-
Website
http://drapestakes.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://drapestakes.blogspot.com/2008/07/possible-price-of-being-student-20.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I'm not sure it's valid to publish this as as true picture of what was really being said. Twitter is not a conversation, it's a snapshot of pieces of a conversation. The comments appear in different order to different people, depending on whether you are looking at the website or use apps like Twitterific, and who you follow.
I'm not sure this is fair to @arthus, and certainly it seems odd to generalize these snippets into some kind of commentary on students in general.
It's condescending both ways - to either worship kids just because of their age, or exclude them just because of their age. Anyone who has worked with students on how to be independent thinkers and develop their voice, knows there are days when that voice is turned against you; you can't expect them to thank us for our wisdom and toe our party line all the time.
this is the order that the comments were made. I favorited each tweet, and
Twitter sorts by time.
Second, I don't think this is a commentary on students in general. It's a
commentary on one student's display of attitude - and how I think we may
have built him up to this.
How else would you feel if you had teachers constantly critiquing you and
your behavior? There's a lot of pressure there for a 14-year old. I couldn't
have dealt with it well when I was in high school. Could you have?
And let's talk about celebrity now. Arthus has become a poster-child for the
21st Century student. I've propped him up, I've defended him, I've even
admitted that he's likely smarter that I am. Is it too difficult to see
that fame may have something to do with this?
I think your post does imply some sort of generalization, at least to the students who are contributors to the Students 2.0 blog, and certainly the comments are going there.
Intelligence and wisdom are two different qualities. Arthus - and many of the Student 2.0 gang - undoubtedly have the first, but have a long way to go to acquire the second. There are scads of smart teenagers out there. It's the wise ones that are truly the rare gems.
In my experience, these kinds of attitudes are typical of teenagers. My understanding from various sources I've read is that these attitudes have a biological basis rooted in hormone changes, brain maturation, and other physical changes. Hopefully, somewhere along the way they learned about respect, open-mindedness, and thoughtful two-way discussion - and those lessons will make more sense to them later. Or maybe they WILL learn about those things as they move along through life.
Most likely, their attitudes will mellow when they get some life experience under their belts. Until then, they are simply demonstrating how much they do still have to learn, maybe not about web development, but definitely about successful social interaction and about life!
The inclusion of students in making educational decisions has to be done carefully. Prensky, for example over emphasizes their perspectives in my opinion.
While Arthus shares some similar interests as many edtech types, he's not going to be able to be fully immersed in meaningful dialog about education. The exchange above would prove that point.
archive.org and Google are faster than lightning.
Wed 09 Jul 10:31 via TweetDeck
@arthus It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows. - Epictetus
taught me many things, for which I am grateful.
In fact, I don't entirely blame Arthus for this. I know that we are all
responsible for our actions, but there are deeper forces at work here. I
think that we, the public light, the system (as cliche as that sounds) may
be as much to blame as him.
That being said, I really must thank you for being such a wonderful troll on the ITM post: your fierce ageism attracted far more readers and followers than staying silent would have.
I'm not sure you understand what 'ageism' actually is. I would have similar
issues with someone my own age who hadn't got a degree, gone through teacher
training and done any teaching themselves. You've got the engine, just not
the rudder of experience...
I fail to see how this is *not* an example of ageism. Based purely upon my age, you seem to assume I have no valid opinion and should stop playing in a "grown-up's world."
Since we're slinging insults, maybe I should be the one to say: get out of *my* digital world, old man. :P
I was actually impressed by your "I'm sorry" blog post (
http://myfla.ws/blog/2008/07/09/the-140-charact...) - very mature writing for a teenager. Still, what you class as 'ageist' is actually my referring to the experience I've gathered in the 13 years of life I've had more than you. Qualifications aren't everything, nor is length of service,
but to pretend that you're playing a full role in the edublogosphere would be to distort reality. I've read you more than once refer to the fact that you're 'only 14'. You can't have it both ways.
I've no doubt you're a gifted student - you've proved that. What you need to learn is that intelligence is only *one* of the required attributes in life. Goodness knows I'm still learning...
By your logic, the oldest man alive should be the President.
I'm sure you do have a unique perspective, but in the way the student council has a role in the life of a school - it *informs* professional practice, it does not dictate it.
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." --Mark Twain
To me, Arthus sounds like the 14-year-old part of this quote. I hope Arthus matures into one who can accept a recommendation from a boss/colleague/friend/teenager/neighbor with grace and humility -- or at the very least ignore the unwanted advice. Maturity brings this about in most people, but not all.
One other thing -- it cuts both ways. Sometimes when I am helping a student with a computer, I have been on the receiving end of a condescension that assumes that because I was born before 1985 I must need all the help I can get. Telling such a student to be quiet because I "probably know more about X than you do" would only serve to anger, alienate, or humiliate the student. That's not going to earn me the respect that I deserve. Interpersonal skills are most in demand in the workplace. Technical skill (or any other skill) loses much of its value when it is housed in a person who lacks tact and a gracious manner.
1. Arthus's behavior was unacceptable. I watched the whole thing unfold real-time on Twitter.
2. We as the adults in the Twitter "room" "community" created the problem in this case. Why? No boundaries. He's a smart kid and we opened the doors to him as if he were an adult--or worse, the poster child for student 2.0. I agree--that's one helluva load to carry.
3. I have a 14 year old (soon-to-be-15-year-old) daughter. My colleagues tell me what a kind, smart, delightful child she is. (She goes to the school where I consult.) Does this is any way resemble the child who comes home at night? At this age, most days "no." Does she cop an attitude? Gimme a break. If my ego were dependent on her respect right now we'd all be in trouble.
4. Kids "act out" where they feel most safe. I've always hoped that happened at home, and for the moment that appears to be the case with both my kids. In this case, with Arthus, he's comfortable and safe in this Twitter community. And, again, there have not been any boundaries.
5. In this case, you've done exactly what a good parent/teacher/friend doesn't do: You've played at his level. That doesn't model anything, but rather promotes the behavior. Sorry to be so critical in my first comment post on your blog. I will add this: I am not claiming to be a saint. You should see the cat fight Caroline and I had when the attitude came out yesterday. ;) Just something we need to learn, relearn, and learn again to be as good parents and teachers as we can be.
I also agree that he's 14, so he cops a little attitude, who cares?
What I'm questioning is the *why* behind the attitude.
To be clear, I think that we, in our hyper-scrutiny of Arthus (like this post: admittedly guilty), have more to do with this than the fact that Arthus is just a teenager being a teenager. Sheesh, haven't you guys ever seen E.T.?
As for boundaries? Believe me, there are boundaries on Twitter. While they may not be extrinsically enforced, boundaries exist both in the blogosphere and on Twitter. Don't believe me? Drop an F-bomb in every tweet during the next 72 hours and see what happens. If Scoble did that, they'd have to place an Explicit rating on the Twitter website and then it'd be blocked in *every* school.
As for doggie doo, I guess we're in it, because I've been conversing with people on Twitter for quite some time now. Sure the conversations are shallow, but I've learned a lot about people by listening over their shoulder.
> Strange, I posted this comment after Will's, but it was placed before it. Curse you, Disqus.
Never said you can't learn from Twitter. But replicate the conversation in this thread into 140 character snippets and see what you get. Basically, an unfollow-able mass of snips that lose all context unless we screen cap them out like above. That's not a conversation.
about our teachers. It was a time to rejuvenate, a time of refreshing, a
time to renew. Arthus, however, has nowhere to go. He can't get away -
unless he chooses to abandon the commons altogether (yet another tragedy).
If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you feel the same way about teachers that
he appears to feel? I know I would. I'd be sick of the fact that school is
always in session and that instead of having 7 teachers a day I'd have 1,090
and counting.
I honestly hope that you're right when you say that the only thing wrong is
that he'd had a bad day.
While twitter is both useful and fun, it has its drawbacks.
Think of the people you see on your morning routine, at the coffee shop, on your way to work, at the grocery store, etc. There are people you see, repeatedly. You recognize them, and they recognize you. Occasionally, you might talk. Occasionally, it might even feel meaningful. But you don't *know* those people. The lure of familiarity might fool some of us into thinking we know them, but, at best, we have a passing familiarity with a small slice of their life.
And so goes Twitter.
We all have things to learn. Attempting to limit the scope of the conversation, or excuse behavior based on age, is missing the point. We all start where we're at, for better or worse, no matter our age.
