This week the discussion of digital citizenship and responsibility during technological interaction has come up in several of my classes and I wanted to share an amazing blog I found in this area that is really informative and well written.

The blog is http://melaniemcbride.net/

She has written a couple recent posts that I want to talk about. The first focuses on education in the face of so many new technology innovations.  Ms. McBride counters blind promotion of Web 2.0 with the fact that while technology is connecting people like never before it is still necessary to teach children the skills for proper social interaction.  The discussion begins with a simple and easy to understand definition of the terms/concerns associated digital community interaction.

Digital Citizenship- “This defines a participation focus for the public sphere – information and social spaces for the purposes of active citizenship and civic, public and social purposes (publics, commons, communities, participants). This is as distinct from the dominant frames of entertainment and consumerism (consumers, audiences, fans/followers). “

Digital Character- “This defines much needed social dispositions such as empathy, compassion and respect for difference and diversity (culture, race, class, gender, sexual identity, belief and cognitive styles). “

Mindfulness and Attention Literacies- “This defines an orientation towards more contemplative behaviours and approaches to technology use that are self-reflexive rather than impulsive. “

These definitions set a framework for the discussions teachers need to be having with their students about citizenship in their modern world. With all of the problems of cyber-bullying and flaming on blogs, not to mention the issues of intellectual property and copyright codes, it is a disservice to our students to not be addressing these issues.

The rest of the article flavors strongly of discussions of social justice that one might find in Dr. Shawgi Tell’s class, such as the need for teachers to check their priviledge or of the hidden curriculum (aka “a set of unspoken yet experienced power relations, ideological forces and social conditions that contribute far more to “student success” than the mastery of skills or curriculum.”), but McBride adds so new points. Specifically, the discussion of the term ‘followers’ in relation to social interaction and the necessity of an online ‘identity’ conflicting with the transitional identity that our students are developing.

I had never really given much thought to the term followers as a distinctly performer to audience relationship but as McBride points out, this terminology and approach to technology aided interaction creates a narcissism on the part of the performer (aka our STUDENTS). Going back to the Digital Character idea, it is important that as teachers we impart the important of community in digital social forums, to combat the inherit lack of citizenship values that result from the narcissism of entertaining your ‘followers’ .

As to the second point McBride makes about the transitional identities of students, I think that the ability to alter and adapt ones identity in online interactions can benefit students immensely. While students need to be savvy for online predators (and many are more savvy than you’d think) for students going through a period of development the ability to control you changes and identity online can be a source of solace for students who have less control over their ‘real’ lives.

The other two posts I want to quickly reference are about Visually Illustrating Media Literacy and an interview with the remix  musician Pogo. The first of the two is an interesting approach to getting students engaged in learning about Media literacy and Digital Citizenship while the second is a look at an example of the remix culture that our students are growing up in. Also, if anyone is looking for more remix technology I highly suggest you check out Pixton.

I have always been interested in using technology and this has logically followed me into my teaching practices. At least, I view it as logical. However, as I enter the teaching world bit by bit, I am coming to realize that not everyone shares my point of view.

Due this past week in my Art Methods, Materials, and Management class was a group literature unit. It required two other students and myself to collaborate and make three related projects about a literature source (we choose the Grimm’s Fairy Tales).  As part of my project I included a JeopardyLabs review game of the Elements and Principles of Art, Links to audio readings of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales on Gutenberg.org to be played during workdays, as well as youtube clips on quietube for a Banksy Art exhibit, and finally my group created a free website for our project that includes downloadable files for our lesson plans, photos of artists reference/exemplar projects, an overview to all three  projects, etc. In my head, this just seemed like a normal thing to do. JeopardyLabs is a fun way to ‘sneak in’ the dry E’s and P’s of art (even my class had fun playing part of the game during class). Fairy Tales are meant to be read aloud so the online audio is great and will keep the noise level down in my classroom. The quietube clip made it possible to show the Banksy clip because some of his other work is not as classroom friendly as what I was showing. Finally, as for the website, it was just a simple drag and drop free service that made it possible to not have to send out a bunch of different emails with all of our files that are just going to be lost in people’s inboxes. All of this made sense, and yes it took a little extra work now, but teaching this material again in the future will be easier and the lesson might be utilized by more than just me and the learning will reach more students and isn’t that the point?

