I think few would argue that the online safety risks which students are exposed to these days have gone down.   But the big question is, has the effort of schools in protecting students changed in step with increased risk exposure?

But first some good news

Before I go any further, I need to be clear here that this post looks very much at the negative side of things in relation to online safety however in doing so I run the risk of painting a purely negative picture.   I therefore think its important to point out the positives of technology.    Communication, collaboration, friendship and many more areas of life can see a benefit from appropriate use of online technologies.   An Ofcom 2022 report identified that 80% of the children surveyed used online services to find support for the wellbeing, that 53% felt being online was good for their mental health and that 69% of children thought being online helped then feel close to their friends and peers.   It is important that we appreciate these positives as for me this highlights the focus should not be about blocking and filtering, which is increasing ineffective, but about discussion and engagement of students around risks and behaviours.

New Apps and Technologies

And now for the risks;    I would suggest most students now have mobile phones with internet access, with access to apps such as snapchat, Instagram and the very popular TikTok.   The Ofcom survey found that 90% of children owned a mobile phone by the time they reached the age of 11.   This access to technology and every changing and evolving app space represents a risk in the explosion of inappropriate content and contacts which students can access via the device in their pockets.   As adults and educators we cannot truly know the implications, and this is important to acknowledge, as the situation when we were children was significantly different.   There is also a risk here in relation to the increasing use of AI or machine learning within apps to feed users with the content they appear interested in, reinforcing these interests or curiosities even when exposure to such content may be inappropriate or even dangerous.

Pandemic

The pandemic accelerated things pushing everyone more online than ever before as we had to learn through online contact with teachers, maintain relationships with friends and families again through online solutions and occupy our time without leaving our homes, an issue which online games and other platforms where all too happy to address.   It wasn’t so much a case of “should we” engage with technology, online tools and online spaces, but a case of what other choice do we have.   This has both increased the need to use and also the use of technology, including all its benefits but also risks.

IT Curriculum

We have also seen a decrease in time in schools where digital citizenship, its risks and issues can be discussed.   Yes online safety should appear across the curriculum and as part of keeping children safe in education, however there are lots of other competing topics and requirements.  Previously the GCSE IT provided an opportunity for specific time to be allocated to discussions of digital citizenship and online safety however with its removal this opportunity has been lost.   Now some may say the Computer Science GCSE is still available, however it doesn’t have the same number of students studying for it plus as a subject has a decidedly different slant than the old GCSE IT, which doesn’t lend itself to quite as much discussion of digital citizenship.   Now I will note the GCSE IT wasn’t without its problems as a course, however I feel a redesign would have helped rather than its removal.  Looking forward, I see similar risk of lost opportunity in the planned defunding of the BTec qualifications which include a number of IT qualifications.

Conclusions

I think all schools will likely be able to point to what they do in relation to online safety.   My concern though is this hasn’t changed much over the years.    Celebration of internet safety day, annual talks or presentations, digital councils and/or digital leaders meetings involving students, etc, these are not new, yet the risks and exposure of our students to technology and these risks has grown significantly, and even more so over the last two or three years, driven by the pandemic.   The risks are growing yet the mitigation measures largely remain the same.  There is a clear inbalance.

I think one of the biggest challenges continues to be time.   The curriculum is already full of content and various competing requirements, with most offering value.   The question therefore is one of identifying where there is the greatest value and I would advocate that time allocated to digital citizenship is critical.   The challenge here is I don’t feel education is particularly good at this prioritisation, instead trying to do everything, and in doing so this causes workload issues, greatly subdivided focus and other issues.

Technology use is only going to increase so the more we can prepare our students, and get them to evaluate and consider how, when and where they use technology, the better.     Digital citizenship needs to occupy a bigger part of student studies, both in preparing them for the future, but also equipping them to deal with technology risks both now and in the future.

I recently deleted TikTok from my phone for what I think is the third time.   The issue is I find myself rather hopelessly flicking through the videos, particularly the funny pet videos and comedy videos.   Now normally it is in a moment of spare time that I think it is worth having a look at TikTok, however time then seems to fade away as I get engrossed and the couple of minutes of video viewing turns into 30mins or more.

Why does this happen?

I am not a psychologist or sociologist or other “ist” who can provide a scientific theory on this but I would like to share my own ideas on why this happens.    Firstly, I think part of it is the multi-sensory nature of TikTok, with visual and audio content from the videos themselves, combined with the tactile nature of flicking through the videos.   I also think the act of flicking through the videos helps to keep people engaged due to requiring user action.

