Assignment 4 – Personal Reflection #2
Page 68 – “We argue that as young
people are accessing these sites anyway, we need to give them the critical
skills to negotiate the spaces carefully. They will come across texts that are
racist, sexist, or otherwise socially unacceptable, and they need to be helped
to recognize these as such.”
What are your thoughts about this?
Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? How can we help students develop
critical skills to determine the validity of information?
This quote comes from the book Web 2.0 for Schools: Learning and Social Participation. Julia
Allison Davies and Guy Merchant state this quote while discussing YouTube. The
statement, when read with the entire paragraph, lends itself to debate.
On the one hand, teachers would like to have tools they can
control. To paraphrase the old television show, "Students say the
darnedest things." Even in a classroom discussion, a student may say
something Ms. Davies or Mr. Merchant might describe as "socially
unacceptable." The question the teacher is faced with is whether to censor
the comment (and ignore it), or use it as a teaching moment. If the choice is
the latter, the teacher then becomes the moderator of a spirited point-counterpoint
session.
Isaac Asimov created science fiction's "Three Laws of
Robotics." In the book, Robot
Visions, he uses tools as an analogy for these three laws. First, a tool
must be safe to use. Second, a tool must perform its function, as long as it
does so safely. Last, a tool must remain intact during its use (unless its
destruction is part of its function (Asimov, P 424-425). While that final law
may not apply here, the first two point to the concept of digital citizenship
or "Netiquette."
When I look at the two sentences given, I would certainly
agree that students need to be able to discern the message a particular web
site is giving. Technology Teachers are becoming Technology Coaches, giving
students the opportunity to work on assignments, commenting only when answering
questions. Dr. Ardito employed this technique during our last face-to-face. There
have been many instances when half-truths or false messages have been shared
online. Who hasn’t received a forwarded e-mail or a Facebook post touting the
latest urban legend? Later in the paragraph, Davies and Merchant go on to say, “teachers
can provide pupils with the tools to read such texts in discriminating ways.”
The greatest critical skill one could impart to students is
to use multiple sources when searching the Internet. Students may use only the
first hit on Google, and believe that one hit to be the truth. With multiple
sources, we would remove inaccuracy, half-truths, and bias. Typically, the
first hit on Google is for a Wikipedia page. Here, Wikipedia has become
sensitive to the bias some of its contributor convey. Wikipedia notes where citations
are needed, and gives a detailed bibliography a student can use.
The only part of the quote I would be concerned with is the
last sentence. It is almost as if Davies and Merchant have established some “moral
code” when it comes to certain sources found on the Internet. While I agree
there’s a difference between “the authentic and the inauthentic,” what
constitutes “the racist from the non-racist?” This week, Volkswagen caused controversy
with an ad slated for the Super Bowl. In it, a Caucasian is speaking as a
Jamaican. Some find it funny because of the absurdity that the voice and face
don’t match. Others compare it to an audio version of an old minstrel show. I
would hate to think that in a paper on racism, a student couldn’t use a primary
source because of something acceptable in 1920 but not today. Here, classroom
discussion would serve as a vital tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment