Author: Gill

“Robot sitting at a desk in a classroom” – Fotor Image Generator

For this task, we were asked to consider the impacts of a chosen learning innovation. I was unable to participate in the last activity in the course, where we researched a recent instance of innovation in instructional design. However, I read what my peers wrote, and  I am intrigued by the topic of AI content writers. I decided to examine that further in this task because I have found an upturn in written work submitted by my students where it is evident that they did not write what they submitted, but the work is not plagiarised. Students used an AI content writer.

AI content writers use artificial intelligence to produce written text based on the user’s input and generate “human-like” content (Choudry, 2022).  In an everyday scenario, we use AI content writers in the form of predictive text or often programs such as Grammarly (McKnight, 2021). They are not new, but the programs are becoming more advanced, and people’s awareness of the prevalence of their use is increasing (Thorley, 2021).  AI content writers are commonly used for marketing, blogs and online content generation (Choudry, 2022; Thorley, 2021). They are quick and easy to use. Using a selected app, the user can enter a topic/ detail they want to write about, and within seconds written text on that topic is produced. The key factor on the user’s side is that they must ensure that the details they enter are fit for purpose or that what is generated is not what is intended.

In the case of my students, for a paper they were tasked to write, I received well-written text meeting the word count that spoke very generally about the topic but did not include any citations. The work missed nuances of specific instructions, such as “use key terms from the text” or “why do you believe this to be true.” The submitted work was generic, lacked original thought and did not produce what was asked in the task. AI-content writers lack personality, writing style (Fyfe, 2022; McKnight, 2021), and originality (Mathew, 2022). You might wonder how I knew an AI content writer wrote it. Well, my students are ESL students whose written English is developing. When writing to a student to state I did not believe they wrote their perfectly written 800-word assignment, I received this response: “but Teacher i wrote . you cant prove .” After a conversation, they and others admitted what they had done.

In the case of my students, their reliance on easy-to-use technology impacts their learning. They feel they do not need to do the work or learn the content because they use an app to generate products to convey learning. There are limits to developing their written skills further if using an AI content writer rather than completing the task independently; however, there is an indication that grammar-checking apps can improve student mastery of grammar when instructors use it as a marking tool for feedback (Toncic, 2020).  AI content generation being submitted for text-based tasks has implications for the authenticity of work and academic integrity (Thorley, 2021). Suppose the other instructors in my program do not know what to look for in AI-generated content. Students may receive passing grades and graduate without learning or legitimately meeting the program’s demands. Teachers often unknowingly give better grades to students who use AI grammar-checking apps (Toncic, 2020), which brings forth discussions of access based on socioeconomic factors and digital literacy (Thorley, 2021). It also raises concerns about the academic rigour and program reputation of those who graduate and cannot compose a simple sentence without errors.  There are also implications on assessment choice, deliverables, design and ensuring that students learn what is intended.

In the traditional context of academia, the increase in AI content generators will force educators to consider multiple aspects of their practice. There will need to be considerations as to what writing is, what we place value on (Thorley, 2021) in teaching and assessment, and ensuring that students have equal access to the tools.  In terms of impact, there is much to consider. Still, it is important to note that there are cases where deliberately using AI content generators as co-creators of content integrated as part of a task can increase student writing competencies. For example, in a small study,  Kangasharju et al. (2022) had a group of students use the AI-based Poetry Machine as part of the draft process, using varying features and versions of their poems to create a final copy. The study found that the process of a co-writer increased student creativity and the quality of the product (Kangasharju et al., 2022).  Nazari et al. (2021) found that AI writing tools can improve self-efficacy and engagement while supporting self-directed learning in post-graduate non-native English speakers. While the results of these studies have limitations in scope and size, they demonstrate an opportunity to use AI content writers for good in a controlled environment. They present a positive outlook on how AI-writing tools can support student learning compared to a tool for cheating. Maybe as we re-think teaching and assessment of writing overall, we can find ways to integrate AI writing tools, and students will be less inclined to use them dishonestly. 

References

Choudry, M. W. (2022, October 18). What are AI content writing tools? (and should you use one?). HubSpot. https://blog.hubspot.com/website/ai-writing-generator#:~:text=AI%20writing%20tools%2C%20also%20known,businesses%20that%20conduct%20content%20marketing.

Fyfe, P. (2022). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z

Kangasharju, A., Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M., & Toom, A. (2022). Lower secondary students’ poetry writing with the ai-based poetry machine. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100048

Mathew, V. (2022, August 3). Ai content writing risks – 8 unspoken consequences you need to know. ShoutMeLoud. https://www.shoutmeloud.com/ai-content-writing-risks.html

McKnight, L. (2021, March 9). To succeed in an AI world, students must learn the human traits of writing. The Conversation. Retrieved December 31, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/to-succeed-in-an-ai-world-students-must-learn-the-human-traits-of-writing-152321

Nazari, N., Shabbir, M., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014

Thorley, J. (Host). (2021, June 1). Anticipating the impact of AI-based writing on education and assessment (No. 28) [Video podcast episode]. In Integrity matters. turnitin. https://youtu.be/oEvvi-0Wggc Toncic, J. (2020). Teachers, AI grammar checkers, and the newest literacies: emending writing pedagogy and assessment. Digital Culture and Education, 12(1), 26–51.

• 

I was reflecting on the notion of deciding on an instructional design model and what factors come into play when making those decisions. I believe that only some design with a model in mind because subject matter experts (SMEs) often are unfamiliar with educational theories and practices) despite being employed to instruct (Hogue, n.d; Weller, 2020). This was addressed from an educational context, but I suspect those in the program from industries outside of education would confirm this to be true elsewhere. When I think about my experience as a restaurant manager training employees or as an educator and the training/education I received before being unleashed on those I was instructing, the consideration of design models was limited to non-existent.

Regardless of my experience or knowledge of instructional design models, the following were factors in making my design decisions:

1. Outcomes– what are the learners supposed to know or be able to do when completing the course or training session?
2. Who– are the learners?
3. Timelines– how long do they have to achieve the outcomes?
4. Delivery tools, access and environment– what tools are available to deliver the outcomes, and where is the training happening?  What tools do my learners have and what would they need to achieve outcomes?
5. Assessment– how will they be assessed, and what are the measurements of success?

These decisions align with various aspects of instructional design, such as design goals, design approaches, and design assessment, that Parchoma et al. (2019, Table 2) describe without subscribing to one model or even having knowledge of specific models compared to best practices acquired over time.  They also have aspects of the ADDIE process, a foundation framework for multiple design models (Dousay, 2018).  Instructional design is layered and is rarely about choosing one model; instead, the designer draws upon various models, theories, strategies and experiences to “customise each instance of instructional design” (Dousay, 2018, Other ID Models section).  Much of the choice regarding innovation depends on the learning environment, such as face-to-face (F2F), online (synchronous or asynchronous or both), or blended as well as the digital literacy of instructors and learners. 

I choose different tools for the same course for different delivery modes while the outcome remains the same. Innovation does not always infer technology as part of instructional design; however, innovation can come from a willingness to change and improve the design. This can derive from collaborating with instructional designers trained in instructional design. It can also come from listening to student feedback, and perception of a course design is vital to ensuring that the course is learner-centred  (Hogue, n.d.). As an instructor, it is important to be flexible, listen to what worked, and adjust accordingly in the design to improve. That is innovation: responding and changing to make something better. 

As part of the guiding questions, I considered which models I integrate into my own instructional design or have adapted as I learn more about instructional design over the past few years.  I use Bloom’s taxonomy to design unit outcomes and lesson-learning outcomes. Saved on my desktop is a copy of “Bloom’s verbs” (see photo) listing numerous verbs related to the six objectives of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis and synthesis.  I aim for outcomes that reach each level in some way, and these outcomes lead to the BOPPPS model for lesson planning.  I find BOPPPS to be an excellent lesson model regardless of the learning environment.

I primarily work with international students and have been examining Universal Design Learning (UDL) and aiming to adapt some practices by designing for students with multiple pathways to achieve learning outcomes (Tacks et al., 2021).  Giving them options and more variety has increased both achievements of outcomes and engagement in my courses. One thing I noted from the readings, however, was the assumptions behind Bloom’s focus on outcomes with limited consideration for learner diversity (Easter-Ekholm, 2020). If aiming to design a course with UDL principles, I’ll need to ensure that the outcome themselves are not hindering learners from the outset. Has anyone had any moments where they realised unintentional bias or social-cultural context in their instructional design is limiting their learners? 