There is also the very purposely designed short nature of the videos, often with a conclusion or series of amusing events.    The short nature of videos limits the requirements for focus or concentration, while the conclusion is likely to deliver the fun or pleasurable moment at the end of the video. 

So limited amount of focus needed combined with near instant gratification, or I engage and swipe onto the next video.  Basically TikToks design is to be addictive and habit forming, offering little cognitive load but delivering enjoyment at the conclusion of every little short video.

Why delete it?

There is a lot of talk of how social media companies should be responsible and look at how addictive their platforms are especially for younger users however I also think we all as individuals need to also take some responsibility.     In my case my approach to this is to delete the app as I cant trust myself to use TikTok sparingly.    I could alternatively make us of app timers or similar to limit my usage of the app to a certain amount of time per day, however given the overall value of TikTok to me I have decided that this isnt appropriate.  I will however note, I suspect young users will find such an act of self-discipline even more difficult than I found it.

I think we need to acknowledge that the key aim, from a business perspective of the various social media applications, including TikTok, is to maximise the number of people of their platform and to maximise the time people spend on their platform.   As such it pays to make it addictive.

Conclusion

Am not sure my life will be that much worse off without TikTok but in a world where we often complain of not having enough time, and where we cannot invent or create more time (Note: am not sure that actually having 26hrs in a day would provide that much benefit as I suspect our current activities would just grow to fill the additional space), being able to free up some time by preventing myself from going down the TikTok rabbit hole can only be a good thing.

Or at least until I suffer a moment of boredom, depression or just simply human weakness, and reinstall TikTok once more, just to make sure I don’t miss out on a cat falling off the back of someone’s couch, or a dog comically bounding into a swimming pool.

The BBC recently posted an article in relation to remote workers being monitored in terms of their use of technology, when at home (You can read the article here).   Obviously, this issue has largely became pertinent given the pandemic and the various lockdowns which have resulted in individuals, including teachers, having to work from home.      The thought of your employer, school leadership or IT staff monitoring what you are doing seems “creepy”, inappropriate and an invasion of personal privacy but is it that simple?

A world of tracking

Before I look at remote working lets first consider the work devices used within a school and the monitoring that may be possible.    Within a school, especially larger schools, it is likely that school devices will have remote support software installed which allows for IT staff to remotely access a device in order to provide assistance without the need to actually visit the computer in question.   All well so far.    However, this functionality means it would be possible for IT staff to watch your screen and every action, every word typed, every social media interaction.  Now that sounds creepy already and we are only on school owned devices!

Your email and internet activity are also recorded.  For school email this likely means your emails are accessible by IT teams in terms of support but also in terms of compliance with GDPR legislation, to resolve Subject Access Requests, etc.   In terms of internet activity, although most data from and to websites are now encrypted, the timing of site visits, the sites visited, the device used, etc are all recorded.    And this happens irrespective of if you use a school or personal device connected to the internet via the schools infrastructure.

The above hints to the huge logs generated where IT systems are used, whether this be accessing the schools management system from a school PC in a classroom, or accessing MS Teams to deliver an online lesson from home.   As soon as we access the system information such as the device name, device type, username, time, IP address, etc are all logged.   And from this data further data can be generated, such as your IP address allowing for geographical information to be identified, albeit this isnt always reliable.    So, some for of tracking and/or monitoring will always be possible.

But what does it mean?

My view on this whole situation is that tracking/monitoring is unavoidable.   Data will be and must be gathered for the purposes of troubleshooting, auditing, legal compliance, etc.   So, the question becomes how do we manage the risk associated with the existence of this data?   And as to ability to access and monitor a specific user’s machine, and view their screen, again this needs to be possible to provide support so again it is about managing risk.

I think one of the key issues is that of transparency and acknowledging that data which could be used for tracking or monitoring purposes exists, and that remote access and screen viewing is also possible.   In doing so it is also important to be clear on the acceptable use of this data or these remote access solutions such as its use in trouble shooting.   In relation to remote access software, I also think it is important to have clear protocols in relation to usage and privacy, such as a requirement to request users approve before accessing a machine a user is currently using.    Access should also be limited on the basis of “least privilege” such that only those that truly need access and have a valid reason for access actually have access.

