Last evening in my EDTC 400 class was the second of the Great EdTech Debate. The 2nd debate of the evening was: Surveillance of student data and online activities by school systems is necessary to ensure student safety. Jordan Wenger v. Jesse Ducharme
Wenger agreed with the statement. She states that surveillance is necessary to protect students because 1) it protects and prevents students from external threats such as shootings, bullying, and suicides. 2) Protection from hackers. 3) Contact tracing.
Reports to parents on students’ search activities
Long distance learning due to COVID 19
Ducharme disagreed with the statement. He states that surveillance is not necessary for the protection of students, but instead harms their safety. It is harmful to their safety because 1) it erodes their privacy. Students’ personal information and data can be prone to hackers and used by corporations e.i. Protractor. 2) Students are one step ahead of school with technology. They will learn to find a loophole, even risky ways. 3) Since schools are the ones to deem what is safe and moral for students to access online. Some students will be barred from resources that they might need. For a student researching about their sexuality in a conservatives community.
I agree with Jesse surveillance of students’ data and online activities by school systems is harmful. Things can get so out of hand. Where is the line drawn? I would feel wired when people can track and see what I was doing all the time. But I understand Wenger’s point about preventing and intervening in cyberbullying. It would be easy to find out the student who caused the bullying if there was a monitoring system in place. In my opinion, a school can have surveillance on THEIR devices. For example, schools can monitor activities on school-own computers, laptops, and tablets. However, there should be no surveillance on kids’ personal social media accounts or their devices.
This evening in my EDTC 400 class was the second week of our The Great EdTech Debate. The 1st debate of the evening was: Social media is ruining childhood. Caleb Lueck v. Sarah Molly Yungmann.
Lueck agreed with the statement. He argues that social media is ruining children’s childhood based on three reasons. 1) Influencers and the new form of entertainment. Kids nowadays look up to many influencers. Many influencers’ content is not geared towards kids but to teenagers and young adults. Kids see this and are exposed to content that they are not ready for yet and they are influenced to do questionable things. For example, Jake Paul encouraged kids to drop out of school. Unlike TV where all content, not just kids’ content, had to go through multiple levels of screenings and approval processes to de deemed appropriate to air, social media has no clear-cut guidelines. For example, there is numerous instance where TikTokers post oversexualizes content. 2) Sharenting and kidinfluencers. Sharenting is defined as parents overshare content and personal information about their kids. While kidfluencers are defined as child stars that parents create and exploit for money. For example Ryan’s World. According to their YouTube channel, the channel has posted at least 1 video per day. Ryan essentially has worked a 9-5 hour job since he was three. Kids have no consent when parents post things about them because of the power dynamics parents have with their children. 3) Negative effect on mental health. According to Forbes, children’s mental health is impacted due to comparisons of their life with others. Most of the time people post a very edited section of their life and only the best parts. Studies show that social can lead to a lack of empathy which then can lead to bullying. People are more prone to cyberbullying because people can hide behind the screen and bullies never confront the people they bully. This can also lead to depression.
If they make mistakes kids get to attack and cyberbullied
Kids Instant gratification – they learn that their values are based on the number of likes and when the number is low their mental health gets affect.
FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out)
Pressure to grow up Girls feel like they have to dress more maturely and boys feel like they have to act manlier due to how they see influencers act. what
In conclusion, numerous reasons can ruin children’s childhood.
Yungmann disagreed with this statement. She argued that social is not ruining kids’ lives but instead enriches childhood. According to Willbold’s article “Social Media In Education: Can They Improve The Learning?”, social media improves kids’ learn for these reasons. 1) Social media helps develop children’s communication skills on multiple levels. 2) It helps kids develop collaboration skills. Kids share ideas, gain new perspectives and connections with other people in different countries. For example, social networks with people who have the same interests and hobbies. 3) It develops creativity. It is a conduit for self-expression, gives access to resources that inspire them, and pique their curiosity. In conclusion, social media does not ruin children’s childhoods instead it enriches it because it helps children learn digital literacies such as communication, collaboration, and creativity.
