Almost, but not quite a follow up to my last post about stages, this snippet from Spark’s latest podcast sheds some interesting light on why people choose to lurk rather than participate. If you’re one of those who tries to persuade others to invest in social networks and embrace them, perhaps this might help, or [...]]]> Almost, but not quite a follow up to my last post about stages, this snippet from Spark’s latest podcast sheds some interesting light on why people choose to lurk rather than participate. If you’re one of those who tries to persuade others to invest in social networks and embrace them, perhaps this might help, or maybe you would challenge the premise. Either way, it’s a worthwhile 3 minutes.

As I begin another class with pre-service teachers I was asked for the very first time, “Does my blog have to be public?” I didn’t give a choice. It would be great to have a discussion around the benefits and issues around public sharing but given the time constraints of the class (specifically this term [...]]]> As I begin another class with pre-service teachers I was asked for the very first time, “Does my blog have to be public?” I didn’t give a choice. It would be great to have a discussion around the benefits and issues around public sharing but given the time constraints of the class (specifically this term as it’s only over a 6 week period), it’s difficult to provide students with enough information in a short time to make an informed decision.  To be honest, I never really thought much about doing it any other way. In my zeal to have my students experience the joys of networked learning and prepare for a world where ideas and sharing should be and hopefully will be more transparent, it seems logical.

Ever since the day I wrote my first blog post and received a comment, I knew that learning in public had huge potential.  That was over 4 years ago. Today I’m one of those who has embraced a lifestyle of learning that is founded on transparency and connectedness. I’ve wondered many times how and when learning should be private.  My belief that the pendulum for most of education sits way on the side of private and needs to move way more to public.  It does seem a bit odd to me since we have no qualms about student athletes or musicians or actors to perform in public. No athlete ever joins a team and suggests they just want to practice but don’t want to play in front of a crowd. For many, that’s part of the appeal. I’ve often talked about stages: athletic stages, artistic stages and then wondered about academic stages. We have almost zero expectations for students to publicly share learning. While I understand some people’s hesitancy to participate in online spaces, I believe the benefits are worth exploring even it it means some discomfort.

When can we begin to expect that just like our sports teams, drama clubs and bands, our students academic work will be publicly on display? Is asking pre-service teachers to post content online outside of a walled garden a bad thing? Is age a factor? Does it matter that I’m teaching future teachers? What’s the worst that could happen? What’s the best? (I already know the answer to this since it’s happened often during my various sections of teaching this course). I would value and love your input on this issue.

We missed Rick and Alec but welcomed back Heather Ross and Kyle Lichtenwald as we talk about digital safety and identity, digital residents and digital tourists. I was able to elaborate further on the debacle of the other night’s presentation. I actually don’t show up until about 15 minutes into the conversation. I was busy [...]]]> We missed Rick and Alec but welcomed back Heather Ross and Kyle Lichtenwald as we talk about digital safety and identity, digital residents and digital tourists. I was able to elaborate further on the debacle of the other night’s presentation. I actually don’t show up until about 15 minutes into the conversation. I was busy eating donuts. Thanks to Rob for the quick turn around.

I had one of the strangest events of my professional career on Tuesday night. Coming back from 10 days in Europe I checked my calender to see I was schedule to speak at a Parent night at a high school in a neigbouring district.  I remember being asked a few months early about speaking as [...]]]> I had one of the strangest events of my professional career on Tuesday night. Coming back from 10 days in Europe I checked my calender to see I was schedule to speak at a Parent night at a high school in a neigbouring district.  I remember being asked a few months early about speaking as part of a 3 person lineup on Internet Safety. I was very up front with the organizer stating that I don’t spend a great deal of time on the dangers and lures of the internet but rather how to leverage online spaces for positive purposes. I acknowledge dangers but also utilize many research studies that debunk common beliefs about internet safety.

So spend part of Tuesday revamping and cleaning up a few previous presentations to fit into the 20 minute time slot I was given. I was called that afternoon to confirm my appearance with the school counselor and a local police officer. About 30 parents showed up which is pretty typical. While I recall being told about the scheme set up to test kids willingness to add friends in Facebook, I didn’t fully understand the concept until the counselor revealed the plan.  She created a fake profile and tried to get as many students to add her as a friend. The point was to show the parents and students how willing the students were to add strangers. She dropped this bomb on the parents and emphasized the dangerous behaviour shown by the students and how vulnerable they were to predators et. al.  Parents were shocked and their faces were filled with dismay, anger and concern. This went on for about an hour. The police officer who introduced himself to me by stating he didn’t know a lot about computers or the internet proceeded to present for almost an hour on how dangerous the internet was, how it was not policed and was a playground for predators.