I was met with shock and awe. The people in my class were flabberghast that I had all of these tech links. Even my group mates thought that I was insane for having so many online references and technology based additions to my lesson. My teacher nearly peed herself with joy when I showed the website.

So, My question is, How did integrated technology use in lessons become radical? I don’t really think that I’m going above and beyond here, but is no one else utilizing these tools too? Half of my classmates are first semester grad students right out of undergrad. Shouldn’t they be up on the use of technology in teaching? I know our students will be and to teach authentically to them I think we need to at least try.  I’m writing my research paper on Teacher’s attitude as it effect the use of technology in the classroom but I kind of thought that it was more of a problem for people who had not been raised with technology. The generations after me have grown up with this as the norm, why is it still radical to them?

Yesterday I posted my mini rant about clip art just before class as I was checking through both my Ed Tech blogs and my Art Ed classes blog.  Today I want to continue that topic of artist ownership in a less emotion driven way.

I have to admit that when it comes to most things in this class, I find my way pretty easily. For me, most computer related technology fairly intuitive, thus requiring only need minimal instruction focused mostly on new tools/ techniques/ features and the occasional scaffolding.  I tend to pick and choose from the information presented for what will be most applicable for my teaching. But this class I was blown away by several things.

This past class made me do a complete 180 from my last post. Yesterday I vented about how no one appreciates the design and artistry that goes into everything around them, especially ignoring the artist’s role in its creation.  Today, I have to eat my words. We actually discussed image rights in a class that was not an Issues in Art or Graphic Design class. Until now that was the only places where I have seen that conversation held.  And Yippee that other subjects are talking about it too.

The second part of the class I found really informative was the discussion of kids’ internet searches.  Even with my high school students, its nerve-racking to send them out to discover reference images when I know what they could get back. Especially when I have them dig into deeper/ darker themes in their art. In response to this I have created my own website for my students, specifically geared towards art related internet resources, but applicable to all disciplines.

The address is http://findartontheweb.webs.com

I have been working on building up this site for several years and am always updating with new resources.  Since this past class there are several from http://edts580.wikispaces.com/Tools I now need to add.  If you guys have any suggestions I welcome them all.

The other thing that drew my attention was the fake website. Now I understand that these some of these are teaching tools, but isn’t that a little reckless? You are purposely putting out bad information that anyone, including students that don’t have you to tell them it’s fake,  can access knowing that it will deceive some students.  Isn’t this bad? Is the it worth it?

Forewarning: I am going to be a negative nancy in this mini post.

I have been reading through the blogs this week and also having some discussion in my other classes about graphic organizers and clip art. To start out, I HATE clip art. I LOATHE it. I want it all to die a fiery fiery death. As an artist, I find it repellent.  As an art teacher, I find it uninspired. I fight a seemingly endless battle against clip art in my classroom. Don’t get me wrong, the artist who came up with the image, was just that- an artist. However the art student who uses it as reference for their own work is lazy. To design clip art is art, to use it is not. (This is not to say clip art doesn’t have its place- it’s just not in the art room) Also, the use of clip art ignores the artist. Whenever  you use clip art please remember someone designed and created that piece. Yet, no one ever credits the artist. When presenting a work of art the source and artist should be referenced in order to avoid plagiarism, but clip art is frequently used in all types of computer publishing technologies without mention or appreciation for the artist.

My fear is that all of this emphasis on graphic organizers with clip art that will “really engage” the students is basically saying that any image based media will automatically engage students. I am currently working with students at the youth prison Industry teaching them Adobe Photoshop (the professional standard) and I have to tell you just because they have the best image editing software available, does not mean they are remotely interested in completely projects. I feel this emphasis devalues my subject, as if to say that the students will complete project just because it involves some visual aspect.  Given the climate in schools towards the arts these days, I am probably being a little bit (or a lot) touchy.

But I wonder, between seeing clip art graphic organizers and the general anonymous clip art designing process, what effect is this having on students ability to appreciate the art and design they are daily bombarded with? Do any of the other subjects even care how they use and present graphics to students? Do you cite photographers or designers when showing images to students? Do they know that all of the images in their textbooks were made by someone?  Have they ever even glanced at the image acknowledgment sections of the texts they are given to see who did what? Does anybody out there care about this besides me?

