Sunday, March 22, 2009

Foot loose, fancy free or crippling foot binding?


What is a digital footprint? (Or finger print, as Rob Rubis proposes as a more appropriate name.)

I have to confess that I had no idea what was meant by a digital footprint a week ago. Therefore, before I can have an opinion of this issue within education, I need to build my own understanding.

There are many available definitions out there including Wikipedia (which in December 2007 had no entry): "Digital Footprints are traces left by someone's activity in a digital environment." The ikeepsafe, an organization that helps families create safe online experiences, puts it in kid-friendly terms: Simply put, a digital footprint is the amount of content, whether it be words, photographs, audio, or video, that is traceable to a given individual. The PEW report then distinguishes between a passive and active digital footprint:

PASSIVE: Personal data made accessible online with no deliberate intervention from an individual.
ACTIVE: Personal data made accessible online through deliberate posting or sharing of information by the user.

So, in launching a discussion about digital footprints with kids, it may be beneficial to show a real basic video such as this one, From before birth to after death, or What's your digital footprint by Debbie Wiel to build some common understanding:

So what is my imprint?

According to the Pew Report, 47% of online users (published in Dec, 2007) have searched for information about themselves online, up from just 22% five years ago. More than just googling yourself or RSS feeding a tag, it might be an interesting reflection for kids to think about how their digital habits correlate to how much of a footprint they'll have. Similar to the carbon footprint calculators, there are now possibilities for you to reflect on your daily life and the resulting digital imprint. Here are two:
1. From EMC
2. From Discovery


So who cares?


As the PEW report states, "most internet users are not concerned about the amount of information available about them online, and most do not take steps to limit that information. Fully 60% of internet users say they are not worried about how much information is available about them online. Similarly, the majority of online adults (61%) do not feel compelled to limit the amount of information that can be found about them online."

However, there are now enough stories out there justifying all of us caring about monitoring and maintaining a positive digital footprint. As professionals, we need to realize that a growing percentage of employers are checking:

A recent CareerBuilder study found that 26% of all hiring managers use search engines to research the digital footprint of potential applicants and a staggering 50% of recruiters for college graduate jobs exhibited the same behavior. 63% of hiring managers admitted that what they found about applicants on social networks, to use one media type, caused them to not make an offer to applicants.

For those working with HS students, " A recent study by the University of Massachusetts' Center for Market Research found that 26% of college admission offices use search engines to research applicants and 21% search for information about applicants on social networks."

So, what can we do?

I agree with Susi that this all feels a bit “big brotherish” but it also offers opportunities and is the future of our own “professional marketing”

"Put Your Best Digital Footprint Forward: Career Expert Offers Seven Tips for Managing" is a straightforward guide to being proactive for us adults.

For some, you may want to try and "erase" some of your footprint, but this is no easy feat. The BBC in an article entitled "Spread of our digital footprint" asserts that “Wiping your digital footprint completely off the web may be an extreme and expensive measure. It is certainly much better to be careful of what info you let out in the first place”

For kids, awareness is the first step--what is my digital footprint and why do I need to be thinking about this. From there, we need to give students age-appropriate skills to be proactive in monitoring their footprint.

Still wondering

1. Developmentally, adolescents need to play with and try out new identities, take risks, and be able to "grow up" without having to pay a debt later. What implications are there with their current social networking explorations and the permanent prints left?

2. Does anyone really know to what extent our information is being used and/or abused? What is the line between being part of a wonderfully connected world and avoiding the "Hoover" types who want to take advantage? (Imagine what J. Edgar would do in today's world--scary!)

3. How do we learn from the marketing departments who are positively tapping into digital foot printing to help us all become savvier in this area?

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Final Reflection on Course #1- Information Literacy and Ourselves as Learners

Project: ES Curriculum Wiki Resource Page

This resource is something I have been thinking about doing for a long time as there is a need for a centrally located, web-based resource center for subject area curriculum. It will be an on-going effort just to get up and running, but the real success will only happen once it becomes a collaborative endeavor and useful resource for teachers. I’ll be most fascinated to see how it evolves over time.

