Introduction

The process of cultivating a digital identity and presence within LRNT 521 required a reassessment of long-held assumptions about knowledge, contribution, and professional credibility. As a fire training officer with over 15 years of experience, alongside more than three decades in martial arts and volleyball coaching, my professional identity has been grounded in applied, experiential learning. While I have consistently engaged with online content, particularly in areas related to firefighting, coaching, and broader social discourse, I have not historically viewed myself as a contributor generating original content. Instead, my role has largely been that of a consumer and occasional curator.  This reflection argues that meaningful contribution within digital spaces is shaped less by originality and more by reflective participation within networked learning environments.

The transition from passive engagement to active contribution exposed several tensions rooted in impostor syndrome, professional culture, and evolving expectations within digital learning environments. These tensions were not simply personal but reflective of broader challenges in professions that prioritize experiential knowledge over explicit knowledge-sharing practices. Drawing on course readings, professional experience, and the activities undertaken throughout LRNT 521, this paper critically reflects on the tensions encountered, the decisions made in constructing a digital identity, and the influence of both personal and professional contexts. Ultimately, this reflection argues that meaningful contribution within digital spaces is less dependent on originality and more dependent on participation, contextualization, and responsible knowledge amplification within networked learning environments (Veletsianos, 2016).

Initial Digital Presence

At the outset of the course, my digital presence was limited in both scope and intention. My engagement primarily consisted of sharing existing content rather than producing original material. These contributions were sporadic and typically centered on professional interests such as firefighting practices, coaching insights, and general problem-solving strategies. While this behavior reflected engagement, it did not constitute the development of a deliberate digital identity.

To better understand the nature of this presence, I conducted a search of my own name using a stripped-down Google interface designed to reduce algorithmic personalization using the UDM14 search interface (https://udm14.com/). The results revealed a relatively coherent but largely passive professional and casual footprint. Top results included a LinkedIn profile identifying me as a training officer and coach, some recent social media posts, coaching affiliations, and publicly available employment records. While these results confirmed that I was visible online, it was clear that my digital presence was more a by-product of residual information and less an intentional effort to construct a digital identity actively contributing to broader conversations.

This exercise illuminated an important distinction between digital presence and digital identity. A digital presence can emerge passively through online interactions with acquaintances, friends, professional affiliations, and associations whose digital activities contribute to one’s online visibility, while a personal digital identity requires deliberate participation and contribution. Recognizing this distinction became a crystallizing moment that shaped my understanding of digital identity throughout the remainder of this assignment.

Professional Context and Cultural Influences

My hesitation to contribute was influenced significantly by my professional environment. Within the fire service, credibility is closely tied to experience, and communication tends to be cautious and deliberate. There is an implicit expectation that individuals speak only when their expertise is well established, exemplified by people known for their contribution to the advancement of the fire service. These accomplished individuals help form the future of firefighting tactics. In terms of digital identities, however, Bates (2015) argues that institutional cultures shape how individuals engage with digital technologies, particularly when those technologies challenge established norms.

Similarly, my coaching background reinforced a preference for in-person, feedback-driven instruction. Knowledge was conveyed through demonstration, repetition, and correction rather than through written or digital articulation. As a result, my initial digital identity reflected professional caution rather than a lack of knowledge or insight.

Although the creation of a blog was a course requirement, my decision to engage with it as more than a scholastic assignment represented a significant shift in perspective. It required adopting a more visible professional identity, becoming comfortable expressing my own insights and experiences, and accepting that contribution itself could be a legitimate form of participation and learning.  This uniquely affords people like myself a voice and, proverbially,  a digital ‘seat at the table’. I was among a minority of digitally literate in my fire department which enabled me to be a translator of sorts for the operational expertise and the digital space.

Tensions in Becoming a Contributor

The development of a digital presence revealed several persistent tensions. The first involved a disconnect between professional experience and perceived legitimacy as a contributor. Despite years of instructional and operational experience, I questioned whether my insights were sufficiently original or valuable to be shared publicly – a sign of my self-diagnosed impostor syndrome. This reflects the broader pattern in digital participation, where experiential knowledge is often undervalued within networked environments (Dron & Anderson, 2014).

A second tension emerged between consumer and creator identities. Digital learning environments support both participation and production; however, transitioning between these roles required a shift in self-perception. Veletsianos (2016) suggests that learners are increasingly expected to contribute to knowledge creation rather than passively consume it. In my case, remaining a consumer felt safe because it aligned with established professional norms and supported my tendency toward a more conservative approach to engagement, while becoming a creator introduced vulnerability and the perceived need for originality.

A third tension involved authenticity and visibility. While professional experience provided a substantial foundation of knowledge, publishing reflections and opinions in public spaces created concerns about how those ideas might be interpreted by peers, supervisors, and broader audiences. Unlike informal workplace conversations, digital contributions persist and can be revisited and scrutinized long after they are published. This permanence increased the perceived stakes of participation.

During this course, however, I began to recognize that meaningful contribution within networked environments does not depend on originality. The blogging encouraged more expression of thought and contribution toward my digital presence. But the realization did not emerge from blogging alone. It became increasingly apparent through interactions with peers, particularly during collaborative WhatsApp discussions and Moodle forums and the DLE debate, where the value of participation was measured less by originality and more by the willingness to engage and build upon the perspectives of others. Veletsianos (2016) describes digital learning environments as participatory spaces in which learners contribute to knowledge creation rather than simply consume information. Similarly, Dron and Anderson (2014) argue that learning within networked environments emerges through interaction among participants, while Cormier (2008) suggests that in rhizomatic learning contexts the community itself becomes the curriculum. Together, these perspectives challenged my assumption that contribution required novel expertise. Instead, they suggested that professional experience acquires value through participation, reflection, and engagement with others.

Learning, Networks, and Participation

A third and more deeply rooted tension relates to the learning culture of the fire service, particularly the reliance on simplified interpretations of learning theories such as the VARK (Visual-Auditory-Reading-Kinesthetic) learning model. Firefighters often view themselves as “kinesthetic learners,” reflecting a preference for hands-on training. While this classification acknowledges the importance of experiential learning, it often constrains individuals in their willingness to learn via certain methods, particularly in the digital environment. Although I had prior skepticism of learning styles, particularly the tendency to accept most firefighters as primarily kinesthetic learners, the literature reviewed during LRNT 521 encouraged me to explore the topic further and helped confirm those concerns. As a result, I became more willing to engage with unfamiliar learning approaches and participate more actively within digital environments.

Research directly challenges the persistence of fixed learning-style frameworks within professional education. Pashler et al. (2009) found limited empirical support for aligning instruction with learning styles, while Husmann and O’Loughlin (2019) demonstrated no correlation between VARK preferences and academic performance. These findings contradict the continued reliance on simplified learning categories by learners in the fire service and suggest that institutional learning cultures, particularly from established fire departments and seasoned firefighters and instructors may perpetuate pedagogical beliefs despite contradictory evidence.

Reflecting on this challenge brought me back to an earlier formative moment in my education. In a Grade 7 science class, a simple statement mounted conspicuously on the wall became foundational to how I approached learning: “Take what you know, apply it to what you don’t know, and learn something new.” This principle reflects a deeper understanding of learning as connection and extension rather than categorization.

This idea aligns with semantic network theory, which conceptualizes knowledge as a system of interconnected nodes and relationships where new understanding emerges through linking concepts to prior knowledge (Sowa, n.d.). Learning, in this sense, is not about matching a preferred style but about building connections across existing cognitive structures.

Rather than competing models, these approaches can be understood as complementary. Hierarchical structures provide consistency and reliability, while rhizomatic networks enable adaptation and innovation. Reflecting on this relationship revealed a parallel within my own digital identity development. My professional experience provided the foundation of knowledge, but meaningful participation required moving beyond hierarchical notions of expertise and engaging in networked conversations where knowledge was collectively refined and expanded.

Generative AI, Reflection, and Knowledge Amplification

My use of generative artificial intelligence evolved throughout LRNT 521. Initially, I viewed AI primarily as a productivity tool capable of assisting with drafting and editing, and guiding my writing from a casual voice to an academic one. As the course progressed, however, I began to view AI less as a source of answers and more as a reflective partner capable of extending inquiry, generating reflective insight, and challenging my own assumptions and patterns of thinking.

