Month: April 2017

Doug Belshaw responds to the question as to the biggest mistake when it comes to digital literacies. After pointing out that they are plural, context-dependent and socially-negotiated, he explains that it is not something that one necessarily becomes.

There is no stance from which you could call someone ‘digitally literate’, because (as Allan Martin has pointed out), it is a condition, not a threshold. There is no test you could devise to say whether someone was ‘digitally literate’, except maybe at a very particular snapshot in time, for a very defined purpose, in a certain context. (Source)

I have elaborated on Belshaw's book here.

David Culberhouse discusses the need to be proactive as a leader or else actions will be pushed on you.

In the end, the worst stance is to be flat-footed and motionless, when change and disruption comes a calling, determined to pull the rug out from under you, to have the future forced upon you.  Rather, we need leaders drenched in awareness, connecting dots, searching for signals, willing to intentionally design our way forward in a much more proactive manner. (Source)

Paul Browning discusses the challenges associated with leadership. In particular, he focuses on responding to the unknown.

Leadership is a bit like rock climbing (my son took me indoor climbing over Easter). When you look up the cliff face looks formidable, unachieveable. Half way up your arms begin to shake, particularly if you are using the wrong technique. If you look down your courage can falter and you think you can’t push on any further.But like rock climbing, leadership is a skill, that with practise, can be improved. You only get better at it when you are faced with a new over-hang, new hold, or new rock face.Good leaders will assess each challenge. Have I seen this before? What did I learn last time? Should I tackle this a bit differently? Who can I ask for advice? And if I make a mistake, what is the worst that is going to happen? I’ll have to apologise, adjust my strategy and give it another go.Rock climbers, like leaders never get any better by looking at the cliff. They can learn by watching others, but the real learning happens when you hook on and give it a go. (Source)

This reminds me of the work of David Culberhouse around embracing the VUCA.

There has been a lot written about the potential of social media. However, there is just as much discussed around the limitations of such spaces and the ease to with which we can confirm our biases. One aspect that has arisen over time is the place and power of tribes and with this some negative attributes, such as trolling. In a recent post, Marten Koomen wonders about the place of care in such spaces.

Many educators approach education from an ethic of care and are particularly prone to bullying. As Noddings (2003) explains, a person who engages others from an ethic of care “is not seeking the answer but the involvement” (p. 176). Care is of primary importance in education. It is through an ethic of care that new insights and understandings become possible. When involvement is inauthentic and hostile, those engaging can experience toxicity and distress. Of course, those who approach life from an ethic of care still need to reason, but this reasoning needs to proceed with an empathy for different perspectives. It requires moral development (Gilligan, 1977; Kohlberg, 1971; Murphy & Gilligan, 1980). (Source)

It is interesting to consider this alongside Michael Caulfield's discussion of technology designed to meet a demand and whether spaces such as Twitter are designed to support and sabotage a culture of care?

Warning: Undefined array key "cardbox" in /home/readwrit/wikity.readwriterespond.com/wp-content/themes/wikity-zero-master/functions.php on line 274

What comes first, the technology or the hoax? Michael Caulfield examines a hoax involving people living on the surface of the moon in the 19th century. He makes the case that this event was not created to promote newspapers, but vice versa. Newspapers and mass print was designed to promote such events:

In other words, you can think of the hoax as meeting a demand technology creates. The hoax is hyperreal, the realer-than-real event custom-built for the technology it will inhabit. It doesn't subvert the technology as much as exploit it to its full potential. The hoax, not reality, shows the underlying logic of the platform, and lays it bare. The hoax is the unbridled platform made manifest.Whether we realize it or not, that's where  we are with social media at this moment. The proliferation of hoaxes have repeatedly shown the moral bankruptcy of our current platforms, and just as early hoaxes of the 1800s started a conversation that would lead to modern journalistic ethics, we are beginning to have that discussion now about our online presses and virtual barking newsboys. And just like then, the question is not primarily about hoaxes, but about what we should be able to expect, in terms of ethics, from the people running and developing our information platforms. (Source)

This relates to the idea that technology is never neutral.

---

This makes me wonder what the purpose of technology, such as NAPLAN and Google Docs is fufilling?

Andrea Stringer discusses the voices of teachers within education, the power of coaching to develop expertise and the overall potential for collective efficacy. Aspects such as social media provide a way of supporting this.

For expertise in the classroom and in leadership, colleagues, my professional learning network, professional reading and discourse support me. I also tap into the expertise of academics I have connected with via Twitter. With that broad depth of expertise, I learn, explore, implement and reflect. It is about connecting, building relationships, increasing awareness and developing empathy. Social media has provided a platform for this to happen, although some sectors have restrictions. Social media decreases the traditional hierarchy within education and allows more stakeholders the opportunity to connect.Source