Tag: DigCit

Phones: a problem or a symptom?

I have recently been reading an interesting book on depression, Lost Connections by J. Hari, as this is something I feel I have struggled with at times, albeit this is a self-diagnosis rather than any form of clinical diagnosis.  Personally, I feel we all suffer depression to a greater or lesser extent, albeit maybe not clinical, at various points in our lives in response to events, challenges and other issues.   Within the book Johann points to societal issues being partly responsible for the increasing number of people suffering anxiety and depression, also talking about societal “junk values”.   This got me thinking about digital addiction and phone use, and my interest was further encouraged by a post from Mark Anderson where he provided some statistics in relation to phone use (see the post here).   But what if our addiction and increasing use of our phones, and other digital devices, isn’t the cause and the thing we need to seek to ban or reduce, but is actually the symptom of a different and broader issue?   Now I don’t propose to have solutions here but this post is about throwing out some thoughts and ideas.

Fame and likes

We have all at some point looked up to a famous person and thought, “I wish that was me”.   Whether it was a famous singer, an artist, or a movie star, I think we all generally want to be more than we are.  Now I am not sure if this want to be better, as measured by others, is intrinsic or whether it has been conditioned over time.   The adverts we consume on TV tell us we need to buy this body spray, or this car or that running shoe to be better so maybe we come to believe we need to be better.   Then in steps social media providing a measure of our fame, with the count of friends or likes, and we chase the thing we can measure rather than what we really want which is to be better.  And so we are forever on our phones seeking to post and share hoping to go viral and get all those likes, rather than looking towards ourselves, being comfortable in our own skins and seeking to be better but in our own eyes and on our own terms.   So is our excessive phone use a symptom of a need to have ourselves validated by others, rather than seeking to value ourselves?

Connectedness

I think it is important to acknowledge that we are still animals in some sense, albeit very intelligent ones, but we still have so much in common with the apes we came from back in the mist of time.   And as animals we need that connectedness, that social interaction of the herd or troop, and again in steps social media and our phones with connectedness on steroids.  Suddenly I am connected to friends, family and many more people, those with similar views and interests and this connection is constantly updating.    The issue here, as I have posted in the past, is that this online connectedness, although it appeals to our inner needs, it doesn’t truly address them so we find ourselves retreating from face-to-face, proper connectedness which will fulfil our needs, in favour of easier but shallow technology enabled connection.   We maybe therefore need to spend less time on digital connectedness and more time on actual connectedness.

Fear of missing out

I have already mentioned how our digital world is constantly updated and always on and this in itself breeds an issue, being we develop this fear of missing out (FOMO).   We are worried about missing out on important information, or the latest viral craze, so we seek to be constantly checking our devices for updates.   We might even become worried that there is something wrong when we haven’t received an update or our phone hasn’t buzzed for a period of time.    We build the habit of constantly checking our devices and constant vigilance to the call of our device for attention whether that be a buzz, a chime or a flashing screen.    But maybe there is another way and maybe we need to spend more of our time and our focus on being in the moment and experiencing our current environment, the company we are in, and the discussion, rather than bothering so much about the online conversations we may or may not be missing.

Efficiency and always connected

The world is only getting busier as we constantly seek to add more tasks and seek to get better.   If you were to look back on the last 6 months and list the extra things you are now doing I suspect we all would have at least a few items however if I was then to ask you to list the things you have stopped or been asked to stop doing, I suspect a shorter list, or maybe blank list would result.   If we do X this will make Y better sounds logical whereas if we DON’T do X this will be make Y better, doesn’t sit as comfortably with us.   And so we create this illusion of the need to be hyper-efficient, always on, always moving, and our devices are happy to play to this.   They facilitate us being connected, us collaborating, us communicating, anywhere, anytime.    But is this truly what life is about, to get as much done as possible and be constantly focused, or is there value in disconnection, quiet contemplation and meditation? 