This perspective emerged in part through my exploration of what I described in one of my blog posts as the “weaponization of shower thoughts.” Those are the random passing thoughts that percolate while one’s mind is idle during the “lather” and “rinse” phases of a long shower. For example, going to sleep at night to feel better in the morning is essentially the human version of turning your computer off and on to fix a problem, or coming to the realization that one day you were physically lifted and carried for the very last time by your parents, and neither you nor they realized it was the end of an era.

Previously, these thoughts often remained fleeting or underdeveloped. Through iterative dialogue with a chatbot, however, those thoughts could be explored, reflected upon, and pursued far beyond their original scope, allowing passing eccentricities to develop into more sophisticated lines of inquiry reminiscent of the dialectical traditions of classical philosophy. Rather than providing conclusions, AI often revealed additional avenues of study and exploration worthy of investigation.

At the same time, the experience reinforced the importance of critical evaluation. The apparent coherence of AI-generated responses can create an illusion of authority. To maintain authenticity, validity, and reliability, AI-generated ideas were compared against course readings, academic literature, and professional experience. Unsupported claims were discarded, sources were independently verified, and final arguments were revised extensively to ensure they reflected my own voice and understanding.

This experience has significant implications for my future professional practice. Discussions regarding AI are increasingly emerging within fire service education. In many cases, these discussions are framed as a choice between adoption and resistance. My experience suggests a different question: not whether AI should be used, but how it should be used. If employed responsibly, AI has the potential to encourage and support reflection and deepen access to expertise, not to mention challenge and develop critical thinking. The objective is not to accelerate the process through automation but to efficiently gather and sort more high-quality thoughts through augmentation.

Implications for Professional Learning Communities

Engaging in LRNT 521, particularly through blogging, reflective writing, and interaction with peers, required a shift from passive observation to active participation. Initially, this shift was uncomfortable because it challenged both professional norms and assumptions about contribution. However, the act of creating and sharing content revealed that contribution is not defined by novelty, but by relevance and engagement within a community.

This realization parallels concepts explored within the Fully Online Learning Community (FOLC) model where learners are positioned as active participants in knowledge creation rather than passive recipients of information (van Oostveen, 2017). Similar ideas emerge within rhizomatic learning, where knowledge develops through participation and interaction rather than transmission alone (Cormier, 2008).

These perspectives resonate strongly with fire service education. Firefighters routinely learn through discussion, mentorship, informal problem solving, and the collective interpretation of operational experiences. Digital environments, social networks, and emerging AI tools provide opportunities to extend these learning processes beyond classrooms and training grounds.

As conversations regarding AI adoption continue among training officers and educators, I increasingly see my role not as advocating for AI itself, but helping users in the fire service critically evaluate where it can augment learning and efficiency without replacing professional judgment. The goal is not to think less, but to think better. This has encouraged me to address the topic of “How to use AI to become more intelligent and less artificial” with the Ontario Association of Fire Training Officers during the annual Instructor Development Conference in the fall of 2026.

Conclusion

The process of developing a digital identity within LRNT 521 highlighted the interplay between personal beliefs, professional culture, and evolving educational practices. Tensions surrounding expertise, legitimacy, visibility, and contribution initially limited my willingness to participate. However, engagement with digital learning environments gradually reframed contribution as participation rather than originality.

The experience also highlighted the importance of balancing structured and networked approaches to learning. Foundational knowledge may be organized hierarchically, but professional expertise increasingly develops through collaborative networks that enable reflection, adaptation, and collective problem solving.

Ultimately, becoming a contributor is less about producing original ideas and more about engaging meaningfully within communities of practice. As digital learning environments continue to evolve and artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into professional practice, educators will need to focus not only on technological adoption but on cultivating the critical thinking and professional judgment necessary to use these tools effectively. The goal is not to become more artificial but to become more intelligent.

References

Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5).

Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press.

Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Sowa, J. F. (n.d.). Semantic networks. https://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm

van Oostveen, R. (2017). Fully online learning community model. Educational Informatics Lab. https://eilab.ca/fully-online-learning-community/

Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital learning environments. In Emergence and innovation in digital learning (pp. 243–260). Wiley.