Teacher/Student rights in an open networked learning environment
sparker
·Scope, analyze and discuss the rights and responsibilities
of educational professionals working within an open networked learning
environment.
·Collectively evolve and develop a common charter within a wiki that
professional educators working within open networked environments can
refer to.
To start the conversation I invite comment on an interview relating to
my decision as one administrator to remove a post from an open google
education group, more information is provided within mp3.
Download the MP3 file ( 20 MB : 29.57 mins. )
http://onlinedev.illawarra.tafensw.edu.au/Audio/Compressed/20022066_Alex_Steven.mp3
Interview with Steven Parker, TAFE NSW, TLRU , Wollongong by Alex
Hayes, 26 June 2006
Comment is invited.
NOTE: To foster frank open discourse and debate before opening to
public scrutiny on networkedlearning weaknesses (from a corporate point
of view) this group is closed to a network of people already involved
in advocating open networklearning pedagogy.
That is not to say it should remain closed, all group members are
admin....
"We have to consider the perception of management and other opinions
of other group members if we are to get buy-in and create
sustainability for the emerging networked learning environment"
Warm regards
Steven Parker
Leigh Blackall
Was very interesting, listening to the considerations of Steven Parker and Alex Hayes talking about moderator ethics and the tension between professional teaching standards and open socially networked communication. I think they're talking about a situation out of context has both added and subtracted from the consideration of the event in question, so I believe it is necessary for Steven to now go back through all that has been generated around the dilemma and gather it into one place (which could possibly have happened if the original post was not deleted) so that we can have a reference resource to inform future codes of conduct or what ever it is Steven hopes to find through all this. We have such a resource with Alex's situation from last year (where a young girl in his class mobile phone photographed her cleavage and posted it to her blog), with all the discussion that followed attached to that original image, it makes the whole event an interesting primary resource in a small slice of media history. Just on that, looking back at Alex's situation, although it was serious at the time, and not wanting to belittle the importance to some for what transpired - it is certainly a storm in a teacup by now - now that moblogging is far more common...
Which leads me to another ethical issue so far not mentioned this time round. I think we need to do more in examining our motivations for making issue over these things. What was the motivation for Alex's issue last year when a young girl posted a close up camera phone picture of her own cleavage? Was it to protect the girl from embarrassment, sexual harassment, exploitation or possible bullying? Was it to protect the validity of the moblogging in schools project? Was it to expose the inadequacy of educational policy in dealing with these new media issues? Was it to demonstrate the value of the group moderation? Was it all of these motivations? What ever the motivation, I think it could be seen as unethical that we keep drawing attention to the case, the girl's cleavage and her action. If such a thing happened in a traditional classroom setting, it would be poor form for a teacher to keep referring back to an individual and the issue they caused, and not give her the opportunity to move on and grow. Even though in this online situation the girl has the ability to delete the picture (and presumably the comments to go with it) she may have moved on and forgotten all about that embarrassing moment in her teenage years, only later to realise that a bunch freaked out teachers are still discussing and pointing to her actions. But I think this is part of an understanding we older generations are yet to come to terms with - that while the technology does enable a record and in a sense preserve these actions, that does not mean that such an historic record is used or valued as such (by the younger ones). What goes online line today is forgotten tomorrow sort of thing - regardless of the oldies and their ideas of the historical record.
So I think it very important that we keep these discussions in the context of the original issue and let them pass there. Otherwise if we take preemptive action as Steven has done, they necessarily explode out into different arenas and become bigger than they need or should be. I think it is valuable to turn something potentially negative into a positive by facilitating discussion and creating an example and resource for future occurrences - but I think where possible we should keep it in context and not delete and therefore force it elsewhere. But at some point we should be able to move on, and keep it in perspective and relative to the here and now, reasonably mindful of the bigger picture of course, but not overly so.
I really don't mean to belittle the whole thing BTW. The discussion is important and valuable, and I agree that it is one of the very complex nubs that pitches the idea of open networked learning against more traditional and heavily institutionalised forms of communication and learning. But in the end I believe that it is the networked learning that will leave the institutions behind - teaching is dead - and now we are entering the period when "it is the best of times / it is the worst of times..." Let's look very carefully at our motivations for concentrating on these issues, and what true bearing (if any) these conflicts with policy will have on the velocity and trajectory of pervasive and popular media and communications.
--
--
Would you like to buy my book? http://www.lulu.com/leighblackall
--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
sparker
What does the rest of the group as educators think?
· What ethically do you have to consider
· what is your duty of care to all of your students.
· What are your rights and responsibilities within an open and
networked learning environment?
Hi Leigh
Have taken out snippets of your post to respond to
Leigh says:- I was going to post my response to my blog and forward it
into this group,
as a subversion to its closed status so far - but decided to chill out
and
see...
Steven says: The group is closed, ironic yes when talking about open
networked environments. The reasoning for creating this group as stated
to discuss the rights and responsibilities of educational professionals
working within an open networked learning environment. All group
members advocate networked learning pedagogy to some degree however I
think we all have different points of view on open networked learning
environments and how they should work. A united front on our collective
thinking would be of benefit before going open in a corporate context.
Steven says: I like others am very much going through the PROCESS of
trying to make the networked learning model work and need to understand
our commonalities in understanding.
Leigh You say::'I believe that it is the networked learning that will
leave the
institutions behind - teaching is dead - and now we are entering the
period
when "it is the best of times / it is the worst of
times..."<http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/>'
Steven says:I don't want the institutions that employ me that educate
thousands of young people 'to be left behind'. The power to effect
change will come from us as employed educational professionals
collectively working within multiple institution systems
internationally to evolve. I need to figure out how positive progress
can occur working within the system, my job now is to put a positive
spin on networked learning and how it is off benefit to the
organisation.
Steven says:My thinking is summarised in the interview on the comments
http://nswlearnscope.com blog and in the other posts from me to this
group. We have moved past the point of subversion and are now in the
implementation phase within our institutions being open and networked
using web 2.0 .
Leigh says: Was very interesting, listening to the considerations of
Steven Parker and
Alex
Hayes<http://onlinedev.illawarra.tafensw.edu.au/Audio/Compressed/20022066_A...>talking
about moderator ethics and the tension between professional teaching
standards and open socially networked communication.
Steven says:Alex 's post at http://nswlearnscope.com covers the
issues
Leigh says:- I think they're talking
about a situation out of context has both added and subtracted from the
consideration of the event in question, so I believe it is necessary
for
Steven to now go back through all that has been generated around the
dilemma
and gather it into one place (which could possibly have happened if the
original post was not deleted) so that we can have a reference resource
to
inform future codes of conduct or what ever it is Steven hopes to find
through all this.
Steven says:I would like a common code of conduct for working in open
networked learning environment. I choose not include any reference to
the details of my past moderation decision for the moment, I do not see
the relevance it would distract from discussing . the boundaries for
educators and students working within an open networked environment. I
will post case study at later date, my actions can then be judged
against code.
Leigh says:-Which leads me to another ethical issue so far not
mentioned this time
round.
Steven says:Without a code of conduct, the ethical issues are unclear
for me and can never be resolved.
Steven says:I would like to see something similar to this, malleable,
collectively written a networked learning code of ethics for educators.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php
One excellent example from an education context.
http://anne.teachesme.com/2006/06/14/blogging-policy-at-its-best/
http://arapahoe.littletonpublicschools.net/goto/ahs_blogging_policy
I think these policies are a good basis to start
Also check out
http://teacherconnect.wikispaces.com/RightsResponsibilities
Steven says:I propose we use this group for frank discussion and create
a wiki space to capture the outcomes of our discussion, multiple
teachers inputting to write the networked learning charter based on
groups experience in classroom.
Steven says:Can set up open http://networkedlearningrights.wikispaces
account.
Leigh says:- I think we need to do more in examining our motivations
for making
issue over these things.
Steven says:Yes examine motivations once we have a networked learning
charter, will prevent us being unsure of our actions as moderators and
help to justify to others our actions as educators employed by public
institutions. From common sense I see more positives to setting and
implementing networked learning ground rules now; on what is acceptable
within open environment, observing ethical behaviour, maintaining focus
and making the networked learning model work in a corporate education
context. It will help me move forward.
Steven says: Leigh I won't respond to the rest of your post on the
motivations/ context for Alex's situation, just yet until the
networked learning code of conduct is written.
Cheers
Steven
alexanderhayes
LB.I was going to post my response to my blog and forward it into this
group, as a subversion to its closed status so far - but decided to
chill out and see...
AH. Good idea. I'm still questioning what the issue with an open
conversation is anyway however i'll respect a group owners rights till
such time as i'm also a moderator et. al.
