I loved the line in this week's reading by Rema Shore that in the current digital age we are the Jetsons. She was quoting Shalom Fisch and she expanded by stated that "children are growing up in a world where their toys obey them and their parents converse with the family car." (page 13). This image and the real connections to our world just made me chuckle at the things that are possible in 2010. Especially when reading the other reading this week from 1975. The changes and developments are so unpredictable, yet fascinating to look back on. I think that sometimes it is easy to forget how much technology has changed and affected so many aspects of everyday life until a line like "we are the Jetsons," especially considering that we "meet" online for class each week. these readings really brought me back to the long view and caused some further reflection on the people in my life and their media use.
My parents are my first example. Both of them have high speed internet at their place of employment, but in their home they still had a dial-up connection until last week. It is not that they have little computer knowledge. My mom knows more about connecting hardware and Excel formulas than I can ever hope to understand, but the use of the internet at home held no appeal for either of them. Now when they talk about having high speed at home they mainly refer to the use of it by their children. Particularly this child who also takes classes online! (Homework while visiting them was quite inconvenient.)
My next example is my grandparents. I am very lucky to have four grandparents and none of them have ever used the internet. They obviously grew up in a different time and place and still get the physical newspaper every day and read paper copies of books, magazines, and letters. Not a single one has an email address. I did get them to play Wii over Thanksgiving, but that is the extent of their electronic gaming experience. My grandma still plays cards each week with her friends.
This has really got me thinking about media literacy in a different context. I know that this class is about youth and preparing them for a life that is already filled with communication, entertainment, and work centered around different elements of media, but I also think that knowing how things worked before all these media outlets and ways of expression cannot be left out of the equation. As we work with students, I think it is important to keep in mind the varying degrees in their experience, interest, and support system of media activities and to respect their interest or disinterest in media. These support systems of the youth have varying degrees of interest in media activities as well and varying degrees of interaction with their youth and the media. While for many people in the workplace digital communication is highly valued, there are places where this is not true.
When looking at the issue of the digital divide, I think it is also important to recognize the vast disparities that exist in the use of media resources across different demographics. From the Kaiser Family Foundation report on children and the digital divide it is clear that income of the parents play a huge role in the experience and accessibility of different media. And while some of us are the Jetsons, this is not true for many young people. While the government during the early 2000s has taken action toward making the internet accessible in public schools and libraries, there is still the question of quality and quantity. Is this access enough to bridge the technology gap for lower income young people, or is there more that can be done to advance their media literacy skills?
As Amanda's example of her library and their computer situation has shown from our discussion in class, there are still places where the equipment and access does not meet the demand of the young adults who use media for homework as well as entertainment. And with the current economic situation, further monetary assistance from the government seems unlikely. I am anxious to learn of different grants, etc for funding that will allow more young people more access. As a person who wants to enter the library field, I want to be part of an organization that actively works to bridge the digital divide and give students access to resources that will help them succeed.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Synchronicity
I also have noticed how my increased awareness of media literacy issues discussed in this class has coincided with things I notice in other parts of my life. And like Robin (April 28, Ambience) I made one of those connections on the topic of comics. When we talked about comics, graphic novels and visual literacy in class, I began to re-think my ideas about the value of comics.
In the past, I had tended to dismiss comics as nothing more than easy, pretty much mindless entertainment. Reading the Sunday comics was a little treat to give myself at the end of the week (but only after I had done the “real” work of reading the actual news in the newspaper). When my homeschooled children would spend hours at the kitchen table reading Calvin and Hobbes or Foxtrot or Dilbert, I would grow impatient with them, and nag at them to do some “real” work, like math or a science project or something; or at least to read something that I could characterize as educational—maybe a National Geographic magazine, or Johnny Tremain, or something by Jack London.
My first attempt to broaden my outlook was reading the children's book Into the Volcano by Don Wood and my second was reading Neil Gaiman’s 2000 novella The Dream Hunters (Sandman, Book 11), illustrated by Yoshitaka Amano. Without even getting to the most popular anime and manga novels that seem to be everywhere these days, these two very different, amazing and very wonderful books had already convinced me that there was a lot more to graphic novels and comic-style art than I had realized. Then my son came home for a weekend from his senior year at college and told me about his senior seminar for his English writing major. His final paper was entitled: “Image, Text, Space: Frames and Tempo(rality) in Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes." I nearly fell off of my chair. All of those hours that I thought were being “wasted” in comic books were bearing fruit in a college level senior thesis paper.
I’m pleased to report that not only did he receive an “A” for that paper, but his professor asked for permission to use it as his example for next year’s class.
Who’d have thunk it? Comics in college! One more lesson for me in keeping my mind open.
In the past, I had tended to dismiss comics as nothing more than easy, pretty much mindless entertainment. Reading the Sunday comics was a little treat to give myself at the end of the week (but only after I had done the “real” work of reading the actual news in the newspaper). When my homeschooled children would spend hours at the kitchen table reading Calvin and Hobbes or Foxtrot or Dilbert, I would grow impatient with them, and nag at them to do some “real” work, like math or a science project or something; or at least to read something that I could characterize as educational—maybe a National Geographic magazine, or Johnny Tremain, or something by Jack London.
My first attempt to broaden my outlook was reading the children's book Into the Volcano by Don Wood and my second was reading Neil Gaiman’s 2000 novella The Dream Hunters (Sandman, Book 11), illustrated by Yoshitaka Amano. Without even getting to the most popular anime and manga novels that seem to be everywhere these days, these two very different, amazing and very wonderful books had already convinced me that there was a lot more to graphic novels and comic-style art than I had realized. Then my son came home for a weekend from his senior year at college and told me about his senior seminar for his English writing major. His final paper was entitled: “Image, Text, Space: Frames and Tempo(rality) in Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes." I nearly fell off of my chair. All of those hours that I thought were being “wasted” in comic books were bearing fruit in a college level senior thesis paper.
I’m pleased to report that not only did he receive an “A” for that paper, but his professor asked for permission to use it as his example for next year’s class.
Who’d have thunk it? Comics in college! One more lesson for me in keeping my mind open.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
On politics in the classroom
After attending a college where it was standard practice for professors to move beyond sharing their political opinions to punishing students who disagreed, I am admittedly oversensitive to this issue. But the readings we did a while back, on teaching kids how to use digital media to express their political opinions, and even some of the readings on media literacy, made me a little wary. There is a balance we need to strike between empowering kids to understand media messages and voice their own opinions, and convincing kids to believe the same things we do.
It can be tricky. On some level, teaching media literacy is in itself a subversive action. We’re teaching kids to think critically about information provided by the government, the media, corporations: sources that plenty of their parents trust without question. Learning to ask those questions is a vital skill, and one that kids are not likely to pick up on their own. Even so, it’s not without controversy. There are plenty of adults who would prefer that children believe what they’re told. There is, after all, a great deal of money at stake.
So it’s important, I think, to make certain that we teach kids how to make these evaluations and judgments on their own, without asserting that our own views on the subject are right. Rheingold’s goal seems like a good one: “What if teachers could help students discover what they really care about, then show them how to use digital media to learn more and to persuade others?” Helping kids refine and articulate their views, and teaching them how to share those views in interesting, attention-getting ways – that’s all well and good. This stuff, though, concerns me more:
Finally, American youth are particularly susceptible to being influenced by corporate-funded mass culture, which is aimed directly at them even though it reaches a global audience. For that very reason, they have special leverage over media corporations, especially if they act cooperatively. It is not an exaggeration to say that youth civic engagement in the United States could benefit democracy around the world if youth-led associations challenged mass culture.
I agree, right? But this is a political opinion. Where do we draw the line between teaching media literacy skills and performing our own indoctrination? Is it really the place of schools or teachers to encourage kids to “challenge” mass culture, above and beyond just analyzing it? I don’t know. It seems like a difficult line to walk, anyway.
On the other side: for my annotated bibliography, I looked at copyright issues and youth, and while researching that topic, I ended up looking through a bunch of pro-corporate propaganda aimed at kids. The good news is, a lot of schools are teaching kids about copyright law in a responsible way: they're giving kids information about how they can and can't use other people's intellectual property, with plenty of emphasis placed on the fair use doctrine and on finding Creative Commons-licensed or public domain materials.
The bad news - there is always bad news - is that plenty of schools aren't. The MPAA and the RIAA, among other corporate interest groups, have created lesson plans that boil down to, “If you didn’t pay for it, you stole it.” That’s obviously not true. These lessons ignore the intricacies and vagaries of copyright law in the real world. Rather than introduce a complicated subject, like fair use, these interest groups ignore it entirely, even though it has a huge impact on the way we think about and interact with copyrighted materials.
Worryingly, plenty of schools are using these lesson plans. California now requires most schools to teach kids about copyright law. (Whether or not this is more worthwhile than teaching them, say, math or English or music theory is up for debate.) Teachers, most of whom are pressed for time as it is, sometimes see these professionally produced, thorough lesson plans as an easy option. And so corporate interests continue to insinuate their way into our schools. And of course, the reason I find this so upsetting is that I do not think that the political positions of some corporate entity have any place in the classroom, where they are presented by teachers and other adults in positions of authority, and are less likely to be questioned by the young people who hear them.
So while teaching kids the realities of copyright law – how it impacts them, what exceptions they may be able to take advantage of, how to find materials that are freely available – is absolutely important, we have to be careful. Advocating for a change in copyright law, reasonable as it may be, probably isn’t something we should be doing in the classroom. (On our own time, or as an institution…that’s a different story. Advocating for copyright law reform seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for libraries and librarians to do.)
Anyway. Teaching media literacy skills can be a really empowering thing. Teaching kids about the ways copyright law can work for them, or the ways they can work around it, is also good. We just have to make sure that kids are empowered to take their media literacy toolbox and go out in the world to figure things out for themselves.
It can be tricky. On some level, teaching media literacy is in itself a subversive action. We’re teaching kids to think critically about information provided by the government, the media, corporations: sources that plenty of their parents trust without question. Learning to ask those questions is a vital skill, and one that kids are not likely to pick up on their own. Even so, it’s not without controversy. There are plenty of adults who would prefer that children believe what they’re told. There is, after all, a great deal of money at stake.
So it’s important, I think, to make certain that we teach kids how to make these evaluations and judgments on their own, without asserting that our own views on the subject are right. Rheingold’s goal seems like a good one: “What if teachers could help students discover what they really care about, then show them how to use digital media to learn more and to persuade others?” Helping kids refine and articulate their views, and teaching them how to share those views in interesting, attention-getting ways – that’s all well and good. This stuff, though, concerns me more:
Finally, American youth are particularly susceptible to being influenced by corporate-funded mass culture, which is aimed directly at them even though it reaches a global audience. For that very reason, they have special leverage over media corporations, especially if they act cooperatively. It is not an exaggeration to say that youth civic engagement in the United States could benefit democracy around the world if youth-led associations challenged mass culture.
I agree, right? But this is a political opinion. Where do we draw the line between teaching media literacy skills and performing our own indoctrination? Is it really the place of schools or teachers to encourage kids to “challenge” mass culture, above and beyond just analyzing it? I don’t know. It seems like a difficult line to walk, anyway.
On the other side: for my annotated bibliography, I looked at copyright issues and youth, and while researching that topic, I ended up looking through a bunch of pro-corporate propaganda aimed at kids. The good news is, a lot of schools are teaching kids about copyright law in a responsible way: they're giving kids information about how they can and can't use other people's intellectual property, with plenty of emphasis placed on the fair use doctrine and on finding Creative Commons-licensed or public domain materials.
The bad news - there is always bad news - is that plenty of schools aren't. The MPAA and the RIAA, among other corporate interest groups, have created lesson plans that boil down to, “If you didn’t pay for it, you stole it.” That’s obviously not true. These lessons ignore the intricacies and vagaries of copyright law in the real world. Rather than introduce a complicated subject, like fair use, these interest groups ignore it entirely, even though it has a huge impact on the way we think about and interact with copyrighted materials.
Worryingly, plenty of schools are using these lesson plans. California now requires most schools to teach kids about copyright law. (Whether or not this is more worthwhile than teaching them, say, math or English or music theory is up for debate.) Teachers, most of whom are pressed for time as it is, sometimes see these professionally produced, thorough lesson plans as an easy option. And so corporate interests continue to insinuate their way into our schools. And of course, the reason I find this so upsetting is that I do not think that the political positions of some corporate entity have any place in the classroom, where they are presented by teachers and other adults in positions of authority, and are less likely to be questioned by the young people who hear them.
So while teaching kids the realities of copyright law – how it impacts them, what exceptions they may be able to take advantage of, how to find materials that are freely available – is absolutely important, we have to be careful. Advocating for a change in copyright law, reasonable as it may be, probably isn’t something we should be doing in the classroom. (On our own time, or as an institution…that’s a different story. Advocating for copyright law reform seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for libraries and librarians to do.)
Anyway. Teaching media literacy skills can be a really empowering thing. Teaching kids about the ways copyright law can work for them, or the ways they can work around it, is also good. We just have to make sure that kids are empowered to take their media literacy toolbox and go out in the world to figure things out for themselves.
Critiquing "Old" Media
Most of the posts this semester have focused on so called "new" media - Internet technologies or console or computer gaming, which is a big concern when talking about media literacy and youth in schools. However, I ran across a post in the New York Times this week, "Exploring the Complexities of Nerdiness, for Laughs", that made me remember that it’s just as important for students to know how to appropriate, use, dissect, and critique "new" media as it is with "old" media like the television (I know we've sort of talked about how not as many young people are actually watching TV anymore, but I think they are still watching TV shows; they're just watching them online).
"Exploring the Complexities of Nerdiness, for Laughs" is about the show The Big Bang Theory on CBS that chronicles the lives of two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and their neighbor Penny who is of course beautiful, blonde, and from a completely different social circle - okay, a completely different social universe! The show is quite popular (there's even a website where one can find links to purchase shirts like the one's the characters wear in the show), and I know quite a few of my graduate student friends who don’t miss an episode, but when the show was proposed, and even now, some were worried about the types of stereotypes that the show was perpetuating, which is what Dennis Overbye addresses in this article. The show attempts to be scientifically accurate and realistic while remaining funny. Nevertheless, the stereotypes that the show seems to perpetuate of the socially awkward scientists who are interested in science fiction and gaming and who are overwhelmingly male is a stereotype that many are trying to get away from. There are a few women on the show, and one happens to be a pretty good scientist who competes with one of the main characters occasionally, but the show doesn’t do nearly enough to truly challenge the overarching stereotypes concerning some scientists. As Bruce Margon, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is quoted as saying in the article, "The terrible stereotyping of the nerd plus the dumb blond are steps backwards for science literacy". And to an extent, I agree. How are we supposed to convince those who do not fit this stereotype that they will be welcome in the scientific community if they keep seeing these images? I sometimes watch and enjoy the show though, so…
Not all people feel this way though, and several famous scientists have actually appeared on the show including Nobel laureate George Smoot and Lisa Randall who is a Harvard particle theorist who has appeared on the show as an extra. The scientists who support the show emphasize that the show is funny, defends science more than it mocks it, and has broken the mold a bit by having one of the characters, Leonard, actually dating Penny. So, opinions of the show seem to differ a bit in the scientific community and almost certainly amongst non-scientists as well.
I mention this article because it sort of shows that the ability to be critical of images, information, sources, and presentation is just as important with "old" media as it is with "new" media and that it's perhaps not as easy as one would think. I think that some of the skills that we have discussed teaching our students about dissecting information encountered on the Internet would be just as useful when coming across information in other places. This show presents interesting opportunities for that with the show topics where students could investigate the scientific information that is shared if they would like to know more about the topic, or they could even do more research into the veracity of the staging of the show. For example, is that really what it’s like at a university? Do people working at a university actually make the amount of money necessary to sustain the lifestyles of the show’s characters? What percentage of academia, and specifically the sciences, is made up of women? What is the viewer supposed to take away from seeing the living situations of the characters in the show? What impressions are made on the viewer by seeing how people of color are represented in the show? I think there are several paths of inquiry that we could engage in based upon this one, simple half-hour long sitcom and of course, other shows was well.
In thinking about how we could teach others how to think more critically about this type of media, I found it interesting that Overbye notes in the article that neither of the show's lead characters understand the scientific dialogue that they deliver so convincingly. They also don’t quite know some of the references to popular culture that are in the show including references to "Star Trek" and comic books. The actor that plays the character named Sheldon says that what he is trying to say with the references is more important than actually understanding the reference. I guess… This sort of illustrates though that not only is investigating the stereotypes that some say are perpetuated by the show, e.g., the dumb blonde stereotype, important, but the actual content of the show is prime for investigation as well. And I think it might actually be useful for students to see that the skills that are useful in online contexts are just as important offline and vice versa.
"Exploring the Complexities of Nerdiness, for Laughs" is about the show The Big Bang Theory on CBS that chronicles the lives of two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and their neighbor Penny who is of course beautiful, blonde, and from a completely different social circle - okay, a completely different social universe! The show is quite popular (there's even a website where one can find links to purchase shirts like the one's the characters wear in the show), and I know quite a few of my graduate student friends who don’t miss an episode, but when the show was proposed, and even now, some were worried about the types of stereotypes that the show was perpetuating, which is what Dennis Overbye addresses in this article. The show attempts to be scientifically accurate and realistic while remaining funny. Nevertheless, the stereotypes that the show seems to perpetuate of the socially awkward scientists who are interested in science fiction and gaming and who are overwhelmingly male is a stereotype that many are trying to get away from. There are a few women on the show, and one happens to be a pretty good scientist who competes with one of the main characters occasionally, but the show doesn’t do nearly enough to truly challenge the overarching stereotypes concerning some scientists. As Bruce Margon, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is quoted as saying in the article, "The terrible stereotyping of the nerd plus the dumb blond are steps backwards for science literacy". And to an extent, I agree. How are we supposed to convince those who do not fit this stereotype that they will be welcome in the scientific community if they keep seeing these images? I sometimes watch and enjoy the show though, so…
Not all people feel this way though, and several famous scientists have actually appeared on the show including Nobel laureate George Smoot and Lisa Randall who is a Harvard particle theorist who has appeared on the show as an extra. The scientists who support the show emphasize that the show is funny, defends science more than it mocks it, and has broken the mold a bit by having one of the characters, Leonard, actually dating Penny. So, opinions of the show seem to differ a bit in the scientific community and almost certainly amongst non-scientists as well.
I mention this article because it sort of shows that the ability to be critical of images, information, sources, and presentation is just as important with "old" media as it is with "new" media and that it's perhaps not as easy as one would think. I think that some of the skills that we have discussed teaching our students about dissecting information encountered on the Internet would be just as useful when coming across information in other places. This show presents interesting opportunities for that with the show topics where students could investigate the scientific information that is shared if they would like to know more about the topic, or they could even do more research into the veracity of the staging of the show. For example, is that really what it’s like at a university? Do people working at a university actually make the amount of money necessary to sustain the lifestyles of the show’s characters? What percentage of academia, and specifically the sciences, is made up of women? What is the viewer supposed to take away from seeing the living situations of the characters in the show? What impressions are made on the viewer by seeing how people of color are represented in the show? I think there are several paths of inquiry that we could engage in based upon this one, simple half-hour long sitcom and of course, other shows was well.
In thinking about how we could teach others how to think more critically about this type of media, I found it interesting that Overbye notes in the article that neither of the show's lead characters understand the scientific dialogue that they deliver so convincingly. They also don’t quite know some of the references to popular culture that are in the show including references to "Star Trek" and comic books. The actor that plays the character named Sheldon says that what he is trying to say with the references is more important than actually understanding the reference. I guess… This sort of illustrates though that not only is investigating the stereotypes that some say are perpetuated by the show, e.g., the dumb blonde stereotype, important, but the actual content of the show is prime for investigation as well. And I think it might actually be useful for students to see that the skills that are useful in online contexts are just as important offline and vice versa.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Online Comics?
I meant to include this recent article from the Christian Science Monitor in my earlier post -- POW! Online comic books start to pull fans to the Web. "The iPad is a natural fit for comics . . ."
Have any of you had a chance to explore an iPad yet? When the semester is over, maybe I'll visit the Apple store . . . .
Have any of you had a chance to explore an iPad yet? When the semester is over, maybe I'll visit the Apple store . . . .
Media Studies lesson plans from the NY Times
You guys may have already seen this, but it's kind of neat:
Media Studies Lesson Plans
Some of these are cooler than others - I really like the ones about photojournalism and understanding the census - but they are all kind of interesting. Teaching kids how to understand the news is a hugely important part of media literacy education, I think, and these lesson plans do a better job of it than, say, those made-for-kids news videos we watched earlier in the semester. They're more interactive, too - a lot of them involve a hands-on component that gives kids a chance to be content creators as well as, hopefully, content "understanders."
Media Studies Lesson Plans
Some of these are cooler than others - I really like the ones about photojournalism and understanding the census - but they are all kind of interesting. Teaching kids how to understand the news is a hugely important part of media literacy education, I think, and these lesson plans do a better job of it than, say, those made-for-kids news videos we watched earlier in the semester. They're more interactive, too - a lot of them involve a hands-on component that gives kids a chance to be content creators as well as, hopefully, content "understanders."
Ambience
Early in the semester, Lee Rainie talked about the “always on” or “ambient” quality of technology today, especially in the lives of young people. Lately I’ve been thinking about this idea and how it applies to other library and educational issues. For example, in a library, reading should be ambient. Right now, learning seems to be ambient for me. By this I mean different aspects of my life keep crossing over, informing other aspects of my life. The boundaries of personal and professional are blurring. I used to think it was unprofessional to talk about family, children, and also about a career, but for me, these two broad arenas keep overlapping – even when I try to keep them separate.
Here is an e
xample. In reading Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media (Ito, Mizuko, et.al. published by the MacArthur Foundation,2010) for my resource review, one of the studies included focused on Neopets. This was of no particular interest (interesting, but not compelling) until I discovered that my eleven-year old was spending a great deal of time on Neopets. These two things – my reading and his interest, took place in the span of the same two week period. Coincidence? The study talked about three very different reasons that most children use Neopets: 1) social (interacting with their friends) 2) creative (inventing pets, dressing them, decorating their houses, taking care of them) or 3) economic – by playing different games and making investments, children “earn” more points. Those who are focused on the earning usually don’t spend all of their points. Capitalist, yes. Certainly not violent. I pictured my son – why would he play? My guess was #3. So I asked him if he liked playing the market and he responded very enthusiastically. But is this a good way for him to be spending his time? So, I also checked on Common Sense Media (a site we have looked at in this class and I have used before) to see what they have to say . . . and yes, it’s not too bad. They also note the commercial nature of the site and recommend avoiding the chat rooms and discussion boards, which my son was very dismissive about when I asked him – that part is just not interesting to him. Still, he gets so involved that it does seem addictive at times . . . so I can understand the concerns that parents have about too much media use and gaming. Where these lines are, how much is too much, what is appropriate? . . . I’m not sure, but I’m still learning.
In another part of my life I’m involved with a parent educational group. At the April meeting a school administrator talking about an exciting new program she is implementing to help teachers learn how to differentiate in the classroom. What planning method did she refer to? Backwards design. A concept that makes great sense, but I was not very familiar with before just a few weeks ago. This week’s article by Wiggins and McTighe, “Put Understanding First”, about using backwards design in designing school curriculum was excellent for me as a parent and well as a librarian. Learning is ambient.
Another example: Comics. We’ve recently analyzed the conventions needed to interpret comics, issues surrounding comics and reading, visual literacy. And the same week we discussed it in class, a comic book exhibit at The Works, a local science museum, opened: St
ories in Four Colors: Cartoon Art in Ohio. This coming Saturday, May 1, our local library is hosting a comic book day with a workshop for youth in the afternoon. Ahh . . . because it's National Comic Book Day. Thanks to Carol for tweeting this NPR resource as I'm blogging! Cool! Other recent comics news include a graphic novel version of A Wrinkle in Time. One of my favorite books, so I’m both excited and a bit worried – so is the artist, who is at least aware that L’Engle didn’t want illustrations for her book. But if it will introduce the story to new readers, then that’s a good thing . . . And what about the movies? I haven’t heard much positive about the Kick-Ass movie, but this article asks whether graphic novel heroines are different when written by women, instead of men (think Wonder Woman)? I think she’s on to something here . . . will graphic novels written by women appeal more to girls than traditional comics do?
Does this kind of coincidence happen for the rest of you? Where one aspect of your life informs another . . . in sometimes unpredictable ways? It’s exciting . . . and there is always more to learn.
Here is an e
xample. In reading Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media (Ito, Mizuko, et.al. published by the MacArthur Foundation,2010) for my resource review, one of the studies included focused on Neopets. This was of no particular interest (interesting, but not compelling) until I discovered that my eleven-year old was spending a great deal of time on Neopets. These two things – my reading and his interest, took place in the span of the same two week period. Coincidence? The study talked about three very different reasons that most children use Neopets: 1) social (interacting with their friends) 2) creative (inventing pets, dressing them, decorating their houses, taking care of them) or 3) economic – by playing different games and making investments, children “earn” more points. Those who are focused on the earning usually don’t spend all of their points. Capitalist, yes. Certainly not violent. I pictured my son – why would he play? My guess was #3. So I asked him if he liked playing the market and he responded very enthusiastically. But is this a good way for him to be spending his time? So, I also checked on Common Sense Media (a site we have looked at in this class and I have used before) to see what they have to say . . . and yes, it’s not too bad. They also note the commercial nature of the site and recommend avoiding the chat rooms and discussion boards, which my son was very dismissive about when I asked him – that part is just not interesting to him. Still, he gets so involved that it does seem addictive at times . . . so I can understand the concerns that parents have about too much media use and gaming. Where these lines are, how much is too much, what is appropriate? . . . I’m not sure, but I’m still learning.In another part of my life I’m involved with a parent educational group. At the April meeting a school administrator talking about an exciting new program she is implementing to help teachers learn how to differentiate in the classroom. What planning method did she refer to? Backwards design. A concept that makes great sense, but I was not very familiar with before just a few weeks ago. This week’s article by Wiggins and McTighe, “Put Understanding First”, about using backwards design in designing school curriculum was excellent for me as a parent and well as a librarian. Learning is ambient.
Another example: Comics. We’ve recently analyzed the conventions needed to interpret comics, issues surrounding comics and reading, visual literacy. And the same week we discussed it in class, a comic book exhibit at The Works, a local science museum, opened: St
ories in Four Colors: Cartoon Art in Ohio. This coming Saturday, May 1, our local library is hosting a comic book day with a workshop for youth in the afternoon. Ahh . . . because it's National Comic Book Day. Thanks to Carol for tweeting this NPR resource as I'm blogging! Cool! Other recent comics news include a graphic novel version of A Wrinkle in Time. One of my favorite books, so I’m both excited and a bit worried – so is the artist, who is at least aware that L’Engle didn’t want illustrations for her book. But if it will introduce the story to new readers, then that’s a good thing . . . And what about the movies? I haven’t heard much positive about the Kick-Ass movie, but this article asks whether graphic novel heroines are different when written by women, instead of men (think Wonder Woman)? I think she’s on to something here . . . will graphic novels written by women appeal more to girls than traditional comics do?Does this kind of coincidence happen for the rest of you? Where one aspect of your life informs another . . . in sometimes unpredictable ways? It’s exciting . . . and there is always more to learn.
Get Social
I'm not sure if any of you have heard about or followed the Google vs. China censorship stuff that has been in the news since late March. For those of you who haven't, Google shut down its search engine services to China (google.cn) due to the country's strict laws on and enforcement of censorship. Quoted from the New York Times 'Google vs. China' linked article above:
Google’s move represents a powerful rejection of Beijing’s censorship but also a risky ploy in which Google, a global technology powerhouse, will essentially turn its back on the world’s largest Internet market, with nearly 400 million Web users.
“Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on google.cn has been hard,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in the blog post. “The Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a nonnegotiable legal requirement."
In last Sunday's New York Times, there was this article, which talked about how Chinese youth spend most of their free and social time on the internet. Quoted from the 'this article' linked above:
Frustrated with media censorship, bland programming on state-run television and limits on the number of foreign films allowed to be shown in China each year, young people are logging onto the Web and downloading alternatives. Homegrown Web sites like Baidu, Tencent and Sina.com have captured millions of Chinese youths obsessed with online games, pirated movies and music, the raising of virtual vegetables, microblogging and instant messaging.
Mr. Li, the Shanghai Maritime University student, says he surfs the Web to find or build his own community. A shy person with no siblings, he now has 300 online buddies, and says he turns to the Web to find what he cannot find anywhere else, particularly on state-run TV, which banned some Korean shows years ago.
After reading both of these articles, I couldn't stop thinking about the unique and positive role that the internet--and the access it provides to various forms of media--is playing in the lives of Chinese youth in the face of their struggles with and against their government's imposed censorship: especially since the past weeks have been spent discussing safety concerns in general and how they apply to popular social media sites like Facebook. But then I also began to think about the above-mentioned student and his sense of community online: I could just picture him sitting in his room at his computer for hours communicating with friends and surfing the internet. In the article, it says that he is an only child and is somewhat shy, though he does has 300 friends online and communicates with them regularly. Looking at this situation realistically though, he is still somewhat disconnected from these friends because even though all this regular socializing and communication is going on, he's still at his desk behind his computer being an isolated and shy only child. Are his online friends the same as his friends at school? Does he have any friends at school since he's busy spending so much of his free time socializing on the internet instead of meeting up with friends at a coffeehouse or club? Clearly I don't know any more details about his life beyond what's mentioned in the article, but it makes me wonder.
Socializing online behind one's computer is quite different from socializing face to face with another person or a group of people. And it's this difference between these two forms of socializing that always raises questions and concerns for me when it comes to singing the praises for social networking. Social networking provides you with instant information and access to your friends, allowing you to message them, comment on the material they have posted to their personal pages, and even allowing you to text chat with them live if they are online at the same time that you are. But even with all this access to different forms of communication thanks to social networking, it can and never will be the same kind of socializing that one experiences in real life. I'm not saying that the purpose of social networking is to replace actual real life socialization, but I think that many times people--including young adults--can become so reliant and consumed with the ease and availability of social networking that they don't make an effort to physically get together and connect or communicate in different ways, such as picking up the phone and actually talking to that person instead of posting a quick "Hey, how ya doing' on their wall. And that's something I always wonder, and I guess worry about, when looking at how much time young adults and adults spend communicating with and relaying on social networking. Like many of the other issues we've discussed concerning media and youth in this class, I think it's important present a balance and complete view of the situation: to not only encourage the use of social networking but to also encourage young adults to get off the computer, grab some friends, go outside, and just all around live!
Google’s move represents a powerful rejection of Beijing’s censorship but also a risky ploy in which Google, a global technology powerhouse, will essentially turn its back on the world’s largest Internet market, with nearly 400 million Web users.
“Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on google.cn has been hard,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in the blog post. “The Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a nonnegotiable legal requirement."
In last Sunday's New York Times, there was this article, which talked about how Chinese youth spend most of their free and social time on the internet. Quoted from the 'this article' linked above:
Frustrated with media censorship, bland programming on state-run television and limits on the number of foreign films allowed to be shown in China each year, young people are logging onto the Web and downloading alternatives. Homegrown Web sites like Baidu, Tencent and Sina.com have captured millions of Chinese youths obsessed with online games, pirated movies and music, the raising of virtual vegetables, microblogging and instant messaging.
Mr. Li, the Shanghai Maritime University student, says he surfs the Web to find or build his own community. A shy person with no siblings, he now has 300 online buddies, and says he turns to the Web to find what he cannot find anywhere else, particularly on state-run TV, which banned some Korean shows years ago.
After reading both of these articles, I couldn't stop thinking about the unique and positive role that the internet--and the access it provides to various forms of media--is playing in the lives of Chinese youth in the face of their struggles with and against their government's imposed censorship: especially since the past weeks have been spent discussing safety concerns in general and how they apply to popular social media sites like Facebook. But then I also began to think about the above-mentioned student and his sense of community online: I could just picture him sitting in his room at his computer for hours communicating with friends and surfing the internet. In the article, it says that he is an only child and is somewhat shy, though he does has 300 friends online and communicates with them regularly. Looking at this situation realistically though, he is still somewhat disconnected from these friends because even though all this regular socializing and communication is going on, he's still at his desk behind his computer being an isolated and shy only child. Are his online friends the same as his friends at school? Does he have any friends at school since he's busy spending so much of his free time socializing on the internet instead of meeting up with friends at a coffeehouse or club? Clearly I don't know any more details about his life beyond what's mentioned in the article, but it makes me wonder.
Socializing online behind one's computer is quite different from socializing face to face with another person or a group of people. And it's this difference between these two forms of socializing that always raises questions and concerns for me when it comes to singing the praises for social networking. Social networking provides you with instant information and access to your friends, allowing you to message them, comment on the material they have posted to their personal pages, and even allowing you to text chat with them live if they are online at the same time that you are. But even with all this access to different forms of communication thanks to social networking, it can and never will be the same kind of socializing that one experiences in real life. I'm not saying that the purpose of social networking is to replace actual real life socialization, but I think that many times people--including young adults--can become so reliant and consumed with the ease and availability of social networking that they don't make an effort to physically get together and connect or communicate in different ways, such as picking up the phone and actually talking to that person instead of posting a quick "Hey, how ya doing' on their wall. And that's something I always wonder, and I guess worry about, when looking at how much time young adults and adults spend communicating with and relaying on social networking. Like many of the other issues we've discussed concerning media and youth in this class, I think it's important present a balance and complete view of the situation: to not only encourage the use of social networking but to also encourage young adults to get off the computer, grab some friends, go outside, and just all around live!
Monday, April 26, 2010
Educating Parents to Relieve Fears
We have talked quite a bit about how we as librarians can and should help young people to be media literate and media safe. What should our role be? Censor? Guide? Facilitator? Educator? Which are the most important things to teach? What exactly do children and young adults most need to be protected against? There are no clear and easy answers to these questions, but for a general approach, I agree with Chanell (April 14, Always use protection?!) and Katie (April 14, Fear and the Internet) that it is important to consider the potential benefits of media engagement as well as the potential risks, and to not let our fears so overwhelm us that we throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, and deny our young people the myriad opportunities for creation, communication and connection available through digital technologies and the Internet.
One way to work towards achieving this balance between safety and encouragement, I think, may be to widen the focus of our efforts a little to include parents as well as young people. As Ruth pointed out, “teens and their parents may be growing farther apart, giving new meaning to the term ‘digital divide’. Parents often do not understand or monitor the online behavior of their children, or underestimate what their children are doing.” (April 14, Should we be concerned?) I think that parents not understanding the technologies their children are using is what creates a great deal of the fear surrounding young peoples’ use of digital and internet technologies.. Ignorance is the most fertile breeding ground for fear that there is. Perhaps in addition to trying to make judgments about how to guide, educate and protect young people ourselves, we should also be striving to empower parents to make those decisions by educating them and giving them the tools they need to understand the practices their children are engaging in.
I noticed that when we broke in to small groups to design programs, at least two, if not all three, groups chose to design programs aimed at adults. In the “real world”, as well, many libraries offer programs intended for parents about topics such as social networking, blogging and texting. This approach is not much different from the advice concerning TV and movies that it seems like I have been hearing for years: you don’t need to forbid your child to watch TV or movies—you need to watch with them and talk with them about what they see. Similarly, being on Facebook and navigating its privacy settings or reading some blogs and noticing how the discourse is furthered or hindered by the nature of the comments will make it easier for parents to teach their children about these topics.
The bottom line is that in most cases, parents have far more influence over their children’s attitudes and activities than teachers or librarians. If they can understand what their children are doing and converse knowledgeably with them about the various digital and online practices they are involved with, they will have a much better chance of helping to keep their children safe, more opportunities to help their children take full advantage of the many benefits of being media literate, and more opportunities to talk with their children about how their beliefs and values apply to these activities.
I am not saying, of course, that we should offer education and guidance to parents instead of offering the same to children and young people. Children can never have too many opportunities to learn. But I do think that educating parents may be just as important as educating children. Educating parents serves two purposes: it creates another resource for children to turn to for guidance and it lessens the fears that parents may have, which in turn will make it easier for them to encourage and support their children’s positive engagement with various digital and internet technologies.
One way to work towards achieving this balance between safety and encouragement, I think, may be to widen the focus of our efforts a little to include parents as well as young people. As Ruth pointed out, “teens and their parents may be growing farther apart, giving new meaning to the term ‘digital divide’. Parents often do not understand or monitor the online behavior of their children, or underestimate what their children are doing.” (April 14, Should we be concerned?) I think that parents not understanding the technologies their children are using is what creates a great deal of the fear surrounding young peoples’ use of digital and internet technologies.. Ignorance is the most fertile breeding ground for fear that there is. Perhaps in addition to trying to make judgments about how to guide, educate and protect young people ourselves, we should also be striving to empower parents to make those decisions by educating them and giving them the tools they need to understand the practices their children are engaging in.
I noticed that when we broke in to small groups to design programs, at least two, if not all three, groups chose to design programs aimed at adults. In the “real world”, as well, many libraries offer programs intended for parents about topics such as social networking, blogging and texting. This approach is not much different from the advice concerning TV and movies that it seems like I have been hearing for years: you don’t need to forbid your child to watch TV or movies—you need to watch with them and talk with them about what they see. Similarly, being on Facebook and navigating its privacy settings or reading some blogs and noticing how the discourse is furthered or hindered by the nature of the comments will make it easier for parents to teach their children about these topics.
The bottom line is that in most cases, parents have far more influence over their children’s attitudes and activities than teachers or librarians. If they can understand what their children are doing and converse knowledgeably with them about the various digital and online practices they are involved with, they will have a much better chance of helping to keep their children safe, more opportunities to help their children take full advantage of the many benefits of being media literate, and more opportunities to talk with their children about how their beliefs and values apply to these activities.
I am not saying, of course, that we should offer education and guidance to parents instead of offering the same to children and young people. Children can never have too many opportunities to learn. But I do think that educating parents may be just as important as educating children. Educating parents serves two purposes: it creates another resource for children to turn to for guidance and it lessens the fears that parents may have, which in turn will make it easier for them to encourage and support their children’s positive engagement with various digital and internet technologies.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
"Haul Videos" -- Shopping porn or just plain boring?
Another article in today's New York Times -- "Tube Tops and Teddy Bears" by Cathy Horyn -- also struck me as relevant to our class. In this short article, Horyn discusses the trend of "haul videos," where young women, mostly in their teens and twenties, show off purchases from recent shopping trips. Because the videos feature young women usually in their bedrooms, some are using the sinister label of "shopping pornography" to suggest something creepily voyeuristic about them. The author of the article, however, argues that those who give them this label haven't really watched them: her experiences after viewing was that they are really quite tedious. Despite how boring they seem to be, these videos get hundreds of thousands of views.
With all our fears of protecting our kids from what is dangerous, violent, sexually provocative, exploitative, etc., sometimes I think we could spend a bit more time helping steer them towards stuff that's not so shallow and boring. In some ways I fear the much more prevalent mind-numbing and relentless consumerism of much of what's in the media as much as the fringe wackos and perverts on the internet. As some of our readings in the last few weeks have suggested, most young people can spot those kind of creeps and avoid them. Can we say the same for how well we've trained them to recognize and be savvy about those who only want to sell them more junk and make them more insecure about their appearance?
With all our fears of protecting our kids from what is dangerous, violent, sexually provocative, exploitative, etc., sometimes I think we could spend a bit more time helping steer them towards stuff that's not so shallow and boring. In some ways I fear the much more prevalent mind-numbing and relentless consumerism of much of what's in the media as much as the fringe wackos and perverts on the internet. As some of our readings in the last few weeks have suggested, most young people can spot those kind of creeps and avoid them. Can we say the same for how well we've trained them to recognize and be savvy about those who only want to sell them more junk and make them more insecure about their appearance?
Speaking of those tech-aware young folks
In light of recent posts about how young people are perhaps more savvy about the potential pitfalls/privacy issues of online social networking, I thought this article in today's New York Times was relevant: "An Online Alias Keeps Colleges Off Their Trail." The gist of the article, as the title suggests, is that there is a trend among high school students to create aliases for their Facebook profiles, usually starting junior year until they are accepted into college. This move stems from a fear that college admissions officials will check their Facebook pages and that what they find could negatively influences the students' chances for admission. The article also suggests that this fear may or may not be justified, something I have wondered myself. At the high school where I teach, I have heard counselors and outside speakers tell students nightmare tales of admissions officers and potential employers rejecting applicants based on unsavory images and text found on applicants' social networking pages. Not that I don't think it's a good idea to warn students about this, but I have wondered how prevalent this practice was and whether or not these warnings were solely about helping students not undermine their chances for future success. I suspect that part of it is an attempt not only to get students not to publish such unsavory images but to indirectly address the behavior itself, an approach, I think, with questionable efficacy. Now certainly, I agree with the goal of discouraging students from underage drinking and engaging in potentially damaging sexual behavior, but it always struck me as false to focus on the dangers of photographing and publishing this behavior and sidestepping the concerns about the behavior itself. Aren't we more worried that they are doing these things than that a college admissions official will find out that they are? Don't some discussions of "think before you post" tacitly accept that the behavior takes place and emphasize the idea that it's all o.k. as long as it's not made public? How can we have discussions with students about these issues that look at all of this as a whole?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Facebook for Boomers
Thanks to Anna, Shawna and Patrick for their posts on Facebook privacy. Each one of them gave me something different to think about. Anna told me that younger people are more savvy regarding their privacy, which is ironic since we are continually talking about protecting our children. Shawna taught me that I can customize my privacy settings so that even though I’ve friended someone, I don’t have to give them access to my entire life. (Not that much of my life is on Facebook, but more on that later!) Patrick pointed out that knowing how to use new technology does not mean understanding it. Good point.
I’m one of those older folks, older being a totally relative term (my parents are on Facebook too, at age 80), who has only been on Facebook for about 2 years. My sole reason for starting a profile was to be able to see what my grandson was doing. His mom is great about posting almost every day about what they are going to do for the day, what cute, profound statement he made and/or what she found interesting in the news. In order not to be overwhelmed, I did what I suspect many older people do, I just plunged into Facebook, set my privacy settings without thinking about it, and I was off! However, now that this subject came up in our blog, I rechecked my privacy settings and found out I did ok going in blind. The only things I allow everyone into are my search result on Facebook and in search engines, and allowing anyone to add me as a friend or send me a message. All of my posts, IM screen name, birthday, likes and interests, etc. are for friend’s eyes only. I’m considering making searches for me more private but have to think about it. I do want people from my childhood or former jobs to be able to locate me if they look for me.
My main concern with Facebook is not what I post, but what people can see that my friends post. Is that even possible? One of my sons is uber liberal and outspoken. Even though I consider myself liberal, he posts things on Facebook that I really don’t want future employers seeing, not even my friends seeing for that matter! However, he doesn’t post them on my wall, so I think I’m ok. I welcome comments on this topic from the more Facebook-educated of us.
As for my postings, well, I can count on one hand how many posts I have made. I respond to others’ posts but only two or three times have I posted something on my own wall. When I use Facebook, I feel guilty because I use it to peer into the lives of my loved ones although my kids are well aware of my voyeurism and don’t care. I think posting is a mindset that you grow up with. I don’t know too many people my age who post things about their day on a regular basis. It seems to be those 25 and younger who post all the time. Mostly, we “older” folks use it to keep up with family and friends.
Anyway, it’s an interesting topic and amazing technology. I agree with Patrick that we cannot assume that just because someone uses Facebook, and/or are 25 years old or less, that they know what they are doing and are being as private as they like. I too would love to see some classes in social networking privacy and etiquette.
I’m one of those older folks, older being a totally relative term (my parents are on Facebook too, at age 80), who has only been on Facebook for about 2 years. My sole reason for starting a profile was to be able to see what my grandson was doing. His mom is great about posting almost every day about what they are going to do for the day, what cute, profound statement he made and/or what she found interesting in the news. In order not to be overwhelmed, I did what I suspect many older people do, I just plunged into Facebook, set my privacy settings without thinking about it, and I was off! However, now that this subject came up in our blog, I rechecked my privacy settings and found out I did ok going in blind. The only things I allow everyone into are my search result on Facebook and in search engines, and allowing anyone to add me as a friend or send me a message. All of my posts, IM screen name, birthday, likes and interests, etc. are for friend’s eyes only. I’m considering making searches for me more private but have to think about it. I do want people from my childhood or former jobs to be able to locate me if they look for me.
My main concern with Facebook is not what I post, but what people can see that my friends post. Is that even possible? One of my sons is uber liberal and outspoken. Even though I consider myself liberal, he posts things on Facebook that I really don’t want future employers seeing, not even my friends seeing for that matter! However, he doesn’t post them on my wall, so I think I’m ok. I welcome comments on this topic from the more Facebook-educated of us.
As for my postings, well, I can count on one hand how many posts I have made. I respond to others’ posts but only two or three times have I posted something on my own wall. When I use Facebook, I feel guilty because I use it to peer into the lives of my loved ones although my kids are well aware of my voyeurism and don’t care. I think posting is a mindset that you grow up with. I don’t know too many people my age who post things about their day on a regular basis. It seems to be those 25 and younger who post all the time. Mostly, we “older” folks use it to keep up with family and friends.
Anyway, it’s an interesting topic and amazing technology. I agree with Patrick that we cannot assume that just because someone uses Facebook, and/or are 25 years old or less, that they know what they are doing and are being as private as they like. I too would love to see some classes in social networking privacy and etiquette.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Supreme Court and Questions about Technology
An interesting article has been making the rounds this week concerning technology and the Supreme Court entitled "Technical difficulties at the Supreme Court." If you have time, you should read the short article, but in summary, it details some of the questions that the Supreme Court justices have been asking during the arguments for the City of Ontario v. Quon case. The officer involved with the case, Sgt. Quon, charges that his messages were searched unconstitutionally. It appears that after Sgt. Quon exceeded his allotted usage limit, the city acquired transcripts from the pager provider and discovered that Quon had used the pager for personal purposes and that some messages were sexually explicit. The questions presented to the Court include:
I bring attention to this article not to pick on the justices, but to show that all of us have a bit more to learn about technology. I’m certain that some of us in this class are quite comfortable texting, IMing, BBMing, using Facebook and Twitter, blogging, and perhaps even gaming, yet we’d still have a tough time explaining the ways in which, for example, text messages are routed from one phone to another. I think that that is what came to mind when I first came across this article - both how much I know and how little I know at the same time. It’s amazing how much we don’t realize that we know.
A thread discussing this article was started on a listserv to which I belong which includes mostly Computer Science students and faculty though a few people are from other backgrounds. The comments were actually kind of different. Some of the comments concerned the justices' level of knowledge about technology:
- Whether a SWAT team member has a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his SWAT pager, where the police department has an official no-privacy policy but a non-policymaking lieutenant announced an informal policy of allowing some personal use of the pagers.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened this Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents and created a circuit conflict by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages transmitted by a SWAT team member on his SWAT pager.
- Whether individuals who send text messages to a SWAT team member’s SWAT pager have a reasonable expectation that their messages will be free from review by the recipient’s government employer. (source)
I bring attention to this article not to pick on the justices, but to show that all of us have a bit more to learn about technology. I’m certain that some of us in this class are quite comfortable texting, IMing, BBMing, using Facebook and Twitter, blogging, and perhaps even gaming, yet we’d still have a tough time explaining the ways in which, for example, text messages are routed from one phone to another. I think that that is what came to mind when I first came across this article - both how much I know and how little I know at the same time. It’s amazing how much we don’t realize that we know.
A thread discussing this article was started on a listserv to which I belong which includes mostly Computer Science students and faculty though a few people are from other backgrounds. The comments were actually kind of different. Some of the comments concerned the justices' level of knowledge about technology:
This is really depressing and daunting. It is emblematic of how out of touch our leadership is with technology and its implications. Technology, particular our newer systems of interaction and communication, are evolving so much faster than our legal and political system, and those who are incumbent within.Another poster thought that the questions posed by the justices were valid:
It is troubling that these justices are going to make key decisions about something they certainly have no deep understanding. It does not bode well for their decisions on other important and timely issues such as net neutrality -- where one's participation in the internet culture fundamentally impacts one's understanding of it.