And then it was my turn.

I immediately announced that I would be providing a very different perspective and that while I acknowledged some of the dangers and concerns I actually disagreed with many of the points made by the first two speakers. I’ll not post the presentation here, it wasn’t that inspiring but it contained similar content to this one done last summer.  I recognized the lateness of the evening but also wanted to provide hope and balance to a very one sided and what I believed to be somewhat misguided discussion. We had a brief Q and A afterward and many parents expressed their gratitude about hearing another side.

It was a weird evening to say the least. While I recognize the concerns of students acting badly online, these students, I presume are using facebook the way most are: posting a few photos, giving status updates and connecting with friends. I’ll restate this piece of research from the PEW Internet and American Life Project

Our research, actually looking at what puts kids at risk for receiving the most serious kinds of sexual solicitation online, suggests that it’s not giving out personal information that puts kid at risk. It’s not having a blog or a personal website that does that either. What puts kids in danger is being willing to talk about sex online with strangers or having a pattern of multiple risky activities on the web like going to sex sites and chat rooms, meeting lots of people there, kind of behaving in what we call like an internet daredevil.

This completely contradicted what both the police officer and counselor were saying. I stressed that I wanted my kids stuff to be online and that sometimes that included personal things. My 10 year old writes about personal things. That’s what she knows. I don’t worry about her. My own kids see me modeling appropriate behaviour and we talk about what we do online. As Will writes, I want my kids to be found. I also stressed that my concerns continue to revolve around cyberbullying, understanding the changing nature of privacy as well as the lack of critical thinking and understanding of digital content and authentication of information. I also added this quote from danah boyd:

Why are we so obsessed with the registered sex offender side of the puzzle when the troubled kids are right in front of us? Why are we so obsessed with the Internet side of the puzzle when so many more kids are abused in their own homes? I feel like this whole conversation has turned into a distraction. Money and time is being spent focusing on the things that people fear rather than the very real and known risks that kids face. This breaks my heart.

I feel like I’ve posted about this too many times. 2 years ago, we had few educators using any form of social networks and thus the discussions were few. Today their is more information and we have more educators using Facebook and have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. I’m perplexed about how to shift the conversation away from the fear. Fear is usually attached to the unknown. Most of these parents and teachers simply don’t know and it’s always easier to attach a quick label to the unknown. If it’s presented as a threat to children, well, you know the rest of that story.

Today this happened at the school.

That’s just not my style. I still haven’t fully comprehended what message was being sent other than don’t add strangers to your Facebook account.  It seemed like a lot of effort to spend on a quick emphasis to something that requires much more context and teaching and modeling. Maybe more discussion will follow. I hope so. But I’m not hopeful.

On first reading, this story from a Wisconsin school district, bugs me. The district is planning to ban any communication between teachers and students on social networking sites and instant messaging services.  I realize there are two sides to every issue but to me, this represents so much of what makes school irrelevant for students. “There [...]]]> On first reading, this story from a Wisconsin school district, bugs me. The district is planning to ban any communication between teachers and students on social networking sites and instant messaging services.  I realize there are two sides to every issue but to me, this represents so much of what makes school irrelevant for students.

“There is absolutely no reason that any teacher right now should be on Facebook with their students,” Thompson said. “You cannot control it.”

Control? When will we realize that the type of control some schools are still clinging to is over? Read Pesce’s article for more thoughts on that.

Social networking services are implicitly interconnected, and Thompson argued that unintentional communication between student and staff members could too easily occur.

That’s the point. The ability for teachers to connect with students in whatever space works for them has to be seen as a step forward.  Not every teacher is comfortable with a relationship that extends beyond the classroom. But many are and they shouldn’t be prohibited from that. It may not be via Facebook but goodness knows there a gazillion other spaces and ways in which people connect. One of the very best discussions on this is found in this podcast featuring danah boyd and Marc Fisher.  They do a wonderful job of critically analyzing the current climate of teacher-student relationships and offer some balanced perspectives. The bottom line is the potential is great and many teachers are genuinely interested and able to connect and foster relationships that do indeed extend beyond the classroom walls and district created spaces.

“There are a million different uses of Facebook, and many of them are legitimate,” Thompson said, “…but you’re putting yourself out there, and it’s a risk.”