This weeks post is going to be a hodgepodge or things I have meant to get remember to talk about but haven’t.

First, in response to the class discussion and use of semantic/concept maps I have a few comments. These are like sketch books with more organizational bubbles. I frequently, for both myself and my students, select a main topic and brainstorm in both text and quick clip art like drawings or small photographs the ideas behind an artwork. The sketching gets progressively more visual as the thinking becomes more cohesive. This has been the structure for brainstorming art projects since I was in high school. I don’t know if this means art is just way better utilizing at semantic maps but I think it is safe to say that art has a pretty good grasp of image based idea depiction.

Ok, bragging over.

Second, we discussed visual word cluster, specifically Wordle, and I thought I would include a picture I found ages ago called Last Words. It thought it relates in an interesting way. The image is linked to the website, but I haven’t visited it so view at your own risk.

I also wanted to bring up an artist by the name of Craig Damrauer whose art consists of text in math formula in order to derive meaning. The website is pretty neat and you should check it out here at:

http://www.morenewmath.com

Third, I thought I could mention that the is a website http://www.eduplace.com/graphicorganizer/ , that has print out handouts of various maps and organizers in PDF form.  These come from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and are legal for reproduction for education purposes.

Fourth, we discussed in class the usefulness of Text interface (or interaction, I can’t remember) for reading text to the children in Kidspiration and Inspiration as well as 60 sec recaps. Along that train of thought I found two services that offer audio books off the internet. The first is the gutenberg project http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page which many people have probably heard of but I thought I could include it.  For those of you who don’t know this is an online collection of free ebooks. In the special areas section it mentions the audio books.  The second and I think less know option is LibriVOx at http://librivox.org/ which specializes in audio recordings of public domain books. NOt every book is going to be there but there are a lot.

Alright, I think that this is enough for one post, don’t you?

As a result of my addiction to stumble upon and my near obsessive blog reading, I found a new site- techdirt.com; in particular http://techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0344536106.shtml . This is a post discussing the state of modern student writing. In this blog the author reiterates how in study after study, evidence has found that students are writing MORE THAN EVER. Now, I didn’t bring this up to debate this finding, however, of course students are writing more than in the past. More people are literate today than ever before. A bachelor’s degree is becoming, if it already hasn’t become, the industry standard. Texting is more popular than talking. Internet Writing in the forms of Blogs, to LiveJournal, to Facebook Updates, to Twitter, and a million more, have exploded in the last decade.   That’s a big DUH in the students are writing more than ever column.

The first reason I brought this article up is because I wonder if writing a lot and writing well are being confused. The author of the post states that the use of txt spk is just the evolution of speech patterns and that students know when it is appropriate to use. To the first point, I think that is an interesting concept. Speech patterns, slang and how people speak in general have always evolved. Just think back to reading any piece of Shakespeare in high school. Who didn’t question if the guy was really speaking English at one point or another?  On the flip side, I’m not sure that I want speech to evolve into txt spk. I’m not sold on the benefits yet. I’m also not certain that all students do understand when txt spk is appropriate. I know it will shock some of you but even as an Art teacher I give essays to my students. Crazy right? Because art doesn’t matter like a real subject, why should students need to write about it? (Sarcasm, if you actually believe that, I will strongly consider hating you) In the essays  of my ninth grade studio in art students – at an upscale suburban high school- many used language and sentence structure that was more akin to texting than academic writing. I’m glad that students are writing more, but I question whether it is better.