Some of those seemingly stupid questions might have been asked for legal reasons; i.e. they were really focusing on issues of law and not issues of technology. Did the reporters understand what is going on and report it correctly? In my experience, reporters almost always get important details wrong.Another poster still thought that anyone could have posed those questions and that perhaps the justices weren't that different from any other person who uses technology casually:
I provide these quotes to help exemplify the different ways that people responded to this article and also to sort of show that technology and our understanding of technology is anything but straightforward. What do you guys think about all of this?Yea this report is just taking a bunch of quotes out of context and making fun of the justices, and saying they don't use iPhones. Most of the questions I can easily imagine being asked in a rhetorical, investigative way. And why should anyone (besides us CS freaks) know how a TXT message is transmitted between two phones? Younger people certainly have a better feel for how all this stuff works, but we are on the extreme end of the spectrum of understanding it. I guess justices can't be expected to be experts on every topic... their job is to listen to lawyers and expert witnesses and whatnot and decide who they believe (or who they want to believe). In education, don't we say there is no such thing as a "dumb question?"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Facebook Literacy
As I was reading through the article on facebook's policies (which are, by the way, changing again, for those of you concerned--check the staff blog!), I was struck by the fact that, at least as far as facebook is concerned, I feel like kids and young adults are much more aware of the privacy issues contained in the site than many of their parents are.
For those of us who've been coming into adulthood since facebook entered the scene, there has been what seems like hyper-awareness of the propensity for privacy invasion there. Because facebook is designed to network with people you sort-of-know-but-not-necessarily-really, it treads a strange terrain for most of us between sharing and keeping secret. Our organizational affiliations, interests, and contact details are widely publicized, but at the same time, we are hugely aware of who may be looking at our stuff. We were incensed when the site opened up to non-college students, even more when it became apparent that prospective employers and, increasingly, family members were there.
For me, facebook is a tool to keep in quick contact with people from my undergrad, a spare few from high school, and the occasional relative. I have very little of substance on there; a few photos from a family reunion, some from when I was at Oxford, some program pictures from my RA days, basic contact information for myself, and a few quotes. But my family members, all adults who have been very concerned for years about my own online presence, share pieces of information about themselves that I often wonder if they realize are quite as available as they are. My peers and I navigate privacy settings carefully, while those who are newer to the game seem completely unaware of the need to do so.
As someone who's been responsible for hiring and has been required by supervisors to browse facebook profiles in the process (sometimes deceptively!), I am extremely careful about what goes onto my profile in the first place, and especially about who can see what. I don't allow people to post on my wall; I get notifications any time someone replies to anything I post so I can edit if needed; no one is able to see photos in which other people have tagged me until I change settings on each individual photo.
There are a great many situations in which it is incredibly important for kids to be educated on their privacy concerns, and facebook is certainly one of them, but in my mind, the nature of the site and its user base suggest that perhaps we need to be hosting information sessions for adults who are long past their undergrad days to make sure that they have the same information as the rest of us.
For those of us who've been coming into adulthood since facebook entered the scene, there has been what seems like hyper-awareness of the propensity for privacy invasion there. Because facebook is designed to network with people you sort-of-know-but-not-necessarily-really, it treads a strange terrain for most of us between sharing and keeping secret. Our organizational affiliations, interests, and contact details are widely publicized, but at the same time, we are hugely aware of who may be looking at our stuff. We were incensed when the site opened up to non-college students, even more when it became apparent that prospective employers and, increasingly, family members were there.
For me, facebook is a tool to keep in quick contact with people from my undergrad, a spare few from high school, and the occasional relative. I have very little of substance on there; a few photos from a family reunion, some from when I was at Oxford, some program pictures from my RA days, basic contact information for myself, and a few quotes. But my family members, all adults who have been very concerned for years about my own online presence, share pieces of information about themselves that I often wonder if they realize are quite as available as they are. My peers and I navigate privacy settings carefully, while those who are newer to the game seem completely unaware of the need to do so.
As someone who's been responsible for hiring and has been required by supervisors to browse facebook profiles in the process (sometimes deceptively!), I am extremely careful about what goes onto my profile in the first place, and especially about who can see what. I don't allow people to post on my wall; I get notifications any time someone replies to anything I post so I can edit if needed; no one is able to see photos in which other people have tagged me until I change settings on each individual photo.
There are a great many situations in which it is incredibly important for kids to be educated on their privacy concerns, and facebook is certainly one of them, but in my mind, the nature of the site and its user base suggest that perhaps we need to be hosting information sessions for adults who are long past their undergrad days to make sure that they have the same information as the rest of us.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Some Scattered Thoughts on Copyright and Privacy
Copyight & Choking Creativity
Lessig’s TED presentation on copyright law certainly resonated with me, and left me with much to think about. While I very much respect where he is coming from, I have several concerns about his proposed solutions.
Corporations not Creators Own Copyrights
First, he argues that artists and creators should allow more freely available content into the marketplace. This makes sense, and I agree that this is necessary for movement toward his vision of a “legal” read-write society. What I question, however, is whether in today’s economy artists and creators are really in control of their work. Often artists sign away their rights (or at least some of their rights) to corporations –agencies, publishers, record labels, etc. While they may still gain profit from their work and have some limited control over how the work is used, it is the corporation that must give permission and make the content freely available. It is the corporation that will sue if copyright infringement occurs, and it is the corporation that has a vested interest in making sure the content is not freely available.
Copyright is Confusing
Lessig alludes to Creative Commons in his presentation, though he doesn’t go into a discussion of it. I strongly support the ideals of Creative Commons. However, I don’t see it as a feasible solution that will end “Copyright abolitionism” that is so rampant among youth (and many others), simply for the fact that it is too confusing. If you are remixing 10 movie clips with a song plus multiple photographs, and perhaps look at 100s of objects to decide which is best for your creation, think how time consuming and limiting it is to try to figure out the allowances and restrictions that are on each individual item. Even with Creative Commons labeling, it can be extremely difficult to discern how and when the item can be used, who to ask for permission, etc. I just don’t see young people taking the time to investigate this for each item.
I agree with Lessig that in this “Age of Prohibitions” youth will continue to be driven (or choose to) live life “against the law” simply because it is too hard and limiting to follow the law, and because the risk of prosecution is relatively low. The lessons of a previous age of Prohibition (remember speakeasys?) showed that in the end it was necessary to reconsider the law because it was impossible to prosecute everyone who has breaking the law, and only the gangsters and bootleggers were profiting. I wonder if digital copyright law might not be a similar case.
Does Participating in Society Today Mean Forgoing Privacy?
I’ve been thinking lately about the ways in which privacy is defined and does or doesn’t exist in today’s society. I have recently received a spate of privacy policy statements in the mail from various credit cards, banks, and businesses that I use the services of. In order to participate with nearly any business or web site, or to have a presence in the online world, etc., etc. we must sign away certain rights to our personal information. Many of us do this without thinking—often feeling that we don’t have a choice. And in many ways, I don’t think we do. How can one really avoid putting their information into the public sphere without becoming a recluse?
Even if you were able to somehow avoid working with any business or organization that had access to personal information, you would still be confronted with the massive amounts of public surveillance that goes on worldwide. I can’t remember ever signing or seeing a privacy policy about how an ATM or convenience store or city street camera can use my image. While generally these images are only released upon a crime being committed, how are images being stored, by who, and for how long? Is there any law saying that the owner of that surveillance tape could not use it to make a profit? If a celebrity sits down in a restaurant with someone who is not their spouse, could that restaurant sell the tape to a gossip outlet like TMZ?
I realize I am stretching things a bit here, but it is an interesting question. How much of our right to privacy do we give up just by leaving our house, whether virtually or physically? How much right to privacy should we expect to have in the public sphere? And will the legacy of our culture in the distant future be the massive amounts of surveillance images that we are leaving behind?
Also wanted to share this link to an intriguing map about surveillance from http://www.privacyinternational.org/. I was going to post a copy of the picture here, but decided in the light of copyright discussions this week, I would just link to it.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Radiohead and More
I have two different thoughts this week in my brain as I read and watched the assigned elements. The first is more simple: Radiohead, the music group, released their latest album in a digital format and allowed fans to pay whatever they wanted for the album. After a set amount of time, the digital format was closed and the rights to distribution were given to the a record company, but the initial release of the album was done in an entirely new and different way than most people in the music industry. Additionally, they asked fans to create storyboards for an animated music video and then the paid the best entries to make a one-minute clip. I thought this was a really fun and legal take on the idea of listen and create process that Larry Lessig discussed.
Second thought: I was talking with a friend of mine who is a teacher this week. Our discussion focused on the use of Facebook by students in here elementary school. She teaches sixth grade, but had recently learned of students in third grade that had Facebook pages that did not have any security settings attached to them. When she was exploring the students pages she noticed that there were many other students (as young as first grade) who did not have any privacy settings on their Facebook pages. In looking through the Facebook terms of use, the Facebook people clearly state that users must be thirteen years of age which these students are clearly not. Additionally, I asked her what the school has done to protect these students. She said that they have put on internet safety seminars for parents but only five parents attended. These are the questions that have been rolling around in my mind since I spoke with this teacher. 1) Since much of this media participation happens in the home setting what role should teachers/schools play in intervening in the situation of the very young and unprotected Facebook users? 2) Are there any additional security means that are possible on the side of the Facebook site that will stop these young children from having pages?
For me this further motivates my understanding for the need for media literacy education in the classroom from a very early age. I think that Tracy Mitrano's article had some very practical and useful guidelines for parents in teaching their children about protected internet activity, however I did not see any suggestions for teaching younger children. I am not sure a young child would fully understand the ideas of only posting what you might "display in physical space." The role of teachers was not really in the scope of her article outside of a college setting, but I wonder what she would suggest to teachers whose students are avid users without a lot of parental supervision?
So at the end of this post I am torn by the excitement of students making mash ups and artists and musicians putting their creations out there for people to rework and remake. And by the fear that young students already have an online presence that is not protected or legal and all their friends are also on the internet sharing personal information. The only responses in my brain are "Yikes" and "I'm confused." Any ideas fellow classmates?