Life-long Learning

This is the best part of this course, of life—the fact that we continue to learn. We live such privileged lives with the world being so accessible at our fingertips. With all that I’ve read (or heard) from my colleagues and others along the way during this course, I have so much more to learn and explore such as:

Glogster: Chrissy Hellyer referred to this and I’m intrigued—want to check out the possibilities.
Google calendar: Because of the collaborative capabilities, I’d like to create a curriculum and professional development calendar that is continually updated so that we can always see what people are involved in. I’ll see where this leads. Also, wouldn’t teams or each of the divisions find a google calendar helpful? To be explored.
Shelfari: Rob referred to this in one of his blogs. Given my love of books, I look forward to exploring this one further.
Classroom 2.0 Ning: “the social network for those interested in Web 2.0 and collaborative technologies in education.” I hope this can be an entry point for myself into a network of educators since they say, “We especially hope that those who are "beginners" will find this a supportive community and a comfortable place to start being part of the digital dialog.”
Flatclassroom Conference: Julie Lindsay has definitely whetted my appetite to explore this project and other ones they're involved in.
Zen Presentations: Kim and Jeff have mentioned this before and I understood the general gist, but want to pursue this further and read the book!
• Many blogs—great thinking, provocative questions, links to more ideas, resources . . . Look forward to having the time to respond to many more now.

Remaining Questions:

Once again, I’m reminded that life and learning are much more about the journey than the destination. With the networked world and ever-evolving tools, this is even more evident. I continue to have some fundamental questions that I’ll consider to ponder along the way:

1. Will we come together to continually search for ways to deepen understanding, not only technological tool skills?
2. Will we find ways to increase and improve the f2f community, not just the networked social community?
3. Will we find a way to balance between our virtual and f2f lives, relationships, and commitments?
4. Will we find a way to tap into this amazing social revolution to improve the world for everyone, not just those who happened to be born in the right place?

Thank you, Jeff, Kim, and colleagues for the learning opportunities you helped facilitate, your reflections, and your passion for improving learning for students. I look forward to the on-going journey!

What is the relationship between our use of technology and critical thinking?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/1384170855/

It was refreshing to hear during our discussion yesterday that other educators are as concerned as I am about our role in developing students’ critical thinking skills and how current technology may be impacting that effort.

In "Is Technology Producing A Decline in Critical Thinking And Analysis?" Published by Science Daily out of UCLA, there is reference to research from Patricia Greenfield about how visual literacy has increased, but depth of thought is declining. Her view of technology integration was refreshing, as it seemed balanced and based on actual data.





“No one medium is good for everything,” Greenfield sad. “If we want to develop a variety of skills, we need a balanced media diet. Each medium has costs and benefits in terms of what skills each develops.” She then goes on to talk about advantages and disadvantages of various media. Prensky should perhaps focus his ranting towards laparoscopic surgeons rather than educators as there is data that say gaming skills are a good predictor of these surgeons’ success.

Greenfield also refers to studies of classes where students are listening to speakers: Those who did NOT have access to Internet learned more than those who did. I think this speaks to the issue brought up during our open forum yesterday about focused listening and our need to work with students about when and where use of certain tools is appropriate and helpful and when they’re not. Perhaps if the US Congressmen had had such guidance, they wouldn’t have produced such embarrassingly juvenile twitter statements yesterday when listening to Obama’s speech. (click here to see Washington Post article.)

Are we becoming "Googlized?"


Greenfield also cites research about how “multi-tasking prevents people from getting a deeper understanding of information.” This speaks directly to the article from the Atlantic, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" As Nicholas Carr, the author, writes, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” He attributes this to the extensive time he spends on time surfing and searching, as well as interacting with his multiple other communication tools. I was disturbed to what extent I have felt the exact same thing happening to me.

Greenfield refers to studies that show that reading develops “imagination, induction, reflection and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary . . . reading for pleasure is the key to developing these skills.” Carr similarly refers to Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist from Tufts University who says, “We are not only what we read. We are how we read.” Wolf hypothesizes that the current approach of online reading for efficiency may be turning us into information decoders rather than deeply engaged readers who interpret, make connections, and grow original ideas. And she argues (and I believe many of us would concur) “deep reading is indistinguishable from deep thinking.”