Commercial interests vs. the user

In writing this post I couldn’t miss raising the issue of the device manufacturers and the platform developers.   They are commercial entities with shareholders.   They want profit and profit comes from keeping users buying their products and their services, keeping them using devices and staring at screens.   They want you alerted and increasingly are pushing further and further into our existence.    Most of our discussion on devices focuses on phones for example, yet now how many of us have wearables such that the notification is unavoidable being strapped securely to our wrists or in future, in the glasses we need to wear to see?   So these companies don’t have our best interests in mind and their approach to dealing with people’s concerns is to provide controls and data for the individual to use to manage their own usage.   But humans aren’t particularly great at doing what is best for themselves as individuals, just consider alcohol, smoking and more recently vaping.   And when faced with a societal push to stay connected, FOMO and much more, the companies must know that putting the control in the hands of individuals will see little progress, although it will allow them to say they did what they could while still reporting positive usage data back to their shareholders.  I think this is where society has to play a part rather than focusing on either the profit-focused companies, or the ill-equipped individual to solve the problem.

Conclusion

I suspect I could write much more on this topic and as I write this I can see so many opportunities for further research.    Rather than seeking to ban, which I am against, or manage, which I am much more supportive of especially in schools, do we need to ask the question of why we are all so quick to reach for our phones and digital devices?   If we consider our usage a problem, then surely we need to get to the why, the cause, as opposed to seeking to address the symptom which is the eventual usage.   Maybe even discussing this with our students will help?

My sense is that a large part of the issue is the values which society currently applies to us.   It isn’t enough to just be me but I have to attain status, I need to be hyper-connected, I need to work stupidly hard and efficiently, and I need to show other people all of this, and our devices deliver on these needs, or at least appear to.   As long as we continue to address this at an individual level, which tends not to work, we fail to get into the bigger problem but how do we bring about societal change?   One step at a time?   One blog post at a time maybe?

Some DigCit resources

Following on from my blog in relation to internet safety day I thought I would share some of the actual presentations I have used recently with students when discussing differing parts of internet safety. 

Now all the presentations are on the short side as they are designed to provoke thought and further follow up discussions with each presentation designed around a 5 to 10 minute assembly.   

I hope the presentations are useful or at least provide some ideas.   I am also open to any thoughts or ideas for other topics or areas which should be included in future presentations.

This session revolves around a tweet from a parody HRH Prince William account which was picked up by some UK radio broadcasters as fact where there was no evidence to support the figures quotes. Also the session looks at the possible impact from generative AI in relation to fake images or video.

This session is very much about asking the students if they feel comfortable with their technology use and then discussing ways that a balance might be achieved. It is also important to discuss how “screen time” is an overly simplistic measure and that all screen time is not equal.

This session focuses on binary arguments and how two opposite viewpoints can actually both be true or both be false. Some discussion of why people might seek to exploit binary arguments, social media algorithms and echo chambers is also included.

This session focuses on some examples of social engineering and how human habits can be used against us by malicious individuals. The key message is the increasing “sophistication” of attacks and therefore the need to be more vigilant and careful.

This session looks at data breached from sites and how this is leaked online. It may be worth getting the students to use HaveIBeenPwned if possible to see how many students already have data leaked on them online. The key closing point is that as we do more online we need to be aware of the resulting increasing risk.

The key feature of this session is the predictability of human choices in relation to passwords.You may wish to use the Michael McIntyre cyber video here or simply ask students about where the capital letter, number and symbol in their passwords might be.

This includes reference to an OSINT tool which allows you to identify the date and time of a photo based on the position of shadows within the photo;  This illustrates how even simple things might give away information about us.

It also contains a “pick a number” to illustrate how we can be easily influenced.   As the presenter you would stress the trackers slide and “14” to see if you can then encourage students to select 14 later in the presentation. If we can be that easily influenced then what might social media and other individuals be able to do with much much more data?

This session looks at public good vs. individual privacy and how these two issues may be at opposite ends of a continuum. The key is to show how we need to find a balance between these two extremes.

Safer Internet Day 2024

I thought I would put a post together to coincide with safer internet day, the 6th Feb 2024.    Safer internet day represents an opportunity to stop and recognise the importance of online safety however it is also important to recognise that our understanding of digital risks isnt confined to a single day but is something we should be constantly considering.

I will be honest and say that I generally feel we do not do enough in relation to digital citizenship, which is the broader concept which encompasses online safety, in schools.   Yes, schools have safer internet day, they have content in their PSHE education programme plus in their KS1, 2 and 3 Computer Science programmes, and for those students choosing to study computing or IT subjects at A-Level or in vocational qualifications, but it is limited content and this is against a backdrop of increasing use of digital tools and increasing sharing of data.   We believe basic maths and basic literacy are requirements for all; I believe basic digital citizenship should also be a requirement and a subject in itself.

