Monthly Archives: June 2016

Dialled in, plugged in, and loving life.

23 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Look up“.

Great advice for some, but not all. I think in some cases, we need to try to reflect on the value of looking down… and what looking down allows us to do – connect, answer, and learn. Yes, we can go to a concert and hear musicians tell us to unplug and live in the moment, and we need to, but what about getting a video of Chris Martin singing “Fix You” for your friend who couldn’t be there because they were sick?

Some moments don’t need a camera; there is value in appreciating things without a digital record… But, like every other debate we’ve had, we need balance, moderation, and an open mind. Is taking a video of a child’s first steps also “not living in the moment”? Or is it an opportunity to reflect and relive the moment many years later? Humanity is evolving, constantly rewiring the hardware of our brains, and with this includes modern connectedness and socialization, which occurs by looking down and utilizing our technology and devices. We are comfortable with looking down when it helps us learn with PLNs or to help facilitate learning and friendships, but are quick to antagonize it when people don’t appreciate moments the way we might want them to. There is a challenge to begin to recognize that who we are today involves a link between offline to online life. This is echoed by the concept of augmented reality. As we learn about what our digital footprints are, and adjust our digital identity to improve this, we improve our IRL identity as a result… we project a better us to live up to. (But this can create pressure to please, so we need to continue to reflect and be fair to ourselves).
Optimism versus the facts against being plugged in.

“Plugging in” has been called “a way to avoid dealing with loneliness“,

Loneliness_(4101974109)

Loneliness via Wikimedia Commons

but perhaps it is an opportunity to decrease boredom. Loneliness and boredom encapsulate two states of mind that are, at times, difficult to differentiate from one another. I would seek to argue that perhaps we are more engaged and stimulated than ever before, but is there a backlash to this? What is it? We are all capable of multi-tasking better than ever before, yet some evidence points to the idea that I am wrong, and simply have less attenton and focus. Having too much going on at once is imposed by tech and causes higher levels of stress… including how connected we are and the inherent expectations for shorter response times. Contrary to this, I would argue that I feel efficient when I get a lot done in a day, and am capable of getting a lot of things done thanks to technology, and have a lot of positive means of coping with the potential stress that occurs as a result. I want to be involved and I feel fulfilled when I am… or am I just afraid of missing out?

Fear of missing out is a reality for some, and some may tell you that technology is making this worse, but there is also learning to be had when struggling with this fear. Speaking from personal experience, through toddler to teenager, I have been completely wrapped up in what others are doing, and over time learned to accept the things I may be missing out on for what is more important, isn’t that what growing up is and has been for some time? Some argue that technology can be an addiction, observing others who make trips home to retrieve devices that, without them, said individuals would feel naked. I have a hard time agreeing that technology is an addiction, we have it to connect and it is something that we feel improves or is needed in our lives. How is this different than applying the argument to being addicted to our cars or other modes of transportation? It is a part of our lives that improves our lives, and the fact that I feel that I “need” it to get to work wouldn’t be considered addiction or “bordering on obsession”, so many things would therefore border on obsession. My love of hockey, teaching, cats, and my family, borders on obsession. However, the points listed above make my life better, no question about it. Does being plugged in actually make my life better?

Does being plugged in legitimately make your life better?

Does being plugged in make your students’ lives better?

If you think it doesn’t, then stay unplugged.

For me?

I am dialled in.

I am plugged in.

I am educate-in.

And I am loving life.

 

EC&I 830, have a great summer.

Logan Petlak

 

 

Educate and you will be gold.

21 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 4 Comments

My summary of learning seeks to revisit my music video remixing ways of the past with Justin Bieber’s Love Yourself and this time targeted Lukas Graham’s 7 Years, attached below.

This course was very different from ECI 831. I found the debate format very engaging, especially when I got to participate. That being said, at times felt like I was coming to the same conclusion with a different spin on it each week and this left me feeling like I was in a rut. Fortunately, this spoke to the strength of my classmates and their ability communicate and illustrate their ideas, and it occurred to me that the ongoing message of balance and education isn’t a bad thing. Despite this, and as I outline in the song above, there are some things I agreed with over the course of the term and some things that I did not agree with.

