Childhood Trauma #1
When I was just a lad sporting a lovely but lopsided afro (trauma for another posting) I often suffered from canker sores or aphthous ulcers if you prefer. One day I asked my mother how to get rid of them. Her instructions were to use a glass of hot salt water, and she emphasized hot. I took her advice without question and went on to rectify my problem. Long story shorter, I began drinking salt water!!! As you can imagine, something didn't feel quite right inside but an how could my mom be wrong? Much later, when she found out, she had a laugh and corrected me. "Gargle son, what would make you swallow salt water?" Traumatic.
Learning about intellectual property and copyright law has been a similar experience. Over the past week I have realized I have based much of how I teach on interpretations of other teachers' interpretations of these issues.
Key Lessons and Corrections:
1) Copyright Laws are Complicated: Okay, this belief was true. I defy any kid let alone any busy teacher to make sense of Canadian copyright law (Document found here). These laws do establish the rights of my students' intellectual property which is basically anything their minds can produce (Butler, 2005) but not the ideas themselves (intellectual freedom wiki). They establish what other people can and can't do but the language is so complicated it often turns people like me off.
2) Copyright Laws can be Restrictive: This I knew but Professor Lessig opened my eyes to how restrictive. He shared that our new digitial world founded on the idea that every user is a creator and the key function of creating is sharing. He also shares that copyright laws were created before this common reality and therefore limit the freedoms of creators who genuinely want to share. This brings in the new alternative...Creative Commons (Take the time to watch Professor Lessig's video below)
3) Creative Commons = anti-trauma device: Creative Commons is a relatively new movement(created in 2003) that provides creators of content a simple, clear, and effective way to share (not restrict the use)their content. In short, with the use of a few basic symbols people who access your intellectual property will know exactly how they can use, copy, remix, and share your property. Bye, bye insanely huge legal documents. For a full explanation view the video below and click here.
4) Educators aren't gods: Early on in my career multiple colleagues shared with me that as a teacher I could copy pretty much whatever I wanted as long as it was for school. As long as I could label the activity as educational...I was untouchable. Much of what I believed is actually only partly true and the myths I believed are common to many teachers (Matthew Neeldeman) Once I looked at Canada's fair dealing exceptions many of my materials are in direct violation of our laws. Did you know there are strict time restrictions on how long teachers can have recordings of television or radio broadcasts? Did you know that there "are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved" (CIPO)
Implications and Trauma #2
My dad didn't really set curfews. He allowed me to decide when to go to bed. I interpreted that freedom as it didn't really matter to him or anybody else. I selectively ignored his important statement "Don't let your night life interfere with your day life." I stayed up super late every night and it took me a long time to realize that my dad, my teachers, and countless other people were impacted during the day by my poor decisions at night. You think I would have learned quicker as my dad always made a point of getting me up early after my latest nights.
1) Students have rights - I was reminded teachers and librarians have been tasked with protecting and facilitating students' intellectual freedoms. According to Lamb (2007) this includes allowing our students to participate in rich experiences that the read/write web has to offer. She also includes removing restrictions and increasing access. This fits perfectly with utilizing Creative Commons licenses and materials. If they have access to materials that were designed with sharing in mind, they can freely wander, borrow, and create...legally!!!
2) What we do matters - It seems weird saying this to teachers but...our students learn about how to exercise their rights and their freedoms from us so we need to know what we are doing. Mike Ribble (2008) wrote about the importance of digital citizenship to our students. In this article he outlines a four stage model for teaching digital citizenship. The stages are awareness, guided practice, modeling and demonsrtation, and feedback and analysis. Key statements from this article:
"Awareness means engaging students to become technologically literate....Students need to learn what is appropriate and not appropriate when using different digital
technologies." (p. 16)
"Following awareness activities, educators need to provide their students
with opportunities to use the technology under their guidance by focusing
on “appropriate use of technology.” (p. 16)
"Adults need to be positive role models of good digital citizenship so
students can follow their example." (p. 16)
I was short changing my students by not acknowledging issues like copyright and intellectual property. By modeling a wreckless abandon approach as I surfed, copied and pasted from the net I was modeling poor digital citizenship. In short, how can teachers participate in any of the above activities if they refuse to educate themselves and fully acknowledge the value intellectual property? Or as Jennifer Janesko asks "If we, teachers and parents, do not clearly understand copyright and fair use issues, how do we properly teach our students?" (2008, p. 9)
3) Change takes time - My colleagues and I discussed about how quick and easy it is to ignore copyright and just do whatever we want...after all it is for the kids. Learning about copyright laws and finding highly effective and engaging creative commons content will take time. BUT if we communally explore the commons we can help each other out (Click here to get started or try ccMixter)
4) Ignorance and apathy have consequences - Some people make their living through their intellectual property...through their creative works. Haphazardly stealing from others just because technology makes it easy harms real people. One of my colleagues this week shared how the intellectual theft of her husband's artwork profited the burglar but hurt them. Our actions do have consequences and we as educators need to act as if this is true and instill this truth in the hearts and minds of the next generation of digital citizens.
