Leonardi, 2020; Weaver & Gahegan, 2007). Chris Jones & Associates (2010) affirm that an individual’s digital footprint is perpetually updated as they interact with the online environment. Buchanan et al. (2018) also state both the positives and negatives of these intimate records; while they aid in developing digital literacy, reputation management, and online community building, they also pose potential security threats and may lead to cyberbullying and exploitation. The conviction that digital footprints are ephemeral is not supported by the literature, as the digital landscape is simply too dynamic and complex to be monitored in its entirety.

Analysis of academic literature yielded further evidence supporting the notion that digital footprints are permanent. I can apply these findings to my personal life: even if I deactivated an email or social media account, these records would remain archived and accessible to the provider (Leonardi, 2020). Being raised in a digitally-connected world combined with studying Information Technology as a high school student has educated me regarding the permanence of online activities and the reality of ‘deletion’. However, along with many young Australians, I had not considered that my digital footprint could be positive, as it showcases my “achievements, skills, identity and interests” (Buchanan et al., 2018; Weaver & Gahegan, 2007) to potential employers.

To summarise, present academic research relating to the driving question supports the judgement that digital footprints are permanent, a sentiment that I personally agree with. However, this online presence is not an inherently bad thing, and when properly curated can assist in building a positive reputation, create networking opportunities through professional platforms such as LinkedIn, promote businesses, and more (Chris Jones & Associates, 2010; Buchanan et al., 2018).

Going forward, I aim to diligently monitor my online presence in order to shape a digital footprint that positively serves me and my career.  Additionally, as a future educator I feel it is my duty, particularly in today’s climate, to educate students on the permanence of their online activities, and the implications - both positive and negative. Furthermore, I will seek to change the stigma surrounding the ‘digital footprint’, and push for a curriculum that educates students to utilise this online reputation as a beneficial tool in the tech-centred modern world.

REFERENCES

Buchanan, Rachel, Southgate, Erica, Scevak, Jill, & Smith, Shamus P. (2018). Expert insights into education for positive digital footprint development. Scan, 37, 49–64. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1388393

Chris Jones & Associates (Producer). (2010). Staying Safe Online: Digital Footprint. [Video/DVD] Learning Zone Express. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/staying-safe-online-digital-footprint

Leonardi, P. M. (2020). COVID‐19 and the New Technologies of Organizing: Digital Exhaust, Digital Footprints, and Artificial Intelligence in the Wake of Remote Work. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12648

Weaver, S. D., & Gahegan, M. (2007). Constructing, Visualizing, and Analyzing A Digital Footprint. Geographical Review, 97(3), 324–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2007.tb00509.x

# data[].attributes.headline
REFLECTION 1 - ARE DIGITAL NATIVES A MYTH, OR REALITY?

# data[].attributes.subject
REFLECTION 1 - ARE DIGITAL NATIVES A MYTH, OR REALITY?

# data[].attributes.body
The term ‘Digital Native’, conceived in 2001, refers to the young generation raised with technology at their fingertips (Prensky, 2001). This demographic is portrayed to be technologically fluent, and possessing heightened information processing and multitasking abilities. Many academics and educators in recent years have debated; are Digital Natives a myth, or reality (Brown et al., 2010)? This reflection aims to clarify some ways in which I believe the term ‘Digital Native’ has become significantly misconstrued.

Prior to engaging with academic literature surrounding the concept of Digital Natives, I believed both that they were reality, and that I was one. However, I now find the concept of ‘the Digital Native’ and the attached assumptions exclusionary and presumptive. Despite being referred to by academics and educators alike, it has become a presumptive, age-centric term and disregards factors including accessibility issues or socioeconomic status (Sorrentino, 2018; Brown et al., 2010). Additionally, I feel that dubbing older generations ‘Digital Immigrants’ is likely to encourage a negative view of both technology and ‘natives’.

While the concept of incorporating more technology into classrooms assures more engaged and productive students, research suggests that excessive use is in fact highly detrimental to learning (Ershova, 2019). However, the viewpoint that today’s students possess no technological ability is reductive; while the ‘supercharged’ Digital Native may not exist, there is a clear correlation between access to technology and proficiency.

Based on existing research, I feel that the term ‘Digital Native’ has been misconstrued by the media, as the concept of an innately technologically fluent generation is simply unrealistic. In a 2017 Huffington Post interview, Prensky explained that what he intended to refer to a shift in culture and attitude has become a label based on age (Brenoff, 2017). Additionally, Ershova suggests that technology usage leads to distractibility and memorisation difficulties in classrooms before it benefits learning (Ershova, 2019). I am considered a ‘Digital Native’, yet the ability levels in my peer group vary significantly due to accessibility growing up, and presently. From this, it is clear that the importance of environment and opportunity far outweigh age in determining technological capability (Akcayir et al., 2016).

After reflection on the driving question, I feel the ’Digital Native’ as perceived today is not only a myth, but a disadvantageous stereotype that both insinuates innate technological capability, and overlooks how accessibility, socioeconomic status, and culture impact proficiency.  While a difference in technological ability between younger and older generations is evident, there is equal variance in ability amongst the ’Digital Natives’ (Bennett et al. 2008). Thus, I believe our view of the emerging generation of students and technology in classrooms requires reconceptualising.

Rather than the deterministic and  exclusionary label of ‘Digital Native’, future educators like myself should focus on acknowledging student’s digital skills based on individual capability rather than a preconceived notion of excellence. Furthermore, I would aim to celebrate the different ways individuals engage with technology, rather than enforcing a ‘correct’ method (Akcayir et al., 2016). Finally, rather than incorporating technology into classrooms based on ‘necessity’, it should be a sparingly used tool to help diversify and improve education, rather a means of categorising students and enforcing further structure.

REFERENCES

Akçayır, M., Dündar, H., & Akçayır, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.089

Bennett S., Maton K. & Kervin L. (2008) The digital natives debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39, 775–786.

Brenoff, A. (2017, August 24). There’s No Such Thing As “Digital Natives.” Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/digital-natives-dont-actually-exist_n_599c985de4b0a296083a9e8a

‌

Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

Ershova, R. V. (2019). Digital Generation: Between Myth and Reality. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 62(2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-2-96-108

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Sorrentino, P. (2018). The mystery of the digital natives’ existence: Questioning the validity of the Prenskian metaphor. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i10.9434