References

Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional design models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. Ed Tech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models

Heaster-Ekholm, K. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: their theoretical roots and cultural considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1275582.pdf

Hogue, R. J. (Host). (n.d.). S3E1: Janet Lee and Darlesa Cahoon are analyzing intsructional design [Audio podcast episode]. In Demystifying intrusctional design.

Parchoma, G., Koole, M., Morrison, D., Nelson, D., & Dreaver-Charles, K. (2019). Designing for learning in the yellow house: A comparison of instructional and learning design origins and practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1704693

Tacks, S., Zhang, J., Lee, H., Truong, L., & Smulders, D. (2021). A comprehensive guide to applying Universal Design for Learning. JIBC. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcudl/

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.

Photo source: engaeli

Let me introduce… Dr Daphne Koller

Dr Daphne Koller is a highly regarded Computer Sciences professor at Stanford University who focuses on biomedicine and machine learning (Daphne Koller, n.d.).  She is the founder of insitro, a company that focuses on machine learning and drug discovery/ development (insitro, n.d.). In our class book club chat on September 16, 2022, a facet of the conversation discussed the gap in ed tech being pedagogically driven and the lack of adoption by educators. This led to a discussion about the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, sharing resources, and educators’ involvement in ed tech development to encourage adoption. I chose Dr Koller because, besides AI and biomedicine, she is an educational forerunner developing quality ed tech that is open, accessible, and engaging.

Her list of achievements and publications is long.  Notably, she was listed in 2013 on Time Magazine’s list of 100 most influential people because, with her business partner, they founded Coursera, an open learning platform.  According to Koller (TED, 2012), they recognised a gap between degree programs and employability; additionally, various access challenges (monetary and otherwise).  The platform provides high-calibre, interdisciplinary, open courses in collaboration with various educational institutions.

“We wanted to create the best quality education for as many people as possible. So, we formed Coursera, whose goal is to take the best courses from the best instructors at the best universities and provide to everyone around the world for free.” (TED, 2012, minute 3:27)

Within the video (Ted, 2012), she demonstrates how students use the platform that encourages innovation, creativity and problem-solving through active learning.

In 2020, Dr Koller founded engaeli.  This platform is designed for higher education and corporate environments with active learning principles (engageli, n.d.).  The secure platform can integrate with many learning management systems (LMS) and other collaboration tools while offering face-to-face, online and hybrid learning options (engageli, n.d.).  It has recently won awards (pictured above). It appears to be an exciting development in ed tech because it was built from the ground up with engaged, active education and learning theory practices as the foundation of the design.  I would be interested to know more about analytics and data collection; however, what I find essential about Dr Koller’s work is that she is an educator who designs meaningful ed tech for educators that can be quickly and widely adopted across disciplines and formats. The gap we acknowledged in our class session.

References

Daphne Koller. (n.d.). Home [LinkedIn page]. LinkedIn. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/in/daphne-koller-4053a820

engageli. (n.d.). Engageli: Where engaged learning happens. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://www.engageli.com/

insitro. (n.d.). insitro. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://insitro.com/

TED. (2012, August 1). Daphne Koller: What we’re learning from online education [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/U6FvJ6jMGHU

Preface– The pathway to decide

The requirement for this assignment in LRTN 523 was to introduce a significant contributor to ed-tech. Inspired by the readings of Weller (2020) and the accompanying audio file discussions (Between the Chapters: Blogging – 25 Years of Ed Tech: The Serialized Audio Version, n.d.), I sought to read about various contributors to the field but was unsure.  Audrey Watters piqued my interest, but I noted that Michael had covered her already. After some consideration, I settled on Neil Selwyn because I was drawn to his critical views and assessment of ed tech.  It appeals to me that he acknowledges the benefits of ed tech on learning and looks at the broader implications of using it, such as sustainability. Here is a list of articles from his blog that you might find interesting. He is clearly, a significant player in the field; however, when I returned to the assignment outline, I considered the instructions regarding the unheard voices and whom we chose for the task, and I reconsidered my choice.

In this effort, I uncovered this article (Ivus, 2022) about Marissa Hill:

‘Marissa is the Indigenous Innovation Lab Manager at the Indigenous Innovation Initiative, where she is co-creating a first-of-its-kind pre-seed through scale Indigenous innovation lab in partnership with community, partners, and innovators.’ (Grand Challenges Canada, n.d.)

I could not find much information on Marissa, and I realised she is in the tech realm more than ed tech.  Thus, I decided to introduce you to her here and not focus on her for the assignment but encourage you to see what type of projects she participates in.

Now over to my other post for the assignment focus.

References

Between the chapters: Blogging – 25 years of ed tech: The serialized audio version. (n.d.). https://25years.opened.ca/2021/01/14/between-the-chapters-blogging/

Grand Challenges Canada. (n.d.). Marissa hill – Grand challenges Canada. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://www.grandchallenges.ca/people/marissa-hill/

Ivus, M. (2022, April 20). Indigenous women in tech: “we belong here.”. ICTC Digital Think Tank. https://www.digitalthinktankictc.com/articles/indigenous-women-in-tech-we-belong-here

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.

Second Life

I had never heard of Second Life (SL) until reading Weller (2020). From reading the chapter (Weller, 2020), the motivation for universities to have virtual islands was unclear.  There was discussion of the great possibility of SL and that it could integrate with learning management systems (LMS) such as Moodle, but I did not get a true sense of what it hoped to achieve in education.  SL, as it was being used in education by universities in the mid-2000s phased out; however, SL is still being used.  It is one of the largest spaces for virtual commodity exchanges, such as Bitcoin (Virgilio, 2022).  Thus, while SL was not strongly adopted in the education realm or valuable to what I teach currently, it remains relevant in our lives behind the scenes. 

As discussed in the post-chapter discussions online (Between the Chapters: Blogging – 25 Years of Ed Tech: The Serialized Audio Version, n.d.), SL has also paved the way for virtual reality (VR) to be used in education.  There is space for the virtual world in education; educators were not necessarily creative in how SL developed in education in the mid-2000s. I see this growing in medical education specifically because my cousin works in VR and is currently building VR technology for NHS medical students to train them in surgery. What he is developing allows medical students to perform surgery without performing surgery on cadavers which has numerous limitations, including enormous costs.

E-portfolios

Although not widely adopted, E-portfolios had merit in their intent to showcase student achievement, competencies, and skills in a tangible way to future employers (Weller, 2020). I recently took over a course taught by the same person for 5+ years.  Within the course, one assignment was an e-portfolio which I removed from the course. Namely, I did not see it as the valuable tool for future employers that the previous instructor had hoped it would be.  I also felt that learning the tool the portfolios reside in was less important than the content on the tool, but a considerable amount of time was needed to perfect the tool. Something the students did not have. Both points, I now read months later, are noted by Weller (2020) as some of the issues with adopting the e-portfolio. 

I received pushback for wanting to remove this assignment.  As a compromise, I created an assignment that still had the desired artefacts and showcased their work through LinkedIn. They cultivated their online professional presence in a space where employers already reside. I listened to the online chat regarding their best practices for not being too prescriptive, giving students license over what they publish, and how they publish (Between the Chapters: Blogging – 25 Years of Ed Tech: The Serialized Audio Version, n.d.) and confirm that my choices for this task were on point.  Cultivating the content meant for an e-portfolio has a place in academia, but the format needs to be something that aligns with the professional realm to be useful.

References

Between the chapters: Blogging – 25 years of ed tech: The serialized audio version. (n.d.). https://25years.opened.ca/2021/01/14/between-the-chapters-blogging/

Virgilio, D. (2022, February 9). What comparisons between second life and the metaverse miss. Slate Magazine. https://slate.com/technology/2022/02/second-life-metaverse-facebook-comparisons.html

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.

• 

My knowledge of the history of education and technology is minimal.  I remember in 1994 being part of the first year of students at UVic to receive a school email account, so the start of the textbook (Weller, 2020) seems apt to me, and my technology experience in education beyond word processing.  I dropped out, and until I had a laptop and a smartphone in the mid-2000s, technology as we use it today was not a fundamental part of my daily life. Thus far, the reading content has been new to me.

The consistent theme or preference for face-to-face and traditional modes of education presented in chapters I have read (Weller, 2020) is not shocking because we are still seeing educational institutions struggling with this shift during and beyond the pandemic twenty-plus years later.  As I read through the early days of ed tech and various chapters (Weller, 2020), I can see how the technology needed to be less cumbersome, accessible and user-friend for people to adopt.  However, I do wonder why resistance to change is prevalent now, when in was demonstrated as early as 1999 that students wanted an opportunity for flexible online learning (Weller, 2020).

