dougbelshaw.com/blog

You are correct, the post itself and the questioning of roles within a defined space of learning is quite appropriate, perhaps even necessary.

It is the ensuing argument, spanning over 70 comments, that I am referring to.
You can call it a questioning, it reads like an argument.

umm...one of the most important lessons I learned early on in my teaching career was not to get involved in arguments with students.

Reading through this post and its comments I am amazed at this public argument between teacher and student.

You mention, "appropriate responses and participation" in your first comment, Doug. Help me to understand how it is appropriate to engage in public argument with a student? I read through all of the comments so far, and I don't understand it yet.

It's 'appropriate', Tracy, because it's *not* an argument with a
student. It's a questioning of the *role* of students in the
edublogosphere. Arthus is just an example I used.

At 65 comments after... not that many days, I am sure one more will not make a difference. However, this post has been on my mind for a few days now, and I can't not comment. I profoundly disagree with the post, I find it arrogant, baiting, and unjustified. It's immature, inflammatory, and narrow-minded. I personally would not engage in this level of personal attack with someone who is NOT on the same level with me, in such a public forum. In this case, though, I feel that, based on your continued defence of your initial post, you don't see how inappropriate it is. It's pathetic. It's uncalled for. It's childish. I have read through most of the comments, and I am AMAZED at how careful and measured peoples words are. I am incredulous at the fact that people are not more critical of the fact that you are, essentially, baiting and bashing a student who is likely half your age (I think I read that you are 30, ish, or thereabouts. Not that it really matters - this kind of pettiness is uncool at ANY age).

Regardless of the precipating comments or events, calling out someone personally is pretty harsh, calling out a youth/ child/ student /anyone who has significantly less power than you do is ... pathetic. I am probably harsher than most of your commenters, but, seriously people, Arthus is a kid (sorry Arthus, but, you are). Even if it turns out he is a *fake* kid, it doesn't matter. Even if he is personally attacking you, to a point, there are ways to deal with this without directly naming or involving the person (see Clay Burrell's respectful comments about a post that didn't sit well with him - perhaps he's referencing posts like this one!). If the person who is attacking you is wrong, and totally out to lunch, people will probably realise this and their popularity will decrease. Eventually.

The sad thing is, you have some interesting comments to make with this post. While I disagree with much of what you are saying, it is a thought provoking post. A real discussion starter. However, this post could have been just as effective without the below-the-belt tactics. Instead of a thoughtful examination of a particular issue, it comes across as a personal attack, getting it out there that you have an axe to grind. However, you are old enough to know better. You have enough of a web presence that you *should* know better. I find the arrogance of some edubloggers incredibly unhealthy, and quite a bit of it is herd-following and posturing. It's like academia, but without the requisite qualifications. Why is the edublogosphere so sacrosanct that people need to live up to a standard of ultimate honesty and transparency? It's. The. Internet. I don't *need* to be anything. I am not necessarily in this for ego, nor am I necessarily in it to become the 'voice' of Web ?.0. I can create an identity, and be authentic to that identity, and have it represent a certain aspect of my life. I do not need to live out my life online, and do not necessarily want to. (btw, calling out Arthus on his *real* identity, pushing him to reveal more personal details about himself.... seriously? Do you deal with students? Do you discuss internet safety? Do you not have any concern for your own personal (identity) safety? Who does that?! That's manic! Ridiculous! Over the top! Irresponsible!).

I can't be rational in response to your post, and the comments, and your responses to the comments, because they are not rational. Talking about how your (future?) children won't be acting like Arthus online... (insert Scooby Doo confused noise here) Really? So now you are predicting the future? Becoming the overseer of your future 15 year olds? Good luck with that. Really. Were you not 15 once?

The post itself was not in the best taste... I feel it was a bad judgement call, but, that is my personal opinion. There is a larger, underlying issue that this post, and the ensuing comments skirt, and that is the issue of educating people about engaging with online sources. The point is, that students are online. Adults are online. Lots of people online have opinions. Departments, institutions, individuals, students all need to be taught how to evaluate resources. What should they be looking for? How can they discern between good information and bad information? How do they know when a source can be useful, but might not have enough authority to be credible on its own -- for example, a student blog from an erudite writer, or the blog of a doctoral candidate and practioner? Neither of these are necessary authoratative sources, however, if one is able to triangulate their data and find other sources (ie. numerous first-person accounts, research, peer-reviewed publications that are industry-standard), than, these voices can be supported, and may turn out to provide reliable insights. Or not. People need to be continuously informed that a blog does not an expert make. An innovator is not necessarily a leader. A bright light does not necessarily have all the answers. We are all learning, and, with the rate of change, we need to constantly redefine how we use and interpret information, as well as the sources of that information. The internet can allow us to be lazy, if we let it. I think you were alluding to this when you mentioned techers trotting out Arthus as a way of looking like they are 'in the know'. Would it be better if they referenced Stephen Downes? No. Both are symptomatic of our propensity to latch on to what is latest and greatest, obvious, or top of the google search pile.