Plain and simple, the baseline defence for any of our debates, as an educator, was: educate and you will be gold(en). Teach students to think critically, much like we challenged ourselves to do so in many of our debate topics. Approaching each debate with optimism maintains a solution-focused mentality that we need to bring to the field. Accepting problems as is doesn’t change them, and while change may not be a reality in each of our respective career-spans we can still push our students to grow and in doing so excel professionally.

Erin and Heather walked through each of our debates in their summary of learnings… I will follow suit, albeit much more informally.

Is technology a force for equity or enhances learning? With proper education and available resources, it can be.

Does technology make people unhealthy? Some people overuse it and are, but with proper education, it should help.

Openness and sharing is unfair? We teach students to share throughout their lives and we do it because it is something that is morally just only to turn around and say it isn’t good for them? I don’t buy it (within reason).

Social media is childhood. Some aspects of it may be ruining some experiences in childhood, but it is part of modern socialization/learning.

We may have sold our “souls” in education at times in resource consumption or device usage, but if students are engaged and learning, that is the priority.

And do we need to take time to unplug? For sure. Unplugging doesn’t mean an active disregard for useful technologies at our disposal today however. Appreciate nature. And appreciate potential for growth with tech.

Once again, I may be over-generalizing and not providing all of the facts – but with the facts taken into consideration from both sides, we still can be optimists about education, and I feel like we need to be optimists in education (while thinking critically).

The one argument that I felt people would make is “how valuable or ‘good’ is something if you have to teach about it to make it worthwhile?” But applying this ideology to everything we teach would make our curriculum meaningless.

I’ve made it this far in life being optimist, would be a hypocritical shame to stop being one now.

Logan Petlak

Ps – Thanks Alec and Katia for another great class. Lyrics for my jam below.


Lyrics

“Educate” by Logan Petlak 

ECI 830, let’s debate please,
“Learning is enhanced with technology”
And I agree.

In a connected world, is tech an equalizer?
Does it shorten achievement gaps, with the help of teachers
Or are students distracted, thinking more bout liking pictures
Social media relationships does it help or hinder

ECI 830, let’s debate please,
“Tech is making kids unhealthy”
Better believe that I disagree.

Yes, people might say that, tech could cause obesity
But this is just another age-old complain/blaming story
Whether FitBit or Gaming, here is a simple warning
preach moderation and display a little maturity.

ECI 830, online bullies take hold,
commenting what they want with anonymity
Bad for kids any years old.

(Alec and Katia!)

I think we need open ed, and I believe in sharing
Unless you overshare, then your problems can be major
Don’t share your boy’s first pee, or some lewd behaviour
It applies if you want a job or are an online dater

EdTech equity, here’s a tech pro
Students could be writing, typing, sharing, and learning
with #digcit share your posts.

WiFi, tech and websites, has public ed been sold?
Paying for knowledge filling the pockets of the wealthy.
Learning wins with our morals.

Is social media the new life?
Devices for children and me
So we can teach to question more
rather than Google anything
Share your stories with me
Share that tweet about Finding Dory
But take the time to step back,
Unplug, or you’ll be sorry

Log on and try to behold, by accident have some fun
Reflect on life, share your life with your loved ones
You might be unhappy if you’re in a Snapchat once
But learn to connect with students on that technology front

Logging on how it will unfold, comments will be bold
And will it affect children positively?
Educate rather than patrol.

For learning is it selling your soul, what is the real toll?
And will it divide children, socio-economically?
Educate for their household.

ECI 830, let’s debate please.
Student well-being is our priority
Educate and you will be gold.
…
Educate and you will be gold.

 

Should you sell your educating soul for the right reason (students)?

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I have such a hard time trusting corporations or people in power.

Maybe it’s from watching V for Vendetta, Fight Club, or Mr. Robot too many times, but my default assumption on individuals who are extremely wealthy or powerful is mistrust and doubt.