LB. Was very interesting, listening to the considerations of Steven
Parker and Alex
Hayes<http://onlinedev.illawarra.tafensw.edu.au/Audio/Compressed/20022066_Alex_Steven.mp3>talking
about moderator ethics and the tension between professional teaching
standards and open socially networked communication. I think they're
talking about a situation out of context has both added and subtracted
from the consideration of the event in question, so I believe it is
necessary for Steven to now go back through all that has been generated
around the dilemma and gather it into one place (which could possibly
have happened if the original post was not deleted) so that we can have
a reference resource to inform future codes of conduct or what ever it
is Steven hopes to find through all this.
AH. Thats Steven issue and choice and ultimately the groups - if the
group setting had no defined code of conduct then ? I wasnt speaking
out of turn in my estimations rather speaking of the issue in general
with reference to a localised concern of Steven's ......I'd stepped
into the conversation and invited Stephen to speak of it ......the
respondent dialogue may seem context-less however we were speaking
broadly as you say of " the tension between professional teaching
standards and open socially networked communication."
LB. We have such a resource with Alex's situation from last year (where
a young girl in his class mobile phone photographed her cleavage and
posted it to her blog), with all the discussion that followed attached
to that original image, it makes the whole event an interesting primary
resource in a small slice of media history. Just on that, looking back
at Alex's situation, although it was serious at the time, and not
wanting to belittle the importance to some for what transpired - it is
certainly a storm in a teacup by now - now that moblogging is far more
common...
AH. Indeed. I chose to deal with my situation openly as the facilitator
of a project guiding a teacher and a group of students through a mobile
blogging activity. I invited my peers and superiors to make comment and
the moderators and others from the online provider to determine and
make their comment if they wished. Most imprtantly the student was
given the option to pull it down when it was raised as bordering on
innapropriate. That person chose not to and more interestingly defended
her position citing her collusion with her educator and other students.
LB. Which leads me to another ethical issue so far not mentioned this
time round. I think we need to do more in examining our motivations for
making issue over these things.
AH. Agreed.
LB. What was the motivation for Alex's issue last year when a young
girl posted a close up camera phone picture of her own
cleavage? Was it to protect the girl from embarrassment, sexual
harassment,exploitation or possible bullying?
AH. Yes - most important.
LB. Was it to protect the validity of the moblogging in schools
project?
AH. No - all consideration was given to abide by standard protocols
however it was not to protect validity of the project......that was
determined after the proposal was endorsed for research and
implementation by the AFLF and the Access Centre. The validation of
mobile blogging in schools has not even been contemplated yet.....this
was a VET project and even that environment has seen only limited
uptake of this valuable notion of interactivity.
LB. Was it to expose the inadequacy of educational policy in dealing
with these new media issues?
Ah. No - I stand by the fact that the educational policy by which as a
project employee I was bound to provided me with a range of options to
take. I took the road lesser travelled. Time has proven that the road I
travelled was angst ridden but has led to some amazing learning
experiences. It was a harder option I thought to yank it down and then
face the students wrath when it had been expressed that in no
circumstance did I have the authority to remove her post.
LB. Was it to demonstrate the value of the group moderation?
AH. No - that only occured because others chose to contribute.
LB. Was it all of these motivations?
AH. Motivations ? I think you've picked the wrong term
here...........perhaps 'musings' would have been a better form of
nomenclature. There were factual events and there were actions taken
based upon careful consideration of the rights of the learner.
LB. What ever the motivation, I think it could be seen as unethical
that we keep drawing attention to the case, the girl's cleavage and her
action.
AH. Agreed....if that was the case. Point me to succesfull and open
moderation processes involving educators and students and I'm sure Anne
paterson, myself and a host of others would gladly take up your
information and seek ways to resolve case studies for broader reference
in the educational sector.....particularly those of an mlearning
nature.
LB. If such a thing happened in a traditional classroom setting, it
would be poor form for a teacher to keep referring back to an
individual and the issue they caused, and not give her the opportunity
to move on and grow.
AH. As would a teacher who upon hearing of a group moderator choosing
to remove a post then directing petulant refrain that individual
without having determined an edict with which to refer to beyond
letting anything exist and denoting only that it had been removed. This
is a serious issue for many people facing innapropriate content ( they
think) in a group with shared responsiblity and educators would no
matter how open, pro-active and forward thinking be tempted to panic -
first up. A successful educator makes a decision, follows through and
counts every successful and positive action as important in their
career. Refer back ? Refer forward would be nice.