Second thought: I was talking with a friend of mine who is a teacher this week. Our discussion focused on the use of Facebook by students in here elementary school. She teaches sixth grade, but had recently learned of students in third grade that had Facebook pages that did not have any security settings attached to them. When she was exploring the students pages she noticed that there were many other students (as young as first grade) who did not have any privacy settings on their Facebook pages. In looking through the Facebook terms of use, the Facebook people clearly state that users must be thirteen years of age which these students are clearly not. Additionally, I asked her what the school has done to protect these students. She said that they have put on internet safety seminars for parents but only five parents attended. These are the questions that have been rolling around in my mind since I spoke with this teacher. 1) Since much of this media participation happens in the home setting what role should teachers/schools play in intervening in the situation of the very young and unprotected Facebook users? 2) Are there any additional security means that are possible on the side of the Facebook site that will stop these young children from having pages?
For me this further motivates my understanding for the need for media literacy education in the classroom from a very early age. I think that Tracy Mitrano's article had some very practical and useful guidelines for parents in teaching their children about protected internet activity, however I did not see any suggestions for teaching younger children. I am not sure a young child would fully understand the ideas of only posting what you might "display in physical space." The role of teachers was not really in the scope of her article outside of a college setting, but I wonder what she would suggest to teachers whose students are avid users without a lot of parental supervision?
So at the end of this post I am torn by the excitement of students making mash ups and artists and musicians putting their creations out there for people to rework and remake. And by the fear that young students already have an online presence that is not protected or legal and all their friends are also on the internet sharing personal information. The only responses in my brain are "Yikes" and "I'm confused." Any ideas fellow classmates?
Cooking Up a Media Literacy Lesson
The Yippity Yo Cooking Show
While I couldn't bring myself to eat these cookies when she's done (my baby and I cook together, but there is no licking or dropping of spatulas on the floor!) and I hope they don't mind her continuing to do all those things that are "cute" now when she's older, this is a great example of letting kids experiment with media concepts. Production is certainly one of the goals of media literacy education, and I just hope her dad let her see what he was doing on the editing end of things (or if he didn't, that he will involve her more as she grows older)! While their audience for this particular video has become widespread, a kid who makes a video to share with faraway grandparents or friends when they've moved away has the opportunity to create a media product with a specific audience in mind and to see all the behind-the-scenes things that go into media production, whether it be a cooking show or a magazine or a song. What a fantastic way to teach kids about media literacy and give them a sense of ownership that will help them understand future media experiences better!
While I couldn't bring myself to eat these cookies when she's done (my baby and I cook together, but there is no licking or dropping of spatulas on the floor!) and I hope they don't mind her continuing to do all those things that are "cute" now when she's older, this is a great example of letting kids experiment with media concepts. Production is certainly one of the goals of media literacy education, and I just hope her dad let her see what he was doing on the editing end of things (or if he didn't, that he will involve her more as she grows older)! While their audience for this particular video has become widespread, a kid who makes a video to share with faraway grandparents or friends when they've moved away has the opportunity to create a media product with a specific audience in mind and to see all the behind-the-scenes things that go into media production, whether it be a cooking show or a magazine or a song. What a fantastic way to teach kids about media literacy and give them a sense of ownership that will help them understand future media experiences better!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Lessig’s video, How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law.
Watching this video, I realized why I love being in graduate school. Lessig brought up points that had never even entered my mind, much less been pondered in there. It is fascinating to have an entirely new view be opened up by someone’s 20 minute video on a subject that I have not thought of previously.
Of course, I’m talking about the TED talk by Larry Lessig, How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law. A number of questions and thoughts came to me after watching this video and reading this week’s required reading for our class.
My generation’s culture is one of consumerism, generally. Sure, we had artists who rose to fame singing folk music calling for change, or by participating in demonstrations where a few of us rose to the top with new thought on old issues. I don’t mean to downplay the achievements of our generation, but rather, to point out that many of the people my age use the internet to watch and listen. I really don’t think I was taught to create. When I went to school, we were taught to think but not necessarily question, to learn and to recite. When we wrote research papers in high school, I was taught not to plagiarize but I do not recall trying to create new knowledge, just to get the facts right and use proper citations. Knowledge was to be revered, not created.
Young people today use the internet, not only to watch and listen, but to speak and create. Now, the more I see and experiment, the more I realize the full potential of the internet. Knowledge is so easy to come by that we can go beyond acquiring it to trying to make sense of it and maybe create new thought on a given topic. The internet is also a great platform for our views and opinions, not only in written word, but through music and video.
How can I teach my students to create new knowledge when I don’t do it myself? This is a really tough question for me. Is it too late for me to be an effective teacher? Am I over-the-hill in education? I think the answer to this lies in how old I think I am and how old I feel. If I think like someone closer to retirement than starting a career, then yes, I’m done. But, if I am willing to learn new things and try new things, then I can learn all the new technology. I can learn to create and then, can pass that on to the next generation. A key component of this is being willing to admit that I don’t know everything before I teach it and being willing to learn along with my students and from them. Who says I’m close to retirement anyway, if I work until I’m eighty, like my mom did, then I’ve got a good 25 years left!
How can we encourage creativity while still protecting the copyrighted material of artists and scholars? I think this is a very important point. I liked Lessig’s idea of artists’ choosing to loosen the reins on their art and allowing non-commercial use of their material in the creation of a new product but there are drawbacks to that. One glaring problem came to mind while watching the hilarious videos that Lessig showed during his talk of Jesus parading through the streets of a large city singing I Will Survive and George W. and Tony Blair singing a love song to each other. If the original artist is offended by a particular remix of their song on the order of the two listed above, he or she has no recourse. But then again, when I was watching and laughing uproariously, the thought that the original artist had anything to do with that piece never crossed my mind. Therefore, in the interest of hearing the voices of our youth and having a free thinking and speaking society, I think it is important not to legislate these mash-ups and remixes out of existence just so that the original artist and his recording company are not offended. This is a complex issue and still needs to evolve. After all, 8 or 10 years of existence is newborn technology.
How can we encourage our children to be risk-takers while protecting them from predators? This question has been central to me throughout this class. I firmly believe that banning social networking and file sharing from our schools is not the answer. As a mother and a grandmother, as well as an educator, I believe that education is the answer. There is absolutely no way to completely shield our children from predators online or in person – they are all a part of our modern culture. I have always been amazed at people who think if we just don’t talk about it, it will go away, or, if we just ban it, no one will be exposed to it. We have to be willing to have frank conversations about all of these things. When it comes to the internet and copyright issues, it is no different. First of all, whether we like it or not, we have to familiarize ourselves with what is legal and what is not and teach that to our children. If we disagree with the law, then maybe the next lesson is how to protest and fight for repeal of those laws. Secondly, we have to model responsible risk-taking behavior by speaking out on issues within our local government or school district and by getting our students involved in that. Teaching our students the importance of being productive, honest citizens with the tools for creating new knowledge has to be the number one priority in our schools.
Of course, I’m talking about the TED talk by Larry Lessig, How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law. A number of questions and thoughts came to me after watching this video and reading this week’s required reading for our class.
My generation’s culture is one of consumerism, generally. Sure, we had artists who rose to fame singing folk music calling for change, or by participating in demonstrations where a few of us rose to the top with new thought on old issues. I don’t mean to downplay the achievements of our generation, but rather, to point out that many of the people my age use the internet to watch and listen. I really don’t think I was taught to create. When I went to school, we were taught to think but not necessarily question, to learn and to recite. When we wrote research papers in high school, I was taught not to plagiarize but I do not recall trying to create new knowledge, just to get the facts right and use proper citations. Knowledge was to be revered, not created.
Young people today use the internet, not only to watch and listen, but to speak and create. Now, the more I see and experiment, the more I realize the full potential of the internet. Knowledge is so easy to come by that we can go beyond acquiring it to trying to make sense of it and maybe create new thought on a given topic. The internet is also a great platform for our views and opinions, not only in written word, but through music and video.
How can I teach my students to create new knowledge when I don’t do it myself? This is a really tough question for me. Is it too late for me to be an effective teacher? Am I over-the-hill in education? I think the answer to this lies in how old I think I am and how old I feel. If I think like someone closer to retirement than starting a career, then yes, I’m done. But, if I am willing to learn new things and try new things, then I can learn all the new technology. I can learn to create and then, can pass that on to the next generation. A key component of this is being willing to admit that I don’t know everything before I teach it and being willing to learn along with my students and from them. Who says I’m close to retirement anyway, if I work until I’m eighty, like my mom did, then I’ve got a good 25 years left!
How can we encourage creativity while still protecting the copyrighted material of artists and scholars? I think this is a very important point. I liked Lessig’s idea of artists’ choosing to loosen the reins on their art and allowing non-commercial use of their material in the creation of a new product but there are drawbacks to that. One glaring problem came to mind while watching the hilarious videos that Lessig showed during his talk of Jesus parading through the streets of a large city singing I Will Survive and George W. and Tony Blair singing a love song to each other. If the original artist is offended by a particular remix of their song on the order of the two listed above, he or she has no recourse. But then again, when I was watching and laughing uproariously, the thought that the original artist had anything to do with that piece never crossed my mind. Therefore, in the interest of hearing the voices of our youth and having a free thinking and speaking society, I think it is important not to legislate these mash-ups and remixes out of existence just so that the original artist and his recording company are not offended. This is a complex issue and still needs to evolve. After all, 8 or 10 years of existence is newborn technology.
How can we encourage our children to be risk-takers while protecting them from predators? This question has been central to me throughout this class. I firmly believe that banning social networking and file sharing from our schools is not the answer. As a mother and a grandmother, as well as an educator, I believe that education is the answer. There is absolutely no way to completely shield our children from predators online or in person – they are all a part of our modern culture. I have always been amazed at people who think if we just don’t talk about it, it will go away, or, if we just ban it, no one will be exposed to it. We have to be willing to have frank conversations about all of these things. When it comes to the internet and copyright issues, it is no different. First of all, whether we like it or not, we have to familiarize ourselves with what is legal and what is not and teach that to our children. If we disagree with the law, then maybe the next lesson is how to protest and fight for repeal of those laws. Secondly, we have to model responsible risk-taking behavior by speaking out on issues within our local government or school district and by getting our students involved in that. Teaching our students the importance of being productive, honest citizens with the tools for creating new knowledge has to be the number one priority in our schools.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Service Learning: An Act of Participatory, Democratic Learning
One of the problems facing public schools is disconnect between the school, student and the surrounding community. Districts are continuing to be underfunded, and many struggle to get referendums passed, and this is largely due to the fact that local residents are unable to see how the school and community are interrelated. Further causing the current education crisis is the disengagement of students as a result of not seeing school as being important to the community they live in. When asked about their disinterest, many adolescents reply that they view the education they are “receiving” as meaningless. With this sort of perception, the high number of students that drop out of school is not surprising. One component of a remedy to this problem is to develop, promote and incorporate curriculum that is participatory and democratic that encourages students to be active in the learning process. Such curriculum can certainly be multifaceted and take on many different forms such as service learning.