For me policy plays a key part in all of this.  In your Acceptable Usage policy should be clear indication of the creation of data and potential monitoring along with stated limitations as to where it can and cannot be used.    Additionally, I believe IT staff and those with admin access to large amounts of data, or to sensitive data, should be agreeing to a high-level access agreement which sets out additional requirements regarding their privileged access, plus sets out the higher level of penalties for misuse which comes out of increased responsibility.

Conclusion

As always, the newspaper article is a little bit sensationalist.   The reality isnt as simple.   Tracking and monitoring is possible, but the result of systems designed to support users and ensure systems which are robust and reliable, plus to ensure legal compliance, rather than for the purposes of invading individuals’ privacy.    As such the key thing is transparency and trust, with a little bit of policy thrown in just in case.

A lot has been made of online abuse and the need for social media companies to better monitor and police their platforms.  A lot has also been made of the potential need to legislate in relation to online abuse, but how easy, or not, would this be to achieve?

The internet

One of the big challenges is the internet itself and its distributed design.  It is designed such that no one user, company or even country has control.   It represents a single solution which crosses the national boundaries of most if not all countries in the world giving everyone the potential to use and impact on the internet.    This represents a particular challenge when looking at legislation.    A government might say that all platforms accessible in their country must abide by their legislation but what teeth do they have to enforce this when the company is based in another country.    And how do you stop users simply using tools such as VPNs to bypass local restrictions; Just one look online at forums related to expats living in countries with significant national filtering in place will highlight discussions of VPNs and other tools which can be used to bypass restrictions and the relevant legislation the restrictions are employed to enforce.  Or do a little digging into the ongoing piracy of video content and you will see this is a continuing problem despite efforts over a number of years to stem this issue.

Cyber security

If policing was to be properly established governments would need to be able to identify the users in country, their online identities, plus their online activities.    This has issues in relation to privacy and the safety of whistle-blowers and activists which I will cover shortly, however also represents a cyber security risk.    Such a database would be an enticing target for cyber criminals as a source of information which could be used for identity fraud and common fraud, but also in terms of blackmail or even attempts at coercion or subtle behaviour modification.   And we have already seen national identity databases in other countries fall foul of data breaches.

Anonymity

There is a genuine need for anonymity, where anonymity is often cited as one of the reasons for online abuse being so common online.   Activist and whistle-blowers rely on anonymity for their own personal safety.  Government dissidents in countries with authoritarian governments need anonymity.    There is also the concern that once a database of online user identities, tied to real world identities, plus online activity is created, albeit for good reasons, that it might not be used for less ethical or moral purposes in the future, or that its use might have inappropriate but unintentional consequences.    And this is before we consider the technical possibility of removing anonymity in the first place, something which given the internets design is fraught with difficulties including easy ways for users to bypass restrictions.

In relation to anonymity, although this feels like a key factor in online abuse, in my experience a large amount of the abuse is actually committed from users principal online accounts, those most likely to be identifiable back to a real life person.    The abuse either occurs as a result of joining a crowd, of being or feeling empowered by others to be abusive or of simply going too far spurred on by the ease and apparent lack of immediate consequence when using social media.    As such, maybe the issue of anonymity is a bit of a red herring.

Conclusion

I continue to see a lot of what occurs on social media as an amplification of the real world and society.    It is just that this amplification is that bit starker in its display of the ugliness which can occur in society.   I will however counterbalance this to some extent with how social media sometimes presents the very best we as a race have to offer.   I suspect a key reason for this amplification is that social media removes some of the risk factors and adds ease.   It is easy to be abusive to someone online especially when you know they arent likely to punch you in the face as they might do in real life.   It is also easy to be supportive, helpful and vulnerable away from the potential of embarrassment which may occur face to face.    It is however worth noting how very far we have come as a society compared with 100yrs or even 10 or 20yrs ago.    It is just that social media continues to amplify the small minority who have not progressed to same extent.

So, what are we to do about this?

I don’t have an answer other than to suggest we need to be aware of the amplification, be aware of others feelings, views, etc and be generally nicer to one another.   And I know that sounds a little soft and wishy-washy but I am not sure what more I can suggest.   Sadly, we also need to accept that the abuse emanating from the minority will likely continue, and we need to continue to take the little steps we can in challenging and sanctioning such individuals.   This will likely need to continue as little steps, one abusive user or group at a time; A leap to ban anonymity or heavily legislate social media is unlikely to be successful.

