Engaging with Topic 1 has brought to the surface many thoughts and emotions about my relationship with the digital world — both as an educator and as a private individual. One of the things that struck me the most is how easy it is to feel “behind” or less competent when entering new online environments, especially when surrounded (virtually) by others who seem to navigate them effortlessly. The scenario described in the FISh document resonated deeply with me: the initial hesitation, the fear of judgment, and the discomfort of being “visible” in unfamiliar online spaces are feelings I’ve experienced myself.

Reflecting on my own digital presence, I realize I am both a visitor and a resident, depending on the space and context. I tend to keep my personal digital life relatively private, avoiding frequent posts or oversharing. I value privacy and boundaries. However, professionally, I feel a growing pressure — and also a responsibility — to engage more actively, whether that’s through sharing teaching resources, contributing to academic discussions, or collaborating in online communities.

The distinction between personal and professional online identities is one that I constantly negotiate. Platforms like LinkedIn, ResearchGate, or even institutional LMSs (like Moodle, Canvas, or Teams) feel like “safe” professional spaces where I can contribute and interact with peers. On the other hand, social media such as Facebook or Instagram remain primarily personal — and I am cautious about crossing those lines.

This topic also made me reflect on digital literacies — not just as a technical skillset, but as a broader awareness of how we engage, communicate, and present ourselves in digital environments. For us as educators, the challenge is twofold: we must navigate these literacies ourselves while also supporting our students to do the same. This includes understanding diverse platforms, ensuring inclusive communication, respecting privacy, and building meaningful learning communities online.

I found it particularly interesting how the group reflected on generational assumptions — the idea that younger people are more “digitally fluent” or more eager to share. This is not always the case. In fact, some younger students are very aware of their digital footprint and intentionally limit their exposure. Therefore, as teachers, we cannot assume comfort or competence based on age alone. We must meet learners where they are, offering support and flexibility.

What I take with me from this topic is the importance of authentic digital engagement. Online participation does not have to mean constant activity or visibility — it can also mean mindful presence, thoughtful contributions, and a willingness to listen and learn from others. At the same time, developing digital literacies means not only learning how to use new tools, but also critically understanding the implications of using them — in terms of privacy, power dynamics, and learning potential.

Lastly, I appreciate the encouragement within this course to start small — to reflect “carefully” at first, and gradually build confidence and openness. This gentle approach aligns with how I support my own students: I would never expect full transparency or vulnerability from them immediately. Why should I expect it from myself?

I’m grateful for the opportunity to reflect on these issues within a supportive, international, and interdisciplinary learning community. I look forward to deepening both my technical understanding and my pedagogical strategies as the course progresses.