Is it because many instructors (even now) are subject matter experts (SMEs) employed as educators but are unfamiliar with educational theory and practices (Weller, 2020) that benefit the learning experience?   Is it the fear of technology and/or lack of ed tech digital literacy? Is it that institutions do not want to invest the funds into developing their offerings? Maybe it is a bit of all of these things.

I adopted numerous best practices and ideas from my online courses and revised them to suit my needs. I wonder if you need to experience a well-designed online class with openness to embrace educational technology and tap into the 4Rs (now 5) (Hilton III et al., 2010).  Is the experience of well-designed online education needed to scaffold the resisters into the ed tech realm?   I’d love to hear your thoughts.

References

Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘r’s of openness and alms analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510903482132

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.

(Figure 1)

For the latest entry on our blogs, we were asked to work in small groups and discuss how digital learning has impacted fake news and misinformation (our chosen topic). According to Farmer (2019), the term fake news refers to “misleading news”, which has been created to misinform for several reasons, including to “gain power or influence” (p. 223). While misinformation and fake news are not new phenomena, the way people receive it, their frequency, and the networks they share it have increased (Auberry, 2018).  

The impact of digital learning on misinformation and fake news comes from it being primarily shared on social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook (Auberry, 2018). Social networking platforms like Twitter are networks which exist in digital learning environments (DLEs) (Veletsianos, 2016); thus, the dissemination of misinformation and fake news can be through DLE networks. We have categorized the impact of DLEs on misinformation and fake news into three talking points access, skills and content (Figure 1) because of how they affect both students and educators. The aim of this task for each person in our triad (Marion, Nicole and I) is to discuss the positive and negative impacts of access, skills and content. I will be discussing access.

Access to fake news and misinformation has increased, and the quickest way this information is transferred is through social media (Parthenis, n.d.). As we noted above, social media sites like Twitter are networks which live in DLEs (Veletsianos, 2016); thus, in this respect, the DLEs impact the spread of misinformation and fake news and facilitate access to these materials, and the sheer volume of content people receive. It is noted that the spread of misinformation and fake news is more robust on informal and anonymous accounts compared to official institutional accounts (Kouzy et al., 2020, cited in Hartley & Vu, 2020). This means that the spread of misinformation and fake news on a university social media account is less than on a private account; however, students and educators have quick access to other accounts to read and share. The spread and access of misinformation and fake news can negatively impact people and society when readers believe and share false claims through social media. The information consumption can affect voting decisions (Sydell, 2016 as cited in Auberry, 2018) and help fuel civil unrest such as the Capital Riots in Washington DC in January 2021 or the Freedom Convoy of 2022 in Canada.

The platforms also facilitate access to unverified content by grabbing headlines that help spread untruths (Auberry, 2018). It becomes difficult in a DLE where we encourage students to use media tools to decipher what is truthful when the content they receive is filtered through an algorithm based on their search behaviour (Farmer, 2019). This reminds me of a heated argument in my ethics class this past winter over fake news circulating about the Ukrainian war. A large portion of the international students was pro-Russia, gathering their news and sourcing through Chinese news sources, and others were pro-Ukraine, getting their sourcing through western media. There was misinformation and fake news on both sides based on their algorithm. Still, it did bring about a large conversation about validity and reliability while forcing me to include media literacy more explicitly in the lessons.

I would not say there is a solid pro-argument for the access to misinformation and fake news because of its divisiveness and the negative impacts we have seen across the globe. The list is endless if we begin to cite examples; however, as educators, I think the one positive effect is that the increased access, presence and spread of misinformation and fake news has forced educators to think about and integrate media literacy as part of the curriculum in a manner that was not introduced when I was in school (or likely most of you). The skills that help build media literacy, such as “active inquiry and critically thinking about media” (Farmer, 2019, p. 225), were not encouraged when I was in school, and I wish they had been.

