A Closer Look

Last year I conducted an action research project with a group of 15 youth at the half-way house where I teach. Part of the project included looking at a phenomenon related to youth and technology called, “Sexting.” Kazdin and Ibanga (2009) reported, “There's nothing coy about this 21st century amorous pursuit. Children as young as 12, who aren't sexually active, are sending explicit, provocative and even pornographic images to their peers.” Connecting digital tools and the social implications they have on youth and families, they further reported, “Sex easily and quickly integrated itself into the digital age; and now the teen trend of "sexting" -- where a user sends sexually explicit images or messages via text on a cell phone -- has parents struggling for a way to address the situation.” http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/truth-teens-sexting/story?id=7337547

Indeed, “Mobile Identity” has a significant affect on meaning making in terms of the framing and development of adolescent identity with the context of digital media (Stald, 2008). Stald (2008) appropriately argues, “…young people’s identity is influenced by their use of media, in particular personal communication media such as the mobile phone…it also implies a view of adolescent identity as mobile, changing and developing moment by moment and over time, as very sensitive to changes in the relations between friends and families, and to the emotional and intellectual challenges experienced and mediated through the use of the mobile phone (among other factors)” p.143.

As adolescents are “constantly negotiating who they are,” within “the exchange between friends which is needed in the reflexive process of identity construction” (Stald, 2008), the fact that adolescents often neglect key factors in terms of personal responsibility for the what is sent and received is disregarded.

The consequences of Sexting can have life long negative implications – youth can become registered sex offenders for irresponsible choices, such as sending suggestive photos of friend via email using a cell phone. See an example of one such case on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7340504

Stald (2008) emphasizes, “The mobile has become the ideal tool to deal with the pace of information exchange, the management of countless loose, close or intimate relations, the coordination of ever-changing daily activities, and the insecurity of everyday life” (p.144). Important questions arise within this context:

• How can the management of the myriad of relationships between and among youth be safeguarded as they maximize appropriate uses of digital tools?
• What are the implications for education in these contexts as students use digital tools inside of classrooms and on school campuses?
• What is the role of educators to guide appropriate processes of identity construction?
  

The Washington Post (Oei, 2009) reported in “My Students. My Cell Phone. My Ordeal,” a case of a principal being arrested for child pornography that involved a cell phone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702663.html

Among the four themes that Stald (2008) discusses in “Mobile Identity: Youth, Identity, and Mobile Communication Media,” none address as a critical component the need for appropriate safeguards for youth and educators. In my view this is a grave mistake; mistakes that will continue to have more grievous implications as digital tools permeate every aspect of society.

Learning Without Common Sense

Although, Boyd (2009) states that her “primary goal is simply to unveil some of the common ways in which teenagers now experience social life online” (p.121), her findings have greater implications for what she terms, “the civil society of teenage culture” (p.121) – namely, MySpace.

There is absolutely nothing that is going to convince me that children, teenagers, youth, young people, kids – whatever you choose to call them – should use social networking sites or the Internet to explore their identities. Explore the world, yes; interact with others, yes; but the formation of identity is rooted in the fundamentals of what they value. And I am not ashamed to say that the foundation of a stable identity originates and proceeds from family.

The problem: The “cultural resonance amongst American teens” (Boyd, 2009, 119) today is fraught with parental abandonment/absenteeism, neglect, abuse, divorce, indifference and an overall inability on the part of adults to impart a system of values that does not change with personal preference – what you they feel at the moment.

Let me answer Boyd’s question frankly: Teenagers flock to social networking sites like flies because no one is on the home front paying any attention to them; or guiding them in a direction that ensures them that they exist even if they don’t have a profile on MySpace. What is more, many adults flock to these social networking sites for the same reasons – they need personal affirmation. What a tragedy! Have technological advances clouded our senses? Are we to consent to raising children, guiding young people, and creating a future that we can be proud on the Internet? Via social networking sites? Indeed we, as a nation, are in great need of a transformation – and not a digital one!

A great example of responsibly using social networking sites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmWI5yTDOc&feature=related

Take a look at this video for parents about why teens use social networking sites from a teen's point of view. I think this teenage epitomizes why we need to help teens keep a safe balance with using these sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YT6sEDZiE

Let’s get down to the root of this issue. Boyd makes considerable sense here by posing these questions: What are youth learning from their participation in social networking sites, and what are the implications for youth identities? These two statements are particularly revealing to me, “those with continuous nighttime access at home spend more time surfing the network, modifying their profile, collecting friends, and talking to strangers”; and “Older boys are twice as likely to use the sites to flirt”(Boyd, 2009, p.121).
Adults need to be adults by making sure that teenagers are making safe choices about what they do and say on the Internet – to include the participation in social networking sites.

“To discipline and reprimand a child produces wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by an undisciplined child” Proverbs 29:15.

At the expense of creating a free space for teenagers to express themselves without restraint, we ignore truth and wisdom. How then can we expect youth people (who should model our behavior) to use sound judgment, when we, as adults, refuse to do so in these matters? I realize that we are discussing these issues in an academic setting, but we cannot become so lofty in our ideas that we loose our common sense.

Link to the article discussed in this blog post (Boyd, 2009): http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/dmal/-/6

Creativity Without Personal Responsibility

An interesting point: “Many languages do no have a word for literacy…two African languages…Xhosa and Sotho do not contain words for ‘literacy’ and ‘illiteracy’…More recently, literacy has been defined as a social practice” (Janks, 2010, p.1-2). Emphatically, I believe in what Stern (2008) identifies as, “…a sociocultural approach to identity, which emphasizes the role society plays in creating the conditions that encourage young people to address the matter of identity” (p.96). Literacy as a “social practice” is informed by those sociocultural factors, creating “conditions” and mediums through which people can express their identity. In the absence of literacy as a social practice, in the case of societies where literacy is not defined, people approach identity in other equally as meaningful ways. Fredrick Douglass said, “I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/frederick_douglass.html). Obviously, he was unaware of this imposed identity until he engaged society.

The appeal that youth today have to digital media is bound up in the ways in which education, literacy, power, culture, and identity converge in our present society. The need to have a presence and to be valued in a given society is timeless. How that presence is expressed has evolved, in that it is now articulated as a social practice in ways that demonstrate multiliteracies – to include web pages, blogs, and social networking sites. Our present sociocultural climate encourages youth to “look to their social world for cues about what principles and traits to internalize…” (Stern, 2008, p.97). What are some of those cues? Celebrities and pop stars divulge virtually every detail about their personal lives on the internet; and “Virtually all “real” and “wanna-be” stars have web pages and blog…” (Stern, 2008, p.101). These internalized clues have further implications for technology, education, and society because they signal to youth a hidden agenda for why, how, when, and for what purposes digital media is to be used. What is even more alarming is that at the root of this hidden agenda is the word “self,” (the ego), not identity (character). The result is the use of digital media to develop ego with a total disregard for the development of character. On the surface, Stern (2008) appears to be neutral in her examination of the why/how youth express themselves on the internet using various digital genres. In truth, she has bought into the hype – “the cultural value of self-promotion” (Stern, 2008, p.101). As a result, her piece, “Producing Sites, Exploring Identities: Youth Online Authorship,” offers limited insight into what the future holds for this sociocultural orientation toward the exaltation of self via digital media.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 6:2). Stern (2008) reports: "Youth authors' desire to address the public is not simply about actually being heard (or read) by many people, but also about feeling empowered by the mere prospect of mass reception" (p.104). My concern is what message(s) are youth authors sending that are being received by the masses? And why are they not concerned about what affect those messages are having in the lives of others? I think the answer to both questions is a reflection of an even greater hidden agenda: They are not responsible for anyone other than themselves.

The birth of a vision: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26676395#26676395

I think the real reason why there is no word for 'literacy' or 'illiteracy' in those cultures is the absence of self-exaltation to another's detriment.

I'm a Contender!

My 15 year old son, who is a genius - we just registered him today at El Paso Community College, and he's 15 years old - devours books almost daily. He's in my classroom right now searching for his latest treasure (a book he hasn't read), and he says, "Mom, this is a great quote, "Before you can be a champion, you have to be a contender." Wow!! Robert Lipsyte, author of "The Contender," said that.

After the summer session in the doctoral cohort, I have emerged with precisely Lipsyte's attitude - not that I wasn't a fighter before. But now, I have a fresh, new outlook on my assignment here on earth. I am a contender....a contender for my faith, a contender for my marriage, a contender for my children, and a contender for my students. I can't wait to see the champion in me. And I'm standing today...victorious again! Alive, strong, in the faith, excited about what I will learn next, and blessed to be surrounded by a family of loved ones and brilliant colleagues.

That's what "Reaching My Z" is all about. Welcome to my blog!

Web 2.0: Supporting Meaningful Learning and Conceptual Change

Post 1: Google Groups

William Butler Yeats said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” John Dewey said, “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.”