What did you do to get there?

Why are you so wealthy?

Do you believe you need that much more money than others?

What motivates your decision making?

preview2

Big Business via socawlege

And sorry to those of you who are well-off (which is a loaded comment in and of itself) that this may offend…

But can you blame me?

We obviously can’t paint every company with the same brush but when it comes down to students and learning, but what resources and deals that we as teachers, administrators school boards and divisions make are actually valuable to students and what is simply fuelled by greed or is filling the pockets of those that we are obligated to appease?

Soft drink and food companies push to get their brands into the school with some “noble” marketing. Textbook companies even cash in on the curriculum and testing system in some states south of our borders. While there are examples of positive and noble gestures by certain groups, there is a large monopoly on learning and its associated resources. When I consider the impact these corporations have on the learning I attempt to facilitate in my classroom I’m not sure I know where to begin. Textbooks, laptops, projectors and SMARTboards are the obvious ones, but can we not extend this to the desks, air conditioning (if so fortunate), the phones they use and the gymnasiums and facilities the student train and compete in? The line is pretty ambiguous. Is it okay to use desks but not textbooks?

This presents the idea of the Faustian bargain in education. Do we allow for companies to exhibit some forms of dominance and investment in the learning process for the sake of better resources? Does saying yes mean you’ve sold your soul? You can see in comics and media examples of “selling your soul” for the right reasons, and I would argue this applies here, much like Dean Shareski argued in our debate, highlighting that we kind of have to and it happens whether we like it or not. Our goal is student learning and as long as we do not become obligated or bound to do something unethical in the process of receiving what these companies provide to our students, we should be able to accept a pizza hut lunch day at school. Or free Google Chromebooks to all students. It is “free marketing” for those companies, but they are still providing a service to students with the potential to enhance learning and we need to utilize it that way. As Audrey Watters reminded us, this isn’t a new problem, capitalizing on education has been happening for over a hundred years but our ideologies on education have changed. Regardless, this has been happening for a long time. It doesn’t mean we completely trust these corporations, but we can at least see the value in what private companies can provide. We can’t be afraid to use the resources if it is for our students to learn (it is important to note I don’t mean “do anything for the sake of learning”).

//gifs.com/embed/ghost-rider-you-can-t-live-in-fear-gJEgOr

Once again in ECI 830 we ask, where is the line? What is the balance? Education needs funding… and in times of lower provincial revenue, what do our leaders turn to? Maybe we do need outside funding, as Andres reminds us, but I would posit the idea that we aren’t selling our souls to do so when it is done for a morally just reason.

Connecting to my opinion statement referencing movies and comics as well as my post from last week on doing what is morally right, I will close on a Ghost Rider reference when discussing selling our souls for education. In this comic, the antihero sells his soul to the devil to save his father… who ends up dying anyway.

6760969341_0a07a83245_b

Ghost Rider by Clayton Crain via Tumblr

We want to avoid dying (getting manipulated by businesses) at all costs, and by being aware of these potential effects on our children, we can. But as educators, we, like Ghost Rider, can take comfort knowing that embracing the positives can lead to achieving what is right and just for ourselves, and more importantly for others (our students).

Thoughts, comments? Share below.

Logan Petlak

 

Good intentions and what is morally just make EdTech equitable.

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Equity versus equality.

Equity involves an attempt to level the playing field for all as exemplified in the picture below.

equality doesnt mean equity

Health Equity via CommunityView.ca

The importance of this concept was made more apparent in the presence of “straight pride week” posters and social media posts appearing recently in light of pride week… and people sometimes fail to make the connection that equality is not equality without equity. And despite the use of social media to spread this hate and discrimination, technology still can be used as a force for equity.

straight pride

Straight Pride Posters Removed via Worldnow

 

 

Equity, education, technology and well-intentioned actions.

