Feb 18th class
Thank you Mike for getting us started with such a thought provoking presentation. Two of your points really screamed at me given my recent experiences. First, the idea of filtering and the challenges that comes with it. Secondly, we started talking about assessment, what are we assessing, the trouble with setting criteria and separating artistic expression and content.
The dreaded filter. Where do we draw the line and who decides? Most of us, being the technology savvy educators that we are, have a multitude of online resources that we have sourced, researched, and apply to our teachings. Nothing is more frustrating then planning a lesson at home only to have the whole thing fall apart because the website that you want is blocked. In class Ben mentioned that we need to protect our students from the extremes, like pornography. Many parents would argue that schools need to protect further, but how far? Due to the unfamiliarity and constantly changing nature of sites like Youtube, Facebook, and other personal content sites, control is impossible unless you just block it completely. There are, as Roman stated, ways to go around the filters and access blocked content, so the students that want to use it inappropriately will do so regardless.
The odd thing about technology and the internet is that the onus is put on the school to protect (filter) students from misuse. If a student were to use gym equipment to injure another student, or used art supplies to create inappropriate imagery, the fault would be with the student. If a student were to bring in pornographic magazines into the school, the student would be at fault, but if the student actively sought these images online at school and was able to access them, the school would be questioned. With technology for some reason the fault seems to be placed on the school. Since the school is the provider of the means, in this case they are also responsible for controlling the content. I don’t feel that this is a fair distribution of responsibility to put on schools alone.
We also can not have completely unblocked content either. Where and how the line gets drawn though is definitely beyond my narrow scope. The line does need to be constantly examined and free to be moved. It should be negotiated by parents, students, teachers, administrators, divisions, province, and lastly the IT person that flips the switch.
The second idea of how and what do we assess is something that I have really struggled with as a teacher. Is it our job to only assess content? To answer it quickly, no. We need to go beyond content. I can not think of any job in which I will get hired based on my knowledge of grade 11 physics, history, or pre-calculus math. There are not too many everyday life situations that are going to call on that content either. We have to teach it though, but I would argue that the content can and should be the means by which we teach life skills. Aspects of education include teaching the whole person. To make a student a valued member of society through life skills and citizenship. This is where the artistic (and many other skills) would come into our assessments. If the expectations are made clear that your classroom, and the school community at large, is more about the content mastery, then it is valid to assess these other skills.
Wow, we should just write our blogs together! I just wrote very much the same thing on my blog.
ReplyDeleteWoops, something went wrong there. Sorry, here's the rest of my comment:
ReplyDeleteAfter I wrote my blog, which is similar to yours, I thought about the conversation I am having with a colleage about English. I said under the same sentiment that English (appreciating and writing) is a creative thing and it shouldn't be picked apart in terms of assessment and it should be forced on them like the end all, be all skill. I just showed my class something from Cambridge University. It was a paragraph that was all scrammbled up, no grammar, no spelling, no punctuation and all of use could read it. So, someone with the bare minimum skill can still succeed. So, high school English is really only geared for the people that are going to pursue a high level of English skills in their future careers. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not for a second suggesting that teaching English skills in not important. I am merely making a case for assessing it to the point of crushing the creativity out of it, or hurting the feelings of a student who tried very hard and is just weak in English. Also, in terms of filtering, it's kind of the same scenario as sensorship in books and books that have been taken off the shelves in schools due to content or inappropriate language. So, my point is that the more I look at it, the controversy over filtering and assessing technology is aparent in almost all subject areas, perhaps technology is just the newer trend.
Typo again: "shouldn't be forced on them" not should be forced on them.
ReplyDeleteI like your drawing parallels to things like misusing gym equipment and so on. Considering safety is logical and must be done, but to what extreme? We could keep kids in bubble wrap I guess. In high schools especially, kids must be given responsibility, when they are, the majority respond. I also agree with most of your comments on the 'dreaded filter'. There needs to be discussion, not decisions by a decree. Where I diverge is that I think, unless the filter is school based and controlled (and is site by site, not blanket blocking), that there should be no filtering at all. I don't think protecting kids from all evils (question: who defines what is bad?) is our responsibility, but teaching them about use/misuse is. That is all I will say here, I will add more in my blog (which is almost ready to paste & post)- and no doubt in response to Lana's too!
ReplyDeleteWith regards to assessment, I agree we need to assess the 'whole' child. The problems arise when we are told by MB Ed that only outcomes should be assessed. One problem I have with that is often the big ideas of curricula (like the processes in Math) are missed. In terms of using technology, I perhaps did not explain myself well enough in class. I think we do assess the use of the tech/creativity, but it should be constructive feedback (like all feedback) and be considered as separate from the content (outcomes) - if that is possible. In many ways, elementary schools have it right and have reports on work habits etc. I think the problem might be the structure of schools, we need to move from the industrial model. If we value citizenship, values, and so on then lets get it into the open and report/assess those areas. Am I making sense? Thought provoking posts, James - thanks!
Filtering. The nemesis of many a good teacher. What is and what isn’t filtered. English teachers are told which books to read and which not to. Religion is not taught in (most) schools, yet our diverse and multiethnic population almost demands that we do teach it in order to develop an understanding and sensitivity of other cultures. How about the teaching of history? How many high school history books are written from an indigenous knowledge perspective? This would be the post-colonial filter at work. Then there is the math filter: “doing” math rather than “using” math. We do math by solving equations, simplifying expressions, graphing lines, etc. We use math by examining, experimenting, and applying the concept of slope in finding the appropriate incline for a wheelchair ramp, etc. This is the teacher filter at work - deciding that the most appropriate and effective way of teaching math is the way they learned when they were in school (often an industrial age approach). In my classroom, I have a filtering a networking application called NetOps that allows me to select what students can access and what they can’t when on computers. Unfortunately, what this application tends to do is chain me to the desk preventing me from engaging in quality interaction with the students. For the most part, I do not use it because I prefer to have a conversation with the student regarding appropriate and inappropriate use of computers. Not all cooperate. I imagine the dissenters do not have filters at home either thus they lack the moral compass that guides them in making sensible decisions. If learning is to be pervasive, students will need to acquire the critical thinking skills that empower them to serve as their own filter. Like Mike N. said, when given responsibility, most children do respond.
ReplyDeleteJames, interesting points. I would highlight your point on whose responsibility it is to protect. Like you mentioned, it should be a shared responsibility, teachers, school, administration, province, parents, the students themselves and I completely agree with you. What you also highlighted, and I am also in agreement with, is that this shared responsibility is automatically delegated to the school and the others are absolved of this duty. Perhaps this is where we should bring the policy debates to. The need to relook, and rethink "the responsibility to protect" in an online space. Before such policy discussions would be had, there are lots of literacies that must be built, media literacy, online security literacy, information literacy, etc. And then we can engage all stakeholders on their shared responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, this debate does not only exist in the classroom or the school setting. It is an age old debate that has existed in the broadcast, print industries and now in the Internet. In broadcast and print, the debate is whose responsibility it is for a published content? The editor, the newspaper publisher or printer, the author or reporter? In the broadcast industry, is it that of the presenter, the radio or tv station, or the author of the content or the station manager? In most cases, the editor or station manager takes the blame for everything that is published or broadcast.
On the Internet, the buck rests with the Internet service provider and the author of the content and the organization whose content is hosted. Everyone. Shared responsibility.
Perhaps what we are waiting for is the resolution of these issues in these other areas and then it will trickle down to the Education space. But shouldnt it be the other way round?
Great comments there, Ben! For some reason, I cringed when I read "shared responsibility" in your second-last paragraph. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you that that is how to approach (what I will call) content organization. Unfortunately, my short experience with teaching has given me a jaded reaction to how it might work. I have always felt that to allow a student to benefit from their school, the effort involves parents, teachers, community, and the student, but I feel that when things turn to the more negative side of things, that people are more quick to point the finger or place the blame. It is almost as if the involvement of all parties breaks down once things go off track. Is it too utopian to think that all parties involved should work together in good and in bad? In sickness and in health?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I like your last question, especially with the idea that Education should be leading the way for so many issues. The mind of a student seems almost untouched by the pressures of "adult society" and it may be cliché to say it, but the world could learn a lot from what children know and believe.
James, I find what you said about phys ed equipment and computer use questionable. The Public Schools Act (Safe Schools) says that principals are responsible for establishing school codes of conduct and that the codes must include specific statements, including those which focus on the use of technology. Further, in a code there must be statements outlining consequences if policies are violated. Suspension of expulsion can result if students do something deemed injurious to the welfare of the school (see http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p250e.php). Schools provide and environment for learning, but while in the environment, certain behaviours are expected. I think students can be held accountable whether in the gym or the computer lab. And, so can teachers.
ReplyDelete