Prompt: Openness and sharing in schools is unfair to our kids.

Debaters: Melinda & Altan vs. Sherrie & Dean

This was a great debate, and one that I was personally torn on.  Melinda and Althan cited the digital divide and resources stating that students/children do not want us (adults) posting about them online.

To me, the essential questions to be answered are first, what is it exactly that we’re sharing and second, why are we sharing this?  Are we sharing student learning? Are we sharing resources for other teachers?  Are we sharing things that are relevant to things happening in the world right now?

The motivation behind this sharing is just as important.  Are we doing it to improve learning? To inform parents? To inform teachers?  Are we simply doing it as a way to shamelessly self-promote ourselves as educators?

I can absolutely agree with the points that Melinda and Altan raised.  I love that they took an EAL perspective and highlighted the digital divide, that in forcing sharing of learning we may be setting up already disadvantaged students for embarrassment and we try to widen their audience beyond the classroom walls.  Online privacy and opening students up trolls or online predators are another concern. Again, equity was mentioned as the opportunity gap between students came up. Equal access is something that has been mentioned in many of these debates, and as the debates are coming to close, it’s interesting to analyze some of these common themes.

Dean and Sherrie, on the counterargument, suggested that having an open classroom and teaching students how to navigate this environment can be much more beneficial than having a classroom that is is entirely closed.  They assert that this open model can lead to deeper learning and that it can prepared them more for online environments that they’ll encounter in their future learning or in the workplace.

It was tough after the debate to decide exactly where I stand on this.  I rarely share student learning on social media.  It comes off and a bit braggy to me, and I don’t really use Twitter for self-promotion.  I think there is a benefit to having a wider audience, and I think that there’s great potential in having cross-school collaboration on progress. Prior to COVID, I was planning on having my photography class collaborate with the drama class to do live recordings of their performances.  That opened up the classroom in a sense.  From there, those videos could potentially go on YouTube for students to re-watch their performances for self-evaluation, or could be sent to parents.  I think that in a post-pandemic world, these types of things will be explored a lot.  Pep rallies of the past, where a whole school sits together in a gymnasium, may be a thing of the past.  Can we use technology to bridge the gap somehow?

I have no problem with students sharing their work online.  Many of my courses have a digital portfolio component.  This portfolio, in theory, could be added to each year or shared with parents to show a student’s progress in the course.  I use it as more of a way to teach web development and organizational skills that can be vital to work on computers.

I do like to use Twitter to share articles and resources that I think me be of interest to people that follow me.  I don’t do this as often as I should, as I tend to use Twitter more for social commentary, but it is something that I hope to do more in the future, particularly with the challenges that many educators will face in gearing up for the Fall.

Overall, I think that openness and sharing can be very beneficial to education.  Like many topics in this class, though, a critical lens and a purposeful implementation are key.  If we’re not examining what and why we’re sharing in the first place, I think we’re setting ourselves up for failure and potentially putting students at risk, and Altan and Melinda had cited in their work.

Great job to all.

Debate #4’s statement to either agree or disagree with was Social media is ruining childhood.  Pretty heavy stuff. Debaters: : Laurie & Christina vs. Amy & Dean. 

Link to Laurie and Christina’s Video (Social media is ruining childhood)

Link to Amy & Dean’s Video (Social media is not ruining childhood)

Laurie and Christina’s video is a bit of a doom and gloom piece that pines for what childhood used to be: less anxious, more carefree, and more enjoyable.  They point to mental health concerns, FOMO and a bunch of other issues with social media use.  As someone with young children, I find myself agreeing more and more with points regarding child exploitation that occurs as a result of social media use.  Their article is an important one as it details how social media sites are designed so that we become addicted to them.  As someone who has in the past deativated his Facebook account, the thing that I identify with most is the idea of FOMO (fear of missing out).  Without Facebook, I found that I would not be aware of many social events (through Facebook calendar), and that I felt disconnected from people because I didn’t have as much of a sense about milestones that were happening in their lives.

In the chat I referenced a TED talk that I like showing to my grade 9 students.  It talks about a lot of the points that Laurie and Christine cover.  At the end of the day, I think that it is far better to be a critical and careful user of social media than to avoid it altogether.

For the record, my pre-vote was that social media IS ruining childhood.  Purely based on the mental health and addiction that I see in students every day, I went with the option without hesitation.  I have on occasion met students that have no social media presence.  They seem more focus, more present, and more mindful of the world around them then students that are constantly on their phones or wishing they were.  They seem more carefree, less anxious, and just… happier.

Amy and Dean’s video added a couple of guests, which was a nice way to utilize the video format.

