You are here:

High School Graduates Describe Four Types of Online Identities
PROCEEDING

, Walden University, United States ; , East Carolina University, United States

AACE Award

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The paper is a report on one of the findings of a study of 9 nine high school graduates on their perspectives on the creation of online identities. An unexpected result of the interviews was the organic emergence of the identification of four types of online identities generated by young adults ages 18 to 21: real, desired, enhanced, and deceptive. Parts of each type of identity support the current literature; however, this is the first realization of a spectrum of identities from deliberately honest to deliberately deceptive. Educators should consider this data when teaching technologies that involve online identities and when teaching digital citizenship.

Citation

Herlong, K. & Brown, A. (2016). High School Graduates Describe Four Types of Online Identities. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1079-1083). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 7, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Crook, B., & Pastorek, A. (2015). "Would I hire me?" Examining the presence of students' online past. Communication Teacher, 29(1), 7-12. Doi:10.1080/17404622.2014.985595
  2. Davison, H., Maraist, C., & Bing, M.N. (2011). Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. Journal of Business& Psychology, 26(2), 153-159.
  3. Del Rey, R., Elipe, P., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2012). Bullying and cyberbullying: Overlapping and predictive value of the co-occurrence. Psicothema, 24(4), 608-613. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/english/
  4. Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved on November 27, 2013 from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1104968
  5. Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2010). Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 157-171.
  6. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Internet crime report. Retrieved on November 12, 2013, from http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2012_IC3Report.pdf
  7. Finn, G., Garner, J., & Sawdon, M. (2010). ‘You’re judged all the time!’ Students’ views on professionalism: A multicentre study. Medical Education, 44(8), 814-825.
  8. Greene, K. (2012). Social media and the job hunt. Educational Horizons, 90(2), 26-27. Retrieved from http://pilambda.org/about-plt/publications/educational-horizons/
  9. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2011). Cyberbullying: A review of the legal issues facing educators. Preventing School Failure, 55(2), 71-78. Doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.539433
  10. Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. Techtrends: Linking Research& Practice to Improve Learning, 55(4), 37-47.
  11. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2014). The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Computers& Education, 72, 292-301. , March 21-26, 2016
  12. Kirkwood, J., Gutgold, N.D., & Manley, D. (2011). Hello world, it's me: Bringing the basic speech communication course into the digital age. Communication Teacher, 25(3), 150-153. Doi:10.1080/17404622.2011.579905
  13. Koh-Herlong, L. (2015). High School graduates' perspectives on the creation of online identities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations& Theses Full Text. (UMI No. 3732594)
  14. Myers, D. (1987). "Anonymity is part of the magic": Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 10(3), 251-266. Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2013a). Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.missingkids.com/KeyFacts
  15. Paradise, A., & Sullivan, M. (2012). (In)Visible threats? The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior& Social Networking, 15(1), 55-60.
  16. Schenk, A.M., & Fremouw, W.J. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 21-37. Doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.630310
  17. Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital age. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  18. Seery, A. (2010). Education, the formation of self and the world of Web 2.0. London Review of Education, 8(1), 6373.
  19. Smith, P.K. (2009). Cyberbullying: Abusive relationships in cyberspace. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 180-181.
  20. Taraszow, T., Aristodemou, E., Shitta, G., Laouris, Y., & Arsoy, A. (2010). Disclosure of personal and contact information by young people in social networking sites: An analysis using Facebook profiles as an example. International Journal of Media& Cultural Politics, 6(1), 81-101.
  21. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503. .
  22. Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetration. Children& Society, 25(1), 59-72. Doi:10.1111/J.1099-0860.2009.00260.x
  23. Whittaker, L., & Gillespie, A. (2013). Social networking sites: Mediating the self and its communities. Journal of Community& Applied Social Psychology, 23(6), 492-504. , March 21-26, 2016

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts