WebedtecH

Building Your Resiliency Part IV: Iceberg Ahead! | The Art of Manliness.

Yet again the Art 0f Manliness fails to disappoint.  This article gave me some great perspectives on my own “icebergs” and how I’ve been reacting to them.  A must read!

I recently received a question from a parent about how it would be best to manage and filter their child’s web site explorations at home.  Here’s my response:

---

Sit down with your child at the computer and ask him to teach you about Webkinz and Neopets and the other sites he is interested in.  Don’t take it from the position of evaluating the sites but rather from a sincere interest in learning more about them and what he is interested.  By doing that you will gain several things:

1. You will have a better understanding of these virtual worlds and the types of interactions that can happen in them, both positive and negative.
2. You will be able to spend some time and observe his/her interactions with the games and see what aspects of them he tends towards.  Boys by nature gravitate to more action-oriented sections of games where girls traditionally gravitate to puzzles and interactive environments.  (Of course there are always exceptions to the rule).
3. Gaming environments can be very engaging, especially if a child has a vivid imagination or tends to get immersed in things easily.  Compare his game reactions to the reactions he has to movies and cartoons.  Are they similar, stronger, or weaker?
4. Look for common themes in the types of characters he/she chooses to play.  If he/she chooses one over another, don’t hesitate to ask him why.  There may be commonalities in his decisions, such as powerful versus weak, a specific look, gender association, etc.
5. This may be the biggest stretch for you…but ask him/her to help you set up your own characters and take you through the world.  Aside from it being good quality time you will be establishing credibility with him when it comes time to execute parental control on worlds and places he should not be entering.  Do not hesitate to try the sites he is visiting on your own when he is not around.  The more you learn about the sites the better off you will be.
6. Check in with him.  Every so often ask him/her how his characters are doing (make a point to learn the character names and the names he/she gave them).

There are systems available that can be used to filter web sites from kids (we use one at the school called OpenDNS [http://www.opendns.com] that is free and provides a great deal of control at the machine level.  However, no technological solution can replace building the understanding between you and he as to the types of things you consider appropriate and not.

The sites he/she has identified so far are known kids sites and many have protections in place for child safety.  (Gaia is targeted for PG-13 so I’d recommend against that.)  Most sites that draw kids will have some sort of parental information available easily from their home page.

He/she will want to explore and try new things, that is a given.  Working with him/her is the best solution in preparing him/her to be responsible as he/she grows on the internet.  I equate it to when he/she starts to drive.  The driving lessons will be invaluable since at some point he’ll have to leave the parking lot.

---

Comments?

Will Richardson has done it again…he’s got me thinking and headed for my soapbox.

…how in god’s name can we talk seriously about 21st Century skills for kids if we’re not talking 21st Century skills for educators first? The more I listened, the less I heard in terms of how we make the teaching profession as a whole even capable of teaching these “skills” to kids. Sure, there were mentions of upgrading teacher preparation programs and giving teachers additional time in the school day to collaborate, etc. But the URGENCY was all around the kids. Shouldn’t the URGENCY be all about the teachers right now?

Why does it take going to a conference of over 6,000 educators to get us to come up with this?  Is this a big friggin’ tree blocking the forest?  There is no question in my mind the only way we will see any true shift is at the teacher level.  No matter how much educational technologists (us) push administration and superintendents (them) without support and desire at the teaching level the exercise is purely academic (pun intended.)  If we are to get teachers to recognize the importance of them learning these tools and then sharing with their students, they need to recognize we know what we’re talking about and we’re giving them good guidance.

Finally, I was struck by how difficult it felt to accept much of what I was hearing because, and this is something that is really concerning me (seriously), few if any of these folks had the network creds to be “trusted.” Now I know this is an admission that is going to get me in trouble, and it likely should. But it is also a consequence of being rooted so deeply in this network. It’s not that I distrust their “traditional” creds out of hand, but it’s almost like for me, these days, if you’re not doing at least a little bit of social, networked learning and publishing that I can tap into and track and engage with, I’m just not as inclined to buy in when you’re talking about reforming education with or without technology.