So, if it was a subject what would the topics be?

I already try and deliver sessions for students throughout the year in relation to number of digital citizenship topics which includes:

Fake News

I think this is a very important subject given the ease with which fake images and even fake audio and video can now be created through the use of Generative AI.    Recent cases with fake Taylor Swift videos and fake Joe Biden audio are a case in point. How might we tell the fake from the real, but also what about those individuals who say or do something inappropriate only to claim they didn’t, and that the footage or audio is fake?    How do we establish truth in world where we can no longer believe what we see or hear?

Big Data

We are constantly given away data, and more than we realise.  And it isnt just about the data we give away, but also about the data which might be inferred from what we give away.    Consider where you live, the car you drive and where you shop for example;   How might this information help to infer something about your wealth or earnings?    What does your weekly shop say about you and your family? And remember it doesn’t need to always be right, it just needs to generally be right more than its wrong to have value.    Then there are the organisations willing to pay for your data or to sell your data on.   Might we get to a point where, through data, some companies know more about us than we know about ourselves and at that point, what is the potential for us to be influenced or even controlled.

Binary arguments and echo chambers

The medium used to communicate has an impact on the message, with this being all the more apparent on social media where things go viral, with agreement, or viral with disagreement so very quickly.  The medium shapes our views through its algorithms, connecting stories with those likely to engage either in agreement or in disagreement, thereby enhancing divides and encouraging most discussions to descend into binary arguments.    As you engage with social media, it will try to feed you the info you want to hear, which therefore tends to reinforce the views you already have rather than providing alternative viewpoints.   So in consuming information and news from social media we need to be conscious of how social media works and therefore how it might shape the news it presents and eventually our viewpoints.

Balance – Public Good and Personal Privacy

Balance as a concept is something I believe strongly in.   For ever advantage there is a corresponding risk or draw back.   And in some many decisions we operate on a continuum rather than with polar opposites.  Take public good vs. personal privacy for example.    We want to be safe so expect the police and intelligence services to monitor in search of terrorists and other threats.   Yet, we also want our individual privacy so to be free from monitoring.    Can we have both?     The answer is no, we need to find some balance between a “reasonable” level of surveillance and monitoring balanced out against a “reasonable” level of individual privacy.    Taking the discussion of encryption, the challenge here is that weak encryption is weak for all, so monitoring anyone is difficult without putting all at risk.   Now there are solutions here such as monitoring at the device level where encrypted communications need to be decrypted to display, however this is difficult as it requires access to the device.    We basically have an imperfect situation, and sometimes in this complex world we need to live with imperfect.

Cyber Security

As we use more digital tools, share more data and generally use technology more and more we need to be more and more conscious of cyber risks and how to remain secure.   This is in the accounts we use, the data we share, the use of MFA, but also in the devices we own including updating our devices such as laptops and phones, but also the increasing number of IoT devices we have such as smart plugs and voice assistants.   We need to give some consideration to cyber security in all purchases, and in each system or service we seek to use.  It may even be necessary to accept that every piece of technology used represents increased risk, so the question then becomes is the gain from using the service sufficient to outweigh the risk?

Addiction and Being Human

How many times have you seen a major event such as a new years fireworks display with people all holding up their phones to film the event, so all experiencing the event through their smart phone screen?   Or have you been on a train or in a restaurant and seen countless people staring at their phones?   Is this the way we want to live and does this change our experience of life?  Yes it might give us a nice video of the event which we can then go back to in future but how often do we do this and if we didn’t record the event would we spend more time interacting with those around us, with this resulting in something more memorable?    What does being human look like in this technology enabled, technology curated and technology filtered world?

Conclusion

The above are just some of the areas I discuss with students and I note I don’t have the answers as I spend a little too much time on digital devices, I share more data than I likely need to, etc.  What I do hope to do however is build awareness and start a discussion as this is I believe what matters.    We need to be thinking about the challenges and risks and ensure our students, our young people, are aware of them and are making educated decisions.

