Month: January 2020

This week’s bundle of reading seem to be centered around more projections of what future EdTech would look like. For instance, Siemens raised points such as “New forms of digital in/exclusion” and “Reimaging forms of EdTech suitable for an age of Climate Change”. My opinion on these articles has remained the same since embarking on my journey in this M.Ed course, and that is these articles are simply good banter material during coffee break, but far too theoretical and limited in use to be of worthwhile consideration. The idea of new forms of in/exclusion online calls on researchers to address “links between developments in technology, inequality and education”, and design education that is more accessible to all. My response is that while commendable, it is near-impossible to implement a catch-all approach given that actual state of public (or private) education. Social constraints will be a far greater barrier as those who are not “well-resourced” would prioritize financial stability over education; no amount of accessible education or technology can immediately put food on the table like an actual job. Thus the onus should be on policy makers to change their mindset that higher education leads to higher income. If the economy is floundering, then those high income jobs simply are not available (or only available to those at the highest education level, which defeats the whole purpose of education equality).
On the idea of sustainable and environmentally-friendly EdTech innovations, this is absolutely counterproductive. To make clear, I am not against those concepts nor the need to have technology which aligns with them. The issue is posing constraints early on would only seek to hamper innovation – optimization should come afterwards, not before.  His statement that this should be “priority for everyone working in the area of education and technology” is also laughable as those IN education and technology are and well aware of sustainability issues; it’s the population that is ignorant or malicious (ie. those rolling back environmental protection) which is having a greater strain on everyone’s limited resources.

Using bigger/faster(?) buckets to drain water from a sinking boat will lose out to the guy drilling holes in it. Everytime.

I feel this week’s article “When inclusion excludes: A counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media and Technology” raised the most questions and concerns. It discusses all the ideal benefits which open education has been touted to have, and in particular, its inclusive and collaborative nature. What resonated with me the most is how the article provides counter arguments against these ideals and even points out the implicit negative consequences these approaches have. These overlooked reasons are why initiatives to implement open education in schools are often unsuccessful, as they are less manageable when placed in actual practice. For example, the idea that students engaged in discussion forums (after being introduced to ‘netiquette’) would be a more democratic method of learning as the environment is ‘safe’ and ‘open’, thus allowing for more diverse conversation. I would argue strongly against this concept for several reasons: 1) it’s highly unrealistic to ask students, especially online-only students, to openly share their opinions when they’re unsure how others would react to it. There’s also the lack of communication cues such as tone or posture to help elicit humor like sarcasm, making students (ought to) think twice before commenting. 2) The idea that learning from a crowd is a good thing – most social media sites are struggling to keep the influx of hate speech and misinformation from spreading. It’s also due to this ‘wisdom of the crowd’ that gave rise to anti-vaccination movement and climate change denial. Some topics are just not up for debate as one side is fueled by ignorance and aversion of factual knowledge. 3) Moderation of discussion content may seem beneficial, however it has the potential to turn it into an echo chamber of only positive statements or ones that align with the majority of the crowd; hence shutting down diversity as counterarguments would invite risk onto oneself.
While I support the movement towards open access and open education, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The concepts and current structures in place are still not well researched, given the required time to conduct analysis and scope in the field of education. Educators should refrain from jumping into full implementation without laying the groundwork such as establishing a classroom community or having the technological & pedagogical competency to guide open access learning.

An interesting point was brought up during the video conference this week about who is responsible for teaching digital citizenship. With the prevalence of the internet and social media platforms, it’s not difficult to find an individual’s information such as hobbies, interests, recent likes, etc. What’s concerning is the oversight of how posting such information can be detrimental to their themselves. Recent news reported how an employee lost their job over posting a complaint about their company, through their “anonymous” Twitter account. Growing up, we’re often told the same piece of advice: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything”; which seems to have gone out the window as the plethora of stories about people getting fired over posts continues to grow. Which brings us back to the question of who should be responsible to introduce, remind, and outline online expectations. Being a more recent graduate from the Professional Development Program (PDP), I recall we had several workshops on professional conduct which touched upon the issue of social media presence, as well as further class discussions around concerns over past / present / future social media use. In addition, we were also taught (and repeatedly reminded by the district) that simple things such as photographs with students for yearbook, newsletters, or social media need to be treated carefully due to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). In summary, teacher training and school districts have taken some of the responsibility in preparing teachers to recognize (and perhaps demonstrate) digital citizenship. But the next step would be whether it’s a responsibility of the teachers or parents or both to teach students about their digital footprint.

The answer isn’t straightforward as differing opinions or approaches between teachers and parents, combined with some teens’ aversion to risk assessment, results in efforts being non-productive or counter-productive. For example, parents may wish to prevent their children from accessing the internet, which would make it difficult for teachers who wish to introduce them to good practices. Parents (and teachers!) who make an effort to teach about digital literacy can sometimes be counterproductive as the other party does not practice what they preach, or make an effort to remind students to exercise good judgement before making a statement online. There’s also the belief that they cannot be identified, held accountable for their messages, or care enough about the consequences of their actions. All together, it makes the idea of “teaching” digital citizenship similar to teaching math: I can show you all these fancy symbols and numbers… but how likely will you remember any of it?