Like we were all talking about yesterday, the current media seem to make us all a bit ADHD (not to mention OCD). Carr’s analysis is that since most online content is injected with “hyperlinks, blinking ads, and gewgaws” that we are distracted and unable to fully concentrate. Carr goes on to assert that Google and other such companies do not want to encourage “leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” How true—the more links I click on the more revenue in their account.

I appreciate what Google does in terms of efficiently giving me access to information and more effectively organizing the “tsunami of information” available. However, I now, more than ever, believe that we educators need to focus our energies and talents on finding ways to keep the deep and critical thinking central to what we have kids spend their time and energy on, regardless of the tools involved.

Adopt and Adapt: Implications for teaching & learningImplications for teaching & learning

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pagedooley/3032068934/

Obviously I’m an ignorant 21st century immigrant, but Prensky once again makes assertions that I find not only annoying, but make me wonder what his vision is for "Edutopia."

Catchy phrase, but on what grounds does Mr Prensky base all of his assertions about digital natives?

I agree with what many bright “connected” educators have to say about the “myth of digital natives” (read this commentary—as well as one by Chrissy Hellyer who led me to the connection!) However, I’ve not had any hard data on which to base my own thinking.

Now, having a couple 20 something digital natives live with us for several months, I wonder what data Prensky has to make these sweeping generalizations. These digital natives grew up in an economically advantaged situation, attending private schools and universities while having all the latest in technology at their finger tips. They are both very “connected” via technology, but not much more than me, the digital geezer?

Interestingly enough, there are some ways that they prefer to do “old things in the old way” that I would never even consider. For example, they both write their blogs out by hand before revising and posting. Here I am, the digital dinosaur, who hasn’t written anything by hand in many years. But Prensky says that we digital immigrants are the problem, the barrier to effective use of technology in the educational setting. Hmmm. . . . are we dialoguing with ALL kids and getting their input as to how these tools might help them learn or are we purposely creating a divide between "us" and "them"?

Implications for teaching and learning

How about Prensky's statement that today’s students request to have email and instant messaging . . . “that they NEED things faster than their teachers.” Like the digital natives, we are all expecting faster turn around time. But like us digital dinosaurs, the digital natives are questioning their “addictions” to some of these tools. For example, there are many digital natives giving up “facebook” for lent right this minute, as they think it is disruptive to their focus and studies. Interesting—what would Mr. Prensky have to say about that one?

What kind of learning does he value?

“I bet they would complete the “standard” curriculum in half the time it now takes.” So, Mr. Prensky believes the curriculum is about “getting through” or “coverage” rather than thinking and building understanding? I guess us dinosaurs just think more slowly (I do think my mind has been Googlized) than the digital natives or is it perhaps that Prensky prefers doing things fast to doing things well?

The New World of Work and the Seven Survival Skills (Wagner)

There are many futurists attempting to predict what kids will need for the unknowable future. For example, here is Tim Wagner’s list from The Global Achievement Gap:

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
2. Collaboration Across Networks and Leading by Influence
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
5. Effective Oral and Written Communication
6. Accessing and Analyzing Information
7. Curiosity and Imagination

Shouldn’t we educators be thinking of how we’re going to adopt and adapt our current paradigms in order to embed these key needed skills in meaningful, authentic learning, while simultaneously tapping into the appropriate (and often engaging) tools available?

Horizon Report

For that very reason, I think this report is informative and at the same time looking for solutions for the future that simultaneously recognize how kids are meeting their social needs of connection. For example, in the conclusion they state, “educational program could be positioned to step in and support moments when youth are motivated to move from friendship-driven to more interest-driven forms of new media use.” They are recognizing where kids are, but looking for specific ideas where educators can tap into for learning.

The report also recognizes that the focus should be about learning when they suggestion “kids and adults should first be on the same page on the normative questions of learning and literacy.” What a idea—dialoguing about what we need to learn and why BEFORE we talk tools!

The report also brings up the key issue of getting access to the many disadvantaged kids so this current “social revolution” doesn’t remain accessible only to the “elite.” I would like to read more about this issue so we don’t be come further divided between the haves and the have-nots. Anyone have some suggested reading, connections, thoughts on that one?