Anybody who’s ever posted a comment, photo or video online is at risk. Why is Facebook so different? What these folks fail to get is what I’ve often referred to as the leaky boat syndrome;  plugging one hole in the internet is only going to help you for so long, another one will emerge in about 17 seconds. Educational institutions that are trying desperately to maintain control over this are simply entering a battle they’ll never win. Instead, why not develop some principles or policies that aren’t about control and avoiding liability but that encourage and honor thoughtful and healthy relationships and place a level of trust for its employees? Why are most policies of this nature intended to curb the behavior of a very small minority instead of supporting the great work that could potentially come when teachers can, if they choose, be a part of student’s lives? If we believe that learning is not an isolated event, why would be make policies that assume it is? These policies are in keeping with filtering policies that on the surface are said to protect students but in reality are done to reduce liability.

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the district should still take an official stance on the issue. Elmbrook is “not equipped” to be responsible for inappropriate use of technology, he said. Greater supervision and control means less liability.

What is the cost of this control? Not only are there dollars involved in monitoring this, but the cost of mistrust, loss of innovation and demoralizing relationships might be difficult to recover.  If I’m missing something here, I’d be happy to hear the other side. But these attempts at control continue to reflect a lack of vision and understanding about 2009.

Image: Leaky Boat #1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/branewbs/427184981/

My daughter posting to my son’s Facebook wall:

I had no idea. She’s not getting that $20 either.

I listened to this podcast last summer but I think the ideas and shifts discussed are worth sharing. Danah boyd and Marc Fisher discuss a couple of issues. First, the implications of student publishing and their perceptions of privacy and communication. The second half of the discussion focuses on teachers and how they choose to [...]]]> I listened to this podcast last summer but I think the ideas and shifts discussed are worth sharing. Danah boyd and Marc Fisher discuss a couple of issues. First, the implications of student publishing and their perceptions of privacy and communication. The second half of the discussion focuses on teachers and how they choose to be connected to their students.

The complexities of these topics imply more problematiztion rather than definite answers.  The desire for educators to have clear cut responses and answers to a shifting society is becoming more and more moot.  Technology continues to raises at least as many questions as it does answers.

Original Photo: danah boyd at HHL08 by Ewan Mcintosh
http://flickr.com/photos/edublogger/2941900634/

With all the concern and debate over freedom and privacy, how about turning the tables? This band couldn’t afford cameras to create a music video, so the used 80 of the over 13 million security cameras in the UK to record this music video.

…..they wrote to the companies or organisations involved and asked for the [...]]]> With all the concern and debate over freedom and privacy, how about turning the tables? This band couldn’t afford cameras to create a music video, so the used 80 of the over 13 million security cameras in the UK to record this music video.

…..they wrote to the companies or organisations involved and asked for the footage under the Freedom of Information Act….

“We hit upon the idea of going into Manchester and setting up in front of cameras we knew would be filming and then requesting that footage under the Freedom Of Information act.”

Only a quarter of the organisations contacted fulfilled their obligation to hand over the footage – perhaps predictably, bigger firms were reluctant, while smaller companies were more helpful – but that still provided enough for a video with 20 locations.

Brilliant and another example of not even needing a camera to produce video. So what happens when everyone begins asking for their personal footage? Full story here.

via Guy Kawasaki

I’ve become quite a strong advocate for downplaying the fear mongering and safety concerns of online life that have been proven false. At the same time, I’ve spent much more time with teachers and classrooms talking about what to watch out for and how to make good choices.

I generally see the internet as a public [...]]]> I’ve become quite a strong advocate for downplaying the fear mongering and safety concerns of online life that have been proven false. At the same time, I’ve spent much more time with teachers and classrooms talking about what to watch out for and how to make good choices.

I generally see the internet as a public place. I’ve also said as Scott McNealy has, that privacy is dead. While I do realize there are more safer places to engage in private activity, in general it’s best to see the internet as a public space. I also believe and try to model that you don’t say things online that you wouldn’t say in person. (Notice all the trackbacks to my own blog, the more I add, the more of a hypocrite I am) Saturday I violated this rule.

Graham Wegner had a rather light-hearted post about spelling and Matthew Tabor picked it up and in an effort to be funny and make a point, posted content I felt went over the top in terms of etiquette and manners. I’m not about to rehash that argument, you can feel free to post on his blog if you like. I made my initial comment on his blog then posted to twitter and used the word “obnoxious” to describe Matthew. I would have never called him that to his face. I hadn’t intended for Matthew to see that. How did Matthew know I called him obnoxious? First of all his stats told him of the numbers of people visiting his blog from twitter. While 98% of people not using twitter wouldn’t know about TweetScan, Matthew did. It’s not that I regret posting the item to twitter it’s calling him obnoxious that was wrong. I might have whispered it to friends or used that word in private conversations but not publicly. I’ve done this a few times where I’ve gotten so comfortable using Twitter that I’ve forgotten, it’s not private. I could turn on the privacy key in twitter and allow only those that I choose to see my tweets but for a lot of reasons, that doesn’t feel right to me. I’m proud of my online trail of breadcumbs and value openness more than privacy when it comes to online life.