I hope everyone has an enjoyable safer internet day;  Stay safe online!

Digital Divides ?

The BETT Show got me once again thinking about the digital divides, and I am very careful to use the plural here as I believe there are many digital divides currently acting on our students.   Now I have been challenged in the past over the existence of a digital divide (note the singular here which I think is important) with evidence of widespread access to devices being one of the key points of challenge.  One piece of research, for example, suggested as many as 98% of UK 16-17yr olds owned a smartphone.    Based on this data almost all children have access to both a device and also internet access suggesting ubiquitous access and no digital divide however, although this may tick off the divide related to access to a device and also access to the internet, what about the other divides?

Its not the device that matters!

When looking at school technology strategy we have long identified that a strategy to simply put a particular device in staff and student hands doesn’t work.    Its not about having the device, although this is an important foundation, its about considering what it will be used for, how its use will be included in teaching and learning, what support is available in terms of technical support but also subject related technology use support, the overall culture of the school in relation to technology use, the confidence of teachers in using technology, etc.    In terms of students and the digital divide, there are similar issues.

Have it, but don’t use it here

One obvious divide for students relates to school technology strategy.   In some schools technology has a key part to play, so 1:1 devices might be available, class sets, or BYOD might be supported, but generally it is a case of technology is encouraged.    Other schools may have far more limited technology and may ban the use of mobile devices;   All of a sudden our ubiquitous access to devices and the internet isnt nearly as ubiquitous if students arent allowed to use their devices and no devices are provided while in schools.   Those students who are encouraged to use technology in school, across their lessons, benefit from lots of learning opportunities in relation to technology, while for those without, these opportunities don’t exist.

Supportive networks

For some students, use in school provides them teaching and support in relation to technology and its use through advice from teachers, support staff such as IT staff in schools plus also from their peers who like them are using technology within the school.    This support helps, and ongoing use also helps as it allows students to build confidence in the use of technology, which then supports experimentation with new technology or new functionality within existing platforms.    But this support isnt uniformly available with some students receiving far more than others.   And the issue of support extends beyond the walls of the school to home, where some students will benefit from engaged parents willing to discuss technology use, the benefits and risks, where for other students they may be left to their own devices, which may devolve towards doom scrolling social media apps.

Digital Citizenship

And in some schools there will be robust discussion of social media app and the broader issue of digital citizenship. Students will therefore be more aware of the risks and challenges associated with social media including issues around big data, influence, bias and echo chambers, etc. This will be in addition to the meagre amount of discussion which may be supported in PSHE lessons or within the computing science curriculum which might be all some students receive. Plus, where there is robust discussion, there is a greater chance for students to ask questions or seek support.  

Maybe you need more than a phone

We also need to recognise that the smart phone isnt always the best tool and sometimes we need a bigger screen, a keyboard and a mouse.   So, although ubiquitous access to a smartphone is a good start it isnt the solution.    A study looking at device access for homeschooled students in the UK found that slightly more than half of students had to share a device with others in the household for example.    Again, we have some students who benefit from their own device which they can personalise, use and build confidence with, and other students who do not have this benefit.

And then there’s the new tech; GenAI

So, from the above I hope I have highlighted some of the divides impacting on students and this is now further compounded by new technology such as GenAI.   In some schools this is being discussed and students are being encouraged to learn about and use GenAI solutions, but in other schools GenAI is out of bounds and banned, or the students simply don’t have access to the basic technology to properly explore GenAI.    For those students learning about AI, they are likely to be more confident and familiar with GenAI solutions they encounter as they exit school and either continue their studies or enter the world of work, whereas those who have been deprived of the opportunity will be presented with a steeper learning curve.

Conclusion

For me there are definite digital divides and I feel current development around GenAI is only going to widen these divides.    Access to a device and internet, the ubiquitous smartphone, is a good start but it is akin to giving devices to teachers with no professional development or support.   They might get some use of the devices but never what is truly possible.  And looking at students and the smartphone I suspect what they might get out of their devices will be a lot of YouTube and TikTok content rather than something more meaningful.   

We very much need to seek to address the digital divides and for me the place we need to start is with the basic building blocks in terms of infrastructure and devices in schools.   Only once this is reasonably consistent across similar types of schools can we then move on to tackle other digital divides.