I agree with all the points that Lueck and Youngmann made, but the statement was “Social media is ruining children’s childhood.” This is a very black and white statement. I agree with Youngmann that the use of media social does enrich kids learning, but that is in school content where tech and media are centered on learning. But social media outside of academia can be very risky. since social media is used for entertainment and business. Lueck has given examples of kids’ lives being ruined by exploitation through the use of social media. e.i. Ryan from Ryan’s world. Another that one that comes to my mind is Lil Tay. She was deemed the internet’s ‘youngest flexer.’ These kids can become entertainers and are being explored for the business of making money. Even the average kids’ life is being ruined because their whole life can is posted online. Think about your Facebook and Instagram is a timeline of your life. And people can dig up some dumb posts from your past and hold you accountable for a post that you made as a kid. In conclusion, it is ruining SOME children’s childhood therefore it is ruining children’s childhood.
This evening in my EDTC 400 class was the first day of our The Great EdTech Debate. The 2nd debate of the evening was : Schools should stop teaching “googleable” facts and information. Sarah Stroeder v. Sarah MacCaskill.
First of all what is a google fact? A google fact is are trivial facts that can be looked up in any search engine and that their usually easy to memorize.
Stroeder agreed with the statement that schools should STOP teaching “googleable” facts and information. On the reasons of, first is it irrelevant to teach facts that students can look up on their own. For example, teaching students to memorize the multiplication table, when they can just look it up on a device. Everything carries a phone with a calculator app with them or they can use search it up on any search engine. Second, it places too much emphasis on memorizing. Again teaching students memorize multiplication, instead of having them memorize it, teach them to learn WHY 6 x 3 equals eighteen. Third, is it detrimental because that is takes up time where students should be taught critically thinking, collaboration, and innovation. Essentially, students need more time to understand things more in dept and less time memorizing trivia.
MacCaskill disagreed with the statement. She states that school should KEEP teaching. On the reasons of, first these “googleable” facts make up the make of knowledge and commonsense. Second, it create a bank of information that students can build on which can lead to deeper understanding. And these “googleable” facts and information are reference a that students can use to create, critically think, and think practically.
I think agree with MacCaskill that students should be taught “googleable” facts because is does make up the bases of a lot of knowledge. I think people take for granted that kids should already know bases facts because its considered commonsense or its knowledge that everybody should inherently know. Which I disagree with from personally experience. For example, when I was in high school, one my sibling’s schoolmates (both of them were in high school with me) thought that was a crust that covered the Earth that it protected They believed that we lived under the Earth. They spend over a decade with no one telling the truth because its commonsense that we live on the surface of the Earth not under it. I conclude that we still should teach “googleable” facts and information.
This evening in my EDTC 400 class was the first day of our The Great EdTech Debate. The 1st debate: Technology in the classroom enhances learning. Logan Fettes v. Jocelyn King
Fettes agreed with the statement. He stated that technology DOES enhance student learning in the classroom. His agreements were it helps close the achievement gap. According to this 2014 GSE report at risk-students benefitted the most from classroom-integration of technology because the teachers use technology for interactive learning. The teachers used technology to explore and create, rather than technology replacing then the teacher. Fettes argues that it’s the way an educator integrates technology that will determine if technology will or will not enhance student learning. Fettes gave examples of pedagogies that teach educators how to properly integrate technology in the class. Fettes uses the examples of TPACK and ASMR.
King disagreed with the statement. She argues that technology in the classroom does NOT enhance student learning because it degrades student learning and proves a distraction. For example, King references this article, “Attention, Students: Put Your Laptops Away.” It highlights a study that gave evidence that students who wrote longhand notes had better memory external storage and encoding functions, than the students who type their notes. Another example, King gives is that students have a hard time focusing on lecture or task when their ability to use their electronics devices on class, mailing because there are multi-tasking. According to the Washington Post, when college students multi-task the quality of their work is reduced.