Non-hyperlinked Resources:
Butler, R. (2005). Social responsibility: Intellectual property defined. Knowledge Quest, 34(1), 41-42.
Janesco, J. (2008). Do students respect intellectual property? Learning & Leading with Technology,May, 8-9.
Lamb, A. (2007). Intellectual freedom for youth. Knowledge Quest, 36(2), 38-45.
Ribble, M. (2008). Passport to digital citizenship: Journey toward appropriate technology use at school and at home. Learning & Leading with Technology, December, 14-17.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Digital Divide...Simple to Spell...Complex to Fix?
If you live in North America, it is hard to escape the existence of and the growing reliance on digital technologies. For many, being digitally connected is a given, an expectation, a right. Even our cars have gone from being modes of transportation to being highly mobile digital communication devices:
In the above quote this divide is caused or manifested in people's lack of access to technology and their lack of skill to use the technology in complex manners. Notice it also frames this divide in terms of people being digital citizens (we will come back to that one).
At first glance it seems easy to address this divide or technological imbalance. Pump money into infrastructure, ship computers nationally/globally, and hire trained digital citizens to make sure everyone is up to speed.
The divide has more components than skills and access. This is where it gets really complicated. The digital divide actually mirrors other divides in our societies along racial, gender, socioeconomic, cultural, religious, and political lines:
(Thanks Dawn for finding this)
The American Association of School Librarians suggest that policies that dictate institutional purchasing of technology and filtering content influence this divide. They also suggest "motivation, cannot be overlooked. That is, we’re seeing children, teachers, media specialists, and administrators all having different motivations to either adopt, ignore, or actively thwart learning innovation with Web 2.0 tools" (AASL October 2008).
I fully admit that the last two semesters of learning about Web 2.0 has whipped me into a bit of a panic. I live in a remote, fly-in community. We are progressing with our technology. As teachers we see the value of this advancement but a true sense of urgency and panic hit me when I came back to Alberta. I gained the impression that the world has changed almost over night in a way never imagined before. George Sciadas' research calmed my nerves by putting this present digital divide into perspective:
In short, technological divides have happened before and to some degree these divides shrink with time. His research did support, however, that our present digital divide is expanding in Canada between the poor and the rich...which obviously is an issue of concern.
Major Question Leaders Need to Answer:
Is the digital divide a cultural/political construct based on the assumption that there is one right way of being?
In the YouTube video above, digital technologies and related skills were defined by their ability to allow America/Americans to compete in the global economy. Wikipedia's definition of digital citizens describes them as being able to complete duties such as filing taxes, child registration, and other commercial endeavors online. These examples and countless others support Sonia Liff's assertion that the existence of and the plans to eliminate the digital divide have agendas behind them. For instance, research has shown that boys and girls use digital technologies differently (Looker & Thiessen, 2003). Sonia Liff picked up on this and shared the risk of defining women as poor users and men as good users. This would lead to policies and programs to improve women. This approach ignores the key question...what do women want to use technology for? Other presenters besides Sonia Liff emphasized that one set of policies/projects to eliminate the divide doesn't fit all as different nations/cultures perceive technology differently and therefore would use it differently. These thoughts came from the video below (thanks Natasha) and is well worth a watch.
Implications for Educators/Leaders:
1) Be aware - We need to be aware of how we define success. We have an agenda in schools. Educational gurus that are pushing the educational envelope have complex and unique skills in mind for digital citizens (ShirJorg, Jackie, Joyce Valenza). Even though many students are using web 2.0 tools they would still be considered on the bottom of the divide as they may not be using them in the way we define they should be.
