Posts Tagged ‘digital’
I lurked for much of Sunday’s #aussieED chat about digital citizenship.
One or two tweeps suggested that digital citizenship was partly about how to manage your digital footprints.
Another one or two commented that footprints were temporary. Digital artefacts are much more lasting than that. Not many people know that if your web resource is indexed by Google, it is likely to be cached. You might delete the resource, but it can still be retrieved from the cache.
Someone else suggested digital tattoos instead, presumably for permanence and personal choice.
I do not think that we should be selling the idea of positive digital citizenship with tattoos. Depending on context and mindset, tattoos are associated with negative elements, e.g., gangsterism. Tattoos are also painful, but the process of being a responsible and productive citizen does not have to be that way.
I suggest digital shadow instead.
Your digital shadow is always there as long as you stand in front of the practically omnipresent Internet light.
A shadow follows you wherever you go. It is not just an online feature, but also an essential part of you. Your shadow might start with clicks, but it goes to where there are bricks.
It takes your shape (it represents who you are), but you can also distort it (you can exaggerate or emphasize). You shape it and you have control depending on how you grow and where you stand with respect to the light.
Unless you are an Internet ghost, you have a digital shadow. Parents create one for you by putting your baby photos online. Later on you take ownership of your own shadow. Some of us gravitate to this task naturally, some of us go kicking and screaming.
Your shadow does not define you; it is an extension of who you are. But others can manipulate your shadow by shifting the light or adding to your shadow. You need to decide if that is how you want yourself to be represented.
Like a real shadow, we often take our digital shadows for granted. Unlike a real shadow, our digital shadows can serve us or haunt us. Most “cyberwellness” programmes tend to focus on the harm. Well designed digital citizenship programmes find a reasonable balance.
I announced yesterday that I was leaving NIE. I would like to elaborate on my reasons and hint at what I am planning on doing next.
Like some of my colleagues, I have received job offers by headhunters over the last few years. I have been asked to set up or lead the equivalent of CeL both locally and overseas. I always said no because I felt that my mission in NIE was not complete. Individually, those pull factors were not strong enough to convince me to leave.
Over the last few years, I have also received numerous requests from schools, educational outfits, and training institutes to provide workshops, talks, and an assortment of consultations. Not only was there a greater need for my services “out there”, there was also a greater appreciation for them. Collectively, these pull factors became stronger over time.
When my schedule allowed, I took leave to provide free or paid services to these organizations. My approach was always to first take the time to listen to my clients and then to meet their needs instead of their wants.
This logical and human process of looking and listening before leaping was gratifying to me. I think that the people I worked with also appreciated the extra effort I took (and still take).
So the job offers and approaches for consultation came my way without active seeking on my part. Often I would be found quite quickly after this blog or my tweets appeared high up in Google search results. This was not due to dumb luck, but to years of my leaving digital footprints and valuable artefacts for people to find for free. I attribute this daily strategy as key to being found for ad hoc work.
But it might be serendipity by human design that has resulted in job and career offers. I can recall at least two major ones.
In my first year as Head of CeL, I was headhunted by an agency in New Zealand for a position in Australia. The headhunter had asked a faculty member from one of my alma maters in the USA for recommendations and I was top of the list.
The latest offer happened just last Friday. As the details are not yet cast in stone, I shall be a bit vague.
The connections were closer to home but the prospects more global. The offer was very exciting and I told the headhunter that the job description seemed to be written with me in mind. I am very open to this option as it will allow me to 1) follow my passions, 2) build on what I have started as a thought leader and strategic implementer, and 3) wield influence in a much wider circle.
Whether the offers were ad hoc or longer term and whether they were a result of having a digital presence or serendipity, there were clear human links. By this I mean being caring and connected enough so that the right opportunities come my way. If you look at your own work life and find joy in it, you will probably find this to be true too.
This video by David White nicely encapsulates the more recent thinking on the natives/immigrant vs residents-visitors debate.
In particular, I like how he emphasized that the visitors use of online tools is functional, relatively infrequent, and leaves no social trace. Residents, on the other hand, treat these online spaces as part of their lives and leave a trace as a result.
The video echoes what has been slow-blogged online: Each person can be both a resident and visitor based on the context of use. You are not either a native or an immigrant. That false dichotomy provides you with excuses, particularly as an immigrant, and promotes learnt helplessness (“I can’t help but be helpless!”). Instead, you might be a Twitter resident but an Instagram visitor.
Another point that White makes in his video is that the resident-visitor phenomenon is a continuum instead of an either/or categorization. Who you are depends on what you do with which tool and how often.
I think that the value this video brings near the end is the addition of the personal-institutional continuum as the y-axis. White makes the point that it is not easy to transfer what a resident does in the social-personal space to the social-institutional space. This reflects what active and innovative instructors experiment and struggle with when trying to integrate social media in the classroom.
Whenever I hear someone say “digital native”, I try to educate them on why that term is divisive and harmful.
I hope that this video adds more fuel to the there-are-no-digital-natives fire.
Two takeaways from this video that I had were:
- Being technologically competent is not something kids are born with nowadays. It is learnt like a language.
- Being comfortable with technology is not the same as having the knowledge or wisdom on its use.
These two takeaways deal with fundamental assumptions that people who use “digital natives” may have.
It is important to address these assumptions because they affect values and mindsets. These in turn affect actions like lesson planning, teaching, setting policy, and so on.
A tongue-in-cheek look at the how your digital footprints can follow you.
And bite you in the butt.
Some weeks ago, the folks at #edsg revisited the topic of being digitally literate vs being digitally fluent. I am not sure how much new ground we created but we certainly unearthed some key resources.
At a much earlier conversation, I bookmarked Digital Information Fluency (FAQs) and The Difference Between Digital Literacy and Digital Fluency.
Both are useful starters and anyone can define these terms reasonably and differently. I borrow from these resources to define digital literacy (DL) and fluency (DF).
The FAQs define DF simply as “the ability to find, evaluate and ethically use digital information efficiently and effectively to solve an information problem”. It goes on to say that DF has elements of information literacy (IL) and technological literacy (TL).
I like to think of IL as building on the ability to read and write in order to search for, analyze, evaluate, and create resources. If you have TL, you have the skills to help with the searching, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. To borrow from the second article, you know what to use and how to use it. For me DL=IL+TL.
According to the second resource, if you have DF, you also know when and why to use (or not use) a tool or strategy. If pushed for examples, I might suggest that when searching you know when and why to use Google, Wolfram Alpha, Wikipedia, or YouTube.
A logical analogy is language ability. If you are literate, you know how to converse or to write sentences. You might be able to compose and propose.
But if you are fluent, you tell and get jokes that only a cunning linguist might take a
licking liking to. You do not just read; you read in between. You do not just speak or write; you persuade and change.
Someone who possesses DF will be able to not just search effectively but also know to archive and possibly curate. When asked to recall or recommend, the digitally fluent need only reach for his/her network, archive, or curated work in order to inform and convince.
It might still be difficult to distinguish between DL and DF because they lie on a long continuum. But just like how we can tell someone who is literate from someone who is fluent, you can tell the difference DL and DF.
In one case you have the knowledgeable. In the other you have the knowledge-able.