Amy and Dean’s video argues that social media is not ruining childhood.  They paint  social media as the new scapegoat for ruining childhood, just as video games and television have been blamed for ruining childhood in the past.  Guest Daniel Dion opened with, and perhaps misspoke that, “Social media is definitely not changing society…”  Statements like this take some credibility away from Amy and Dean’s argument.  What is nice is that Amy and Dean highlight some students that have used social media to make a positive difference in the world.  It is tough to argue social media’s ability to give young people a voice, and it allows all people to fight for social justice like never before.

My favourite part of Amy and Dean’s approach is that Dean actually went above and beyond and checked out some of the opposing side’s literature. Up until now this hasn’t really happened in our debates, and least not in such an in-your-face way. Dean used this literature against them and argued that the literature actually helped to prove his and Amy’s point.

Though both sides did a great job arguing, in the post-vote I stuck to my guns and voted again that social media is ruining childhood.  While social media certainly has its benefits, as I would consider myself a moderate to heavy user, the impact that I think these interactions are having on our children, and as such an early age, it something that we should be concerned about as a society.  It would be very interesting to do a long-term study of students who are heavy users, moderate users, and non-users of social media to study the impact on things like their mental health, their social skills, and their overall sense of belonging.

This week we had a lesson in adaptability.  Both sides ended up arguing the same thing.  This week’s prompt was, “Schools should not focus on teaching things that can easily be Googled.”

Initial Google logo from Sep. 15, 1997 to Sep. 27, 1998, reportedly created by co-founder Sergey Brin using GIMP. The font appears to be a heavily distorted Arial Black. Via Fonts In Use

The trick with this one is that I’m not sure there are many people, at least in our class, who would be willing to argue that we should focus on teaching things that can be easily Googled.  In our discussion, it seems like most agreed that there is a time and place in learning for memorizing.  Jacquie mentioned sight words.  Others mentioned multiplication tables.  Some of those foundational things are building blocks, and indeed it is preferable for students to have sound fundamentals so that they can attack higher-level learning with similar prerequisite knowledge as their peers.

The thing about focusing on knowledge that can be Googled is that it’s easy for that teacher.  It’s safe.  The teacher is in control, giving information to students, even though it’s stuff that can be Googled.  I guess there’s a comfort in knowing that as a teacher you’ve curated that information and, to the best of your ability, have made sure that the information that you are providing to students is factual.  Then, assuming that all students learn the information well, the idea is that this information can be scaffolded off of so that students attain a deeper understanding.

This was mentioned in another blog by Jocelyn and Daina.  Google might provide a one-dimensional, surface-level understanding, but it is up to the teacher and students to elevate that and make it relevant within our context in Saskatchewan in 2020.

What if teachers choose not to focus on information that can be easily Googled?  Suddenly we’re experiencing the benefits of critical thinking. This would likely be less teacher-focused learning, which may be out of the comfort zone of some teachers.  Answers would not be as black or white, instead inviting a wider spectrum of answers.  This could potentially make evaluation more difficult.  These kinds of questions could mean that teachers could re-use a test without having to worry as much about students cheats.  One thing that came up in our discussion was how teachers who focus more on memorization closely guard their exams because if the exam was seen ahead of time, the answers would be easy to produce.

Overall, I am probably a lot more anti-memorization than most of my colleagues.  My courses lend themselves to a more practical and applied form of assessments versus rote memorization.  That does not mean that courses that traditionally focus on memorization of someone’s “facts” cannot be shifted to have more a practical assessment.  Classmate Dean Vendramin, for example, incorporates a lot of Minecraft into his Social Studies 9 course on various ancient civilizations.  I feel badly for students that have to obsess over dozens of study cards containing definitions of words they will probably never hear again in their lives.  Maybe this memorization serves a purpose.  Maybe its value is that is exercises the brain.  I don’t know many that would argue in favour of memorization over practical application, though.

An excellent first debate was had tonight between Nancy Smith, Amanda Brace, Trevor Kerr, and Matt Bresciani

Before I dive into the literature that each team provided, I quickly want to talk about how much I enjoyed this format.  Nancy and Amanda argued that technology in the classroom enhances learning while Trevor and Matt countered that argument.

After an initial pre-vote where everyone votes on what side of this topic they were aligned with, the debates opened with pre-recorded opening statements.  Both entries were strong, with Nancy and Amanda taking the narrative approach while Trevor and Matt had a format that was similar to an attack ad and hate a lot of statements refuting possible points that Nancy and Amanda made in their opening statement.  There was some time to prepare rebuttals after that, and both teams used their maximum of three minutes to rebut. Then, the class opened into a group discussion and questions for the two debate teams.  Once more both sides went into breakout rooms and finally delivered their closing arguments.