References

UK: children owning mobile phones by age 2023 | Statista

Over half of home-schooled children in the UK have only shared access to computers – Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) (essex.ac.uk)

Digital Citizenship

Its digital citizenship week this week so I thought I would share some thoughts. Now, I have discussed and raised the issue of the need for more time in schools to discuss digital citizenship.   Whether it is discussing the increasing need to be aware of cyber risks, or the increasing amount of data we are now sharing online or the increasing risk of our behaviours being influenced and manipulated by the tech tools we use, they all need discussion.    Schools and colleges are looking to prepare students for the uncertain, but clearly digital futures they face, but still the focus is on narrow coverage of “online safety” when the risks now extend way beyond the content being covered.

And all of this is before generative AI made its appearance and became so publicly available late in 2022.  Suddenly fake news is much easier to accomplish through generative AI tools that can easily modify content in terms of the video or audio, both being quick to achieve and also to achieve convincingly.    Suddenly the phishing emails which were often laden with spelling errors or design issues, can be fed through a generative AI solution such that the resultant output is convincing in its styling plus free from grammar and spelling errors.   In terms of influencing people through social media, generative AI allows for content creation to be automated with each piece of content being “unique” but with the common influencing message, far quicker than was possible previously.    We also have the issue, that as we all start to use more and more AI, such as the excellent generative AI tools available, we leak yet more data online, where the generative tools online are more powerful than ever in inferring yet further data.   At an event I attended recently it was suggested that if you fed your prompts from generative AI back into a generative AI solution and asked it to profile you it would do decent job of working out things like age, career, education, etc just based in the info you already put into generative AI tools.

So maybe post the free availability of ChatGPT and subsequently of so many other AI tools, or tools where generative AI such as ChatGPT is embedded, it becomes all the more important to discuss digital citizenship with our students.   And maybe generative AI, if it frees educators up from the more administrative and basic tasks of education, provides both the issue and the solution.  Maybe if generative AI and the AI solutions yet to come free us up from the mundane and the basic, maybe it will finally provide time and resources to cover digital citizenship at a time where it may be all the more important.

The path of the world is towards increasingly digital lives with the pace of digital technology advancement being quick.   Regulation and governance is slow by comparison leaving us with a need to fill the void.   I don’t have the answers for the future although I am positive as to the potential of technology to aid, enhance and even redefine our lives, however with this there is always a balance and therefore risks and challenges.   This is where digital citizenship in schools comes in, in providing opportunities for the risks and challenges, both current and potential future risks and challenges, to be discussed and explored.   We need to develop students who are aware and questioning of technology implications, rather than students who blindly adopt technology without consideration for the future.   I believe we have a long way to go to address this issue but every step, every additional discussion, every assembly, every lesson including reference to digital citizenship being an additional step in the right direction.

Image courtesy of Midjourney

Online Safety – Meta/SWGfL Event

This week included a little visit to the Meta offices in London for an SWGfL event focussed on online safety.   Now I decided to attend this event as I believe in the importance of online safety and in the wider issue of digital literacy or digital citizenship.   I am also highly conscious of the challenges from a technology point of view given the ongoing focus by technology vendors on individual privacy, including the use of encryption, over public good and online safety.It was also a great opportunity to bump into Abid Patel although he had to remind me as to the need for the obligatory selfie.

Digital Literacy

During the course of the event the term digital literacy was used which I take to mean similar to “normal” literacy, but in terms of digital media.   Now I don’t think this term goes far enough although I am happy for others to disagree with me on this.   For me digital literacy may cover the users use of technology and understand how and when, etc, but it doesn’t stretch to the issues of behaviour online and the online identities we develop as we post increasing amounts of content online.   As such my preference over the term “digital literacy” has always been a focus on “digital citizenship”, where digital literacy may form a part of this. It may seem a minor point, but for me it is an important point.

Being online

One message which was quite clear from the event was the extent that our students are now online.    The opening session quoted figures of 3hrs and 36mins as the average time spent online by 9-16yr olds.   If we assume 8hrs sleep, that’s over 20% of a child’s waking day spent online.   And for weekends the figure only increased, plus it was noted that children are increasingly “multi-screening” where they are using multiple devices such as a laptop and phone at once thereby allowing them to consume more content in less time.    From a risk point of view, the more content consumed the greater the risk of inappropriate or even harmful content being consumed.

