Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 1 You did what at the weekend? - A workshop to develop the digital awareness and understanding of digital footprints amongst Primary Education Studies undergraduates John Parkin School of Education and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough, United Kingdom Abstract Digital footprints, the records left online through the use of social media such as Twitter and Instagram, are a growing concern for the future employability of undergraduates. This case study explores research into the co-creation – with undergraduates on a Primary Education Studies degree in an English university – of a workshop about digital footprints to protect professional identities. The workshop included a range of activities to help undergraduates to learn about the importance of digital footprints and how to check their own, to explore steps to protect their digital identities on different social networks and to discover how to curate a positive digital identity. It is argued here that students need more opportunities to learn about digital footprints. Keywords: digital footprint, digital literacy, employability 1. Introduction A digital footprint is “what you leave behind when you go online” (Osborne and Connelly, 2015, p.23). Dennen (2015) elaborates on this further, by explaining how a digital footprint is “the collection of information about a person that exists online. Digital footprints, like physical ones, are unique to their owners” (2015, p.47). A digital footprint is information recorded through deliberate actions – for example, sharing photographs on social media platforms, such as Twitter – or data collected passively – for example, by tracking cookies used on some websites (Thatcher, 2014). Research on digital footprints has focused on individuals’ perception and creation of them. This case study proposes to extend this research by reporting on a collaboration – with Primary Education Studies undergraduates – intended to 1) elicit participants’ views on the nature and importance of digital footprints and 2) to co-create with them a workshop about managing such footprints to support future employability. Digital footprints often begin to develop in childhood and persist as young people enter adulthood: on social media sites, United Kingdom (UK) parents share, on average, seventy- one photographs and twenty-nine videos every year of children under the age of thirteen (Children’s Commissioner, 2018). As children grow older, they demonstrate more agency over their digital footprints as they communicate with friends using social media. boyd (2014) argues that teenagers view online participation as a means of communicating with their intended audience of friends and not university admission tutors or potential employers. Furthermore, owing to the persistent, visible, spreadable and searchable nature of social Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 2 media, online data is frequently available to an audience for whom social media posts were not intended (ibid.). Gardner, Davis and Gardner (2013) also agree that teenagers have a focus on how they appear to peers and “present a socially desirable, polished self online’ (2013, p.63 [Emphasis as in the original]). Osborne and Connelly (2015) investigated university student attitudes to digital footprints and suggested strategies to help students learn about online safety. Similarly, Gadekar and Pant (2015) surveyed 199 university students about privacy awareness when using Facebook. They found that most students were aware of privacy settings, but only forty-five per cent applied them, indicating an area to be developed among students. Explaining this low percentage, boyd (2014) observes that “interactions are public by default, private through effort” (2014, p.12). Furthermore, students’ personal data can be collected and analysed by universities to enable learning analytics to support student learning. Cerratto Pargman and McGrath (2021) undertook a literature review of learning analytics ethics and found a key theme to be the importance of universities’ recognising transparency, privacy and informed consent. The Jisc Digital Capabilities Framework provides an approach to digital identity management and to “develop and project a positive digital identity or identities” (Joint Information Systems Committee, 2019, p.8) for university students and staff, as well as considering the reputational risks and benefits associated with an online presence. Linked to this concept of reputational risks, digital footprints can affect future employability, since many employers screen the social media history of potential employees. In the US, seventy per cent of employers check the digital profiles of potential recruits and fifty-seven per cent of employers who carried out such checks had refused to employ some job applicants because of their digital footprint (Career Builder, 2018). However, Jeske and Shultz (2016) pointed out that not all potential applicants will have a visible online identity and highlighted the ethical and legal implications of screening applicants in this way. A “digital divide” exists between many individuals and groups in society, on the basis of: access to technology and the internet; technological skills; and outcomes based on technology use (van Deursen and Helsper, 2015; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2010). Robinson et al. (2015) link this digital divide to a “digital footprint gap”, whereby those with lower access to the internet have fewer opportunities than those with ready access to it. Furthermore, Micheli, Lutz and Büchi (2018) argue that many internet-based services, such as online shopping, utilise data through the digital footprints of potential users and that a digital inequality in terms of digital footprints exists between different socio-economic groups. The authors draw on research from the US, that those from lower income households are less likely to apply privacy settings online (Madden et al., 2017), thereby increasing the risk of having personal data harvested. Some researchers have explored