In Everything is a Remix, Kirby Ferguson did an excellent job demonstrating how different information is reused from previous knowledge. Showcasing the products drove his points in a digestible way.
If an artist is said to be “influenced” by another artist, what does this mean? Something about the 2 pieces makes them comparable; they share similar elements. After watching Ferguson’s documentary, it is easy to understand how one’s lived experience goes into the products of their creativity. Understanding this on a superficial level is easy, but understanding how this is using previous art and incorporating it into one’s own, or Remixing, takes its a step further and may be harder to accept, either protecting one’s creativity as the original creator or the “re-mixer”.
Can we accept that there are no new ideas? I would like to believe that Ferguson is brushing everyone with the same paintbrush. His statements are broad and make a point, however, the romantic in me would like to believe that some creators, despite shared experiences with millions of people, can create something original.
How does remixing apply to education?
Educators are deeply creative. Their art form isn’t something physical, like music or poetry, but rather it is experienced through the learning journey they create for their students
How educators can, or should, approach the issue of social media (and the dangers/concerns associate with it) in the classroom?
While our learning projects are highlighting a positive side to social media, online connections and the internet, the recommended videos for this week each underscore the dark side of social media
The suggested videos covered the topics of TikTok’s influence on our youth, how social media is designed to get us addicted, sextortion – in particular Amanda Todd’s story, and content marketing. I watched each video and reflected on the question: what do they have in common? One word popped into my mind right away, manipulation.
By Ibrahim.ID – Own work
Social Media Apps
In The Social Dilemma we heard the adage “If you are not paying for the product – you are the product”. Jaron Lanier zoomed in and described how he believes this to be true. What he believes is “it’s the gradual, slight, imperceptible, change in your own behaviour and perception that is the product.”
Mirriam-Webster defines manipulate as “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage”.
What Jaron Lanier described is manipulation.
“it’s the gradual, slight, imperceptible, change in your own behaviour and perception that is the product.”
The tragic case of Amanda Todd brings to light the realities of online grooming and manipulation of children. The predators are able to make their victims engage in behaviours that they wouldn’t otherwise, which results in private images captured. Once these images are released over the internet via social media, the victim is vulnerable to blackmail and cyber bullying. Amanda Todd’s mom has worked hard to educate others on these dangers and raise awareness about the risks. Her efforts also helped capture Amanda’s predator.
The external influence and manipulation tactics that we are bombarded with everyday are not exclusive to social media apps. The Story of Content: Rise of the New Marketing highlights the fascinating shift in marketing strategies due to popularity of content creation. It shows that traditional marketing approaches are no longer providing the best returns. Instead, it is the creation and its dissemination of engaging content that pulls in the people and thus the profits. Marketing has long applied the psychology of human behavior to its methods. Content marketing however seems more insidious as it is able to build long-term relationships with its customers establishing a sense of trust through manipulation.
My 12 year old asked me the other day – Everyone keeps telling me that the internet is getting my data. What is that data? What are they doing with it?
I thought it was a great question, and I actually had a difficult time answering it beyond some vague response about big data and predicting people behaviours. OK, so what?
After rewatching it this past week, I think my new simple answer would be that these apps are able to learn the patterns, likes and values of people based on who they are and where they live. If they want to they can control what information people are given on their feeds. The big realization now is that “we can now affect real world behaviour and emotions”.
This is a scary thought! What about our autonomy and right to self-determination? The truth is that we think we are autonomous beings, but we are vulnerable to manipulation and suggestion. Social media capitalizes on this to modify our emotions, beliefs and values, and for what? Profit. So the rich get richer. As The Social Dilemma pointed out this is an existential problem.
I hang onto this quote from Tristan Harris:
“It’s not about the technology being the existential threat. It’s the technology’s ability to bring out the worst in society. And the worst in society being the existential threat.”
This is poignant as it hints to the fact that we can take control.
This is the bottom line to the answer to the question “Can we or should we approach the issue of social media in the classroom?”. Yes, we can and we should. We have to.
If we educate ourselves and the next generations about how to protect ourselves from manipulation and be less vulnerable users of these apps, then we remove the power of manipulation from social media. Many of these concepts are in the SK school curriculum. Pulling a few from the SK documents:
Digital reputation
how to combat the spread of negative postings
legal and social impacts of sexting
potential mental health problems with technology
These are a great start. And the Digital Citizenship Education in Saskatchewan Schools planning guide is an excellent companion to the curriculum. I wonder though, is it enough? How are we teaching the kids to be aware of the intentional targeted manipulation? We must connect certain protective skills, not just concepts, to our technology to reduce the childrens’ risk of falling victim to manipulation. I have no doubt that all teachers want to foster critical thinking. But it must be taught in these specific waters that are very difficult to tread to help students become more discerning, critical users of these platforms.
The children must acknowledge and believe in their own autonomy and encouraged to exercise their right to self determination.
How do we do this in the era of the cell phone “banned wagon”?
Participatory culture influences our understanding of pedagogy in education resulting in a transformational change of how we understand what information and knowledge is as well as the theory and practice of teaching. Instruction methods have shifted away from the teacher centred traditional approach, involving lectures, textbooks, and memorization. Students were tested on the material, and move on to the next topic. Traditional assessment tools fail to capture critical thinking and creativity.
Within participatory culture, this model is no longer relevant; how has participatory culture changed teaching methods that have been used for generations?
My perspective on this debate: The cell phone ban does not affect my professional life; however, I do have children in the K-12 system, so this cell phone ban bandwagon is of interest to me personally.
Cell phone “bannedwagon”.
Cell phone bans in schoolsare trending at the moment. Seven provinces implemented a cell phone policy in 2024, with Manitoba strengthening its existing policy. Most of the policies have a form of educational purposes as an exception, but from what I am hearing from teachers in these classrooms, this exception is not yet being used. The common rationale from the provinces for the ban is to decrease distraction and increase focus in the classroom. From what I can source, other support for these bans comes from the idea that cell phones in schools affect academic performance, are linked to mental health issues, increase disruptive classroom behaviours, and increase the digital divide. Empirical evidence from cell phone bans in France and the UK points to improved classroom behaviour, academic outcomes, and greater social interaction in schools.
These arguments appear to make sense and the results seem promising. If simply removing the offender from the situation improves all of the above, how easy it is to simply remove it from the equation? Let’s call this Side A.
I have a fascination with generations, what shapes them, and how they interact with each other. Reflecting on social media illustrates these well.
As a solid Gen X’er, I grew up in a digital-free world, unless you count my digital watch. It was the early days of mainstream use of computers. My memories include the Tandy TRS80 my dad bought for the family (fun fact TRS stands for Tandy Radio Shack). This computer used the Tandy CCR (Computer Cassette Recorder) to store the digital data and I have memories of storing Frogger over top of my Prince mixed tape. If you are interested, I found a video showing my family’s exact setup. I also remember that the typing classroom in high school used MacIntosh computers. Full disclosure I graduated from High School in 1990. I did not take typing as I was going to be a scientist and didn’t think it was a skill I would need. (I’ve never claimed to have great foresight).