For me twitter is an echo chamber and that’s okay. It’s a place to hang out with like minded folks, exchange links, lament your sick kids, invite others to help you out and participate in some good natured fun. It’s not meant to push my thinking. It’s more of a group than a network. I get pushed and seek diversity here and in other spaces and also support debate. That’s why I subscribe to people like Matthew, to push me and he did. In this case to also reveal my own weakness and error. My apologies and thanks Matthew.

PS. I still disagree with your post

Not sure what to think about this.

The hype around safety and privacy on the internet is certainly a battle I, along with many others have been fighting for long while.  Shows like Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” seem to give lead folks to the conclusion that:

Internet/Social Networking = BAD

No one, and I mean no one has been able to link the [...]]]> The hype around safety and privacy on the internet is certainly a battle I, along with many others have been fighting for long while.  Shows like Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” seem to give lead folks to the conclusion that:

Internet/Social Networking = BAD

No one, and I mean no one has been able to link the posting of an image on the internet leading to the type of danger associated with these predators. This discussion that took place for the Congressional Internet Caucus in Washington last month helps shed some light on the real dangers of online activity:

Our research, actually looking at what puts kids at risk for receiving the most serious kinds of sexual solicitation online, suggests that it’s not giving out personal information that puts kid at risk. It’s not having a blog or a personal website that does that either. What puts kids in danger is being willing to talk about sex online with strangers or having a pattern of multiple risky activities on the web like going to sex sites and chat rooms, meeting lots of people there, kind of behaving in what we call like an internet daredevil.

Those are the facts.  Let me repeat, IT IS NOT GIVING OUT PERSONAL INFORMATION  OR BLOGGING THAT PUTS KIDS AT RISK. How about a sign like that in your schools?  No, I’m not advocating being careless or divulging private information unnecessarily or carelessly but want to be clear that the research bears this out. If you’ve got research to diffuse this, let me know.

[tags]internetsafety, privacy[/tags]

Thanks to Pete Reilly for digging into the stats to confirm what most of us have been saying for quite some time in regards to online safety. We know it’s important but it’s over hyped….way over hyped.

When we slice the “less than five percent pie” into these smaller pieces, the risk gets much, much smaller. [...]]]> Thanks to Pete Reilly for digging into the stats to confirm what most of us have been saying for quite some time in regards to online safety. We know it’s important but it’s over hyped….way over hyped.

When we slice the “less than five percent pie” into these smaller pieces, the risk gets much, much smaller. Of course, statistics aren’t going to matter much if you are the parent of a child who has had an online incident, or the leader of school that has experienced one.

The question is, “Are we going to take a “zero risk” approach to using technology and the tools of the Web?”

Read the whole article.

I picked up a copy of the local paper to see my son on the cover…Full name, clearly identified. Did he give permission to have the photograph published? No. Newspapers have a policy that they must print full names of anyone photographed. They’ve been doing it for years.

Our schools meanwhile try desperately to protect students [...]]]>

I picked up a copy of the local paper to see my son on the cover…Full name, clearly identified. Did he give permission to have the photograph published? No. Newspapers have a policy that they must print full names of anyone photographed. They’ve been doing it for years.

Our schools meanwhile try desperately to protect students from any chance of identification online. Is it worth the effort? After the recent incident in Quebec, the popularization of youtube combined with the advent of cellphones as video and still cameras, the ease of internet publishing, I’d say we should spend our energies elsewhere. Let’s face it, we all live in a fish bowl.

The fact that newspapers have a degree of credibility that we trust somehow makes us not challenge their breech of privacy. While a local ice rink is a public facility, schools are not, but our paper, like every other paper publishes student photos taken in schools. We don’t care. We all like the publicity. As long as it’s good. We’ve heard for years that any publicity is good publicity.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post about privacy, “this is the reality of our world and we need to get our heads around it.” Scott McNealy of SunMicrosystems claimed,”Privacy is dead”. If this is true it should change what we teach our kids. During my breakfast with Stephen Downes, I remember him saying that nothing he says is off the record. He said his life’s an open book. I know not everyone is comfortable with that but that attitude makes life on the web less stressful than one trying to protect their identity.

We can’t control what others will do with our information and unless we want to spend time fighting legal battles, I think we need to give up the idea that we can protect kids. We can’t.

[tags]privacy,moosejaw,timesherald,downes[/tags]