Before taking OLTD506, I had what I thought was a pretty well rounded idea of what my digital footprints and professional activities, privacy, safety and social justice were about. Even though much of what I read in our readings were basically known to me, what I did know was on a superficial level. I will try to touch on the key things that really made an impact on me.
When I was delving into the “Foundations” part of this course and was immersed in the readings, a few things stood out to me that I thought were important. One of the things that stood out for me when I read Julia Hengstler's blog, "What Parents Should Know Part 1: Basic Understanding of social Media & Digital Communications" (Friday, May 24, 2013 was how quick I was to skim over the "terms of use" section on sites that I have signed up for, such as, Twitter and Facebook. I must admit that I really don't want to read "boring" stuff. Now, however, I will make an effort to actually read the "terms of use" sections. I didn't really get it that I was "trading (my) information to use their services" (Hengstler, 2013,05 24 a "What Parents Should Know Part 1: Basic Understanding of Social Media & Digital Communications.
http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/what-parents-should-know-part-1-basic-understanding-of-social-media-digital-communications/) I liked the analogy of riding a bicycle that Julia Hengstler (2013,05 24 a "What Parents Should Know Part 1: Basic Understanding of Social Media & Digital Communications.
http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/what-parents-should-know-part-1-basic-understanding-of-social-media-digital-communications/) mentions. It is so true that sometimes I forget that there are some things that shouldn't be taken for granted. It is important to have those training wheels on when we are using social media with our children. I will remember to make sure that I walk them through the “hows”, “whats”, and “whatfors” of the digital activities I do with them. I will not assume that they all know how to blog or even how to log on to a site.
Another point that I was not aware of was, as Lankshear (2011) mentions, how social networking, such as, Facebook (https://www.facebook.com) can be used as a literacy tool or "literacy format". It stands to reason that when you engage people in what their interested in, that they will be more likely to be involved. People need to read a post and understand it in order to make a connection. When that connection is made a response is usually forthcoming whether it is by clicking "like" or adding a comment of their own. I can see this as being a powerful tool for young students with the right social networking tool.
I found the lists of questions that Julia Hengstler, Hengstler (2013 b, “Social Media Overview 2013, Social Media Overview 2013.pdf) shares in the overview are useful and straightforward. I was aware of most of the items in the questions lists. I was not aware, however of making sure that there are clear rules and procedures around dealing with incidents, as I don't think there are formal guidelines for this. I will check with my principal. I was also not aware of the importance of referencing my "opinions" as not necessarily representative of my employer. This is something else to think about when I am posting anything to do with my educational endeavours with my students.
The realization of what my digital footprint and professional boundaries really entailed was an eye-opener for me. I was a little taken aback with the idea of “The Deep Web” (Bergman, 2001) To know that there is information about me that I may not even be aware that was about me, such as someone posting a picture of me at a party, for example. I think another thing that is a little scary is that there are other people with the same name as my name. What if there was another Jane Christensen who was doing really bad things? My reputation could be tainted and serious ramifications could result. When I googled myself using CVgaget (http://www.cvgadget.com ) I was astounded at the number of “hits” for my name I received. Many of those hits were not about me, but someone else with the same name. Another consideration is to make sure that when posting anything online. A good question that Julia Hengstler (2011) says is to ask yourself, “’Would the content pass muster with my mother, my boss, and my professional standards/ethics?’”. It is interesting how I have used a similar question with my own students. I usually ask, “If your parents would not approve then don’t do it.” I now realize that it is not only something to ask my students, but myself as well in regards to my profession, my boss, and my students and parents.
Another thought that followed me as I was reading Julia Hengstler’s “Managing Your Digital Footprint: Ostriches v. Eagles” (2011) was the idea around making sure we keep being aware of our own and our students’ privacy and safety in regard to Web 2.0. I was thinking that really it is not much different than other things we put in place to safeguard everyone outside of the Web. The problem is that what we do within our physical school community is somewhat more containable than the Web. (Hengstler. 2011). I think that it is difficult enough to be consistent and diligent about face to face bullying, for example, that the idea of trying to be diligent and consistent about cyber-bullying is, for me, overwhelming. You can put all the safeguards and rules you want in anything you do, whether face to face or online, but unfortunately, they will not always be upheld. Even when there are consequences in place, you will always have those to whom they will not be effective. My concern, as a parent and a teacher, is that it is one thing for the issues to take place in a physical community, such as a brick and mortar school, but it is a whole other world when it involves Web 2.0. How and can we make a plan that is stringent enough to reduce the possible dangers out there? I guess it comes down to the control. We have a better ability to control what happens when it is right in front of us, such as at school. We don’t have the same control when it comes to Web 2.0.
