Month: June 2009

I have not focused much attention here lately due to preoccupation with another writing project. I am working with a grad student to author a book chapter on cyberbullying in the United States. My interest in this topic originally resulted from the realization that schools may block students from using many of the participatory web resources I felt had such great potential. In attempting to understand the threats from predators and cyberbullies, I concluded that filtering was not the proper reaction to either threat. Anyway, in attempting to become involved in the literature on cyberbullying and collecting some data with a graduate student who works with me I have become a good deal more knowledgeable and moved past the issue of what schools block useful opportunities.

Two initial observations:
1) research on cyberbullying is far less mature than research on bullying
2) assuming that cyberbullying is an outgrowth of bullying may limit the perspective on many researchers.

Here a few comments on observation #1.

In reviewing literature for the chapter project, it seemed that the terminology applied in addressing online or phone-based aggression and victimization was more variable than that applied to face to face aggression and victimization. What was not always evident were reasons that might account for this difference? Perhaps bullying has been studied more extensively and for a longer period of time allowing for greater standardization. There seems to be agreement on a relatively small number of characteristics that define “face to face” bullying. With perhaps the addition or elimination of a characteristic, this list seems to include:
    a) the targeting of an individual or small number of individuals,
    b) experiences that are defined as negative and damaging by the victim,
    c) repetition of these experiences, and
    d) a power differential making it difficult to terminate or escape the negative experiences.
Establishing such a set of characteristics allows bullying to be differentiated from other forms of interpersonal violence and makes it easier to identify the perpetrators and victims involved.

Much of the research on cyberbullying fails to focus on events that meet this set of standards.
1) Often victims are defined based on a single incident
2) Often victims are not “distressed” by the experiences
3) Often victims can handle events (they know what to do online to discourage attackers) implying that they are not at a power disadvantage

Bad things can happen as the result of a single experience. Those who attempt to bother others have issues that must be addressed. The label applied does not mean that these realities do not exist. However, as a topic of research, some focus needs to be brought to this area so that the journals get beyond publishing the results of conflicting survey studies.

Tags: cyberbully

So, Cindy and I are driving home from Bismarck listening to podcasts. A podcast from Conference Connections (FETC) on cell-phone applications generated the following discussion.

Me: This guy is making assumptions about the potential of cell-phone applications in education that are naive. Kids have cell phones, but how many kids from lower income families have the data plans that would allow most of the examples he presents? Educators can’t go forward with major ideas that not all students can apply.
She: Sure, but sometimes you have to take advantage of what is there.
Me: If I had the choice of requiring parents or schools to provide a device it would not be a cell phone. It would be some kind of netbook – I read companies are selling netbooks at a very low rate if you commit to a data plan.
She: Parents are going to be more interested in getting their kids a cell phone.
Me: Have you ever tried writing something with a cell phone. Try writing something that is longer than a paragraph.
She: You are out of date with your ideas. Why do you think writing is so important? Kids can just speak their ideas.

Hmm – any help out there?

A week or so ago I commented on the “education” chapter in What would Google do (Jarvis). After generating this post, Cindy and were listening to TWIT podcasts (This Week in Tech) while driving to and from Minneapolis and the guests on one of the podcasts (TWIT 197) included Don Tapscott (Growing Up Digital; Grown Up Digital; Wikinomics) and Jeff Jarvis (What would Google do?). These are very interesting books (and authors) and I would recommend them all. I would encourage you to listen to this podcast. You can just use the link I provide if you would rather not subscribe using iTunes. The entire episode does not address education, but tech types will likely not mind.

When people outside a field tell those within a field what is necessary for improvement, I assume there is often a sense of frustration among the “insiders”. Serious professionals usually have strong opinions about the practice of their profession and these opinions often include both positives and negatives. However, when outsiders take the position that your profession is a lost cause the reaction is likely to be one of bemusement.

A few bemused comments:
a) Educational institutions cannot be innovative? My initial reaction was that such a position could not possibly be further from the truth. Research is pretty much equivalent to innovation and many researchers supported by institutions of higher education can pursue innovation without regard for whether the developments can be monetized. We are cheap in comparison to the private sector and spend time on long term goals. We also share our results for free (if you read the research literature). Then, I decided the concern for the lack of innovation was intended as a focused criticism of teaching/learning? Perhaps, but ….
b) Educational innovation requires an active “learner”. Jeff Jarvis brought his son to the program. His son, a high school junior, develops apps for Facebook as a sideline .. The anecdotal approach to argument is unsuited to logical thinking in the social sciences. Yes, Bill Gates did not graduate from college. Yes, the same was true of the Google guys and Steve Jobs. It may be relevant to note these folks dropped out of Harvard, Stanford, etc. and worked with faculty members while in attendance and afterward. If we were talking about professional basketball and inner city kids, how would the reaction go? Don’t be a fool, finish school! Consider the reaction to a proposal that anyone over 6’6” ditch classes and spend more time working on his cross-over. Visionary? Follow your passion? Or perhaps, this advice only works for those interested in tech. How many can make it in either of these fields without advanced and general training? Does the fact that a very gifted individual who has already had many unique opportunities (e.g., the younger Jarvis, with mentor parents, a summer at MIT, etc.) and can presently make some money offer a model for most high school students? How much time has this adolescent invested (see Outliers for a discussion of the 10,000 hours and the story of Bill Gates)? So – pick an area in which you think you have talent and spend 10,000 hours. Too many wannabe actors waiting tables already.

c) Opportunities for innovative experiences are not available in higher education? Nonsense – we have experiential courses (field based), individual readings, research, etc. We have equipment to share, work Saturdays, etc. – what more could you want. Often, these pursuits can be lonely for us. If you find a connection and are willing to invest the time, we are thrilled by the opportunity to share our interests and our time. The IF thing here is important – if you are starting from scratch, you have very little to offer to this process. We will likely find something for you to do, but few stick with repetitive low level tasks for long. The general courses are a way to acquire the background and are an efficient way for both the student and the institution. The TWIT conversation and many reformers seem to ignore the money thing. Jarvis, in his book, seems to assume that we find mentors online. I will stick with higher education until I see proof that there are enough freebie mentors out there willing to meet the educational needs of the masses.

Making it in the NBA is a long shot. What do you think the odds are of any given HS student working in her garage becoming the next Bill Gates?