Meaningful learning does not begin with the student; it begins with the teacher. What is more, teaching is not just what the teacher does, it is the environment that exists between co-creators – teacher and student. Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Crismond (2007) argue that the driving force of learning is “…the understanding of and effort invested in completing a task or activity” (p.2). I believe that this level of understanding and investment of effort begins with educators’ commitment to individual students; and therefore student success. Great teachers understand that, “Humans naturally work together in learning and knowledge-building communities, exploiting each others’ skills and appropriating each others’ knowledge” (Jonassen et al., 2007).

Take a look at this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mojHYBDM6iQ&feature=related

What do you think? Do you think the makers of this infomercial are mutually invested in the success of their students?

Jonassen (2005) suggests that, "Through experience and reflection, they reorganize and add conceptual complexity to their theories as they learn...Conceptual change occurs when learners change their understanding of the concepts they use and of the conceptual frameworks that encompass them" (p.4).

One of the web 2.0 tools that I use to help facilitate conceptual change is Google Groups. The bedrock of web 2.0 is the collaborative, interactive, and user-centered design that fosters the process that learners undergo as they engage concepts - using the web as a platform.

This instructional video demonstrates the power of web 2.0 via a Google Application to make the process of learning the focus of the learning community - hence facilitating meaningful learning.







Post 2: Google Docs

Solomon and Schrum (2007) state: "The Web 2.0 movement stems fromt he concept that the Web (rather than a proprietary network) is the platform on which everything is built and users control their own data" (p.46). Google Docs is a powerful web 2.0 tool that allows users to do exactly what the authors describe - control their data.

As a Google account member, you have the ability to create a document that can be edited, modified, and shared with other users. The tool is not limited to word processing; you can create and share slide presentations, spreadsheets, forms, or drawings. Templates are also available to choose from.

The power of the tool is that others can update the document from their own computers - even at the same time in real time. In an educational setting, Google Docs affords teachers and students with a forum to conduct synchronous and asynchronous communication. What is more, at any given time, that document can be accessed by both private group members and/or the public - depending on what parameters the owner (creator) 0f the document prescribes.

In almost every class that I've taken at NMSU, I have used Google Docs to collaborate within my virtual learning communities. This instructional video demonstrates how to create and manage a Google document.








Post 3: Skype

Marc Prensky (2004) argues: "the educational software we use...should be created by the 'world' mind,' should not belong to any of us, and should be available, for free, to anybody, anywhere, who wants to use it" (as cited in Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p.71).

Although Skype is not educational software, it is within this framework that Prensky emphasizes - the 'world mind' - that Skype can be best understood. Communication and collaboration are two 21st century skills that are vital to a global economy. Acording to Solomon and Schrum (2007), the Theory of Connectivism is an approach to learning consideres technology as the key factor that propels prevaling learning theories into the digital age.

Siemens (2004) argues, "Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions..." (as cited in Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p.40). Skype provides a platform or forum for the "diversity of opinions" to come together via Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or video conferencing. VoIP is routing voice conversations over the web or through an IP-based network (Solomon & Schrum, 2007).

This is a powerful web 2.0 tool because it operated within the framework of interoperability and interactive information sharing. Teachers and students can chat with or without video about assignments; they can collectively brainstorm ideas, and/or reach beyond virtual learning barriers in online classes by getting to know one another via Skype. Information shared on Skype is never passive - it is always user-centered and collaboration based.

This instructional video demonstrates how to download and launch Skype; and how to make a Skype call.

Conceptual Change: All three web 2.0 applications support Jonassen's (2005) premise: "Conceptual change arises from the interaction between learners' experiences and learners' conceptions while engaged in problem solving or some higher order cognitive activity" (p.5).

What are higher order cognitive activities? Bloom's Digital Taxonomy catagorizes them as the following: http://schaefferyouth.pbworks.com/f/Blooms%20Digital%20Taxonomy%20Pic.png

All three applications that I discussed and demonstrated operate within "Creating" in the digital taxonomy, which is at the top of the higher order thinking skills - to inlcude:

Generating/creating new ideas,
products, or ways of viewing
things (Putting
together/combining ideas,
concepts or elements to develop/
construct/build an original idea or
engage/stimulate in creative
thinking).
Designing, Constructing,
Planning, Producing, Inventing,
Devising, Making, Building,
Programming, Filming,
Animating, Blogging, Video
Blogging, Mixing, Remixing,
Wiki-ing, Publishing,
Videocasting, Podcasting,
Directing/producing

http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf

"The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change."

~Carl Rogers

Web 2.0 teaches learners how to learn and change.