I previously wrote a post on developing confidence in the use of technology within teachers.   I therefore thought it would be appropriate to turn my attention to the issue of building student confidence.

One of the challenges with student confidence in the use of technology is possibly the outwardly perception they convey of being highly confident and competent.   They naturally seem to swipe ands scroll through different apps, taking on new apps as they arise.    This may be the reason that the idea of students as “digital natives” seemed to ring true; It just seems to superficially fit the situation and the appearance students convey.    The issue here is that it simply isnt, in my view, true.

One of the first things to pull out is student engagement with social media.   Social media apps are designed to be easy to use and are designed to grab and keep user attention.   As such it isnt that difficult to become familiar and comfortable with using social media apps, and then to spend many hours swiping and scrolling through their content.    The apps are designed this way, to be easy to use and to, dare I say it, be addictive.  As students likely spend a fair amount of their time on such apps, and as our perception of them as confident may partly come from observing them on such apps, we need to rethink our view as to how confident they really are.   

In discussing Digital Citizenship with students, the one thing which has often surprised me is students lack awareness of, and even lack concern, relating to the implications of their social media app usage.   Students are not fully aware of the extent of the data being mined about them through their continued use of apps.    And even when made aware, they express apathy; All our friends are on the apps, so we need to use the app.  What really can we do in relation to the data being gathered about us?    This for me is a very big challenge and one which I don’t have the answer for.   I too find social media useful to stay in touch, share ideas, etc, but am concious of the data being mined from my interactions.   Am I going to stop using social media to stop the mining of data?   I think not, however I think the key here is being concious and aware of the fact that data is being gathered, and then making balanced and informed decisions.   I choose to use social media as the gain in the ability to stay in touch and to share ideas and collaborate with others outweighs the risk associated with the data being gathered.   Aware of the risk though I sometimes choose not to share some things on social media.   

Thinking about being confident always reminds me of the concept of mastery and the need for 10,000 hours of practice.    I feel confident in the use of technology however I am certainly way beyond the 10,000 hours.   If we want students to be confident with technology use we need them to be using it but not just for social media engagement, which as I mentioned previously has been designed to be easy.   We need students using technology in different contexts ideally across the curriculum.   If students are using technology to explore concepts, to collaborate on projects, to present ideas, etc, and they are using it in Maths, in English and across the curriculum, there is a far greater chance of them developing the necessary confidence.   Linked to this though is teacher confidence, in being able to support the students in lesson, set learning activities suited to the use of technology and even facilitate students to support each other.      

When thinking about student confidence in using technology my focus is on technology as a tool.   My focus is therefore on knowing what technology tools are available, what they do and the benefits or drawbacks from their use in different situations/contexts.   This generally draws the question of teaching about technology within the context of subjects across the curriculum, or as a discrete subject, another of the binary arguments all too common on social media.   For me the answer isnt binary, one or other, but to treat these two standpoints as either end of a continuum with the answer lying somewhere in between.    For me it is important for students to see technology being used, and to be supported to use technology within different contexts however it is also important for students to learn about the general tools and the implications of using technology tools.    As such it is my view that we need to both have cross curricular use of technology combined with some discrete teaching about technology and digital citizenship.

I find students in schools are less afraid of things going wrong using technology than their adult counterparts, and therefore they are happy to try new apps and tools as needed.   They are also less concerned about using a wide range of tools.   This is both a benefit and a risk;   It means students are less afraid of change in relation to how the tools they use work or in the tools they are expected to use, however it also means they are likely to create a larger digital footprint, plus less likely to consider data protection and cyber security.    Their lack of fear though shouldn’t be confused as confidence; They are willing to try tools but this doesn’t mean that they know how to apply them effectively to a particular problem.   This is one of the things schools need to address, in ensuring students know which tools to use and when, how to use and how not to use them, which tools go together and which don’t and overall how to be effective in their use of technology.    It is important we harness their lack of fear and explore how they can positively use technology to enable their needs and interests.   We also need to ensure they are able to make educated and informed decisions as to their technology use, so as to manage the risks which may exist.

Technology, in my view, doesn’t scare our students so they are largely willing to try, but what we really need is for them to be sure of their ability to use technology tools well, plus to have the relevant skills and experience.   We need them to be competent and confident.