Another similar statistic shared identified below 5% of internet users in 2003 as being under 18, yet now the figure standards at almost 40%.   A big jump, suggesting a clear trend, again highlighting how our children and students are now highly active online.  

Guidance and help

In relation to help dealing with living online it was noted that parents were viewed as the main source of help and support in relation to issues experienced online with teachers taking second place.    Unsurprisingly though a survey of teachers noted training and the ability to keep pace with technology being two barriers towards being able to properly support students online.    In relation to keeping pace with technology, I think we need to acknowledge that we can never really keep pace.    On reflection, I found myself more able to keep pace when I was a younger teacher than I am now; this may be age related however it could equally be technology related in that the pace of tech change is now quicker than it was when I was younger.    I think here the importance isn’t necessarily knowing the answers but about being open about not knowing the answers and accepting that the discussion with student may itself have value.

In terms of training this makes me think of a poster in my office regarding students never asking for professional development, or training, on using technology.   Now I will note this statement is overly simplistic but aimed to get across a point regarding the massive number of resources and help available online plus the increasingly intuitive nature of [simple] apps.  Maybe we need to be more willing to “just Google it” in relation to technology?   That aside, the issue with training is where is it going to fit into the already busy curriculum and crowded workload of todays teachers?    Surely it cannot be yet another thing added, and who every subtracts, from workload?   I don’t have an answer to this one however I think the topic needs to become something regularly discussed in staff rooms, insets, assemblies, etc.  It needs to become part of culture however with this I recognise it may take time for this change to occur, at a time when technology changes occur so much faster.    So, for now, for me, I am regularly trying to prompt discussions and thinking in relation to digital citizenship just by doing simple things such as highlighting news stories in our school weekly bulletin.   The individual effect is low however my hope is that over time it will build awareness and discussion.

Conclusion

The event had a fair few points of interest and things I could take away.  Far more than I have outlined above. I had hoped that it might help and answer the challenge of balancing out the need to protect students with the prevailing narrative regarding the importance of individual privacy.   Sadly, I don’t think the event provided any real answers in this area beyond some evidence that Meta are partnering with organisations to help to address the problem, and that efforts are being made.   Are these efforts enough?   Am not sure there will ever be enough effort as any single loss of life or significant impact on the life of young person will aways be considered sufficient evidence that more could have been done.    The fact Meta are supportive of a programme allowing individuals, including children, to log a fingerprint of non-consensual intimate imagery such that it can be automatically quarantined and even removed is good news.   I actually find this interesting given Apple seem to have allowed their proposal of scanning for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) to quietly disappear from discussion. So maybe there is progress being made after all?

It was a useful event.   The more we can discuss the challenges the more they evident and the greater chance we can seek to manage and mitigate them together. And this is another takeaway, that the event marked a number of individuals and organisations coming together to discuss the issue; This needs to continue and grow in frequency. 

Online safety: are we mitigating the risks?

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.

Thoughts on Safer Internet Day

This week included Safer Internet Day, the 8th of February, with a lot of additional posts on internet safety making their way onto social media.   I think safer internet day is great to sign post resources, focus thinking and share thought and ideas regarding online safety, however equally I worry that it becomes a single shot deal.  I worry that it signifies the 1 day a year when online safety receives a focus.

I have recently tended to focus on the cyber security aspect of online safety in particular, talking to students about securing their accounts, data breaches, etc.   This has largely been due to my interest in this particular area and a feeling that this area is sometimes neglected or is believed covered through a discussion of what makes a strong password.  I think that students have found our discussions useful however I wonder about the overall impact where these discussions happen infrequently.     Students may listen intently, engage and even contribute, but once they return to their daily lessons and the daily requirements of study, homework, etc, I feel that the discussion of cyber security and the concepts raised may largely become lost in the sea of other information and priorities.   When they next pick up their device, or sign up to a new online service do they give thought to the presentation they received, or do they simply repeat their previous behaviours and sign up with little consideration for online safety?

