I think Shirky's use of Ivanna's phone story brings up interesting ethical and relational questions. He notes, "the willingness of humans to feel wronged is infinite. Do we want a world where, whenever someone with this kind of leverage gets riled up, they can unilaterally reset the priorities of the local police department?" We know some of our students can quickly feel an injustice has occurred (maybe a lower grade than expected, or a not making a team) and feel passionate about righting that wrong. Through being their own publisher, can a situation be "tried" in the court of public opnion long before we even know it? Shirky notes that "when we change the way we communicate, we change society."
When students have the ability to be their own publisher, how do they learn discernment? Formal journalism has had standards and ethics that guided their profession. Now that we have broadened the definition of journalist and publisher to include most of us, are we teaching the ethics and sensitivity of our actions' (words') impact on others, along with the technology? I recently attended a workshop by Dr. David Walsh who spoke at Parkway several years ago on the impact of media and technology on the brain of children and adolescents. He shared that in Korea, where use of technology is very advanced, preschoolers are taught songs with lyrics about responsibly using the web, in the same way that we teach the "clean up" song. Just wondering what others' thoughts are about the ethical questions that Shirky raised in these chapters and how we can help our students make great choices in this domain of little supervision...
Comment
If you are representing a commercial entity, please see the specific guidelines on your participation.
© 2024 Created by Steve Hargadon. Powered by
You need to be a member of Classroom 2.0 to add comments!
Join Classroom 2.0