The credentialing of traditional academia has been the downfall of interactions with the technical community for years.  If you corner a tech and ask them about “professional certifications” they will usually (if they’re worth their salt) sneer slightly and comment about “book learning versus the real world.”  It’s too easy to study a guide, take a test, and be “certified.”  I know…I was…a lot.  I let them expire because I recognized the only thing they provided me was a measurement against a minimum standard.  There’s no establishment of skill and capability tied to it.  How many professors do you know with multiple degrees that deep down you think they don’t have a clue how things work in the “real world.”  Now don’t get me wrong…there’s a place and a time for credentialing.  I agree with Will in the respect of if you truly want to be recognized and taken seriously start putting yourself out on a limb and sharing your thoughts and experiences with the world.

Let’s face it folks.  When it comes to technology the bulk of the population has no idea what it takes to be good at understanding and applying tech on a day to day basis.  They have no appreciation for the number of hours put in learning about new and changing topics and concepts daily with the complete understanding that the skills and applications you learn today will most likely not be around tomorrow.  Try explaining to a math teacher or a history teacher they will have to all but relearn their topic area every couple of years.  No one has to deal with version 2.0.5.7b of the Gettysburg Address.  Service Pack 6 for geometric proofs isn’t available for install.  It’s a different world in the tech space and if you want to get people to listen you have to prove you know what you’re talking about.  No piece of paper is going to do that for you.

Wes Fryer over at MSC ran into a problem presenting at COSN:

Apologies for Ustream non-event today » Moving at the Speed of Creativity

My apologies that my scheduled session broadcasts over Ustream did not happen today at COSN. The sessions were held in the basement of the Hyatt hotel, where unfortunately there was not any cell phone data network coverage or service. Wired Internet connections were provided at sessions, but apparently the network at the hotel is configured to block ports used by Ustream for broadcasts. We never could get a computer to actually “connect” to a Ustream channel room for a broadcast.

We did, however, record both sessions with audio, and Steve Hargadon recorded my session on copyright with video as well. It was great to finally meet Steve in person My session on Cell Phones for Learning was well attended but fast: Just a 15 minute demo session. That was probably the fastest conference presentation I’ve shared to date

My son helped me with some audio recording, and he recorded the session “Unleashing the Transformational Power of One-to-One Computing in K-12? with permission from the panelists to share it later as a podcast.

While I do feel bad that Wes ran into this problem (and for those of us who present frequently it is always a lurking danger) there is a silver lining to the happening.

Wes’ son got an “authentic experience” in troubleshooting an unpredictable situation, adapting, and coming up with a solution.  This is the part we seldom proclaim as the victory in educational technology.  Normally it would be touted that he was able to practice audio recording.  While nice, that’s just the smallest thing of value in the instance.  Bring the young man to me in several years for an interview being able to demonstrate the problem solving skills he showed then and I’ll show you someone who will be employed…regardless of the state of technology.

So often the term “Digital Native” is thrown about when discussing students technical ability we fail to recognize what the connotation actually means.  By definition from Dictionary.com, the word “native” is:

1.	being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one’s native land.

2.	belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.

3.	belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, esp. a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.

4.	of indigenous origin, growth, or production: native pottery.

5.	of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a place or country: native customs; native dress.

6.	born in a particular place or country: a native New Yorker.

7.	of or pertaining to a language acquired by a person before or to the exclusion of any other language: Her native language is Greek.

It is the second definition of the word that causes us the problem.  Why do we believe there is a “native ability” conveyed upon our students just because of their birth decade?  They may have been born into a time of accessibility and lack the fear of the unknown but they still have to put in the time to learn the tools like anyone else.

I suggest a change.  This division of digital knowledge is not limited to age demographic.  Throw out the reliance on birth timing.  The new references should be “Digital Leaders” or “Digital Followers”.  Those students/parents/staff/people who lead into the digital space to explore and guide as compared to those who follow the leaders.  There is an equity to the roles since both have acceptance of digital technology.  By identifying whether a student is a “DL” or a “DF” you can guide their interactions and development much more effectively than dismissively saying, “They’re a digital native.  This should be easy for them.”

Thoughts?