I honestly agree, with Fettes, that technology does enhance students’ learning, but I also agree that with King that technology does not enhance students’ learning because it can be an obstacle. The keyword CAN. Technology can be an obstacle. I think that whether technology enhances or degrades student learning is on the educators. It how educators use technology in the class and how they teach their students how to handle technology. Do educators teach students when it is appropriate to use their computers? For example, using a computer to research during work time is good, but using it during a lecture to go on Facebook is inappropriate. Educators need to not only teach when to technology but which devices are more suitable for different contexts. For example, using the school computer to do research is appropriate. While using your phone for research can be seen as rude. Another thing that students need to learn, is what resources can their use to enhance their learning? For example, an app like Forest help with time management and homework helps keep track of your assignments, due/test dates, and important school days such as field trips. I conclude that it is the educators that will determine if technology will enhance student learning or not.
So it’s been a year since I started to learn how to sew, particularly hand sewing. Since then I actually bought a sewing machine (got it from Walmart). I also think I was driven to buy it because of COVID boredom.
Learning to use a sewing machine is not that hard. The main things to learn are:
the parts of your sewing machine (every sewing machine is a bit different)
Fabricland is a great place to buy fabric, but a cheaper and most sustainable alternative is to buy fabric from thrift stores. I got my fabric from Value Village. Most of the tine thrift stores don’t sell fabric bolts, but there are a lot of bed sheets, curtains, and table cloths that can be used.
Here are some of the finished sewing projects that I made from second-hand bedsheets.
One of my current sewing projects is learning how to make a pleated skirt. I didn’t know that there are many types of pleated skirts they were. There are knife pleated, box pleated, inverted/reverse pleated skits, etc. I decided to sew a knife-pleated skirt. I don’t want to make a long skirt because I want to save fabric for another project. So I aim to make a tennis skirt. Something that looks like this.
This week Sarah McCaskill and I taught a lesson on digital rights and responsibilities and digital access. We chose to teach digital rights/responsibilities and digital access because both were elements in Digital Citizenship. Digital access (universal access) is a digital right.
According to Canada’s Digital Chater Canadians have 10 Principle Rights. I went over the 10 Principles in my lecture and use them for my breakout group activity. I think that the content I presented was very informative and practical. Students are taught about the Canadian Charter of Rights and so know their rights as Canadian citizens. Rights such as freedom of expression, mobility rights and equality rights etc. And so students should also be taught their rights and responsibilities as digital citizens.
In my part of the lesson, I went over the 10 principles. Each of these principles can be a lesson in itself. When I was going over them with the class, I felt very rushed. I think that if I choose 2-3 similar principles, that had overlapping traits such as the right to “universal access” and a right for “a level playing field,” the lesson would have been more cohesive.
Another thing I would have changed was the teaching strategies I used. I think I should have done less direct teach and lecture. The first part of my lesson was mostly me just explaining things. Although in the second part I use the Jigsaw method of teaching, I feel that if I had more activities it would have been more engaging.
I’m very glad about this experience. Although looking back and realizing there are many things I wanted to change. I see the value of reflecting after a lesson and writing out what worked and didn’t work. I will definitely take into account this experience in future lessons.
In Sarah S and Paige S’s mini-lesson, they focused on the topic of digital footprints. A digital footprint is the traces of activity a person leaves online when they use the internet. Sarah S and Paige S were able to use multimedia to explain what a digital footprint is. They discuss with the class its implication in education, particularly how students monitor their digital footprint.
In Kelsey P and Sarah W’s mini-lesson, they focused on digital citizenship. Digital citizenship is the concept of how people should act online, including how we interact with others.
Like Sarah S and Paige S, they were able to use multimedia to explain and discuss their topic. Using a Jamboard they initiated a discussion about the difference between offline and online behaviour in breakout rooms. My breakout group and I were able to brainstorm how we acted online compared to how we acted offline. We noted that there were many behavioural differences. For example, when a person is interacting with another person offline they are able to read body language and react to it, while online that’s not possible.
Another component of digital citizenship they taught was how a student should act when they encountered inappropriate content and dangerous/suspicious situations online. In the lecture, Kelsey P and Sarah W gave real-life scenarios of students encountering such situations. They even shared personal experiences of being in similar situations.
Overall I think that both mini-lessons were informative and interactive. Although both of these mini-lessons were formatted for online learning, I think that these lessons could be taught offline. As long as the students have a device I think that the lessons could be taught offline.
