EdTechTrek

The recent media frenzy (see eschoolnews article here) over the 16 year old Florida girl who was savagely beaten by eight other teens for the expressed purpose of posting their conquest on YouTube and MySpace brings up so many issues to think about. We have Internet safety, bullying, violence, media influence, morality,… But the question that keeps coming to mind for me is that of parenting and family. Parents have about 12 or so years to really influence their children before peer pressure begins to complicate things. Here we have teen children premeditating a terrible assault to be captured on video to share with the word. This is not typical teen deviation. Where are the parents? What have they been doing for the past 16 years? It is increasingly obvious that parents today need a new level of awareness and involvement in the lives of their kids - their digital lives. But putting all that aside for a moment, this behavior is foundationally about parenting. I must confess, I know nothing about the parents of the eight accused. However, their actions lead me to believe that something is severely lacking there.

It is so easy to blame the YouTube generation and YouTube itself. Blame the Internet. Blame pack mentality. Or, blame the school for not being aware of the underlying tensions that may have precipitated this attack. Even the victim’s mother is allocating some blame to the YouTube generation for being desensitized and warped by the media culture it has helped shape. However, true that this may be, kind, caring, service- and social justice-oriented, compassionate, responsible, intelligent, proactive, ethical, productively engaged people do not do this sort of thing. These are the attributes that any good parent would seek to cultivate in their child. Parents need to wake up. Parenting 2.0 is still a great deal about parenting 1.0. Kids do not teach themselves these positive behaviors. The “Golden Rule” is still something to be highly valued, taught, and modeled, no?

Okay, I understand the basic premise of the pencil argument (and here). But, come on now… this is far from an equal analogy! Here is what Doug Johnson had to say about the potential risks that pencils bring into the classroom in the February 2006 issue of Learning & Leading with Technology. It was referenced in Wesley Freyer’s latest post over on his Moving at the Speed of Creativity blog.:

1. A student might use a pencil to poke out the eye of another student.
2. A student might write a dirty word or, worse yet, a threatening note to another student, with a pencil.
3. One student might have a mechanical pencil, making those with wooden ones feel bad.
4. The pencil might get stolen.
5. Pencils break and need repairing all the time.
6. Kids who have pencils might doodle instead of working on their assignments or listening to the teacher.

Now, again, I understand the rationale behind this argument, but let’s compare:

1. Only psychopathic students would gouge out another’s eye… with anything. However, teachers have been known to be violent pencil wielders. Imagine what they could be capable of with an iPod in their hands!

2. A written insult or profanity is seen only by the one who holds the written note. We all fully understand the far-reaching implications of digital bullying!

3. One simply cannot compare pencil-envy with things of high value that create classes of students and do create envy (high-fashion clothing, shoes, and yes… electronics!)

4. In fact, pencils do get stolen all the time. I have rarely seen a student fall to pieces over it. However, if it were a $250 pencil, I could see why that could happen.

5. Pencils break. So you sharpen them again. The “repair” is done in seconds. Electronics break and are repaired with greater cost, time, and learning interruption/disruption.

6. I would much rather have a student doodle with his or her pencil than be consumed with the vast array of on-line distraction. And, most other classmates don’t usually get distracted by one student’s doodling. Not so with a laptop or other electronic device.

So, if we are to present a compelling rationale for issues surrounding freedom to learn and teaching/learning innovation, we at least need to bring valid and sound arguments to the table. To do otherwise only serves to make light of real and pressing concerns of many stakeholders. If a pencil is the equivalent of any other learning device, then I say, let’s stick with the pencils. They are cheaper, easily replaceable, quite reliable, disposable, efficient, highly portable, facilitate collaboration and sharing of information, they have excellent battery life - heck, they don’t even have lead in them anymore, making them environmentally friendly to boot!

But, if there is a significant difference here (and I would agree that there is), then we had better not be making such silly comparisons. Folks might just want to settle for the pencil, then.

Note:
Freyer’s blog post is otherwise right on the mark.

(Continuing with my book club…)

In this chapter, Postman recounts some of the major changes that occurred in America with the introduction of the printing press… Yes, books. But also a ravenous hunger for newspapers. He describes the general public as being quite literate and hungry for the written word, as there were no other informative media available other than the public orator who would come and speak in public forums. They were very well attended.

In the 1770s, even the poorest of common folk could read. Reading was not considered an “elitist” activity at all. This really made me think of how things are today, where literacy rates often decline in relation to socio-economic status. Is this in part because of the competing new media (movies, video games, television…) that discourages traditional literacies ? I think this may be a direction that Postman heads in future chapters.

I found incredible parallels between the emergence of newspapers in the late 17th/early 18th centuries and blogs in the 21st century. Postman describes how in the late 17th century how newspapers became so important in Boston to “combat the spirit of lying” that was going on in politics. However, the second edition of the Publick Occurrences never happened, as it was suppressed by the Governor for being too truthful (truth hurts!). Thank goodness for our freedoms of speech. By 1730 there were seven successfully published newspapers in the 4 colonies. By 1800, 180 papers were published.

Newspapers were referred to as the “spring of knowledge. The general source throughout the nation, of every modern conversation.” Per capita at end of 18th century, there were more newspapers in the US than there were in England due to America’s newfound freedoms.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “Parties do not write books to combat each other’s opinions, but pamphlets (and newspapers), which are circulated for a day within incredible rapidity and then expire.” He goes on to write that just as the firearm equalized nobility with the “vassal”, so did printing and the post (just like blog posts). Can you imagine if the common man of the 17th/18th century had access to some medium to easily publish his/her thoughts to the culture of the times? Information has truly revolutionized our society. There are now somewhere between 50 and 150 million blogs out there.

Today, anyone with Internet access (or a cell phone) can blog. Bloggers have changed reporting and the speed at which information reaches the masses. Blogging empowers the ‘common man’ who does not have access to publish in conventional information outlets (news, published books/articles, magazines,…). It has helped, just like the firearm and newspaper, as de Tocqueville put it, to “equalize nobility with the vassal” (YouTube debates?). Along the same lines, it can empower students and give them a voice like never before. Of course, with such power needs to come responsibility - and that also must be taught in parallel. Cyberbullying, for example, is related to this newfound power of youth minus the responsibility.

I don’t think that Postman was thinking about such parallels when writing this chapter since his book was written in 1985, long before blogging, podcasting and the like truly took off. I wonder what he thinks about such forms of communication that empower the individual like never before. I don’t think this type of activity would fall in his thesis of “amusing ourselves to death”. Of course, these new information tools can be used for trivial purposes, no doubt. Our challenge is to educate our students and colleagues on the empowerment that comes from having a powerful voice without boundaries. If we have important things to say, they are not merely relegated to the bulletin board, hallway display, or faculty room/water cooler chatter. I think a major hurdle is to shift from the thinking that we either have no voice or our voice does not matter to participating in global conversations about what we are passionate about. If we have nothing to say or are not passionate about anything, that says something, doesn’t it?

Anyway, it’s amazing what this one chapter sparked in my mind. I look forward to more such tangents.

Okay, I know just about anything can get out of hand. But do we have to ban it carte blanche when it does? Here is a story of a few schools banning the time-tested game of tag on the school playground because of misunderstandings during the game and some children getting chased when they did not want to play. Parents complained. Tag is banned. Having supervised children on playgrounds for many years, I have come to know that molehills can be made into mountains by children and just about anything can be made hazardous or annoying. Hence, supervision. If children get too physical while playing soccer, do we ban soccer? If pushing ensues during a hopscotch game, do we ban that too? If a student misuses internet privileges, do we ban internet use for all? Somehow, we have to address the roots of undesirable, hurtful, or destructive behavior, no?

According to a recent report in the UK, YouTube is being accused of not enforcing its acceptable use policy with humiliating and inappropriate video content remaining accessible, including video clips that serve to bully and humiliate students and teachers. The report concludes that YouTube has joined a governmental anti-bullying task force. It is too bad that with almost every new and exciting tool that comes out, there are those who seek to use it for evil. Human nature. Even the OLPC laptops deployed in Nigeria to bring illumination and empowerment to the children there are being used by some to look at porn. Human nature. Now filters are having to be put on all of them and successive builds of the XO laptop. With all of the wonderful potential with all of these web-based tools how do we really prepare a generation of children to use them in a positive manner. How do we teach them to make right choices with so many seductive, destructive options at only a click away… and a private click at that? Internet predators aside for a moment, it is the private nature of such personal behavior that makes evil so enticing, I think, especially for those who would never engage in such types of behavior publicly. I think more discussion needs to be placed on these types of issues within the educational technology community. My fear is that a whole new generation is arising, both empowered by information and deceived by an increasing flow of destructive information. How to we tackle this?