curation of a digital footprint to create a positive impression of an individual, in order to help develop a professional reputation supporting employability and career progression. Similarly, Jeske and Shultz (2016) point out that some individuals may aim to portray a positive digital identity. Likewise, Mihailidis (2016) argues that it is essential to understand how to curate a digital identity and digital footprint. Furthermore, Buchanan et al. (2017) explored and evaluated a programme to develop digital footprint awareness amongst primary-school-aged children in Australia to equip children with the skills to manage this aspect of digital literacy. They found students identified only the negative Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 3 effects of digital footprints and recommended that teaching young people about curating a positive digital footprint should be included in the curriculum. Linked to curating a digital footprint is the development of a ‘professional learning network’ (PLN) which Trust (2012) defines as a ‘system of interpersonal connections and resources that support informal learning’ (2012, p.133). PLNs are created by using social media networks such as LinkedIn and Twitter to build connections with other professionals. Limited research into the professional impact of digital footprints when using social media has been undertaken. Forbes (2017), for example, worked with Education undergraduates to set up professional Twitter accounts to establish relationships with other educators and create positive digital footprints. Drawing on medical research, Kim et al. (2018) found that patients who looked for information online about their prospective neurosurgeons could not readily access all relevant information, as reviews about these practitioners appeared on unsignposted and discrete websites. Graduates, therefore, who have their digital footprints checked by employers, colleagues or clients, should manage their digital identities proactively, to ensure that searches find intended information. This case study therefore asks: how effective is a co-created digital footprint training session at improving understanding and awareness of this issue and how successful is it at enabling Primary Education Studies undergraduates to achieve what they need to do? 2. Method 2.1 Participants The project was completed during the 2019/20 academic year, with undergraduates studying for a BA Primary Education Studies degree in a post-1992 university with a focus on vocational degrees and recruiting students from a broad range of backgrounds. The participating students were completing a level 5 module about teaching primary-aged children about science and technology. As part of the co-construction approach, a focus group of six students was formed from a cohort of twenty-eight students, to explore their understanding of digital footprints and to identify areas to be developed for the planned workshop. However, one week before the workshop was scheduled, the university moved to ‘emergency remote teaching’ in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Hodges et al., 2020) and its consequent lockdowns. Lecturers rapidly adapted face-to-face teaching to online delivery. As a result, the adapted workshop was delivered during the following trimester to a different cohort of students who were also enrolled on a Primary Education Studies degree. In this cohort, there were thirteen students, all of whom attended the workshop. Of these, five students participated in the subsequent focus group. 2.2 Ethics Ethical approval was obtained prior to the start of the study from the researcher’s university ethics panel. Second-year undergraduates received an email about the project and were invited to participate in a focus group at the start of the project to help co-create the workshop by sharing their understanding of digital footprints, measures they take to protect their online identities and areas they would like to learn more about. Those who replied were emailed and provided with a consent form and an information sheet, which concerned anonymity and confidentiality and explained that they could withdraw their data if they wished at any time up Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 4 to two weeks after the interview had taken place. Participants’ informed consent was also confirmed before the start of the interview. Interviewees received a £20 Amazon gift card to acknowledge the time committed. Following the workshop, attendees were invited to attend an evaluative focus group. Potential participants were again provided with an information sheet and a consent form which they completed before the start of the interview. As before, participants received a gift card. 2.3 Procedure The co-creation, development and implementation of the digital footprint workshop followed the steps outlined in table 1 below and each stage will be further explained. Phase Action 1 Ethical approval acquired by university ethics committee 2 Initial focus group to explore undergraduate understanding of digital footprints and topics to include in the workshop 3 Analysis of focus group transcript and identifying topics to develop further 4 Creation of digital footprint workshop 5 Delivery of digital footprint workshop 6 Evaluative focus group to discuss the workshop 7 Analysis of evaluative focus-group data Table 1. The stages of co-creating, developing, and implementing the digital footprint workshop The researcher wanted to co-create and work with “students as partners” to reject “traditional hierarchies and assumptions about expertise and responsibility” (Cook-Sather et al., 2018, p.1). To co-create the workshop on digital awareness and digital footprints, level 5 undergraduates were invited to participate in a focus group to explore their understanding of digital footprints and what they would like to do in the workshop. Five participants joined the face-to-face focus group, which was audio-recorded and transcribed. Participants had a range of understanding of digital footprints, as shown by one participant who thought a digital footprint was “a