Search this site
Other stuff

 

All banner artwork by Brady Johnson, professional graphic artist.

My latest books:

   

        Available now

       Available Now

Available now 

My book Machines are the easy part; people are the hard part is now available as a free download at Lulu.

 The Blue Skunk Page on Facebook

 

EdTech Update

 Teach.com

 

 

 


Entries from July 1, 2011 - July 31, 2011

Saturday
Jul232011

BFTP: One Big Room

A weekend Blue Skunk feature will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post July 29, 2006. This post also appears as a column here. As more and more kids get unfiltered Internet access via cell phones, tablets, etc. via personal 3G connections, bypassing the school's filtered nework, this topic becomes even more timely.

Anyone who thinks he or she can control kids' access to online information or experiences is spitting in the wind. We are not facing a simple technical challenge. We are swimming against a cultural tide.

Neil Postman explains why in his book The Disapperance of Childhood (1982). It's been awhile since I have read this book, but as I remember, Postman's arguments go something like this. Childhood is a social construct. Before the Industrial Revolution, children were simply treated as small adults. They dressed like adults, they worked like adults, they lived where adults lived, and they saw what adults saw. Adults and children before the second half of the 19th century all lived pretty much in one big room.

 

 

The rise in industrialization gave rise to the concept of "childhood." Society started treating children differently than they did adults, separating them by dress, by activity and especially in experience. We kept kids in their own rooms with very limited access to adult rooms. For their own safety, of course.

Postman argued that with the ubiquity of mass media (pre-Internet days), society no longer has the ability to keep children away from adult venues and sights. We are all back into one big room, as it were. Kids will see and experience again what adults see and experience.

When I first started arguing against filtering back in 1994, I'd ask workshop participants if they felt these were appropriate materials for children to be seeing and reading:

  • Sex After 35, Why It’s Different, Why it Can be Better
  • Men & Sex - Their 7 Secret Wishes
  • How Our Sex Life Was Saved
  • Major New Sex Survey - What You Don’t Know...
  • The Sexual Games of the American Male
  • He Want’s What? Men’s 6 Biggest Sexual Fantasies
  • The Sex Skill Men Adore (& How to Do It Well)
  • The Hugh Grant Syndrome - Why Guys Pay for Sex
  • Five Total Turn-ons Men Can’t Resist

Everyone agreed that these were not materials suitable for kids. And they should be denied access to them.

Too late, I'd say. Each of these were headlines splashed on the front cover of popular magazines easily found near the grocery store checkout lane (and last I checked things have not become less explicit.)

This cultural shift that is removing the wall between the kids' and adults' rooms is unnerving to say the least. Our natural inclination as parents and educators (and even politicians, I suppose)  is to shelter and to protect. But responsible adults also recognize that it is in their children's best interest not to shelter, but to teach children how to protect themselves in the big, bad world.

As we are all pushed further and futher into the one big room, we don't have a choice. By blocking access to blogs and chat and other Internet resources in schools and homes, we are only denying access to kids in places where any actual adult instruction may occur. So just how ironic is that?

Image source

Thursday
Jul212011

What's a friend?

Thank you for being a friend
Andrew Gold

The ability to create circles of types of acquaintances in Google+ has me asking: What exactly constitutes a "friend?"

That was a pretty easy question to answer as a kid whose "circle" was comprised of classmates, neighborhood hoodlums, and the odd cousin. I remember a pen-pal or two, but friendship was a term easily defined: other kids you liked and played with.

Facebook asked most of us to re-think who our "friends" are. What's the difference between a friend, a family member, a colleague, and an acquaintance? I am regularly haunted by seeing names that look vaguely familiar, but I just can't place. Is this someone I once worked with? Someone from the community? Someone to whom I was once married? Is a person you see once a year at a conference really a "friend?" Is someone you only know online a friend? Is it OK to say to someone who you don't know - or don't remember, "I don't want to be your friend." How do we navigate all these social networking streams without hurting feelings or making blood enemies or being a cad?

Where is the Miss Manners of Facebook?

Anyway, with Google+ and it's "circles" that help define relationships, I've decided to become much more granular. Here are some circles I've created so far:

  • I have no clue who these people are.
  • Potential stalker
  • Potential stalkee
  • People who owe me money
  • Relatives I like
  • Relatives I avoid
  • People I see at conferences once a year
  • People I avoid at conferences once a year
  • People who say nice things on my blog
  • Trolls
  • People who care enough about me that they'd like to know what I had for breakfast (0)
  • Nagging editors
  • Women with really cute profile photos
  • Creepy people, nut jobs, and fellow bloggers
  • Misc.

 

OK, maybe I am being a little tongue-in-cheek here, but it is nice to easily be able to group your "friends" according to what information you like to send out and whose information you'd like to read.

Like I opined yesterday, these easy-to=create groupings will make Google+ especially useful for teachers and students.

My guess is that Facebook will remain my tool for communicating with my personal friends (at least people I could pick out of a line-up) and relatives; Google+ for professional colleagues; and Linked-In for anybody who wants to network.

The world is becoming ever more confusing.

Tuesday
Jul192011

Why I'm kind of excited about Google+ and schools

While my expertise is now nearly as lacking for Google+ as it's been for Facebook, I can't help but see how this tool, when available as a part of Google Apps for Education, may be a game-changer in how students and staff communicate for educational purposes.

Here's why:

  1. Google+ allows one to have a separate "professional-only" venue for online networking. Facebook suffers from having started as a "social" networking site - "social" having a recreational, personal, even, frivilous connotation. But with Google+ as a part of GoogleApps for Education, the teacher's Google+ account can be a school-only or professional-use-only tool. To keep kids and parents out of one's degenerate personal Facebook information (since one is not supposed to have multiple Facebook accounts), teachers have had to resort to Fanpages and other limited means of utilizing Facebook. Guidelines were needed. Google+ for work and Facebook (or a personal Google+ site for personal use) keeps things simple.
  2. Circles in Google+ are easy to make, edit and delete. Hey, teachers are all about circles - reading circles, sharing circles, literature circles. Google+ circles seem easier than e-mail lists for communicatng with groups ranging from "all third graders" to "my seventh hour biology class" to "the team working on The Crucible presentation" to "the members of my PLC." 
  3. There is a possibiliy of a "walled garden" use of Google+ for younger students. I am hoping that, like with GoogleApps, the default setting for sharing will be "within the domain only." While e-mail, Docs and webpages should be shareable with those outside school, especially for secondary students, I still like the comfort of knowing that we might be able to restrict Google+ for elementary students to only those users within our own district.
  4. There is already a familiarity with Gmail, GoogleApps, and other Google interfaces. When I ask students about whether we should offer students a school-supplied social networking tool like Edmodo or Saywire or a Ning, I invariably get: "No, let's just use Facebook since we already use it." Google+ might be an acceptable compromise. Students and staff are already using GoogleApps and have a regularly used account. Established school Google accounts mean not having to create yet one more user name and password. GoogleApps are easily accessed from the iGoogle portal (or just from Gmail). Google+ will be seen as an enhancement to our current tool set, not "just one more thing to learn."

I've always wanted our school to provide an educational networking tool that took advantage of Facebook's ease of use and popularity, but somehow remained dedicated to learning.

Google+ might be just what I've been looking for.

See also: What does Google+ mean for schools? Eric Curtis on Apps User Group, June 28, 2011