Cheers,
Bill
James Hemmings - Oxford Psychosis "an extreme intellectual precocity combine with a profound emotional immaturity" (Out of Our Minds p.143). Robinson's 2001 book indicates this issue has been around since the beginning of formal education. Intellectual success is often at the sacrifice of social adjustment. The fact that more and more of our kids will choose to "hide" themselves online can't be a good sign for this kind of stuff working itself out in the future.
What percent of what we do or what our kids to could be considered socialization?
Just something that may need considered as we push for more and more digital interaction.
If someone had a conversation with me like this when I was his age, you'd have a lot of posts to write about. The thing is that my mistakes, heated situations, odd conversations, etc. weren't there for the world to see. This mistake (not really the best description of the situation but stick with me) is now there for the world to see and is part of his virtual footprint.
Is this fair that this will forever be part of his virtual footprint? I understand he chose to be part of this so my point is a bit different than I'm describing here. My point is what about all the things teachers have students doing online where it isn't a choice but the teacher's mandate that some, most, a little, whatever of their learning, risk-taking, mistakes, failures, and success are public by way of the Web 2.0 tools we hold so close.
Honestly, I'm not here to attack participatory media. I'm simply expressing something that I've been pondering of late and it is something that I would say needs to be discussed. Are we doing our students a disservice by wanting so much of their learning to be shared through the tools provided by today's Internet? Should this be a choice made by each student? Do they truly understand the gravity of such a decision? Will anything in their future be impacted, positively or negatively, because of this public display of their learning?
-- sorry for being somewhat off topic but hopefully I'm forgiven
This absolutely needs explored.
TweetDeck takes my Twitter stream and mash it up. I can "Group" tweets by edublogger status (A-list, B-list, C-list), age (Beckett Long, Arthus, Doug Johnson), people with hair I want to touch someday (Lehman, Jakes, Richardson). You get the point. :o)
Even better, this stuff has a cool "Search" feature that integrates Summize search results. Possibilities are endless. "Pearson", "lolcat", "ijohnpederson Home Game™", etc.
Seriously though...
Do a search and spend the next year Googling "Steve Gillmor", "attention", "gestures", and "social objects". There's a dissertation worth of learning and analysis over the past 3 years that explains why/how Twitter works from the social standpoint.
Twitter's recent troubles are the result of them completely re-writing the service in a way that allows them to enable and disable certain functions independently. There's one simple, relatively unknown feature that still hasn't been turned up.
A) What part of "old Twitter" still hasn't been turned on? Why?
B) How did TweetDeck solve the problem? Why did Twitter hamstring it?
Yes, the tone of the comments bothered me- but I would be bothered no matter who it was or what age they were. I do not care to continue a discussion if my ideas are not being given common consideration. And that is our choice on Twitter. We can choose how we react and respond- to continue to tweet and to continue to follow or not. I would hope that none of us would be judged by one volley of tweets. Should it continue repeatedly, my choice would be simple.
But what stands out for me is how the significance of the context of a conversation and background of the speakers is critical in understanding any communication. In reviewing the tweets and comments, it is clear that I misunderstood the underlying point Arthus was making about TweetDeck and web development. My comments took the discussion on a different path, on one about learning. The two ideas brushed past each other, but never connected.
So what have we learned from all this? How is Twitter different from real conversations? If we are going to attempt to have conversations on Twitter, what do we need to do differently to assure that what we say is understood? Do we begin to ask clarifying questions? Do we need to restate what we think we understood? Or do we accept that Twitter has its shortcomings and not take it too seriously?
Upon further reading, when I realised my mistake, I recognised my 17 year old son, who doesn't like to be "English teachered" (his words). Essentially this means he doesn't like having his thinking challenged or know how to respond to the many and varied suggestions I make relating to his view of the world.
People, (young, old, academic, whatever) need to have their ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged. It is a good thing. It forces them to reflect, analyse and evaluate.
Good ideas should survive close scrutiny. Coincidentally, this is something that teachers are trained to encourage (Go figure!) However, if the most we can do to support our ideas is hurl abuse at those questioning and challenging them, or dismiss them outright...well, it doesn't inspire a lot confidence or hold much weight in my view.
Arthus, whether or not you are the "poster boy" for 21st Century learning, you're clearly doing all of education a huge service by allowing a group of passionate teachers and thinkers to use your development---both as a kid and as a kid in a digital, open, participatory world---as a bit for reflection about what is happening in our classrooms and in our schools.
That's huge. Period. We owe you one.
As far as the strand of conversation from Twitter goes, I think the only lesson I'm going to take away is that all humans----but particularly the students that we engage in ongoing digital conversations---need to be taught the difference between competitive and collaborative dialogue.
When I think about any conversation that I have in the blogosphere/Twitterverse, I think of it as collaborative. I assume that everyone I'm interacting with has good intentions and that we're all learning together. Operating from that assumption changes the way that I respond to anyone----whether it be in a Tweet or in a blog comment.
And collaborative dialogue has an entirely different language than competitive dialogue does. There are more questions asked in collaborative dialogue. Challenges happen---but from the lens of "How can we learn more about this together so we can come up with a new understanding for both of us?" rather than "How can I show everyone that my ideas are right? What evidence can I use to support my thinking or to debunk my opponent?"
Our world tends to model competitive dialogue all the time. We're surrounded by companies fighting for market share, by politicians fighting for votes, by sports stars and musicians fighting for attention. We see opponents everywhere----instead of seeing allies.
That emphasis on competitive dialogue isn't a result of participatory media----check out the ads in the newspaper or the signs hanging in the local pizza shop window. Competitive dialogue has been around for a whole lot longer than blogs and Twitter.
The change that I think we need to see in our classrooms and communities is a new emphasis on helping our students----and our neighbors, colleagues and friends---to recognize the appropriate times for competitive and collaborative dialogue----and then to teach the skills for engaging in both to everyone.
Does this make any sense?
Bill Ferriter
It ain’t that bad
I don’t claim to understand
The troubles that you’ve had.
Let the dogs you say they fed you to
Lay their muzzles in your lap,
And the lions that they led you to
Lie down and take a nap.
The ones you fear are wind and air,
And I love you without measure
It seems we can be happy now
Be it better late than never....
--Nick Cave, "Straight to You" (from the And No More Shall We Part cd)
I don't know how to say this tactfully, but I'll try:
If Arthus were an adult who happened to have what I fondly call "a case of ass" for a short spell online - and I can think of several high profile adult edubloggers who have done so in the past few months (myself included), and in the past two days, in fact (and Darren, some of your more angry posts before NECC might fit into this category, mightn't they?) - would you so comfortably single that peer out for a lecture under the public spotlight? Am I right that the answer is probably "no"?
If I am, doesn't this post qualify as an example of ageism that irks Arthus so much? (This is not to excuse Arthus' bad mood, which is a different issue, and one that he resolved well enough himself - and in a fashion many adults haven't equaled after the aforementioned lapses of their own over the past few months)
If I had decided to write a post spotlighting my disapproval of another person's bad mood and irascible behavior, when I wasn't really a principal in it, how close have I come to something in the neighborhoods of sensationalism or gossip?
Further, I'd argue Arthus was a high-profile personality before Students 2.0, not because of it (he came onto my radar from the Steve Hargadon interview/Doug Belshaw catfight) - and that Arthus' accomplishments as a web designer, programmer, education thinker, doer, presenter, and writer justify that profile, bad days notwithstanding.
And I'd argue that Arthus has shown he's mature enough to take care of himself and resolve his own conflicts, as his post about all of this shows.
So I guess, in short, I question the impulse to frame this event in the way it's been framed, and to encourage the kind of piling on that has happened in this comment thread. It's too close to stirring the pot and humiliating an individual for my comfort (mind you - had Arthus attacked someone in a blog post, which is closer to a permanent "big footprint" than a transitory tweet, and had the victim of that attack responded with a post defending him/herself and "counter-attacking," that's a different and more understandable thing than a third party jumping into transitory tweet fray).
I'm sure Arthus has several thousand tweets on twitter. The odds of anybody combing through that history to find a few tweets with a case of ass are negligible.
But your post highlighting all of this, hyperlinking to Students 2.0 (as if it's guilty by association, and a well deserving of poison?) and to Arthus, in a post that's nothing but a publicizing of tweets and a variation of "OMG!" (while oddly taking credit for "creating" Arthus, who is one of the most self-created teens any of us will ever know) - that increases the odds of this little teapot tempest being more visible. I don't get how this post is worth the cost to those you linked to.
And I don't think the framing, to repeat, is as fair as it could be: adults get ass too. A more interesting question is: Why is the frequency of ass increasing in the community generally? And why are we magnifying it by making it "news" by blogging about it, a la some tabloid journal or Fox News?
To me, a more interesting frame - one I was thinking about today before discovering this brouhaha - is online behavior generally, and specifically the psychology involving the timing of our online communications.
I was thinking, in this connection, of my own habit of waking up, pouring my first coffee, and instantly powering on to check email - which often means receiving comments to my own blog posts. What I've noticed recently is that I'm far more likely to be snarky over comments that rub me the wrong way (they read my post sloppily and put words in my mouth, or their tone was irritating, whatever), and to decide to express that snarkiness in a reply to their comment, when I've just woken up. And I'm pretty much resolved to change that habit so my moods - grumpy morning person, grumpy late night person - don't get the best of my judgment.
Before closing, I also don't get the "we let him into Twitter" comment somewhere above. Twitter's open. It's not ours, and there's no age limit.
If it's a community, then as adults we should do what good adults always do in any community, real or virtual, when a youth needs some guidance: give it to them gently, quietly, off to the side - not pull them into the spotlight and chastise them publicly.
Sorry to come off like this, Darren, but I just don't get this one. For the second time in commenting on your blog, I'll quote a good old song's advice: "Whisper words of wisdom: Let it be."
perhaps failure to read the entire thread), coupled with your emotional ties
to S 2.0 haven't tainted your view here.
First, it was never my intention to "cherry-pick [a select few of Arthus'
tweets] for a higher-profile sensationalistic post that goes on to poison
the Students 2.0". My intention has always been to question our behavior, as
teachers, in bringing students into the spotlight using social tools that we
so freely promote. Look a the little text that I actually wrote in the post,
what did I question?
Ryan Bretag's comment here unquestionably hit the nail on the head - add my
concern about the fame and pressure that blogging and other exposures have
brought to Arthus, and you've got the message I was trying to broadcast.
Perhaps I shouldn't have picked on Arthus specifically, perhaps I shouldn't
have spotlighted S 2.0 - in hindsight I may have done things differently.
But in the end, I think we've come a long way here and that my relationship
with Arthus has actually *improved* as a result of this interaction.
Arthus, am I wrong? Again, simply say the word and this post is toast.
You did cherry-pick, Darren: Arthus has thousands of tweets. You picked a handful to broadcast beyond twitter. The least flattering ones.
I did read the entire comment thread, and I didn't say all adults in it piled on. I thought Ryan's and Bill Ferriter's (and others, I'm sure) were constructive.
And I said "poison the well" of a group blog by somehow linking it to the behavior of an individual.
I still don't get it. It's not emotional attachment to s2oh, but a philosophical difference. I pull kids out in the hall when they need a talking to. I don't put them on the worldwide web.
Mine is not the point that Arthus should be scolded. Rather that WE should because of OUR behaviors - which is what you're doing now, to me, for my methods.
Irony - so think you can cut it with a knife.
Thus, I'll ask the rest of you:
Should this post be deleted (such that bygones can be bygones)?
I am sorry, Arthus. If someone had chosen to display my son's mistakes the way I displayed yours, I would be very upset - regardless of the intentions of that someone.
Here's to brighter and future days.
"Keating" was exceptional at inspiration. In other words, his greatness lay in opening the door of curiosity for his otherwise traditional or naive students, giving them the support, confidence & nudge to step forward into potentially 'risky' decisions. I say 'risky' because the decisions required challenging a previous status quo to achieve a new outcome, one that often had social/life implications riding in the balance. They were 'risky' based on the student's previous life experiences or context as much as the soon-to-be future.
Key: This was done regardless of whether the student's parents (etc) would be willing to support the aforementioned decision.
On the other hand, Keating was decidedly lousy at giving those very same students 'cover' when the proverbial dung hit the fan.
In other words, while giving them the spark to tear out the textbook's pages, start an underground literature society, ignore a parent's steadfast rules, etc., he failed to take co-responsibility for what would happen 'the next day' when the truth become public. Just as important, he failed to provide his students with the emotional/strategic wherewithal to handle the real world pressure that would follow the execution of such risky decisions, whether they were inherently in the right or wrong for doing so in the first place.
Slight tangent (with key punchline) coming:
I doubt many would argue that Keating was a bit of an underground revolutionary who conveniently used the 'guise of a classroom teacher to validate his own philosophical journey, perhaps even acting out (vicariously through his students) his own latent needs to rebel in a way that he was not able to do when he was their age in a similar setting.
To that end, his character becomes morally suspect as a model for teachers everywhere, no matter how inspired his individual classroom/teaching lessons may have been (or how Hollywood set him up to be in the closing minutes).
This comes to mind because the collective WE (as formal/paid educators) run the risk of being "Keatings" far more than we may choose to recognize or admit.
I, for one, can't help but hold my hand up in recognition that I've been culpable in the past. Where/how? Well, any time I've chosen to write about, support, challenge, publicize, highlight, showcase at conferences, blog-link to, collaborate with, and/or criticize younger students (very much like Arthus or very different than Arthus) in the public forum of the edu-blogosphere (and beyond) -- students who are not technically/legally adults (i.e. 18 years of age) -- I've run the risk of being a "Keating" by subconsciously validating my own philosophical journey...and potentially at my students' (or 'kid' bloggers') expense.
Yes, me included. Intentions notwithstanding. I'll let others determine if the mirrored reflection(s) feel familiar to them as well.
Back to the original 'situation:
Every response to the aforementioned situation (as hinted at by Darren after it was edited, and further written about by Arthus on his own blog) is exceedingly human in nature. 'Reactions' and 'territory' of privilege or identity/age took over where intellectual content once was the center of things.
In my opinion, the now-exaggerated issues of age and responsibility -- heck, for that matter, the value of the original situation that sparked it all -- have far less long-term currency than the underlying issues of:
a) Are WE as professional educators beginning to sincerely evaluate our unspoken intentions when we showcase individual pre-18 y.o. students in the blogosphere (etc) -- regardless of intention or project value -- as well as what unintentional outcomes are waiting for us as this pattern continues?
b) Are we so convinced that our instincts about making the educational world for our students transparent/collaborative based on 1) legitimate and thought-out professional truths for the welfare of the students' academic success or 2) some sort of latent need to prove a philosophical element in our own hearts to the larger world?
c) How are WE as professional educators facing the often conflictive desires 1) to give students in our buildings/classrooms a second chance when it comes to behaviors or reactions we would not necessarily accept from our own adult peers on campus or in the community vs. 2) calling out these same students out (who we frame as supposed 'peers' in the decidedly less F2F, less personal realm of the virtual network/world) for public and link-based criticism at the first (or second) sign of poor behavior?
These are the most vital questions that linger -- for me, at least -- after having read through everything written about and commented on (at this time) re: this specific "conduct of communication/reaction" situation.
i doubt that anyone involved will be the last to 'behave' in a similar manner as the edu-blogosphere continues to mature, regardless of age or topic. Fortunately, decent damage-control and admission have occurred in the last day or so. Arthus has done decent work accepting his own responsibility in his follow-up post. Likewise, Darren has done decent work accepting his own responsibility by editing his original post and through this evolving comment thread. This is, I can't help but think, simply a human situation with lots of 'wishing' that the clock could be turned back a bit on both sides.
My only concern now is that the moral of the story may remain focused on the individual personalities and specific expressions that were at the center of the original "communication" and "backlash"...
...rather than being focused on the larger issue I wrote about above via the Keating example.
After all, the last time I checked, if something goes wrong in my classroom -- or anywhere I am directly involved as the 'lead' teacher/adult -- where my students make poor choices, I am the 1st to be held accountable. Period. End of story. This is true when it comes to displaying evidence of maturity/experience, as well as restraint. And it is further true in terms of being able to see the larger implications when the dust settles and the majority of us have to return to our careers/classrooms to 'lead' those that show up to 'learn'.
For what it's worth, I'm putting myself on "Keating watch" in my very own mirror, good intentions or not. I'm hoping that the collective WE -- as trained, professional, paid educators -- do the same over time as frequently as we are capable of doing so.
http://myfla.ws/blog/2008/07/09/the-140-charact...
> Frankly, I do not think editing out the photos improved the situation. Instead, it leaves a comment thread (and follow-up posts) filled with some rather harsh resentment and responses. (This doesn’t apply to all involved). With the context removed, the situation seems far worse than it really was. My rule for the web: once it’s up, it’s got to stay up.
I have decided to remove the screen-shots for several reasons:
1. If somebody displayed my kid's mistakes, in a public forum, online - I would be mad - or sad - or embarrassed - or all three. Therefore, I removed them as much for your parents as for you.
2. I think this post *now* has the same meaning without the shots as it would with them. You needed to see the shots to see what your actions meant to others. Others needed to see the shots to understand the context behind my message. Now that both have been achieved, the screen-shots themselves are now less important.
3. An archive of the "conversation" (head nod, Will) still exists as I have left the original Twitter conversation favorited on my Twitter account. Therefore, if people would like to view the original conversation (as it currently exists), they may view the tweets here. This places the responsibility of displaying the conversation back into your hands. If you don't want people to see the tweets, simply delete them. In one very large sense, I am no longer the one airing your dirty laundry.
Interestingly enough, all of this relates very well to what Shirky has written about publishing first and then filtering.
100 points extra credit to Robin Ellis for not only bringing my attention to this, but for posting her comment in an appropriate place.
Personally, I thought the post should never have taken place -- but unfortunately I waited too long to post -- and for that I am wrong.
What happens on twitter should stay on twitter.......
Yes, in the past, I have taken some screen shots of some of my favorite posts - some keepers -- some "can you believe what they said" ....for me to keep....but once I took other people's thoughts and posted them for people to see, who were perhaps never part of the original conversation.....that is when I misused my power and over stepped my bounds.
What bothers me the most, in this case though, is that it seems that our network -- that used to be so strong -- is unraveling before our very eyes. Where we used to stand strong and united, we are taking sides, posting quick responses instead of thinking for a bit, and forgetting common courtesy.
I applaud you for taking down the twitter shots.....
I am anxious to see apologies from many and better behavior as well.
Perhaps I am naive, but I liked it better when we all got along and realized we were comrades united for one purpose. Hopefully, that will return.
Jen
If a grown person was reported to be chatting in a "chat room" with a 15 year old child how would others see it? let's just peel away all the layers of 'context' (because that's what happened anyway) and look at this.
bottom line. this shouldn't have happened. period. the person in question may be precocious (and I use that word in its correct sense) an the "teachers" or adults may be generously engaging, but this is inappropriate. i am not implying anything other than the fact that we shouldn't be engaging 15 year olds as adults, regardless of their 'proclaimed maturity' either via declaration or our perception based on simply their online presence.
we still have a long way to go in finding maturity in our online communications. i've been online for over 12 years and it still baffles me to see such amazing mis-connects in people's verbal transactions.
And arthus is a person, not some 'truman' for us to observe in a bubble or tweetsphere. this all leaves me feeling a little icky.
respectfully,
@dmx
No one asks for or deserves to be raked over the coals, but some people have a gift for sounding arrogant and argumentative online and therefore they rile things up. I sincerely hope they don't actually endeavor to sound superior, tactless, and condescending. I don't but I might. I'm just saying. That's my 1/2 cent worth.
As educators, we do need to listen to the voice of the students and hear what they have to say but, it also goes the other way and, lately, the street is becoming much more one-way without understanding that, as adults, educators are under obligations that youth do not have. It is a very slippery slope - having been down it a few times with teachers, it isn't one I suggest anyone venture onto.
Arthur is not an adult and should not be held to the same standards regardless of what he may wish. Youth is the time to make mistakes, that's what we hope will happen so that learning can take place. From what I've read at Newly Ancient, that has taken place. However much Arthur may wish to be seen as a peer online, he isn't. That may be why I did not venture into the discussions with him. As much as he may desire to be a peer, and criticize people who won't see him in that light, he is not my peer nor would I treat him as such. First of all, he's just starting to experience the world, with all it's beauty and ugliness while I'm nearing halfway (maybe?). He is intelligent, of that there is no doubt, but to lift him up to peer status really does him a huge disservice and robs him, yes, takes away, that time where so many of life's lessons are to be learned.
In the end, I find this to be sad. No matter how stimulating or insightful or refreshing or .... the adults found his conversation, to blur the lines between adulthood and youth, as was done in this case, should not happen. I'm thinking that this will probably draw the ire from some but, regardless of what this youth wanted, the adults had the responsibility to be adults despite the desire or apparent maturity of the youth. I hope this short history doesn't repeat itself.
If Arthus' worst sin is getting a little uppity on Twitter to an audience of adults most of whom he doesn't know, I'll let it pass. He's 14. There are worse things.
Second, let's all go home and have conversations with our kids in 140 characters or less. Should be a thrill. We're not really suggesting that what's happening in those screen caps is a conversation, are we? If so, we are in deep, deep dog doo.