One of the big challenges is how we fit digital citizenship, online safety and cyber security into the available time such that it occurs regularly.   With ever increasing curriculum requirements the available time is only shrinking, and I note that seldom do we see net impact of curriculum changes resulting in less things to cover.    As we use more technology in our schools, as our students use more technology in their education, but also in their day to day lives, surely, we need to spend more time discussing the risks, as well as the benefits.   Surely, we need to spend more time looking at how we manage ourselves in a digital world, how we manage our online identity and our personal data.   But where is this time coming from?

And this is the crunch;  Safer Internet day, which I have already acknowledged I like, may highlight the limitation of our current approach to online safety.    It feels tacked on, an additional item, rather than something core, something truly important.    We might run presentations or get guest speakers in, but all this really does is tick a compliance box.   To truly cover online safety we need something more embedded, something which is ongoing throughout a students time in schools or colleges, we need to develop a culture of online safety.   We ideally need everyone modelling behaviours which represent good online safety, whether this is the teachers or the students.   We also need poor behaviours to be challenged and questioned.

Developing organisational culture is a long term and slow process, which in my experience is often the sum of lots of little actions taken across an organisation, which adds up to a statement of “how we do things around here”.   As we use greater use of technology, we need to be increasingly focussed on making sure our usage of technology is “safe”.   

But technology, unlike culture, moves quickly so we have no time to waste.   I think we all need to ask ourselves, what is the online safety culture like in our school and how can we develop it, how can we make sure it equips students with the knowledge and skills they need in this increasingly digital world.

Social media: To legislate to control?

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.

Social Media – A magnifier on society

Social Media acts as a magnifier on society.   This can both be a good thing and a bad thing.   In a good way it allows the quiet masses to have a voice and to express their opinion.   Before social media these people would not stand up or write an article in a newspaper or otherwise be able to express their views publicly.   Now they can easily like or share those posts they agree with, adding their voice to the message.   And if feeling strongly they can even add their own comments and thoughts reasonably safe in the knowledge that their voice won’t stand out.  We have seen this over the last few days as messages rejecting racism have been liked and shared in their thousands.   Social media has enabled a larger part of the population to contribute to the collective voice online.

But there is a flip side to this.  Social media provides a platform for a minority of people to share inappropriate comments with the masses, including racist views.    Prior to social media these people might have expressed the same racist views in public, but they never had much of an audience and the message never got very far.   Now, with social media, they can share their views instantly with millions of people.   They also feel safe in the knowledge that identifying them, where they have taken precautions, is not easy and therefore their comments are likely without consequence.    Social media has enabled this minority to engage a larger part of the population with their inappropriate messaging.

For me racism has no place in todays society and should be called out and challenged at every opportunity.    

I would however highlight an additional concern in relation to viewing society through social media, through the magnifier of social media, and how this can result in a distorted view on society.    Social media, to me, suggests that racism is more prevalent based on the large number of social media posts calling our racism, and by extension the suggestion of a larger number of racist tweets.   I am not sure, based on my experiences, it is more prevalent.   I suspect the availability bias is playing a part here.   I believe I heard racist comments more frequently when I was younger than I do now, so this might at least suggest we are heading in the right direction, albeit we can never stop until racism has been eliminated.

I also have concerns about the viral nature of social media, which can lead to massive outpourings of support or concern, etc, but for a short period of time, followed by people moving on to the next viral message.    Racism is linked to culture, and culture is changed gradually through consistent changes is behaviours, the stories that are told, etc.    Viral but short-lived messaging is likely to do little to impact culture and the prevalence of racism.  It is only prolonged and consistent changes in behaviour and messaging which will have this effect.   I personally started questioning the taking of the knee at the start of football events, as being a little bit of tokenism, however considering it again, maybe the consistent message conveyed is what we continue to need in the hope of long-term change.

Social media for me, isnt the problem here, but magnifies and possibly distorts it.   I am concerned that in seeking to address the issue at hand, currently racism in particular, we focus on social media and the social media companies.   Yes, they need to do all they can and possibly more than they are doing, but the issue is a societal one not a technology one.    Technology is just making it more visible, but maybe distorting the situation in the process.   

As such I think the key here is greater awareness as to how social media fits into situations like this.   How social media doesn’t just report and share news, but how it’s very use shapes the news and message being shared.   I hope this post maybe contributes a little to this awareness.