eSafety approaches – the teacher and the learner

[John Pallister]

While preparing for an eSafety meeting I found that I was motivated
to; I wanted to; I was driven to, write this post. But that does not
really make sense; I need to get all of the issues sorted out/
organised for my meeting, so why, at this stage should I share my
thinking with others?

Over the years I have read a lot about eSafety. A lot of the advice/
articles/Blogs have been brought to my attention via Twitter and the
numerous on-line discussions that have taken place in a wide range of
communities. I think that I have a fair handle on eSafety, so if I do
a bit of research and a bit of reading, I should have something to
offer the meeting. But again something is telling me to write, to
Blog, to share!

It must be because I have not really got all of the issues sorted out
in my head and so feel the need to go through the writing/Blogging
process to help me to sort out my thinking.

I need to decide where I sit along the continuum of eSafety that at
one end, has the walled garden, where learners are protected by a
rabbit proof, giraffe proof and social software proof ‘fence’, while
at the other end learners are allowed open access to all of the
available resources and tools.

Looking at the extremes; the walled garden is an attractive
proposition for schools. Learners only have access to what (the
opportunities) that the gardener (the teacher) thinks that the
learners (the plants) need to grow (learn) and thrive. So long as the
‘fence’ is designed to keep out all of the nasty experiences, all
should be well. The school (teacher) defines what should be allowed to
get through the fence; the learners are safe and get on and, hopefully
learn, in a ‘safe’ place. Duty of care fulfilled. Philosophy, if you
do not understand it, or you are not ‘told’ to provide learners with
access to specific tools, applications or experiences, do not do it,
fence against it.

3.30pm arrives, the learners are let out to roam their Personal, home
based, Learning environment. There are fewer fences in sight; they
have access to tools and applications that provide a wide range of
opportunities and experiences. Many experiences will be positive and
support their learning; some could be detractors and some could put
the learner at risk. So we cannot rely on ‘fencing’ systems to
protect out learners 24 hours of the day, 7 days of the week.

Historically we have educated/taught our learners how to survive, that
is, what they need to do, or not do, to stay safe in the big, bad
world. We teach them the Green Cross code; we promote Cycling
Proficiency; we provide information about the risks of alcohol and
drug abuse and we advise them not to talk to strangers. We do not
have fences along all of the pavements that run along the side of
every road, we do not have footbridges over, or under-passes under,
all major roads. We educate young learner to behave in a safe fashion.

So thinking about the other end of the continuum, would it be better
to provide learners with access to ‘everything’ and then ‘educate’
them in eSafety?

If that was the chosen strategy, one challenge would be to make sure
that every teacher fully ‘understood’ the potential, for learning, of
the current and evolving Web 2/social tools, and that they appreciated
the risks. Without this background and understanding we could not
expect teachers to teach the skills and understanding that our current
generation of learners will need if they are to stay safe. Somehow we
would need to spend a lot of time working with teachers before we
could begin to move towards ‘un-fenced’ personal learning
environments. How can we do this?


@orunner , from Twitter, reminded me that 10th February was eSafety
Day. http://tinyurl.com/d6trru

[Merlin John]

I once worked behind one of those rabbit-proof fences John, and it
made me feel like the rabbit. It was for a large corporation and the
fence made my job more difficult. I resented it, it never felt like
'my' service and in the end I used all sorts of other systems so that
I could do my job to the best of my ability without petty, stupid
restrictions.
I'd hate to be a learner in a school and go through anything
approximating that experience. Users vote with their feet, and if they
don't use a paid-for service then it proves to be a waste of money.
There will have to be a sliding scale that balances, among other
things, safety and autonomy/independence with the latter becoming
pronounced by age 16. If it was my eportfolio I wouldn't wouldn't want
anyone accessing it without my permission by the time I was 16
otherwise I'd have to put the same functions into my Google Apps or
similar.
And are learners being consulted about how their eportfolios, or
learning platforms, are designed? Gerald Haigh puts this point very
well in his Five Little Things column on the NCSL's Future website (http://future.ncsl.org.uk/News.aspx?ID=120
). Learner voice should be very important in this area - so it's done
'with' them rather than 'for' them.
Best,
Merlin