Technology can be a force for equity in society. It can provide health and learning alternatives for those at risk or at a disadvantage and seek to level the playing field for individuals. These actions are practised with good intentions for helping others. Some emphasize that using these technologies widens the achievement gap between rich and poor students and that may be the case in some instances, exacerbating socio-economic divides. Well-intentioned actions (more on this next week) can lead to further issues and may place importance on skills related to certain forms of technology that may make individuals more equipped for life in another culture rather than helping them to develop their own. As it applies to education, every effort needs to be made to educate our youth to put them in the best position to be successful learners and citizens, and while there are potential repercussions, decisions made in good conscience/faith need to be encouraged while productive feedback is provided. Well-intentioned actions may be flawed, but with the students in mind and the potential for enhancement of their learning, the process of integrating these technologies is worth practising. Technology, apps, robots and devices are developed with the intention to serve a need in society and many of these needs today are to bridge gaps, regardless of the paycheck associated with it (there is a host of issues with that as well, however). Just as there are needs in society, there are needs in the classroom. Literary needs, language needs, even motor skill needs. 

Socio-economic divides, do these technologies actually help?

Technology in the classroom may not actually improve performance in classrooms. And the introduction of these new technologies when made available to all will likely only be used by those with the resources to acquire it. This doesn’t mean it isn’t worth creating or practising. By that logic, a new, expensive, potentially life-saving practice for heart disease shouldn’t be allowed or encouraged as it will further push the divide as rich people with heart disease will be able to live longer while those who cannot afford it may not be able to. Morally, all should have access to it, but is our reality consistent with this? No. And there is the potential that this technology can someday be made more accessible for all. But for now, one student, even if there are rich that has a learning disability and there is an app that helps them learn, it’s worth it. I understand the associated issues with what the creation and subsequent use of technologies provide, but what is the potential solution then? Equal/equitable access for all so that these technologies may not be privatised? Complete societal upheaval and restructuring? It’s not feasible. I don’t intend to be pessimistic, mind you, quite the contrary. The creation and use of these technologies for health and learning present an opportunity for learning and well-being… and when these occur, equity can follow and I am optimistic despite potential short-term gap widening, the benefits and morality of equitable tech casts a shadow over it.

 

The moral question I ask is: Is an act done with good intentions and is morally just, but has potential consequences, wrong?

A loaded question. And while bad decisions have been made in the past with good intentions, with the right research and preparation, the moral good that technology can provide in the learning and health for some outweighs the potential gap-widening problems.

Debatable, no doubt. Thoughts?

Logan Petlak

Social media IS childhood.

14 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 4 Comments

Childhood and social media

I can spew out a multitude of statistics that speak to both the positives and negatives of social media on children as well as state my personal opinions on the matter, and make no mistake, I intend to do both, but the opinionated “fact” of the matter is that, today, social media IS childhood. Before my classmates hop on-board and say, “But Logan, I thought you were on the agree side of the statement: social media is ruining childhood“. It’s true, I debated in favour of that comment in class. However, the statement itself is too black and white. Addressing the statement as an impartial and judicious individual, you are obligated to disagree. For some, it enhances creativity, for others, it can be catastrophic. Regardless, it is what our kids our doing and it is how they connect with the world and each other, be it positive or negative, it has the capacity to achieve both. Friendships are no longer limited to the two hours where you could go out and play together, dependent on dad to give you a ride to Rene’s house. Now you can connect with friends to meet in person, rather than be stuck on the landline, fighting over who gets the single phone in your family. But is screen time becoming overwhelming,  and is our children’s health at risk? Much like the argument can be made that adults (some) have a tendency to complain about the next generation, children and society is constantly evolving in its learning, socialization, consumption of information and inherent problems therein as I attempted to identify above. It doesn’t mean that social media is all sunshine and butterflies, just like it doesn’t mean that because some adults have a tendency to romanticize their own childhood functions as a feasible argument against the

facebook creepin.jpg

“Mr. Petlak Facebook Creepin'”

negatives of social media.

And there are negatives.

Social media comes with potential backlash as you can still connect to past partners which potentially inhibits breakup recovery and growth. It can cause anxiety, limit sleep, correlate to dating too young, a decline in communication skills or be a distraction in class… and this doesn’t even acknowledge the widespread availability of pornographic material.

And there are positives.

Learning about digital citizenship can translate to advocacy campaigns to bring about positive change worldwide rather than limited to a particular community, building on the notion of six degrees of Kevin Baco- err… separation. Digital literacy and connectedness through social media are valuable assets in a job market growing to utilize social media. And, if educated properly, can make students leaders online in communities that may be subject to abuse and misogyny using anonymity for protection much like those who incite hatred may do. Not to mention expanding opportunities for knowledge in open education or personal learning networks.

Social media is worth arguing and researching about, but facts aside, it’s what most of our children do and love/hate. As always, rather than scold, education is gold. It’s not meant to be a deliberate lack of appreciation for the research and facts, as there is evidence supporting both sides, but social media present a wide spectrum of possibility.

Below is our closing statement video in which students spoke of how social media is ruining childhood, but childhood, as Ellen and Elizabeth put it in their debate, is abstract and subject to change generation to generation. Today’s childhood is social media. Student experiences will be different than ours, the emotions may be the same, but the vehicle in which anxiety and connectedness occurs is and has been constantly evolving, for better or for worse.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts below! Or give my fellow debaters a look to see their opinions on the matter! Amy and Carter

Logan Petlak

Sharing and openness. A moral imperative, even on social media.

02 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Sharing is a moral imperative.

This week we debated the necessity or disservice of sharing and openness in schools in the context of social media and education technology. And, much like many of our discussions, it involves statements or hesitations from some that we could apply to other arguments about childhood and life. Observing my opening sentence, read the italicized and consider if that phrase, not in the context of social media, but rather of students of the past. Is or was sharing and openness not encouraged, with emphasis on competition instead? Perhaps not in schools, but at home?  Once upon a time, ‘openness’ and sharing emotions was discouraged as part of social pressures on males (The Mask You Live In). But in today’s world, openness and sharing is a given, a moral imperative. And sharing and openness in social media is no exception to this fundamental moral imperative. But sharing is a learning process, parents and educators need to learn themselves and guide students through the process of now understanding sharing not just in the historic sense of “Billy, let Tim play with your toys too”,

it’s become “Billy, don’t feel like you need to let Tim know about every single thing you’re doing today on Instagram”. We can share learning, or perhaps important life events, but where is the line in what we should share? Juan Enriquez presents the idea that everything we share leaves that digital tattoo. So, while I would argue we need to share, we need to be aware of the implications of what we share about ourselves and others. Much like presenting ourselves professionally in public, like at a social gathering, today social media is where humans gather and “humans are wired to share”. Rachel Botsman, makes this argument in her case for collaborative consumption.
https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption.html

 

Learning about sharing. How do we share better?

There are a lot of reminders out there about why we need to be aware of our digital footprint. Sometimes there is that fear about what we put into the big scary internet, but we (teachers and students) can use it to our advantage. This requires some learning to take place. In discussion with my grade nines, we stumbled onto an apparent digital citizenship learning curve. In many ways, as student’s raised in the social media age, they hit certain milestones or realizations about what is “okay” online far sooner than I ever did. Like any bit of learning, however, there are gaps. Some learn to avoid “oversharing” younger, yet fail to understand the idea of creating a positive digital footprint and post profanity or inappropriate content. As a young educator, I am fortunate to have been raised in the beginning of the social media age, but learned through mistakes and failure; different generations have different exposure and opportunity. So, rather than a trial by fire, or through personal experience depending on the generation of teachers, educators need a guideline for teaching digital citizenship in our school, thanks Alec and Katia. Find your line and use the resources to teach about openness and sharing through social media responsibly.

Where is the ideal line between sharing too much and not enough though? We can be aware of our digital footprints, but one person’s definition of a good digital footprint may be slightly different than another, much like one individual’s thoughts on sharing may be different than another. Where is your line?

Logan Petlak