Hi folks! Please take a look at my summary of learning at the link below.

The concept is deeply indebted to the Talking Heads concert film Stop Making Sense (as in, it’s a parody of that, lol) They are one of my favourite bands and that’s one of my favourite movies. Seeing as how I’ve already referenced them before in my catalyst video, I thought I’d keep the streak alive. (If you want to preview the specific song I’m referencing, check this out.)

I chose this song as I started this class with a pretty negative view of the digital landscape, as a “killer” of sorts. Ha. I tried to communicate through this video the change in perspective I now feel along with the questions I still wrestle with. No easy answers!

Anyways, here’s the summary of learning: Digital Citizen

It’s fascinating for me to think about how my intake of media has changed and evolved throughout my life. In fact, I think that Jordan’s sharing of the “Filter Bubble” idea and article really spoke to me and allowed me to view my media intake through a new lens. I’ve realized that as I have grown and changed, so has my filter bubble and the media inside it.

At present, when I think of the places where I get my “news” so to speak, that is essentially exclusively through social media. The only social media I actively use these days are Instagram and Twitter, and twitter (I refuse to use that ridiculous new name) in particular is a main source of news and information. Now, I realize like with everything on the internet I need to approach the things I read on social media with some healthy dose of skepticism. That being said, I firmly believe that the filter bubble I have consciously (and unconsciously) placed myself in provides me with accurate and reliable information. I have pretty consistent left wing political views and approaches to life. The content that I consume reflects that. I’m aware that puts me in a filter bubble of content that isn’t showing me other perspectives on situations, but I don’t inherently see anything wrong with that. I think there is a stigma of sorts that we should avoid being in our “bubble”. Although in our class discussion, my group talked lots about how these types of social bubbles existed long before the internet and are a very natural form of human communication. You instinctively seek others out who reflect your values. I don’t believe that all issues require us to “hear both sides”. I don’t see the value in listening or consuming violent and harmful rhetoric, so why bother?

When I think of the articles that we discussed this week, particularly Jordan’s and Kim’s I’m grateful that I was not sucked into a spiral of fake news and disinformation. When I think of the alt-right pipeline, I’m kind of the perfect target – twenty-something cis white male. I was lucky enough to have positive influences around me that made sure going down that path was never possible in the first place. I don’t mean to say that a lack of positive influence is what leads to these dangerous beliefs – I’m sure despite the best intentions of parents and other loved ones individuals still fall down dangerous rabbit holes.

I think to a certain extent the ability to separate fact from fiction on the internet is a matter of practice, like anything else in life. As someone who has grown up with the internet and certainly spent a great deal of my teenage years as an “Very Online Guy” (shout out to Alvvays), I feel that a lifetime’s worth of encountering B.S. on the internet has somewhat trained my brain to detect it better. And as many of us recall, B.S. used to be a lot easier to spot, making the training much more effective (who could forget images that often looked like this from the early 2010’s)

However, today’s young people are being ‘trained’ on MUCH more sophisticated B.S. Super-B.S., if you will. They are no longer being asked if this seagull with human arms is real. They’re being asked to determine whether or not footage of political figures making any statement under the sun is in fact, factual.

I worry that this in turn leads to a less developed sense of media literacy than older Gen-Z and millennial compatriots have had a chance to build. On the other hand, the fact that it takes such a strong B.S. detector to analyze images might have a more positive effect than before.

Curious to hear your thoughts!

I used to think about digital identity every time power went out.

I know that doesn’t make much sense, but let me explain.

Many moons ago, I worked on a variety of SaskPower ad campaigns for an advertising firm. In one of these such campaigns, I featured in a video entitled “When The Lights Go Out”, in which I stumble my way through an explanation of how SaskPower works to get things up and running again when the power goes out.

Thus began a multiple year period where I was texted, called, and shouted at every time the power went out around the city. SaskPower would push this video onto their outage map webpage during large outages, and the influx of people checking the map led to a lot more of my friends and colleagues seeing this video than I had anticipated. Once, during a power outage at school, a student of mine looked up from the outage map they had pulled up on their phone in horror. “MR. NICOLSON?”

Of course, this is a relatively harmless and positive example of digital identity. However, it is a constant reminder of the pervasiveness of an online persona and my often complete lack of control over that identity.

I’m 27 years old. I’ve often felt that my micro generation of those 25-30 right now were born on the ‘cusp’ of a turn in digital identity. A transition zone between those who lived very little of their youth online and those who are currently living quite a lot of their youth on the internet. Yes, I have most certainly posted things I regret on the internet when I was much younger. However, many of my most vulnerable and sensitive growth years were not lived as strongly in the digital realm. This is not something I think we can say the same for our current wave of students.