2) Avoid simplistic responses - Our gut reaction is to buy, buy, buy. "If students and teachers have access then we are okay." Focusing on hardware while ignoring policy, the skills your teachers have/lack, the infinite ways users perceive and interpret experiences with technology is short sighted. Add the existing socioeconomic, cultural, gender, political barriers in your school/community = limited success or complete disaster. Danah Boyd does an excellent job of exploring these elements in the digital world (Click here. Make sure you read her papers)
3) Think context - Solutions do exist but they likely will be unique to your area. You can learn from others though. Thanks Dawn for examples of contextual solutions.
4) Respect play - My peers and I discussed at length the importance of teachers being competent technology. If teachers value and have the skills then they can help battle your local digital divide. Administrators...please get creative with scheduling and create space for your staff to play with technology. I guarantee you will see results :)
For further ideas check out Dawnelai's blog.
Non-hyperlinked resources:
George Sciadas completed a report entitled "The Digital Divide in Canada" for Statistics Canada. This report can be accessed here.
Looker and Thiessen (2003) compiled research for Statistics Canada. I referenced their report that you can access here.
This technological shift appears to be creating a divide nationally and globally. These digital divides are "the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it is the unequal access by some members of society to information and communication technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. (Wikipedia)
In the above quote this divide is caused or manifested in people's lack of access to technology and their lack of skill to use the technology in complex manners. Notice it also frames this divide in terms of people being digital citizens (we will come back to that one).
At first glance it seems easy to address this divide or technological imbalance. Pump money into infrastructure, ship computers nationally/globally, and hire trained digital citizens to make sure everyone is up to speed.
The divide has more components than skills and access. This is where it gets really complicated. The digital divide actually mirrors other divides in our societies along racial, gender, socioeconomic, cultural, religious, and political lines:
(Thanks Dawn for finding this)
The American Association of School Librarians suggest that policies that dictate institutional purchasing of technology and filtering content influence this divide. They also suggest "motivation, cannot be overlooked. That is, we’re seeing children, teachers, media specialists, and administrators all having different motivations to either adopt, ignore, or actively thwart learning innovation with Web 2.0 tools" (AASL October 2008).
I fully admit that the last two semesters of learning about Web 2.0 has whipped me into a bit of a panic. I live in a remote, fly-in community. We are progressing with our technology. As teachers we see the value of this advancement but a true sense of urgency and panic hit me when I came back to Alberta. I gained the impression that the world has changed almost over night in a way never imagined before. George Sciadas' research calmed my nerves by putting this present digital divide into perspective:
Despite perceptions about the meteoric rise of the Internet, fast as it
may have been, the penetration of television in people’s lives was
faster1. The penetration of the VCR was also very fast, particularly
during its first decade. While the speed of adoption among commodities
differs, their penetration is generally characterized by accelerating
growth in the initial periods, which eventually gives way to decelerating
growth. (p. 2)
In short, technological divides have happened before and to some degree these divides shrink with time. His research did support, however, that our present digital divide is expanding in Canada between the poor and the rich...which obviously is an issue of concern.
Major Question Leaders Need to Answer:
Is the digital divide a cultural/political construct based on the assumption that there is one right way of being?
In the YouTube video above, digital technologies and related skills were defined by their ability to allow America/Americans to compete in the global economy. Wikipedia's definition of digital citizens describes them as being able to complete duties such as filing taxes, child registration, and other commercial endeavors online. These examples and countless others support Sonia Liff's assertion that the existence of and the plans to eliminate the digital divide have agendas behind them. For instance, research has shown that boys and girls use digital technologies differently (Looker & Thiessen, 2003). Sonia Liff picked up on this and shared the risk of defining women as poor users and men as good users. This would lead to policies and programs to improve women. This approach ignores the key question...what do women want to use technology for? Other presenters besides Sonia Liff emphasized that one set of policies/projects to eliminate the divide doesn't fit all as different nations/cultures perceive technology differently and therefore would use it differently. These thoughts came from the video below (thanks Natasha) and is well worth a watch.
Implications for Educators/Leaders:
1) Be aware - We need to be aware of how we define success. We have an agenda in schools. Educational gurus that are pushing the educational envelope have complex and unique skills in mind for digital citizens (ShirJorg, Jackie, Joyce Valenza). Even though many students are using web 2.0 tools they would still be considered on the bottom of the divide as they may not be using them in the way we define they should be.