References

Auberry, K. (2018). Increasing students’ ability to identify fake news through information literacy education and content management systems. The Reference Librarian, 59(4), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2018.1489935

Farmer, L. (2019). News literacy and fake news curriculum: School librarian perceptions of pedagogical practices. Open Information Science, 3(1), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2019-0016

Hartley, K., & Vu, M. (2020). Fighting fake news in the Covid-19 era: Policy insights from an equilibrium model. Policy Sciences, 53(4), 735–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09405-z

Parthenis, D. (n.d.). Chapter 9: To what extent does fake news influence our ability to communicate in learning organizations. In Ethical use of digital learning environments: Graduate student perspectives. University of Alberta; Creative Commons. https://openeducationalberta.ca/educationaltechnologyethics/chapter/to-what-extent-does-fake-news-influence-our-ability-to-communicate-in-learning-organizations/

Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital learning environments. In Handbook of learning technologies (N. Rushby & D. Surry ed., pp. 242–260). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

When I look at the digital map I created for an earlier activity in our course, I am satisfied with my digital identity and digital presence (DIDP) because I reside in the realms I want to live and with whom I want to interact. The questions posed in Schryver (2013) surrounding how we present ourselves online, how it makes us feel and if we would be Googled positively were something I addressed 6-years ago. I made a conscious choice only to have “professional Gill” in the online sphere and limit the public spaces I reside in to better my mental health.

The task of cultivating a DIDP assumes that we want to do so. Cultivate infers development or growth. Thus, how can I cultivate a DIDP throughout this program when I am satisfied with what I have already taken the time to create< consciously? What can I explore within the realms I already reside in to achieve the learning outcomes? 

My purpose for being in this program is to explore and improve how I design and facilitate digital learning environments that build digital competencies in a barrier-free environment. “If we become the creators of tools and environments rather than developing simple learning content, we must learn to do it right” (Dron & Anderson, 2014, p. 33). I am one of those instructors Jenkins (2013) notes who want to learn and invest in creating participatory cultures in my classroom. I think my goal is to amplify the digital literacies of “educational student Gill” and expand my digital capacities through engaging with my cohort with a community of practice mindset and tapping into our “shared repertoire” (Dron & Anderson, 2014, p. 56) because there is considerable value being a part of this cohort. I need to lean into this process and the opportunity because building my digital literacies and increasing my digital capacity will, in turn, pass on to my students.  

I want to learn more about CSS and learning tools others use in their practice. I would also like to learn more about editing and creating more polished recorded portions of my courses. To achieve this goal, I will actively participate, ask relevant questions and contribute to the shared safe spaces of our program, such as this blog, our Slack group and the LinkedIn group, as well as my own profile. I will set a goal for LinkedIn of adding two relevant posts to our group per month and my faculty group for a total of four because the subject matter is different.

I am also keen to explore reducing my digital presence in terms of how many APPs I use in the classroom for a more streamlined approach. However, while aiming to use less, I can see how I will likely use more with the acquired knowledge from my cohort, which will increase my digital presence by default based on some of the skills I would like to acquire. This can be started immediately and continued through the program.

Another way I have considered increasing my digital identity professionally is by designing and publishing open learning activities that can be adapted for online or face-to-face models.   This is in the far future but would be a long-term goal beyond the program. 

What are your thoughts on my plan? Do you see any gaps or have suggestions to help me cultivate my DIDP while staying off social media? 

References

I was surprised by how many items I had on the map because of my deliberate goal of having very little digital presence (or so I thought). However, what became clear as I mapped out my actual digital presence, was the difference between having a strong presence versus visibility. 

What is pictured above, I think is an accurate representation of my digital footprint.  I feel like news, online shopping, and daily internet use falls under “searching” in my case.  I rarely use YouTube and if I do it’s under a search generally for work and I don’t follow blogs (other than MALAT as of two-weeks ago). 

This was an interesting task to undertake that had several iterations over a period of a few days before deciding that I was ready to post and receive feedback.  Then, I considered how I would explain parts of it and needed to make changes (four more times).  It was where items overlapped and the connection between them that I had to keep reconsidering. 

Moodle is where I spent a lot of my time for work and now school, there are offshoots of that.  But varying APPs I use for work, live in Moodle for my students, which is why there is so much overlap. Netflix, Hulu and Spotify end up crossing the line into residents due to shared accounts with family members and the occasional family playlist.   WhatsApp I use more for personal contacts but a few students use that to get a hold of me.  Conversely, WeChat is primarily for students.  Neither APP do I use beyond the messaging functions.  

I invite feedback and questions.  Let me know if you see anything that should be changed.