The Gartner group predicts that by 2011 80% of active Internet users will have a presence in a virtual world. I must admit I have yet to fully grasp what this means (after spending a little time in Second Life). To me, the Internet is already a virtual world – I interact with different people, explore different information resources, take on different roles, etc. than I do in my physical world. Isn’t this what we all do? I admit the interface may change (I may need to represent myself in virtual space as a virtual persona – i.e., avatar), but what about the Gartner prediction is assumed to be that startling?
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus assembled several researchers who focus on online victimization with the intent of informing congressional decision making. The hour and one-half sessions is available from the link and the site also identifies key papers from the presenters.
The general conclusion might be that public perception is off target.
Some descriptive statements from the presentation:
Seldom young victims (most are teenagers).
Small percentage involve violence or abduction.
Seldom involve deception. Most are clear about sexual intentions. Multiple meetings for sex.
These findings have important implications for intervention – need to target teenagers, not teachers or parents (except to get them to talk to teenagers). The core problem is not about giving out personal information, having a blog, etc. Rather, predictors involve being willing to talk about sex online and going to sex sites. The situation is more like convincing teenagers not to engage in other risky behaviors (drinking, smoking).
WOT is a Firefox add-on that attempts to collect and convey “reputation” information about web sites. The free download allows you to both access reputation data and contribute your own impressions (offer testimony).
Once installed, you will note a symbol in the toolbar of your browser (it looks like a LifeSaver to me). The color of this icon indicates the overall reputation of the site you are visiting.
Clicking on this icon opens up a window offering additional information. You contribute your input by clicking on the individual sliders.
If you want, you can use the preference panel for this add-on to block sites that are not considered safe for children.
At face value, this approach appeals to me. I like the idea of a warning system more so than a filtering system and I like the idea of participating in the process. I wonder if this system would address some of the concerns of the proposed DOPA legislation. For example, as I understand DOPA, commercial social software sites would be blocked. Consider an app such as blogger.com. While the service is a commercial social software site, access is really to individual blogs (i.e., the URL is unique). It would seem a system such as WOT would offer reputation stats for individual blogs.
I wonder if “WOTs Up” is original. 😉 Probably not.
I find that I read or listen to a wide variety of resources in order to shape my ideas regarding future applications of technology in education. The World is Flat, The Social Life of Information, Wisdom of Crowds, The Long Tail, etc. and other books have provided insights. I do a similar thing with people. Anyone interested in “participatory” web applications has probably read the comments of Tim O’Reilly on Web 2.0.
Sometimes, what you would like, is to have the individuals responsible for these perspectives to comment more directly on the application of such ideas for education. Steve Hargadon offers an interview with Tim O’Reilly in which he asks O’Reilly to do just that. The podcast is worth a listen.
I think webcams are cool – an interesting way to allow access to remote sights. Here is a recent project (South Middle School in Grand Forks) employing a webcam to chronicle the process of chicks hatching. Not a remote or dangergous process in this case, but an opportunity not every teacher (e.g., biology) is willing to provide.
From the size of the chicks, I am guessing the site will be available for only a few more days. Look for the link under “What’s new at GFPS“.
Andy Carvin has generated another post on one of his favorite topics – DOPA (now Protecting Children in the 21st Century). Andy does a great job of explaining what is happening with this legislation. The topic concerns the responsibility of school and libraries to prevent minors from accessing content/experiences that put them at risk and an important area of controversy involves access to commercial social networking sites.
What I would like to see in this debate is a discussion of the costs and benefits. What is known about the actual exposure to risk within schools and elsewhere? How much would total risk be reduced if the exposure within schools were eliminated (along with any related opportunities)? Will educators spend an equal amount of time addressing risks if such risks could not possibly be encountered within a school setting?
There are many examples of this kind of decision making involved in education. Students play football despite a certain level of injury. Students use power equipment in shop despite a certain level of injury. School buses do not require seat belts despite a certain level of injury. Students walk to and from schools despite a > 0 risk. etc.
The NYTimes reports that Bill Gates and Eli Brand (prodigious contributors to educational causes) are going to invest heavily to make certain educational issues receive considerable attention in the 2008 political races. According to the article, the philanthropists feel giving money directly to schools cannot achieve their goals unless educational change become public and political priories.
The article indicates three issues will dominate:
 a call for stronger, more consistent curriculum standards nationwide;
lengthening the school day and year; and
improving teacher quality through merit pay and other measures.
Look for the phrases “Ed in ’08” or “Strong American Schools” (I could locate only one blog as of this date).
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
