Continuation from previous
post…
If the line between professional
and personal persona is being blurred through the use of social media, then we
must dialogue about the ethical and moral implications of how we engage on-line.
Choosing to leave your privacy setting open does feed into the true nature of
how social media was designed, but it doesn’t provide a safety net for individuals
who make comments that can be deemed controversial.
The internal litmus test on
appropriate use within the school context should be the understanding that all comments
are tethered to the core values of honesty, responsibility, respect, compassion
and fairness. Further to this is the understanding that “the school context” is
greater than any individual position or belief. Once tethered to core values,
if there is still uncertainty, deferring to the 5 tests for wrongdoing is always a
good idea.
Various
Tests for Right-versus-Wrong
- The legal test: is law breaking involved?
- The Regulation test: Are there governing regulations stating not to do this?
- The stench test: does it smell? Does it go against the grain of moral principles somehow?
- The front-page test: what if everyone suddenly knew what you were up to?
- The Mom test: if I were my Mom — or any moral exemplar — would I do this? (The Golden Rule)
Accessibility and exposure is
central to this discourse. When social media settings are open, anyone can
access what is written. Accessing twitter accounts through the web requires
no permission. Anybody can access a
twitter account by just Googling a twitter handle. Just as it was designed, social media is
driven by the belief that there should be no monitoring of who views content.
In the school context this is unacceptable if what is tweeted or posted is deemed
inappropriate for our student population.
In the highly visible world of social media, it is crucial to understand
that the moment we dialogue on the Internet, we create a digital footprint
or digital tattoo that cannot be removed.
Where do we go from here? As Lao Tzu states, “The journey of a thousand
miles begins beneath one’s feet.”
We propose a constructive
dialogue where we come to agree on parameters on acceptable use and discourse.
Not policies or guidelines, but rather a living mission statement that directs
appropriate use and a common understanding. The recipe for a constructive
dialogue should begin with:
- Creating a safe environment where everyone can be heard.
- Respecting that it takes time to have meaningful dialogue.
- Realizing that the outcome is not static, but rather dynamic and needs adjustment as issues arise.
- Understanding that controversial or challenging topics can be great catalysts however, they must be handled carefully and appropriately if learning, (rather than anger, frustration, and animosity) is to be achieved.
- Encouraging open and honest communication.
- Keeping in mind that one person from a particular group does not represent that entire group and that all views come from varying levels of experiences and knowledge.
- Being aware that some social or group identities are invisible. Religion, sexual orientation, gender identification, social class, culture, ethno-racial background, and disability status are some examples of identities that may be represented, but not visible to the eye.
- An understanding that “Evolution” of thought is necessary and more beneficial than “Revolution” of thought.
So, let the discourse begin... To
infinity and beyond we will boldly go where no educator has gone before!
Identify the
stakeholders… Trust the
process… Trust the people… Edu-Bring…
3 comments:
I agree with the concept of responsibility in a digital age, and most specifically, for the intention of our actions to respect the safety of others. However, I'm not sure the "school" context truly exists anymore. The school is no longer as finite as it use to be (same reason why the yearbook now has different relevance). While the school was once a social hub that was isolated, that is no longer the case. The school community is connected, in greater and greater degrees, to a larger community. The people, the ideas, and the implications are larger than just the student body we deal with on a day to day basis. I'm not sure you can come up with a policy that is accurate in a "school" context that isn't irrelevant in another. And as our digital footprint increases, out need to be congruent and authentic in all contexts will become more apparent. Just some food for thought.
As educators we are responsible to provide our students with skills that will benefit them in the future. As part of this education, we teach them how technology can be applied to their studies and the larger community (work world). We demonstrate the power and positive aspects that social media and digital literacy will have for them, but we also need to model/educate them on the appropriate uses of technology as well. We are living in a time when our professional and private lives are blurring. Is this a good thing? That is part of the debate. Do we not need to teach our students that there are times when discussions, debates, opinions need to be private, while other times they can be part of a public discourse. Some of our students are already having trouble understanding the implications of blurring these lines, with many resulting in negative consequences. The "school" although part of a larger community, stakeholders (whether they are students, staff, or parents) still need the opportunity to dialogue without a sense that there may be negative consequences for individual opinions/actions. If we are to have open forums through social media, then why have "closed" staff meetings. In most (if not all professions) several dialogues are not done for the world to access. Typically what is available to the public is the resolution that has come from hours/days/months of closed conversations, debates, and opinions, ensuring we are all safe. All in all, we need to understand that technology is "a" tool, not "the" tool for our ever changing world.
Or technology is not "tool" at all - as couras argues http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/2629
Though I understand the nature of business and schools and other organizations having closed conversations, and those conversations will continue, the rate of public discourse will also continue to grow. This is inevitable. I think teaching students, staff, parents and the public at large responsibility to public discourse is important. We should be striving for safety and respect for all participants. We aren't going to get it right every time. But I think George is right in his blog when he talks about technology as being transformative.
I don't claim for this to be easy - but I do think that a transition is already underway and digital citizenship will be a big topic that we are only just starting to unpack. I don't think keeping things offline (or pretending we can) will help. So many amazing conversations, so much learning, and so many relationships are underway because of this transformation. I'm prepared for a future that requires a greater degree of transparency, and look forward to being a part of many conversations on the issue - both face to face and online.
Post a Comment