What do you see as schools’ responsibilities when it comes to preparing young people for this new world?
There once was a time where the real world and digital world were considered to be separate worlds, but now they have meshed together. Our digital identity is created by us, we get to portray how we’re seen in the digital stage (well most of the time, there are instances such as tagging and sharenting where we do not have control) whereas when we are born we already have things that define our identity. For example, when you’re born you are assigned a gender – you’re a boy a girl, you’re born into a certain race or ethnicity. Of course, your identity outside of a digital platform will influence how you chose to portray and conduct your selves in online.
Nathan Jurgenson’s article, The IRL Fetish, argues that “The clear distinction between the on and offline, between human and technology, is queered beyond tenability.” Meaning that the online and offline worlds have become so intertwined that they mutually affect each other. The way students conduct themselves online will affect them offline and vice versa. One of the responsibilities schools have towards their students is to prepare their students for a future that runs on technology.
Just as we teach students how to function in society we must teach students to function in a digital society. Educators should teach students to know that what they do online have real-life consequence. And that what they do offline will have not just consequences offline and online, but their actions will also affect others. Students must learn digital literacy and digital citizenship in order to help them properly conduct themselves in a digital society.
What Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship?
Digital literacy is defined as the “ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills (Digital Literacy).” Digital Literacy comprises of eight components:
Digital access – full electronic participation in society
Digital commerce – electronic buying and selling of goods
Digital communication – electronic exchange of information
Digital literacy – teaching and learning about technology and its use
Digital Etiquette – electronic standards and conducts of procedure
Digital Law – electronic responsibility for actions and deeds
Digital Rights and Responsibility – those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world
Digital Health and Wellness – physical and psychological well-being in a digital world
Digital Security – electronic precaution to guarantee safety
How can we take up the amazing possibilities of this new reality while also addressing the considerable challenges?
By taking into account the positive things technology has done for and build on them. And on the other hand, also take into account the negative things that technology has done and either solve them, adapt to them, or cope with them.
Here are some of the possibilities and challenges technology has given us:
Online classes for single parents
More accessible learning
For students who are sick with mental illness or physical illness that prevents them from going to a physical class
No problems with transportation
Less expenses on gas
No morning/evening traffic rush
Physical Education – no pressure to perform with the peers
No redlining of schools
Students must have access to a device
Uneven distribution of resources
Some students are able to do more because they have better devices and resources
If a family has many kids there might not be enough devices to go around
Product life cycle
Devices have to be changed every few years
Students must have access to wi-fi
Physical education – no gym class, parents must encourage their kids to exercise
Difficult to have hands-on learning
Difficulty for students to physically work on a project
Difficulty using modelling as a teaching method
How might the education system need to change to address this new reality?
Embrace technology while at the same time not neglecting hands-on teaching
Weave technology through the learning process
Make sure that technology is a conduit and tool used to teach. Technology is not the teacher.
Questions: Reflect on the Twitter chat we participated in tonight. Whether you have been active on Twitter or whether you are coming back to the platform after some time off. Last spring I took EDTC 300. There I made my first Twitter account. Since then I have not been active on it. I decided a few weeks after my EDTC 300 class ended to deactivated my account because I thought I would never have to use it again. This year when I had to pick an elective I chose EDTC 400. I picked ETC 400 because I really enjoy EDTC 300. I forgot that EDTC 400 is required to have Twitter. So I had to create a new account and start from scratch. So it’s been a while, and my Tweeting skills are rusty.
What are your thoughts about Twitter as a tool for professional development?
I think tt’s what you make out of it. An example would be me. I only utilize Twitter for my EDTC 300 class – when I had to. I learned to use the basics of Twitter.
What do you see as the benefits and downsides to Twitter chats from the perspective of an educator?
Great way to stay informed of educational news (depends on who you follow)
Great way to find resources and events
Great way to share your opinion and listen to other people’s opinion
Great way to network (locally, provincially, nationally, and internationally)
Superficial relationships (Twitter is like an additive to support a relationship whether online or off online)
Toxic behaviour (there are some users who use Twitter in a negative way)