This was all facilitated nicely in Zoom.  I like the functionality that breakout rooms can provide in something like this.

I should state that my prevote was that I disagreed with the statement that “Technology Enhances Learning.”  It is simply too broad a statement.  Technology had the potential to enhance learning, absolutely, but it also has the potential to be detrimental to learning.

Matt and Trevor’s arguments were good ones.  They addressed risks and side effects of technology use.  This study, based in China, noted that student memorization was adversely impacted because of technology use and that students were also beginning to develop addictions to this technology.  The study also suggested that it was IT companies and policymakers that were leading the push for technology in classrooms, not educators.  In the debate itself, Trevor and Matt suggested that perhaps Big Data has motive to get as much technology into the classroom as possible.  Trevor and Matt other article was “The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected” — This is an interesting one in that some Silicon Valley-types are attempting to get their children away from screen time in schools and are instead showing a preference for play-based schools.  Matt referenced that idea that because using technology reduces that cognitive load on a person’s brain that learning is perhaps worse when we rely on technology.

I really enjoy Trevor and Matt’s unique presentation style, and for guys that are quite heavily invested in educational technology, both as members of the Regina Catholic School Division’s Connected Educator program, they did an excellent job refuting points and keeping in character during the debate.

Not a photo of Matt and Trevor, though I appreciate that they dressed up kind of like the Blues Brothers for their debate.

Nancy and Amanda’s presentation was narrative, and took cues from Mike Wesch’s Teaching like a YouTuber: Off-Camera Online Teaching Options. Their literature an article challenging myths about technology use by George Couros, an article that was a bit of a rebuttal to Matt and Trevor’s Silicon Valley point, and a couple of worthwhile videos to check out.

Nancy and Amanda’s main point was that technology can keep teachers and students connected.  They mentioned how technology can give a voice to those who are shy or who can feel marginalized in a traditional classroom.  They also highlighted how technology can deepen understanding and can push the classroom and students’ audiences beyond the walls of a school building.

Though my overall opinion on this topic did not change purely because of how broad the statement was, both groups did an excellent job.  I think that overall we can be too eager to embrace tech.  There are equity issues, troubleshooting issues, the issue of adequate training for staff and students.  All of these issues can up during our discussion on Tuesday night, and as a result many of my classmates changed their opinion from the pre-vote. Many that first agreed with the prompt had changed to the disagree side.

This format and the quality of the content on Tuesday night has me very excited for the next round of debates.

Prompt:

Describe your current “day in the life” related to technology, teaching, and learning. What tools do you use? How do you connect with others? Describe your interactions with others, including your students, if applicable.

My EdTech Suite is looking a little bit different now with COVID-19.  I traditionally have used WordPress to post course material daily for all of my courses.  I have used this for seven or eight years now.  It is familiar enough to me that I can post content quickly and easily.  I continue to do that, but have now created new pages specifically for the supplemental material provided during the pandemic.

My WordPress.

For contacting my colleagues, it’s a mix of email (Microsoft Exchange email via Outlook) and either Skype for Business, Microsoft Teams, or Zoom for video conferences.  Our school division does not want us using Zoom for student communication, so I have only used it for department meetings.  Prior to COVID-19, I had never used video conferencing for work.

I typically post the three hour of supplementary material per course on Monday and Tuesday of each week.  Though assignment examples and instructions are typically found on my WordPress, the assignments and more detail can be found on Schoolantis.  Schoolantis has similar functionality as Google Classroom in that I can assign work, due dates, and attach templates or other materials that would be relevant to students.  While I probably won’t get rid of my WordPress any time soon, the advantage of using Schoolantis is in the collecting of assignments.  I can see at a glance which students have drafts of assignments and which have complete submissions.  I can then give feedback directly on Schoolantis.  This “at a glance” functionality is very time-saving because of low participation in supplemental assignments.  I typically have shared folders via Microsoft OneDrive that students would submit work to.  Checking student completion, however, requirements me to navigate between various subfolders.  The Schoolantis implementation is a lot more streamlined, and I find that copying templates to students makes it easier for them to complete supplemental work.

I also like the discussion forum functionality of Schoolantis, and use it on occasion when I’m not using Flipgrid to get responses from students.

Lessons use a variety of software.  I typically use Camtasia to do screen recording of tutorials.  In my courses we often use Adobe products like Photoshop or Premiere, but because of device limitations, students can use other image manipulation and video editing software like that found on their personal devices.

I have not had student interactions outside of the occasional email.  Student questions have typically been things that have already been covered via my WordPress or a tutorial video.  I held office hours on Wednesday for an hour or two, but have not had any students take advantage of this.