I had a look at the handbook “Safer Practice with Technology: For adults working in schools” (2009) of which Julia Hengstler (2011) mentions in her article, “Managing your digital footprint: Ostriches v. Eagles”. I was particularly interested in the question around ensuring safer activities for primary aged students. I was particularly interested in the sites such as; SchoolsTube (http://www.teachertube.com) and TeacherTube (http://www.teachertube.com) as safer sites for young children to have safer access to the Web. I read the privacy policy and noticed that there is a warning that others using the site could access personal information. It is food for thought and even though these kinds of sites are more secure than others, care should still be taken to educate students and parents of the privacy policies of even the “safer” kids sites. I will be a lot more vigilant in making sure that I fully peruse the privacy policy sections of any sites that I use with my students.
Another issue that I did know, what I thought was quite a bit about the basic risks of storing information in a non-Canadian based cloud storage site. I knew that the rules in other countries are not as stringent as ours. However, I was not aware just how invasive the US government is in its ability to view our personal information without our consent. Also, I did not realize that if someone were to share information about someone else and it was stored in a service not in Canada, that you would need that person’s consent as well. (BC Privacy Commissioner’s Cloud Computing Guidelines for Public Bodies: February 2013). This fact is another thing to think about when I am teaching my students about “Digital Citezenship”.
After reading Thiere’s (2012) “The Six Things that Drive ‘Technopanics’”, I was astounded at the realization that there was a lot of hype in regard to over zealous reactions about safety for young people using social networking sites. After reading about the “Six Factors” that Theire (2012) refers to in the “Forbes” article “The Six Things that Drive 'Technopanics'” (2012) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/03/04/the-six-things-that-drive-technopanics/), I have a clearer picture of how some people that Thiere (2012) refers to, such as, the “Third Person” and “Role of Special Interests” using their influence or beliefs to get what they want. It almost seems a little narcistic. Also, as Willard (2012, “Examples of fear-based internet safety messaging” ) makes reference to the fears that have arisen because of how some people/groups portray information. One example that stood out for me was the one where it was stated about the unsolicited sexual content. I would be upset too if I read that without the full explanation of what “unsolicited” meant. It all seemed to make more sense to me how people and/or groups can “spin doctor” the results of something to benefit their own ideals or pocketbooks. I have a clearer sense of how easily people can overreact to what is perceived as a horrific problem. It is funny, because I have always talked to my students about bias and how we need to be careful to not always go by one person’s perspective of an issue. I encourage my students to find other sources to get the full picture. Of course this does not mean to minimalize the fact that there are safety issues around social networking and the use of the “Cloud”.
We need to make sure that the proper safety measures are in place as mentioned earlier in my paper.
The things that stood out for me while reading Wikipedia’s (2013) the “Digital Divide”, and Warchaure and Matuchniak’s (2010, New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes) article were if you were to take away the technology the problem of social division would still be there. There would still be the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The children of middle class and affluent homes will always have access to “more”. More material things, more extra-curricular activities, and more exposure to “academic” people as both Wikipedia’s explanation of “Digital Divide”(2013) and Warchaure and Matuchniak (2010) article refer. All of the things that interfere with, or have an impact on, learning in general, also carry the impact of the digital age. The impact, in my view, is now, not just with lack of food, clothing, and general access to the “better” things in life, but has the added stressors of not being up on technology.
Another issue that I was drawn to while reading Wikipedia’s (2013) the “Digital Divide”, and Warchaure and Matuchniak’s (2010, New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes) article were if you were to take away the technology the problem of social division would still be there. There would still be the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The children of middle class and affluent homes will always have access to “more”. More material things, more extra-curricular activities, and more exposure to “academic” people as both Wikipedia’s explanation of “Digital Divide”(2013) and Warchaure and Matuchniak (2010) article refer. All of the things that interfere with, or have an impact on, learning in general, also carry the impact into the digital age. The impact, in my view, is now, not just with lack of food, clothing, and general access to the “better” things in life, but has the added stressors of not being up on technology.
