Big Rules Vs. Critical Thinking… Technology, Personas, and Using Social Networking In the classroom. (yes, a long title… I know.. I didn’t have time to write a shorter one).

When President Obama won the election in 2008, more than half of the voting public was elated. His family was elated. I was elated. Chris Mathews had a feeling running up his leg! Nearly everyone understood the historical significance of the win. It was a special time.

So you can imagine how unreservedly overjoyed President Obama must have felt… that is.. until he was informed by The Secret Service that he would have to give up his Blackberry PDA (personal digital assistant) FOR-EV-ER!

He’d taken a job, which he was unquestionably honored to have, but in return he essentially had to give up shooting text messages about sporting events to buddies, birthday wishes to dozens of people at a time, long running inside jokes between college buddies and old roommates, and keeping up with friends from all of the many circles he has traveled. He was president. Commander and Chief. He’ll be a public figure for the rest of his life. He had to give it up for security and political reasons.

I can’t help but feel that a part of me will have to die when I become a teacher. The part that likes telling, and hearing dirty jokes. The part that likes taking controversial positions about religion and politics. The part who is never afraid to be, as George Orwell’s 1984 society might title me, a little “Unorthodox.”

You have no idea of the magnitude of this.

You see, right now, I have Future Teacher Michael, but there is also Independent Michael J. That’s the Michael you know, the Michael you grew up with — Movie-pitch Mike, Coffee shop Mike, Liar Mike, Bawdy Mike.

I love that Mike.

And he’s Dying! If Prospective Teacher Mr. Williams walks through that door, he will Kill Independent Michael J! A Michael, divided against itself, Cannot Stand!

Yes, I just ripped off the whole George Castanza bit from Seinfeld. Yes, I used a 90′s reference. You probably got it! If I told that joke during every class period for a whole day, right now in 2009, I’d wager that maybe 2 students get that joke. MAYBE one of those students gives me a pity laugh because she/he is on that “A/B fence” that teachers and professors are always trying to scare/bribe us with at the beginning of each semester to make sure you feel motivated to participate during class.

I’m babbling, but the point is: Independent Mike can’t be friends with teenagers because they won’t get dated Seinfeld references for example, and I don’t want friends who don’t get dated 80′s/90′s references. Mr. Williams does though. He’s built his life around young people. Mr. Williams is up on the latest trends and he’s constantly trying to stay current so that he can connect with his students, because that’s his job. Independent Mike can’t even muster out a forced chuckle at an hour long Dane Cook special (who, by the way, is the worst comedian of our generation. Kids tell me he’s funny. Look, it has been a long day at work, this is a really snarky post and I’m babbling again and I’ve completely forgot how to use my backspace key, mysteriously, so I can not edit out this rambling. Maybe we should go over that as a topic in class. Look, there I am being snarky again.. and rambling… this is the post “about nothing.” Get it? Seinfeld reference).

So, like the President, I’ll have to give up some privacy for the sake of duty and honoring a worthy profession.

I do wish, however, that there were not so many big rules that prevent such small problems. I wish cell phone policies did not dominate so much space in student agendas at public schools. Is a text message or picture message really much worse than a note under the desk or harmful photos that can be passed around with ease. I rarely hear teachers have note passing policies posted on their doors anymore. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how exchanging emails with a student has a greater capacity for scandal than inviting students to write letters and post-cards over the summer. I’m still waiting to hear how a facebook profile can do more personal damage to a teacher’s reputation than a night out on the town with old friends. I would argue that the same personal behaviors get caught (good and bad) through texts, emails, and social networking sites that get caught with technologies that are becoming used less frequently. The interest in stories about the negative effects of these mediums have increase, and the ability for technology to catch people abusing public trust has become simpler. But, those are the only discernible differences as far as I can tell.

The more technology “catches” unprofessional teachers, there exists a growing belief in the assumption that it is the use of the technology that has propelled this spike in unprofessional behavior amongst teachers, congressmen and other public officials. What an illogical assumption to make unless, of course, you’re a former hippie with a fear that new technology will enslave and drive humans to growing states of immorality(or a science fiction fan, which always believes new technology is set out to destroy the old ways of decency… like in “I Robot”, “Terminator”, “The Matrix” etc… I mean think of how many times in the history of science fiction has gunfire ever been a useful weapon against the enemy army of aliens or robots or future humans or future robots… Never. yup, I’m really being snarky tonight…and I’m babbling again… I know). The assumption that technology propels a growing state of immorality is baffling logic in the same way that 99 out of 100 science fiction films baffle me with tortured logic. It is the moral quality of the user that makes social networking a useful or harmful tool. It is the moral quality of a cell phone user that makes a text message or picture message a useful or harmful tool. I suppose, however, that the fear of “the heightened ability” to do wrong out ways the need for critical thinking about the possible benefits of encouraging students to use technology.

What is wrong with asking “What if?” What if students were encouraged to use their cell phones to text questions to the teacher at the front of the room, because they are too embarrassed to raise their hand, rather than wasting class time, and agenda space threatening students about having cell phones? What if students can find their teacher on facebook, learn their teachers first name, discover that they have a dog, a girlfriend, and what movies and books they like? What if teachers had students rewrite their “About Me” section on facebook or myspace as their first writing assignment? What if students had to publish something to their “notes” section on facebook or their “blogs” section on myspace? I’m just asking “what if?” I could do it all day. Really. Is it possible that we have an education system full of people afraid to ask “what if?” because it is too exhausting to take the minority position on technological issues? Is it possible that we have a system full of policy makers who never ask “what if” or are more concerned about negative headlines?