In recent years, I’ve felt myself withdrawing more and more from my digital identity. Of course this has to do with multiple factors including getting older and being more aware of the responsibilities of this profession. However, I think that another big part of this is a gradual realization that (at least in my mind), the internet is not “real”. At least not in a way that makes sense to me.

This is a difficult conversation – especially because of discussions we’ve had in class around how things that happen online can be very real, especially for young people. And I don’t think I have my thoughts straight on all of this in a way that would make sense enough to defend my position. However, I don’t believe that this sense of digital “reality” is an inherent part of digital identity. I think what we are currently seeing more and more is a vision of the internet that is only superficially about things like “connection”. At a much deeper level, I feel a retreat into the online world only serves to foster a greater sense of isolation across class, racial, and sexual lines. The greatest dangers to the ruling class are community and organization. While these things can be fostered through the digital world, I feel that real-world, actionable connections are where true progress lies.

So when it comes to the transhumanist approach discussed in this week’s class, I tend to disagree that integrating ourselves even more fully with the “machine” is a solution or will somehow lead to enlightenment. Curious to hear more thoughts on this from you folks.

Reflecting on the 9 Elements of Digital Citizenship this week, the importance of synergy between the 9 elements became crystal clear. Without implementation of all nine elements, the entire system falls out of balance.

This being said, my focus for this week’s blog is how difficult it seems to be for educators themselves to utilize the nine elements in a way that best suits their own unique situations. It often feels as if the teacher autonomy necessary for full implementation of all nine elements is taken away and many aspects of digital citizenship are dealt with at an administrative level. The ability for educators to make professional decisions regarding these crucial nine elements is severely limited – and leaves very little room for professional autonomy and working with the diversity of student needs in our classroom.

“Digital Access” is one that comes to mind most immediately in my world of education. Ribble defines digital access as equitable distribution of digital technology and resources. My school division has recently announced their interest in conducting a rollout of 1-to-1 student devices in the division. In other words, a division laptop provided to every student. After some of our discussions in class this week, this initiative is beginning to sound very familiar…

One of our greatest difficulties and therefore lessons from pandemic teaching was of course digital access. The lack of access to technology (which at that time was absolutely essential to participating in the school process) was extremely worrisome for many of the students at my school. This lack of access certainly disproportionately affected our marginalized groups of students. For these reasons, I definitely do see the benefits that a 1:1 student device initiative would have.

At the same time – I have discussed with other colleagues in the class in the blog comments the seemingly increasing problem of “throwing technology at the problem” within our education system. Without the proper structure and motivation, these initiatives seem destined to end up in a similar position to the “One Laptop Per Child” program discussed in the link above. It is also a hard sell for teachers – we are surrounded by swelling classrooms, crumbling infrastructure, and ever-growing pressures. It might be difficult convincing educators that this type of policy is where our money is best spent. I’m not sure exactly where I fall on this divide, but I do think it is important to recognize that educators themselves are the best consultation on something like this. Talk to the people on the ground floor!

One last piece on this laptop initiative – going back to Ribble’s original definition, he calls for equitable distribution of digital resources. Not equal, but equitable. Is providing a division-mandated computer for all students an equitable distribution? Food for thought.

Thinking about these elements being implemented in my classroom, I come back to this focus on teacher autonomy. One way that I see Digital Access, Etiquette, and Health and Welfare all wrapped up into one tangible and very pertinent example is with school cell phone policies. These policies often range from teacher to teacher, school to school, and division to division.

For me, these policies are another example of how implementation of digital citizenship is moved from the classroom to the board room. Our division implemented a division-wide cell phone policy last year, with the idea to standardize practice across all schools. Interestingly, the justification that they provided for this policy mainly revolves around studies linked to digital technology and student mental health and well-being. Our division policy essentially states that cell phones and devices should be parked away from students at the beginning of class time. Teachers have the authority to allow access to devices for educational purposes.

What intrigues me about this policy is the wide range of reactions and levels of implementation between teachers. Some teachers praised this policy as a god-send. Others decried it as taking away student freedom. Some teachers follow it to the letter of the law. Others can’t be bothered.

My main thought is this – what implicit messages (good or bad) are we sending to our students through our implementation (or NON-implementation) of this policy? How does the removal of access foster digital citizenship? For me, it seems as if a policy such as this removes one element (Digital Access) in the hopes that other elements (Etiquette, Health and Wellbeing) can be improved. This seems contradictory – I began this post by recognizing that a balance of the elements is what’s needed to foster citizenship.

And finally – how does the creation of these policies that come from a higher level authority affect the professional life of us as educators? Lots of questions, not a lot of answers. Looking forward to hearing from you.