2) Avoid simplistic responses - Our gut reaction is to buy, buy, buy. "If students and teachers have access then we are okay." Focusing on hardware while ignoring policy, the skills your teachers have/lack, the infinite ways users perceive and interpret experiences with technology is short sighted. Add the existing socioeconomic, cultural, gender, political barriers in your school/community = limited success or complete disaster. Danah Boyd does an excellent job of exploring these elements in the digital world (Click here. Make sure you read her papers)
3) Think context - Solutions do exist but they likely will be unique to your area. You can learn from others though. Thanks Dawn for examples of contextual solutions.
4) Respect play - My peers and I discussed at length the importance of teachers being competent technology. If teachers value and have the skills then they can help battle your local digital divide. Administrators...please get creative with scheduling and create space for your staff to play with technology. I guarantee you will see results :)
For further ideas check out Dawnelai's blog.
Non-hyperlinked resources:
George Sciadas completed a report entitled "The Digital Divide in Canada" for Statistics Canada. This report can be accessed here.
Looker and Thiessen (2003) compiled research for Statistics Canada. I referenced their report that you can access here.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Digital Natives,Immigrants, and Pioneers: Going Beyond my Gut Reaction
Background:
Before this week I had not heard of the terms "digital natives" or "digital immigrants". My brief journey through this topical landscape ended up being far more emotionally charged and confusing than I had expected. This emotional involvement and confusion was not unique to me and seemed to be fueled by one Marc Prensky's views on the subject.
A couple quotes from his paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" (2001) will help set the stage:
Initial Response:
I admit that I became quite offended, skeptical, outraged, hurt, and reflective when I first read Pensky's thoughts.
Joyce Valenza shared my skepticism:
She also found his work to be divisive and so broad that they ineffectively reflected the diversity of technological experience/affinity in any generation. Our class discussions this week also went in this direction. We all seemed to acknowledge that our world has changed due to digital technology but we struggled with the idea that we were immigrants and somehow innately at a disadvantage in this new world. We didn't buy the idea that by birth all digital natives were instinctively or innately digitally altered.
I quickly went from conflicted and confused to confident...almost cocky as Kathy Schrock expressed my thoughts perfectly:
Preach on Sister! I am a pioneer! I began to dismiss Pensky. When I took some time to reflect and dig deeper, I realized my gut reaction was emotional and I was closing my mind to a key fact...I do believe education needs to change and it is mostly due to the influence of technology. Tech has fundamentally changed how we do things...how we live.
Present Stance/Implications:
Anne Collier (unknowingly) drew me back to Marc Pensky when she wrote:
1) Adults need to acknowledge differences. Terms we grew up with like friends, community, meeting, sharing, privacy, etc. are still spelled the same but have totally new meanings. Our students live these new meanings that aren't constrained by physical space. If we don't acknowledge and make room for these new meanings, our effectiveness as leaders will be greatly diminished.
2) Adults need new skills...especially critical thinking. Up to this point I have been focusing on 21st century skills for my students. Up until watching Danah Boyd's presentation I was working on the tacit assumption that I possessed the skills that the students needed. Short version....I have to critically approach students online identities as they likely weren't created with me or the world in mind. I am an outsider that is ignorant of the influences/context that created that persona. In essence, I have to learn the new rules and language of social media before I can meaningfully engage/educate my students.
3) Modalities change but people don't. Educational leaders need to avoid confusing a change in technology with fundamental shifts in the human condition. I don't know enough to argue Pensky's assertions that brains have changed but I do know enough to recognize common traits between generations. Digital natives have grown up with new ways to do what humans have always wanted to do....connect, be known, find significance, belong to community, find meaning, experience acceptance and the list goes on. When I was a kid we found social status by the friends we were seen with. When my grandfather was a kid, social status was improved by owning a TV or switching from horses to cars. Now days this same process is governed by who comments on your blog or how many texts you do in a day.
4) Focus on individuals and growth. Educators need to continue to develop their skills and improve their practice but when push comes to shove, our schools are full of adults full of life experience that our students need. Pensky actually emphasizes that the new generation needs to gain our ability to reflect which comes from our wealth of experiences.
If we focus on divisive generational descriptions, then we alienate everyone....immigrants, pioneers, and natives alike (Anne Collier concurs). If we ignore fundamental changes in the world, we may be more comfortable but our students and our profession will suffer.
Nonhyperlinked Resources:
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-5.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
Before this week I had not heard of the terms "digital natives" or "digital immigrants". My brief journey through this topical landscape ended up being far more emotionally charged and confusing than I had expected. This emotional involvement and confusion was not unique to me and seemed to be fueled by one Marc Prensky's views on the subject.