LB. Even though in this online situation the girl has the ability to
delete the picture (and presumably the comments to go with it) she may
have moved on and forgotten all about that embarrassing moment in her
teenage years, only later to realise that a bunch freaked out teachers
are still discussing and pointing to her actions.
AH. Point is no one freaked out. In fact it was one of the most
enlightening things that had occured in an otherwise angst ridden bunch
of workshops with students who all had and still have the power to
delete the entire blog with a click of the
button.....hah......unlikely........the distributive web has and will
never let anything go.
LB. But I think this is part of an understanding we older generations
are yet to come to terms with - that while the technology
does enable a record and in a sense preserve these actions, that does
not mean that such an historic record is used or valued as such (by the
younger ones). What goes online line today is forgotten tomorrow sort
of thing - regardless of the oldies and their ideas of the historical
record.
AH. Wrong - check a teenagers myspace. Do you think they are going to
get the option of deleting everything authored in the future ? Printing
down the web is fun ....that's our novelty as the oldies and crashing
blogs and dropping .com's for a gmail space is inevitable. My
reflections on the websites I created when I was student are zip. Thats
because I was born before the internet was public. The cane was tossed
out when I was 16 years old and then the universities I attended
locked everything in a vault and threw away the key.....and they
charged me for it. Now is the only time that students will ever have
things to point back to....and have the power to delete them. Lest we
forget - not.
LB. So I think it very important that we keep these discussions in the
context of the original issue and let them pass there.
AH. Bring it on. I'm keen to 'out' anything that threatens my fellow
colleagues positions, lifestyle and health. If it's that big an issue
give us the details and show us openly exactly what occured. perhaps
then we can stand back and let others feed off the flurry. Chances are
the original issue is not one at all.
LB. Otherwise if we take preemptive action as Steven has done, they
necessarily explode out into different arenas and become bigger than
they need or should be.
AH. As above.
LB. I think it is valuable to turn something potentially negative into
a positive by facilitating discussion and creating an example and
resource for future occurrences - but I think where possible we should
keep it in context and not delete and therefore force it elsewhere.
AH. But of course......the tides of critique often seem more extreme
when washing up against our own shores.
LB. But at some point we should be able to move on, and keep it in
perspective and relative to the here and now, reasonably mindful of the
bigger picture of course, but not overly so.
AH. Profound. have something like that scribed into my brain. If only
the world always operated that way.
LB. I really don't mean to belittle the whole thing BTW. The discussion
is important and valuable, and I agree that it is one of the very
complex nubs that pitches the idea of open networked learning against
more traditional and heavily institutionalised forms of communication
and learning. But in the end I believe that it is the networked
learning that will leave the institutions behind - teaching is dead -
and now we are entering the period when "it is the best of times / it
is the worst of
times..."<http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/>
AH. That t-shirt dosent fit anymore. We've all grown up and crashed a
few too many parties with that one in my opinion.
LB. Let's look very carefully at our motivations for concentrating on
these issues, and what true bearing (if any) these conflicts with
policy will have on the velocity and trajectory of pervasive and
popular media and communications.
AH. This is only one issue and I see many educators floundering with
little direction and realistic discourse occuring. Try and explain to a
PD workshop participant why the blog you created with them is now a
porn portal ..........all because you were rushed and failed to inform
them that they were in fact not only a creator but a moderator. The
former is all very specky but the responsibility of that creation is in
standing by its conception and to defend any misconceived deception.
LB. Would you like to buy my book?
AH. I've got your book. It's available as a free download
from.......just kidding Leigh. Nice speaking with you as always :-)
Leigh Blackall
I keep forgetting my email has that book promo at the tail .. :)
Thanks for the responses Alex, Stephen. I don't necessarily disagree with anything - its all rather hypothetical - even metaphysical to me. I'm trying very hard to think more ethically about it - but for some reason its not sitting well. There's things a miss in this for me, things don't feel right, is it the language, is it the objectives?.. - I'm never comfortable with explicit statements like guidelines and code of conduct. They're authoritative, ultimately inflexible, certainly not fool proof, and make contradictions all too obvious (and lets face it - EVERYTHING is made of contradictions), most of all, such things are more useful as devices to use against the thing they represent. I don't think there is ever a time beyond subversion. Subversion is not a dirty word to me. Nor is reinvention of wheels. Nor is scorched earth policy. There are always new ways to consider a wheel... is a ball point pen a wheel?
I feel myself falling into another wondering rant for you poor guys to endure - and I don't want that. This topic is so far unnatural to me - so I'd rather consider more the things you bring up.