A point that I thought was a good one was when Warchaure and Matuchniak (2010) mention that drill and practise on computers is not effective and the use of more advanced technological activities where students can investigate and build upon their knowledge or “construct” their knowledge produces effective learning. The reference was based upon a comparison between lower socioeconomic students verses higher socioeconomic students. I agree that drill and practice does not facilitate life long learning in or out of Web 2.0. It is amazing what non readers and writers gain from doing interactive knowledge building activities rather than drill and practise. The reading and writing will come when a child is engaged and wants to read about it or write about it.
When we are talking about diversity in our classrooms, we know that many children from lower socioeconomic homes often have lower academic skills. I see it all the time with my students. Even if we give every child a computer, and supply dedicated tech savvy teachers as Warchaure and Matuchniak (2010) discuss in the “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes”, we are still going to have discrepancies when it comes to home support and low academic skills of some parents, which includes our Aboriginal children. I wonder if we may be adding to the already burdensome stresses that some children have to deal with in their homes. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be amazing if everyone could have computers and internet access in their homes, which findings from Warchaure and Matuchniak (2010) have shown that students who have a computer at home have better technological skills and academic standings. There may be, however; some parents who cannot support their children with technology because they lack the technological skills to do so. Lack of academic and technological skills of a parent may be cause for more stress in the child’s life. We need to be cognizant of this type of situation and be able to have some kind of plan to support the parents as well.
Diversity, whether it be culturally and/or socio-economically, needs to be acknowledged and we need to work with those diversities in our classrooms. When we are using social media and other Web 2.0 resources in our classrooms, I think it is very important that we are cognizant of all of our students’ backgrounds and needs.
In conclusion, I feel that I have learned a lot in the first part of the OLTD 506 course. I realize that there are more things to discover and develop around boundary issues of which educators need to be continually cognizant. I feel certain that the development of professionalism, privacy and safety, and social justice. Web 2.0 and social networking, will always be evolving. We, as educators, need to be evolving along with them.
REFERENCES
Bergman, M. (2001). White paper: The deep web: Surfacing hidden value. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 7(1). Doi:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0007.104
"First Nations Connectivity in BC" (Pathways to Technology: Connecting First Nations to the World, 2013 http://www.pathwaystotechnology.ca/interactive-map
Hengstler, J. (2011). Managing your digital footprint: Ostriches v. Eagles. In S. Hirtz & K. Kelly (Eds.), Education for a Digital World 2.0 (2nd ed.) (Vol. 1, Part One: Emerging technologies and practices). Open School/Crown Publications: Queen's Printer for British Columbia, Canada. http://www.viu.ca/education/faculty_publications/hengstler/EducationforDigitalWorld2.0_1_jh89.pdf
Hengstler, J. (2013, 05 24 a). What Parents Should Know Part 1: Basic Understanding of Social Media & Digital Communications. Retrieved from
http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/what-parents-should-know-part-1-basic-understanding-of-social-media-digital-communications/
Hengstler, J. (2013 b). Social media overview. OLTD 506 2013. https://d2l.viu.ca/d2l/le/content/37848/viewContent/441654/View
Hengstler, J. (2013). A K-12 primer for British Columbia teachers posting students' work online.
Blog post http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/a-k-12-primer-for-british-columbia-teachers-posting-students-work-online/
Kent County Council. (2009). Safer Practice with Technology for Adults Working in Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.kenttrustweb.org.uk/UserFiles/CW/File/Advisory_Service_ICT/E-Safety/SaferPracticeWithTechnology-260509.pdf
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Office of the Information &Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC BC). (February 2012). Cloud Computing Guidelines for Public Bodies. http://www.oipc.bc.ca/guidance-documents/1427
Thierer, A. (2012) The six things that drive 'technopanics'. Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/03/04/the-six-things-that-drive-technopanics/
Thierer, A. (2013). "Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle" http://mercatus.org/publication/technopanics-threat-inflation-and-danger-information-technology-precautionary-principle
Warchaure, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225 http://gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/equity.pdf
Wikipedia, 2013, Digital Divide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
Willard, N. (2012). Examples of fear-based internet safety messaging". http://www.embracecivility.org/wp-content/uploadsnew/2011/10/fear.pdf