A couple quotes from his paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" (2001) will help set the stage:
It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. (p. 1)
It‟s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. (p. 2)He identifies digital natives as the first generation to grow up in a world permeated by digital technology. Digital immigrants are older generations who are drafted into this digital world but are fundamentally different from digital natives. He suggests and defends the idea that digital natives' actual psychological and mental processes have been altered by the environment they have been raised in. So much so, that widespread educational changes including utilizing fast paced, digital media/video games, need to be incorporated to meet their needs. His follow up paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?" (2001) explores some of the research that supports the premise that our brains are far more malleable than traditional thought acknowledged.
Initial Response:
I admit that I became quite offended, skeptical, outraged, hurt, and reflective when I first read Pensky's thoughts.
Joyce Valenza shared my skepticism:
I've also wondered about Prensky's (and other educational futurists') contention that kids' brains have significantly altered over time because of their exposure to digital technology.
She also found his work to be divisive and so broad that they ineffectively reflected the diversity of technological experience/affinity in any generation. Our class discussions this week also went in this direction. We all seemed to acknowledge that our world has changed due to digital technology but we struggled with the idea that we were immigrants and somehow innately at a disadvantage in this new world. We didn't buy the idea that by birth all digital natives were instinctively or innately digitally altered.
I quickly went from conflicted and confused to confident...almost cocky as Kathy Schrock expressed my thoughts perfectly:
I did not grow up with technology. It grew up with me, and I was there every step of the way. I think those of us who have been there since the beginning, and have adopted each technology as it came about, should not be called digital immigrants. I do not turn to the printed manual first. I always choose reputable Internet sites to locate information. And I do speak the correct language (and still do not accept Google as a verb!) There are very few technology skills that are foreign to me.
Preach on Sister! I am a pioneer! I began to dismiss Pensky. When I took some time to reflect and dig deeper, I realized my gut reaction was emotional and I was closing my mind to a key fact...I do believe education needs to change and it is mostly due to the influence of technology. Tech has fundamentally changed how we do things...how we live.
Present Stance/Implications:
Anne Collier (unknowingly) drew me back to Marc Pensky when she wrote:
Many news reporters grew up in a very different (mass media) environment, as did a lot of parents, educators, and other news consumers. So we're seeing and participating in a distorted picture of social media and how youth use them if we're viewing young people's use through the traditional news media and our own mass-media lenses. (NetFamilyNews.org)Danah Boyd (amazingly brilliant) also gave a presentation that drew me back to Pensky and some final thoughts/implications I would like to share. The video is long...but worth it. My comments are mostly basked on the first half hour.
1) Adults need to acknowledge differences. Terms we grew up with like friends, community, meeting, sharing, privacy, etc. are still spelled the same but have totally new meanings. Our students live these new meanings that aren't constrained by physical space. If we don't acknowledge and make room for these new meanings, our effectiveness as leaders will be greatly diminished.
2) Adults need new skills...especially critical thinking. Up to this point I have been focusing on 21st century skills for my students. Up until watching Danah Boyd's presentation I was working on the tacit assumption that I possessed the skills that the students needed. Short version....I have to critically approach students online identities as they likely weren't created with me or the world in mind. I am an outsider that is ignorant of the influences/context that created that persona. In essence, I have to learn the new rules and language of social media before I can meaningfully engage/educate my students.
3) Modalities change but people don't. Educational leaders need to avoid confusing a change in technology with fundamental shifts in the human condition. I don't know enough to argue Pensky's assertions that brains have changed but I do know enough to recognize common traits between generations. Digital natives have grown up with new ways to do what humans have always wanted to do....connect, be known, find significance, belong to community, find meaning, experience acceptance and the list goes on. When I was a kid we found social status by the friends we were seen with. When my grandfather was a kid, social status was improved by owning a TV or switching from horses to cars. Now days this same process is governed by who comments on your blog or how many texts you do in a day.
4) Focus on individuals and growth. Educators need to continue to develop their skills and improve their practice but when push comes to shove, our schools are full of adults full of life experience that our students need. Pensky actually emphasizes that the new generation needs to gain our ability to reflect which comes from our wealth of experiences.
If we focus on divisive generational descriptions, then we alienate everyone....immigrants, pioneers, and natives alike (Anne Collier concurs). If we ignore fundamental changes in the world, we may be more comfortable but our students and our profession will suffer.
Nonhyperlinked Resources:
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-5.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