Since then the Covid-19 crisis has deepened with the lockdown rules introduced.   I have seen large numbers of schools and other organisations rushing to find solutions to the challenges this crisis has created.   New applications have been put into use, devices issued and configurations quickly changed to enable remote working and remote learning.    Applications such as Zoom and Houseparty have quickly achieved viral status as people adopt solutions to keep in touch and maintain some form of social interaction and community spirit in a time of isolation.   Decisions as to what to use have been based on which apps are easy to use and which are being used commonly by others.     In all of this fast paced change, home working and learning and technology enabled socialisation the phrase that jumps to mind is “act in haste, repent at leisure”.

Teachers, parents, children, the elderly, in fact almost everyone is now using more technology that they previously did, either in new devices, new apps, the duration spent using technology, etc.   With this use we have greater exposure to online risks such as cyber crime and to risks associated with the data trail we leave behind us.

There is also the discussion of tracking apps to help identify where people have come into close contact with someone with the Corona virus of Corona virus systems, or the use of thermal cameras and facial recognition for a similar purpose.   Although in the short term this appears to be in the interests of public good, this data might be used in the future for other purposes related to the tracking and profiling of individuals, or even to help with targeted campaigns aimed at influencing the behaviour of individuals or groups.

To be clear, the current situation is far from normal and far from ideal.   No-one chose for this to happen.   As a result, the decisions which are being made, and which need to be made, are borne out of necessity rather than being purposeful, fully planned and implemented with the implications carefully considered.    There is also the issue that, at the best of times, we cant predict the future yet now are presented with an even more unpredictable future but the need to make decisions now that will influence this future.

If I was worried about Digital Citizenship before the Covid-19 crisis, I am even more worried now.

It is important to firstly acknowledge that our views on technology are very much the result of our experiences.  My experiences include learning to code in Basic on the Commodore 64 at an early age, before moving on to AMOS basic on the Amiga and then QBasic, Visual Basic and C++ on the PC.    This early use of technology, and the ability to develop software to solve problems has very much shaped my views.    Now, today I walk around with a mobile phone with over a million times more memory than my commodore 64, from less than 30 years earlier, and the growth rate across the period has not been linear.   A perfect illustration of this lies in how long it took various technologies to reach 50 million users.    Radio took 75 years whereas TV only took 38 years.   Bringing us close to today, Facebook got the time to 50 million users down to 3.5 years before Pokemon go managed it in less than a single month.   It is clear from this that the pace of changing is quickening.

Looking at our use of technology today we find that most of us now use technology for communication or entertainment in the form of mobile phones, social media and on-demand TV.   We are also increasingly being required to use technology to access governmental services, council services, banks, etc.    Technology is now integral to our lives and here to stay, complete with the ever-quickening pace of change mentioned earlier.

The more I think about the pace of change and the way that technology is becoming an integral part of our everyday lives the more the movie Ready Player One comes to mind.   In the movie Wade Watts makes use of virtual reality to live a double life, living as Percival in VR.   As the film progresses it becomes clear that his two lives aren’t as separate as he would like and that events in virtual reality impact on real life and vice versa.   For us, like Wade Watts, our lives in real life are inseparably linked to our digital lives.   In fact, I believe that it no longer serves us to think of digital citizenship as the term implies that there is something else available, a non-digital citizenship, when in fact there is not.    Possibly the discussion should not be of digital citizenship at all but simply citizenship.  As Danah Boyd, in her book, Its Complicated said, although the apps might change our online connectedness, our need to share and the challenges around privacy are “here to stay”.

Resulting from this new technology there are benefits or potential benefits and we need to acknowledge this.  A couple of examples include the current exploration of self driving vehicles plus the recent use of choreographed drones as an alternative to traditional new years day fireworks.  In relation to current events around the globe, there is also the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to identify new antibiotics and other drugs.   We need to prepare to make the best of these new opportunities and to ensure the students in our educational establishments are prepared.

But with the above benefits, there are also risks.    Fake news and the ease with which videos including interviews can be faked will increasingly make it more difficult to tell fact from fiction.   We also have challenged to individual privacy and risks around habits and potential addictive behaviour plus also the potential for platforms to go so far as to actually shape and influence human behaviour.

The danger in the benefits and risks of technology is the currently common resultant binary views of either technology as infinitely good or inherently bad and evil.    Sadly, these views are seldom of little use as to view technology as purely good is naïve whereas to consider it as purely negative equally naïve and simplistic.   The reality is that technology and more particularly the use of technology for a given purpose will lie in between the extremes of good and evil, positive and negative.   Any use of technology is likely to have its positives but also its drawbacks or unintended consequences and therefore we need to consider carefully the pro’s and cons and seek a balance.

Looking at how we prepare our students for the world and the issues listed above I can see the things which we do satisfactorily, through our eSafety programmers, however I can also see those areas where little or nothing is currently offered.   We currently discuss the importance of privacy settings on social media, of having strong passwords, of how online content, once posted, will remain permanent and of the need to be aware of bullying online.   These areas are currently covered.    Sadly, however little is said in relation to the conflict between user convenience and individual privacy, between individual privacy and public good, and between social media reporting on or actually creating the news and truths which we come to believe.     These are the areas which we need to discuss, for which there isn’t a single answer and therefore where the most we can do is help students develop their own views through discussion.  It is through discussion that we can hopefully ensure that students, when presented with the infinite challenges of technology use, will approach them with their eyes wide open.

This brings me nicely to raising a couple of examples, from the many examples available, which would make valuable discussion topics for use in our schools.

Algorithms and AIs can be manipulated by an individual or organisation, to their own ends.   

Do we understand why algorithms might exist?     Do we understand why an individual or organisation might seek to “game” an algorithm and the potential gains which may arise?   The use of a series of mobile phones to fool googles traffic analysis algorithm into identifying a traffic jam where one doesn’t not exist, resulting in it redirecting traffic away from a given street, being one simple example of what is possible.

Governments can filter and censor content based on political motivations.    

Do governments need to be able to filter content for public safety?   But could their filtering be used to shape public perception or to revise fact to their own political ends and political gain?   What is truth and should governments be allowed to control and revise truth?    We have already seen governments filtering internet content with their filtering then being identified as being lacking transparency and in their own self interest; Filtering of TikTok being one possible example of this.

Online companies can gather and sell your data for profit.  

Do companies need to gather all the data which they gather?   Do they have the right to sell this data?   Where data is anonymized is it possible for data sets to be combined which then might reverse the anonymisation process?   A simple example of this being a cellular carrier selling on viewing habit data.

Mary Aiken in her book, the Cyber Effect, identifies the need for us to “make sense of what’s     happening” and only through discussion is this likely to occur however one concern I have is where these discussions might happen.   In the current crowded curriculum they tend to be banished to the IT classroom, a subject which not all students will study.   I don’t think this is sufficient.   These discussions need to take place throughout schools, across the subject areas, across the stages, with students, with staff, with parents and with the local community.   Discussing the challenges of technology needs to become part of the culture, simply the way we do things around here.

As Danah Boyd stated, “Collaboratively, adults and youth can help create a networked world that we all want to live in”.  If I am to ask anything following my session at DigiFest, I would ask this:  Lets begin with a discussion in our schools, colleges and universities, any citizenship related discussion where technology has its part to play complete with its pros and cons, but let’s do it today.

You can access my full presentation from DigiFest 2020 here.

Final Note: As we now engage in much more home and distance learning due to the Corona virus it may be more important than ever for these discussions to happen, and to happen now!

The keynote speaker addressed the changing viewpoints of different generations of people focussing particularly on Generation Z, the generation which currently are in our sixth forms, colleges and universities.   I took away two key points from the presentation.   The first was how each generations views were shaped by their experiences particularly between the ages of 12 and 20 year old.   Jonah Stillman used thoughts on space as an example showing how Generation X might have positive views focussing on the successes of the moon landing whereas Millennials may have a more cynical view following the Challenger disaster.   Additionally, Jonah mentioned movies as a social influencer and how those in the Harry Potter generation may view cooperation and trying hard, even where unsuccessful, in a positive manner.  Those born later than this may draw on another series of films, in the hunger games, resulting in a greater tendency towards competition and the need to succeed in line with the movies storyline of everyone for themselves and failure results in death.     The second take away point from the session resulted from the questioning at the end of the session around what some saw as the absoluteness of the boundaries between generations.    I think Jonah’s use of the word “tendency” addressed this concern in that the purpose of the labels was for simplicity and to indicate a general trend and tendency rather than to suggest that all people born on certain dates exhibited a certain trait.  It increasing concerns me that this argument keeps coming up when surely it is clear that there is a need to use simplistic models to help clarity of explanation and that no model, not matter how complex will ever truly capture the real complexity of the world we live in.