The second reason I brought up this post, is that it directly relates to the discussion in my ed tech class about the audience for our writing. The class discussion was in the context of why we should write blogs, and how it is not just so others can view our thoughts but to improve our processes for ourselves. While this is valid, the improve of writing may be better on a blog than in the form of an essay. The interesting point the post makes is that the motivation of having an audience may stimulate students to create better work, just as art teachers know that displays of student art inspire better artwork. The post discusses it best in a quote from Andrea Lunsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University,

“The fact that students today almost always write for an audience (something virtually no one in my generation did) gives them a different sense of what constitutes good writing. In interviews, they defined good prose as something that had an effect on the world. For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating, even if it’s over something as quotidian as what movie to go see. The Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn’t serve any purpose other than to get them a grade. “

I am lucky in that I come from a field of study that is very aware of the powerful effect of the audience, so this comes as no surprise to me, but I wonder if the other subjects have ever considered it. I remember in math class, if there was a possibility that I might have to show my homework on the chalkboard I took much more care to do it properly. Or if we were playing review jeopardy in any subject, I did not want to be the student who lost the points for my team, so I would study harder. Peer pressure and audience awareness are not necessarily bad things. Pride too can be a positive when students take ownership of the quality of their own work. A teacher who can maintain an appropriate balance is going to get the best results from their students.

In the discussion about online collaboration between students and faculty via tools such as Google docs, EtherPad, and Scribblar, the idea that students are collaborating and interacting much more easily and frequently was praised for its educational benefits. While I am the first to turn to technology to enhance my work and teaching, I am wary of the effects this technology can have.

First, let me begin by describing the reasons why I love this new technology so that you can better understand why it scares me. Basically, this technology, particularly  Scribblar, takes all the best features of the internet social mediums (Facebook, AIM, chatrooms) dresses them up for school and work by adding  some business applications to create a fast and feasible way to create, save and edit information (in a variety of formats) AS A GROUP. Distance, scheduling conflicts and multiple versions are a thing of the past. How GREAT is that? The multiple, simultaneous editors and real time discussions (both textual and audio) make meeting face to face unnecessary.  Meeting is so UNNECESSARY that you can complete projects without ever having to see another person. Isn’t that GREAT?

My answer is no, that is not great. That’s horrible. As if children aren’t already overly attached and dependent on technology. Group work in classrooms is never just about getting a project finished, just as school was never about solely learning facts. Since its inception, schools have been moral and social hubs in society. Children are taught reading, writing, arithmetic AND socially acceptable behaviors and codes of social interaction. Group work is designed to MAKE STUDENTS WORK TOGETHER. The ability to cooperate, get along and ultimately produce a quality product despite personal difference is a valuable skill that students of all ages need to know.  These new technologies serve to further isolate children in their own personal sterile bubbles while simultaneously connecting them to the whole world. Its wonderful that students can talk and share ideas with people on the other side of the world, however, I worry that this opportunity is at the expense of knowing the people who live next to them.  There are already online universities that remove all student body interaction, what’s next? Online elementary schools? (Now honestly, I’m exaggerating for effect. I don’t actually think that will happen, no comments about how I’m some radical looney on the edge please.) Interaction in cyberspace is fine and potential helpful, but it shouldn’t be the fall back or go to ‘solution’.  This type of technology should be a tool not a teacher. As such, students need to be trained to collaborate before they get the technology because without the basic skills the work will turn out poorly, if still flashy.

The most sensible conclusion that I can draw is to fall back on an old Greek adage,  Everything in Moderation.

I consider myself to be a fairly tech-aware type of person. I’m comfortable on both Macs and PCs, I spend way too much time on the internet, it could be said that my cell phone has been grafted to my hand, so I would just like to ask: Why have I never heard of Senteo before?

These things are brilliant. The assessment and class dialogue abilities are endless. Not to mention that between video games and cell phones students are already so familiar with handheld technologies which only makes this an easier transition. Even during the brief little demo in class my mind was spinning away on the possibilities if I could have access to them in a classroom.

This brings me to the possible answers to the question I proposed. Unfortunately my answers are also questions. First off, are the Senteos limited by brand/ copyrighted technology? This would explain a minimal supply. Or maybe it’s that they haven’t been around for very long and the word of mouth has not spread. If that’s so then I can understand a lack of familiarity with them. My third possible reason for never hearing of Senteos is that the cost of the units are too expensive. I don’t really believe this one, I have worked in an upper middle class suburban high school, even attending a seminar on a teacher resource day specifically geared toward educational technology, and there was no mention of Senteos. On the other hand at the same school I had to explain what an ELMO was to a couple of teachers and why it is so much more useful (and cost effective) in comparison to a smart-board. At least for an Art room anyways.

I don’t think I know enough about Senteos to explain why these are not in every classroom, but I wish they were because they are dead useful.