It is always easier to have a BIG RULE than to ask “what if?” Big rules are safe. Sometimes illogical. But they’re always BIG. People like big blanket rules.

So, Independent Mike may have to fade away a little or at least slip into less traceable territories. A small sacrifice, because social networking is so useful. Facebook offers an opportunity to connect with people, to see and be seen, to hear and be heard. That’s it! That’s all English classes are trying to accomplish to begin with! As an English teacher I want to help students understand and be understood! Facebook/Myspace/Twitter does all of those things. Mr. Williams could not be more excited about the fact that young people ARE ALREADY HIGHLY interested in doing this everyday when they go home. I’m giddy. I get to build on naturally motivated students who get to employ rhetorical skills that I will teach them via facebook and myspace, everyday! Hell, Independent Mike is even excited.

Wikipedia

I use wikipedia. I know what you’re thinking. Believe me. I’ve heard the arguments about Wikipedia. They are valid points. Wikipedia may not be the MOST credible source of information, but it does represent a process of perfecting knowledge. Which, ironically, is the same process that the scientific community uses. You will never meet a scientist who believes, sincerely, that he has completed or perfected a perfect piece of knowledge. All scientists understand that more conclusions lead to more questions. The wiki structure supports a dynamic improvement of human knowledge.

Satirist Stephen Colbert pokes fun at the idea of wikipedia in this segment on his popular television show.

Colbert raises good points about why Wikipedia can be harmful. It is easy to understand why many teachers, librarians, and other academic figures scoff so loudly and enthusiastically at the idea that Wikipedia’s information is handled less than authoritatively. The banning and blocking of Wikipedia as a resource represents a lack of faith that many educators have in their own student’s ability to think critically about material. Perhaps, that is why so many textbooks sound god-like in their delivery of information about topics that are actually subject to a ton of current debate.

I contend, however, Wikipedia’s strength is in its unique lack of authority. It gives democracy to education. Isn’t that a good thing?.

Web 2.0 and Authorship

The many advancements and improvements associated with using the internet, particularly the ability to publish ideas and images, has been put in the hands of nearly everyone.  The advent of websites like Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube, and user friendly Blog websites has all sorts of implications, both positive and negative, for disseminating information, ideas, and points of view.

For example, newspapers have experienced a sharp decline in circulation and economic viability, in recent years, largely due to free, instant, and easily available online content posted on websites and blogs. Many people believe this is a welcome change as it allows so many more people to become involved in deciding what issues are salient and how those issues are handled in a more democratic fashion.

I personally believe the intellectual freedom awarded to everyone on the internet is probably the greatest benefit of web 2.0. I do, however, recognize that there are many standards and ethics involved with institutionalized journalism that do not translate to someone who is receiving and commenting on news that has already been filtered, and who is working out of her/his basement to create a website that wins traffic. Actually, journalistic integrity often is a burdensome ideal to someone who is trying to gain hits and attention. Also, the art of writing has suffered on the internet because the focus for many writers is on immediacy and volume rather than reflection and accuracy. (Personally, I blame twitter for this… which is why I have a one man boycott going)

Initially, web 2.0 may seem to promote more of a meritocracy in writing, journalism and production. However, when the goal simply becomes to win traffic, the more provocative authors will garner more attention, even when the information produced is skewed to an untruthful degree or rhetorically slanted in some other dishonest way.

So, perhaps in the same way that the greatest failures in our democratic government do not rest solely on the collective shoulders of “thievin’  politicians,” but rather in the inability of voters to decide political contests based on critical public discourse about key issues, rather than the gimmicks, slogans, spins and slanderous sound bites. In this very same way, all of the ills with web 2.0 may center around the lack of media literacy that made television so harmful to uneducated viewers in the 20th century. This new wave of technology and “mini-media” presents new problems, but it also creates tremendous opportunities for teachers to reach students and ask them to critically think about issues in ways that did not exist only a few years ago.

Another interesting phenomenon that may be counter-intuitive to the folks out there that believe web 2.0 is splintering the media, I’d suggest that web 2.0 is actually moving toward conglomeration. In the end, the vast majority of viewers will spend a limited amount of time on popular websites that their friends and family visit, websites with high profile and recognizability. For example, If I want to find sports information or opinions I may look on Espn.com, Foxsports.com or NBA.com. I will never search for a random blog of some unknown guy who lives in Kansas for my sports information. There has become so many different blogs and amateur writers living off of shock value and recycled information that people have begun to revert back to a few websites for information or news. Ultimately, the “Freedom” and variety that web 2.0 represents has become a mirage. As time goes on, more information will be accessible from fewer “giant” websites. Fewer websites will gain more of the “hits,” just as large businesses eventually begin to own larger shares in their respective markets. Blogs will continue to be niche entities that, if they become popular enough will be sucked in by a larger brand. Web 2.0 is not the new frontier anymore, it is just business as usual.

Web 2.0 has become another lesson in government, economics, and human behavior. In all three of those fields of study, the key questions ultimately relate to trust. On the internet, trust is the greatest question of all. What do we trust and how do we know if something is trustworthy? How can we present information in an honest and trustworthy manner? How can we represent ourselves, through our writing, our ideas, our tweets (your tweets… i’m boycotting)  and status updates, or our photos to the world… safely?

I’d hate to end this blog post without answering those questions, but unfortunately those questions may not have simple answers. I believe the answers are situational and can be answered through experience, which we must provide for our future students.