My 2^nd session was actually the delivery of my own session.   I will be sharing some thoughts in relation to my presentation along with my resources in the near future.   For now I will simply say that the session was not one of my best.   I do however hope that my main message, in the need for greater and broader discussion in relation to citizenship within the now digital world we find ourselves living in was clear.

The third session of the day focussed on  digital literacy programme one particular university had developed.   I found it interesting in this and a later presentation, how digital literacy or digital citizenship appeared to often fall to the library in universities in terms of developing and delivering a programme.    In schools I feel the same topics tend to fall on the IT teaching department rather than libraries however it is interesting that something which should be permissive would find itself localised in educational institutions in a single department rather than being supported across the institution.   It was interesting how the programme the university developed had evolved over time, which seems to me to be the correct approach given how quick technology is changing.  I also found it interesting in that student voice suggested needs which then later students indicated they did not find useful.  In other words students themselves were not an accurate judge of their own wants and needs.     Session five followed a similar topic again looking at digital literacy however the presenters made use of a fairy tales as a vehicle to deliver their message of the pros and cons of the digital world we live in.   I must admit I enjoyed this presentation in its novel approach to delivering the concept in hand.

Session four focussed on partnerships between a university, a local council and a number of corporate organisations focusing in particular on data analysis and business intelligence.  I think schools have some way to go in this area as they regularly gather huge amounts of data however little is actually done with it beyond reporting it to school leaders, parents, etc.   I think the challenge is that schools often lack the resources which a college or university may have at their disposal, such as having data scientists as part of the staff body.   That said, the sessions seemed to indicate the potential for schools to leverage partnerships to fill this gap with minimal to no outlay on their own resources.

My final session of day one focussed on digital transformation, and like the key notes was insightful and inspiring.    Lindsay Herbert discussed the bear in the room, which is similar to the elephant in the room but more dangerous.     I particularly like the way Lindsay stated early on that the world was a “terrible place” citing issues such as the corona virus, fires in Australia, storms across the UK and ongoing technological change.   She then quickly moved on to the fact that we are inherently brave in our attempt to not only exist but to strive to flourish in this world, before then going on to identify various success stories where the bear in the room was tackled.    She left us with 3 main tips, all of which struck a cord with me, in that transformation starts with a worthy cause, requires lots of people and needs to be learned and earned rather than purchased.   The third tip in particular strikes a cord for me as I have encountered change where it has not gone as smoothly as I would have liked, and where significantly more effort was expended than had originally been attended;  In retrospect this may have been the change being earned, plus certainly involved a lot of learning.

Day 1 was useful with the keynote and closing session of the day being my highlights.    Have plenty of notes to digest when I get back home.  Roll on day 2.

For a while now I have been sharing various online articles which I believe relate to Digital Citizenship via twitter and also sometimes via linkedIn however it recently came to me that it might be useful to curate these tweets so that teachers looking for discussion material in relation to specific aspects of Digital Citizenship might be able to use them.

To that end I created three Wakelets based on three themes which I thought we reasonably common in relation to Digital Citizenship.

• AI, Drones, Driverless cars and the other societal changes with Tech may bring

https://wke.lt/w/s/kJ3z2B

• Cyber Security, Data Protection and Big Data

https://wke.lt/w/s/XFOeIs

• To ban or not to ban?

https://wke.lt/w/s/09MVpQ

Now it may be that in future I may expand the number of themes.  I suspect this is highly likely, but for now the above are hopefully a good starting point.

In addition, for ease, I have created a separate section on my site for this curated Digital Citizenship content in case anyone wants to bookmarks it.  This section is also available via the sites menu structure.

In addition, I identified that in our dealing with Online Safety we are not yet effectively addressing the issues which are growing with our increasing use of digital resources and services.    Cyber security, big data, profiling, artificial intelligence and bias, ethics of IT systems and similar broad topics don’t yet have a key place in the general curriculum albeit opportunities exist across different subjects.    We need to ensure these issues are discussed with all students.   It was to that end that I proposed a cross school discussion group focussed on Digital Citizenship.

Overall my view is one that we need to be more aware of the limitation of preventative measures such as web filtering plus need to focus more on user awareness and having discussions with students regarding the wider implications of staying safe and being successful in a digital world.

If you are interested in being part of a group of schools discussing Digital Citizenship please fill out this Microsoft Form and to access my slides from the EdTech Summit please click here.