passcode” while another participant explained it was “the trail of information you leave behind on the internet”. These responses supported the suggestion by Robinson et al. (2015) that a “digital footprint gap” exists, with a variety of digital footprint awareness. The focus group attendees talked about how digital footprints could broadly affect careers, but they were unsure about how it could specifically affect their teaching careers. One interviewee wanted, in a workshop, to learn “not only about the problems, but the benefits of digital footprints and social media”, thereby demonstrating awareness of curating a digital identity (Mihailidis, 2016). The feedback from the focus group was then used to plan the workshop that was delivered online using the videoconferencing software Zoom. A summary of the workshop activities is shown in table 2. For the first activity, students were asked to type their own definitions of a digital footprint in the Zoom chat box. Following this, the digital footprint definitions discussed in this case study’s literature review were shared and discussed with the group. The second activity involved sharing newspaper articles, including one about a UK supermarket employee who lost his job for sharing a racist Facebook post (Mahmood, 2019) and a report about an English deputy headteacher banned from the profession by the Teaching Regulation Agency for posting antisemitic messages online (Barrow, 2018). This led to the group’s reviewing of Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 5 England’s professional educator guidelines – the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2012) – to evaluate why the teacher had been barred. For the third activity, participants used Google to search for themselves online and identify their digital footprints (Osbourne, 2015), during which they searched for their names and where they had lived. Before starting, in case they discovered sensitive material, participants were told that they did not need to share their findings. For activity 4, attendees devised a checklist of steps to protect digital footprints. Participants used a bank of social media advice sheets which, although produced for teachers by the Southwest Grid for Learning (2020), were relevant to all users. Next, the group briefly considered how to curate a positive digital footprint through LinkedIn and Twitter to create a professional image and how a PLN can be created to support teacher employment. Examples of teachers’ creating PLNs on Twitter and Instagram to acquire ideas for lessons were discussed. Finally, participants had time to reflect on their next steps. Activity 1 Undergraduates share their definitions of digital footprints and then consider definitions of digital footprints Activity 2 Evaluating newspaper articles about when negative digital footprints have affected employability, including teachers Activity 3 Using a search engine to explore individual digital footprints Activity 4 Group activity to protect digital footprints on different social media networks Activity 5 Curating a positive digital footprint and developing a professional learning network Activity 6 Plenary exploring how attendees can apply learning from the workshop to their own social media use Table 2. A summary of activities used in the digital footprint workshop Following the workshop, attendees were invited to join an online semi-structured focus group to discuss the impact of the session. The focus group – with six participants – was audio- recorded and transcribed. 3. Outcomes The qualitative data generated by the focus group were input into NVivo 11 and analysed thematically, using the process identified by Braun and Clarke (2006). The researcher became familiar with the data through reading the transcript several times. A combination of deductive and inductive approaches to the coding was used with the data. The themes identified were: definitions of digital footprints; the impact of a negative digital footprint on future employability; actions to take to enhance digital footprints. The students in the focus group were from a Generation Z age group, had “grown up immersed in technology and [had] never known life without the internet” (Chunta, Shellenbarger and Chicca, 2020, p.88). Nevertheless, responses suggested that the workshop led to a change in students’ online behaviour, thanks to a now greater awareness about privacy settings and understanding how to change them on social media sites. For example, one participant said: “Well, I've changed my privacy settings. That was after the session we had.” This illustrates the point made by boyd (2014), that additional thought and effort needs to be applied to make social media posts private. Another focus group participant, though acknowledging having changed privacy settings, explained that their digital awareness had developed through consideration of how others Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 6 might perceive their posts, so demonstrating another of boyd’s (2014) observations that young people may have an intended audience which is different from their actual audience. The student explained: “Because obviously, if when I looked at my accounts, and I could see everything on mine, I wouldn't want someone from the school I volunteer at to do that and see all my posts, so I've made my Facebook more private, like they can't actually see much.” When asked about how the workshop could be improved, one participant raised the issue of the timing of this intervention: “I think to improve it, I think I would have wanted to know a bit more about it beforehand… but it would have been really interesting to look at it when we like first started uni because then I could have changed a lot more things before actually volunteering at schools and then only realising that my settings are more out there for the public.” This indicates that participants did recognise the value of the workshop, consistent with the approach of Jisc (2019) that students can be supported to manage digital identities more effectively. However, participants tended to focus on the potential negatives of a digital footprint and did not identify how they would curate their digital footprints (Mihailidis, 2016) and develop a PLN to support informal professional learning (Trust, 2012). Additional areas for future exploration in workshops could include undergraduate understanding of data mining through digital footprints and material shared online. Furthermore, this case study did not consider the implications of the digital divide on curating a positive digital footprint, which could be a priority for further interventions. 4. Conclusion This case study describes the co-creation, with Education undergraduates, of a workshop to develop digital footprint understanding and the impact of such footprints on employability. This case study has shown that participants valued the workshop, responded positively to the session and identified changes in their online behaviour. Using a co-construction approach ensured that the session was relevant to the needs and interests of Education students. This is particularly important when considering internet use, leading to students’ using the internet in rapidly evolving ways. Notwithstanding the relatively small sample size, this case study offers valuable insights into how undergraduates can be supported to develop their awareness of digital footprints. Although this case study involved working with Primary Education Studies undergraduates, digital footprint awareness can support the future employability of all graduates. While the workshop was included as part of science and technology education module, the session could be included in personal tutor sessions. As for future developments, a subsequent workshop will be planned for students develop a PLN, using social media platforms such as Twitter and LinkedIn to curate a digital footprint and collaborate with professionals in the field. Additionally, there could be further research into the impact of digital inequalities, into curating a digital footprint and into participating in PLNs. Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 7 5. Funding This project was kindly funded by a Learning and Teaching Project Award from Anglia Ruskin University. Reference list Barrow, G. (2018) ‘Former Sandy and Stevenage teacher banned after racist rant.’ The Comet, 6 September 2018. Available at: https://www.thecomet.net/news/sandy-and- stevenage-teacher-banned-for-racist-rant-5399060 (Accessed: 15 March 2022). Boyd, d. (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN: 9780300166316 Buchanan, R., Southgate, E., Smith, S.P., Murray, T. and Noble, B. (2017) ‘Post no photos, leave no trace: Children’s digital footprint management strategies.’ E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 275-290. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017751711 (Accessed: 15 January 2022). Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology.’ Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa (Accessed: 5 January 2022). Career Builder (2018) ‘More Than Half of Employers Have Found Content on Social Media That Caused Them NOT to Hire a Candidate, According to Recent CareerBuilder Survey.’ Cision: PR Newswire. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than- half-of-employers-have-found-content-on-social-media-that-caused-them-not-to-hire-a- candidate-according-to-recent-careerbuilder-survey-300694437.html (Accessed: 16 March 2022). Cook-Sather, A., Matthews, K.E., Ntem, A. and Leathwick, S. (2018) ‘What we talk about when we talk about Students as Partners.’ International Journal for Students As Partners, 2(2), 1-9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i2.3790 (Accessed: 7 February 2022). https://www.thecomet.net/news/sandy-and-stevenage-teacher-banned-for-racist-rant-5399060 https://www.thecomet.net/news/sandy-and-stevenage-teacher-banned-for-racist-rant-5399060 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2042753017751711 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than-half-of-employers-have-found-content-on-social-media-that-caused-them-not-to-hire-a-candidate-according-to-recent-careerbuilder-survey-300694437.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than-half-of-employers-have-found-content-on-social-media-that-caused-them-not-to-hire-a-candidate-according-to-recent-careerbuilder-survey-300694437.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than-half-of-employers-have-found-content-on-social-media-that-caused-them-not-to-hire-a-candidate-according-to-recent-careerbuilder-survey-300694437.html https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i2.3790 Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 8 Cerratto Pargman, T. and McGrath, C. (2021) ‘Mapping the Ethics of Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research.’ Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(2), 123-139. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.1 (Accessed: 7 February 2022). Bashit, M. (2019) ‘Disabled granddad sacked from Asda for sharing Billy Connolly sketch on Facebook.’ Metro, 24 June 2019. Available at: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/24/disabled- granddad-sacked-asda-sharing-billy-connolly-sketch-facebook-10049859/ (Accessed: 15 March 2022). Children’s Commissioner (2018) ‘Who knows what about me?’ Available at: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/digital/who-knows-what-about-me/ (Accessed: 18 March 2022). Chunta, K., Shellenbarger, T. and Chicca, J. (2021) ‘Generation Z Students in the Online Environment.’ Nurse Educator, 46(2), 87-91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000872 (Accessed: 18 January 2022). Dennen, V.P. (2015) ‘Technology transience and learner data: shifting notions of privacy in online learning.’ Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 45-59. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1705959068 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Department for Education (2012) Teacher's Standards: Guidance for School Leaders, School Staff and Governing Bodies. Secretary of State for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/1040274/Teachers__Standards_Dec_2021.pdf (Accessed:18 March 2022). Forbes, D. (2017) ‘Professional Online Presence and Learning Networks: Educating for Ethical Use of Social Media.’ International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,18(7), 175-190. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2826 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Gardner, H., Davis, K. and Gardner, D.H. (2013) The App Generation: How Today’s Youth Navigate Identity, Intimacy, and Imagination in a Digital World. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN: 0-300-19918-X https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.1 https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/24/disabled-granddad-sacked-asda-sharing-billy-connolly-sketch-facebook-10049859/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/24/disabled-granddad-sacked-asda-sharing-billy-connolly-sketch-facebook-10049859/ https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/digital/who-knows-what-about-me/ https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000872 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1705959068 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040274/Teachers__Standards_Dec_2021.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040274/Teachers__Standards_Dec_2021.pdf https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2826 Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 9 Gadekar, R. and Pant, S. (2015) ‘Exploring Facebook Users’ Privacy Knowledge, Enactment And Attitude: A Study On Indian Youth.’ International Journal of Communication Research, 5(4), 273-283. Available at: http://ijcr.eu/articole/269_01%20Rahul%20GADEKAR,%20Saumya%20PANT.pdf (Accessed: 18 March 2022). Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020) ‘The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.’ Educause Review, 27 March 2020. Available at: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency- remote-teaching-and-online-learning (Accessed: 18 March 2022). Jeske, D. and Shultz, K.S. (2016) ‘Using social media content for screening in recruitment and selection: pros and cons.’ Work, employment and society, 30(3), 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017015613746 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Jisc (2019) Jisc digital capabilities framework: the six elements defined. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7278/1/BDCP-DC-Framework-Individual-6E-110319.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2022). Kim, C., Gupta, R., Shah, A., Madill, E., Prabhu, A.V. and Agarwal, N. (2018) ‘Digital Footprint of Neurological Surgeons.’ World Neurosurgery, 113, 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.210 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Osborne, N. and Connelly, L. (2015) ‘Managing Your Digital Footprint.’ ALISS Quarterly, 11(1), 22-27. Available at: https://alissnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/54697-vol-11-no-1- oct-2015-proof-2.pdf (Accessed: 18 March 2022). Madden, M., Gilman, M.E., Levy, K. and Marwick, A.E. (2017) ‘Privacy, Poverty and Big Data: A Matrix of Vulnerabilities for Poor Americans.’ Washington University Law Review, 53. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2930247 (Accessed: 8 June 2022). Micheli, M., Lutz, C. and Büchi, M. (2018). ‘Digital footprints: an emerging dimension of digital inequality.’ Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 16(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). http://ijcr.eu/articole/269_01%20Rahul%20GADEKAR,%20Saumya%20PANT.pdf https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017015613746 https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7278/1/BDCP-DC-Framework-Individual-6E-110319.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.210 https://alissnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/54697-vol-11-no-1-oct-2015-proof-2.pdf https://alissnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/54697-vol-11-no-1-oct-2015-proof-2.pdf https://ssrn.com/abstract=2930247 https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014 Case Studies Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 15, No 2, 2022 10 Mihailidis, P. (2016) ‘Digital curation and digital literacy: Evaluating the role of curation in developing critical literacies for participation in digital culture.’ E-Learning and Digital Media, 12, 443-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016631868 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Robinson, L., Cotten, S.R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T.M. and Stern, M.J. (2015) ‘Digital inequalities and why they matter.’ Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). South West Grid for Learning (2020) Social Media Checklists. Available at: https://swgfl.org.uk/resources/checklists/ (Accessed: 15 March 2022). Thatcher, J. (2014) ‘Living on fumes: Digital footprints, data fumes, and the limitations of spatial big data.’ International Journal of Communication, 8, 1765-1783. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2174 (Accessed: 26 September 2021). Trust, T. (2012) ‘Professional learning networks designed for teacher learning.’ Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 133-138. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784693 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., and Helsper, E.J. (2015) ‘The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online?’ Communication and Information Technologies Annual: Digital Distinctions and Inequalities. Studies in Media and Communications, 10, 29-53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and van Dijk, J. (2010) ‘Internet skills and the digital divide.’ New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774 (Accessed: 27 September 2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016631868 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532 https://swgfl.org.uk/resources/checklists/ https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2174 https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784693 https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774