Service Learning connects student and community in a process that greatly benefits both. It makes education an active process by engaging students with content and the opportunity to explore and experience the real world. It has been the discussion of much research in the past decade as many K-12 schools and universities have recognized its value and have mandated it within curriculum. Both quantitative and qualitative research suggests that incorporation of service learning programs can enhance the social, emotional and intellectual growth of students.
In Service-Learning: Thinking Outside the Box, for instance, a study regarding an undergraduate course at the University of Glasgow, Susan Deel, proposes that service learning can trigger personal and intellectual transformation. Because students can work/volunteer in places that they have never been part of before (even in their own community), they can be challenged and tested emotionally and socially. These challenges encourage critical reflection, knowingly or unknowingly. As students reflect on their service situations and experiences they are likely to investigate the situation or problem that they are working with, and discover policies, laws and choices that have created the situation. In this process, students are likely to develop opinions and understanding of their communities and others, and certainly likely to begin questioning and exploring—a goal that all educators have for their students.
Kathy Payne and Betty Edwards in their essay, Service Learning Enhanced Education for Young Adults share the same positive sentiments when it comes to cheering service learning. According to Payne and Edwards, “service learning can reinforce learning for middle grade students, launch themselves into the process for independence in a prosocial manner, and develop the competencies and civic skills they need as they move towards adulthood.” For Payne and Edwards, service learning offers the opportunities for adolescence that are at the threshold of adulthood to have new experiences, develop leadership skills and develop an interest in their communities by building passions. In the service learning process, students develop 21st century skills as they work in teams, problem solve and share and experience rich dialogue that crosses generations, genders, races, cultures, and experiences. As this occurs the learning process becomes an exciting, inviting experience for the students. They are not isolated in a classroom of thirty students but are part of the community that they live. Learning becomes relevant!
As a high school student I was fortunate to participate in a service learning program that brought me to places in my community that I never experienced until my service opportunities. Each year, I volunteered in a different setting, and by graduation I worked with children with special needs, academically struggling youth, local homeless and elderly with dementia. During these experience I sometimes worked with other students from my school and other times not. Throughout the year, while completing my service, I participated in discussion with faculty and other classmates to reflect on the experiences. Aside from just discussing how we felt about the situation we were encouraged to research and present information about the issue, problem, organization, etc. that we were working with. In the process we researched policy, laws, debates, etc. Today, I can testify that I was truly lucky to have such an active, engaging learning experience throughout my four years of high school. In retrospect, I could certainly state with confidence that that these experiences helped in developing my appreciation for public service and being aware of laws and policy.
As teachers and librarians we can aid in working to develop service learning programs. We can provide the literature to administration and school districts about the value, as well as provide information to students of opportunities in the communities. Further, we can even serve as a service opportunity, knowing the wonderful impact it will have on our students and patrons!
Service Learning connects student and community in a process that greatly benefits both. It makes education an active process by engaging students with content and the opportunity to explore and experience the real world. It has been the discussion of much research in the past decade as many K-12 schools and universities have recognized its value and have mandated it within curriculum. Both quantitative and qualitative research suggests that incorporation of service learning programs can enhance the social, emotional and intellectual growth of students.
In Service-Learning: Thinking Outside the Box, for instance, a study regarding an undergraduate course at the University of Glasgow, Susan Deel, proposes that service learning can trigger personal and intellectual transformation. Because students can work/volunteer in places that they have never been part of before (even in their own community), they can be challenged and tested emotionally and socially. These challenges encourage critical reflection, knowingly or unknowingly. As students reflect on their service situations and experiences they are likely to investigate the situation or problem that they are working with, and discover policies, laws and choices that have created the situation. In this process, students are likely to develop opinions and understanding of their communities and others, and certainly likely to begin questioning and exploring—a goal that all educators have for their students.
Kathy Payne and Betty Edwards in their essay, Service Learning Enhanced Education for Young Adults share the same positive sentiments when it comes to cheering service learning. According to Payne and Edwards, “service learning can reinforce learning for middle grade students, launch themselves into the process for independence in a prosocial manner, and develop the competencies and civic skills they need as they move towards adulthood.” For Payne and Edwards, service learning offers the opportunities for adolescence that are at the threshold of adulthood to have new experiences, develop leadership skills and develop an interest in their communities by building passions. In the service learning process, students develop 21st century skills as they work in teams, problem solve and share and experience rich dialogue that crosses generations, genders, races, cultures, and experiences. As this occurs the learning process becomes an exciting, inviting experience for the students. They are not isolated in a classroom of thirty students but are part of the community that they live. Learning becomes relevant!
As a high school student I was fortunate to participate in a service learning program that brought me to places in my community that I never experienced until my service opportunities. Each year, I volunteered in a different setting, and by graduation I worked with children with special needs, academically struggling youth, local homeless and elderly with dementia. During these experience I sometimes worked with other students from my school and other times not. Throughout the year, while completing my service, I participated in discussion with faculty and other classmates to reflect on the experiences. Aside from just discussing how we felt about the situation we were encouraged to research and present information about the issue, problem, organization, etc. that we were working with. In the process we researched policy, laws, debates, etc. Today, I can testify that I was truly lucky to have such an active, engaging learning experience throughout my four years of high school. In retrospect, I could certainly state with confidence that that these experiences helped in developing my appreciation for public service and being aware of laws and policy.
As teachers and librarians we can aid in working to develop service learning programs. We can provide the literature to administration and school districts about the value, as well as provide information to students of opportunities in the communities. Further, we can even serve as a service opportunity, knowing the wonderful impact it will have on our students and patrons!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Fear and the Internet
I have been really interested in the topic of fear as it relates to the internet and media in general. Whether fear is of violence in video games, chatroulette, or creepy cyberstalkers, I was particularly struck by how much of the coverage I found on LexisNexis regarding teens, children, and media used terrifying terms. Many of the headlines included terms like risks, addiction, safety, danger, and violence. There were the occasional stories of the way that technology has allowed teens to do new and great things, but the overall effect I got was the need for protection and limits for addition.
As my earlier post explained, I am not a huge personal internet user. However, throughout this class and with the new media-friendly glasses I am trying on, my first instinct when I hear teens and media is definitely not fear for their safety. Instead, I think that with so much of our society in the U.S. and across the world participating in work, social interactions, and consumer purchasing through internet mediated programming and resources, it is only fair to educate and expose students to effective ways to create and participate in the media filled world around us.
In so many of the articles written, the everyday aspect of many internet and media uses is ignored for the sensationalized dangers of the internet age. For example, my internet use on a daily basis involves visiting the UIUC website to check on my classes, checking my e-mail, reading a few articles at the New York Times site and catching up on an occasional television show on hulu. None of these things causes me any fear and is in fact pretty mundane. (I am even embarrassed to type it because it is so boring.) I am not trying to minimize the real risks and dangers that are present with the internet and other media outlets, however I am just trying to point out the differences between the stories that are prevalent and the realities of many user's experiences.
I am realizing that I am converting to the ideas of this class particularly the idea that media use is already a pervasive part of daily interactions in 2010 and teaching children and teens useful, productive, and playful ways of participation will be of great benefit to them as they navigate their future. An approach that is so concerned with safety will quickly be encountering fear from all sides with little hope for the ways media can positively impact and engage children. From my own experience, if I had ignored all the things I was told to fear as a child, I would never live in the city of Chicago, ride the train to work by myself, read any books that looked at religion in a critical light, or travel out of the country. I understand that there are real safety concerns and issues, but there are also great ways of communication, learning, and interaction with a world that is no longer limited to our physical locations, but can span miles in a single click.
As my earlier post explained, I am not a huge personal internet user. However, throughout this class and with the new media-friendly glasses I am trying on, my first instinct when I hear teens and media is definitely not fear for their safety. Instead, I think that with so much of our society in the U.S. and across the world participating in work, social interactions, and consumer purchasing through internet mediated programming and resources, it is only fair to educate and expose students to effective ways to create and participate in the media filled world around us.
In so many of the articles written, the everyday aspect of many internet and media uses is ignored for the sensationalized dangers of the internet age. For example, my internet use on a daily basis involves visiting the UIUC website to check on my classes, checking my e-mail, reading a few articles at the New York Times site and catching up on an occasional television show on hulu. None of these things causes me any fear and is in fact pretty mundane. (I am even embarrassed to type it because it is so boring.) I am not trying to minimize the real risks and dangers that are present with the internet and other media outlets, however I am just trying to point out the differences between the stories that are prevalent and the realities of many user's experiences.
I am realizing that I am converting to the ideas of this class particularly the idea that media use is already a pervasive part of daily interactions in 2010 and teaching children and teens useful, productive, and playful ways of participation will be of great benefit to them as they navigate their future. An approach that is so concerned with safety will quickly be encountering fear from all sides with little hope for the ways media can positively impact and engage children. From my own experience, if I had ignored all the things I was told to fear as a child, I would never live in the city of Chicago, ride the train to work by myself, read any books that looked at religion in a critical light, or travel out of the country. I understand that there are real safety concerns and issues, but there are also great ways of communication, learning, and interaction with a world that is no longer limited to our physical locations, but can span miles in a single click.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