I am probably not a 'fully paid-up member' of whatever adult discussion circles you are hanging out in, and that's okay with me. I have been integrating tech tools since I was Arthus's age, training my teachers and others, going through a special program in my undergrad and did my grad studies in Ed Tech, but that doens't necessarily mean I am professional or I have a relevant point of view. I am sure glad that I never encountered this kind of arrogance and dismissiveness when I was his age.

Respectfully,
Anonyme

I find your comment a bit random and meandering, but I'll try to respond and reply to some of the points I *think* you're making:

1. The very point that you don't give your name and post anonymously means I can't put what you say in context. Are you a teacher? student? nothing to do with education?


2. You've called me 'pathetic', 'childish' and 'inflammatory'. Fine, but so long as you know you're engaging in exactly the same kind of attack of which you're accusing me...


3. You say that I "have enough of a web presence that [I] *should* know better." Do you mean by that statement that I should agree with the majority view? Or that there should be certain standards. If it's the former, then I disagree profoundly; if the latter then you're agreeing with me up to a point about appropriateness, etc.


4. You mention I must be '30-something' and that you're not too sure whether I have children or not. How about trying my 'About' page? That shows I'm 27, studying towards an Ed.D., am married and have a 17-month old son. I was commenting about what I would and would not let *him* do if he were that age.

And yes, for the record, I *do* remember being 15. I remember registering with Compuserve with my Dad's credit card, making sure Internet calls were less than 60 mins so they didn't show up on the phone bill, and cancelling the Compuserve account after less than 30 days so it didn't show up on his credit card bill. But if he'd found out I'd fully have expected him to go ballistic. That's the difference.

Saying (and therefore stereoyping) teenagers as 'being a certain way' does them a disservice. That's what people are trying to do with Arthus, after all!


5. I wasn't actually *pushing* Arthus to reveal his 'real identity' - just pointing out the incongruity of revealing pretty much everything else and thinking that by hiding his name that somehow makes for good practice. I was shocked when he responded by video - I felt he'd completely missed the point. :-(


6. I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with your 'reference to sources' paragraph. However, as E-Learning Staff Tutor next year I'll certainly be trying to instill good practices in both staff and students. That, to me, is part of 'digital literacy' and something I'll be discussing in my Ed.D. thesis. :-)

You mention I must be '30-something' and that you're not too sure whether I have children or not. How about trying my 'About' page? That shows I'm 27, studying towards an Ed.D., am married and have a 17-month old son. I was commenting about what I would and would not let *him* do if he were that age.

interesting to note this is the exact same kind of laziness you engaged in by not reading *my* about page.

And yes, for the record, I *do* remember being 15. I remember registering with Compuserve with my Dad's credit card, making sure Internet calls were less than 60 mins so they didn't show up on the phone bill, and cancelling the Compuserve account after less than 30 days so it didn't show up on his credit card bill. But if he'd found out I'd fully have expected him to go ballistic. That's the difference.

Saying (and therefore stereoyping) teenagers as 'being a certain way' does them a disservice. That's what people are trying to do with Arthus, after all!

You are the one stereotyping teenagers as somehow being too immature and useless to engage in an adult conversation. We don't all steal credit cards you know...

Unfortunately, society encourages this kind of stereoptyping and assumptions. I can't count how many times I have had a store owner follow me around just to make sure I didn't shoplift anything or cause destruction, just because I am a teenager. (Funnily enough, I bet I make more per hour than him, thus being much less likely to steal.)

I wasn't actually *pushing* Arthus to reveal his 'real identity' - just pointing out the incongruity of revealing pretty much everything else and thinking that by hiding his name that somehow makes for good practice. I was shocked when he responded by video - I felt he'd completely missed the point. :-(

Once again, you miss the point of why I keep my real name secret. I would be absolutely fine with everyone in the edublogosphere knowing who I really was. That's why I am perfectly willing to share my photo or video. In fact, I'm willing to tell people my name in a non-public forum if they want it. The *only* reason I don't share my real name publicly is because I don't want the reverse: people from real life being able to Google my name and find all of this stuff. Why? Let's just say teachers can get rather tough with the grading pen when you are pointing out problems of theirs.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with your 'reference to sources' paragraph. However, as E-Learning Staff Tutor next year I'll certainly be trying to instill good practices in both staff and students. That, to me, is part of 'digital literacy' and something I'll be discussing in my Ed.D. thesis. :-)

Knowing to cite sources doesn't require advanced academic degrees, which I think we agree on. I can do it just as well as you (and do, when appropriate and needed).

interesting to note this is the exact same kind of laziness you engaged in by not reading *my* about page.

Touché! Perhaps it's because I call my about page 'About' whereas you call it 'Colophoning'... ;-)

The *only* reason I don't share my real name publicly is because I don't want the reverse: people from real life being able to Google my name and find all of this stuff.

The fact that you want to separate your offline and online worlds lends support to my argument that you - and anyone else who remains anonymous in the edublogosphere - lacks accountability and transparency. I, for one, don't want to discuss the future of education with such people.

Well, if Bud was late, I'm certainly far later, but after reading the discussion and the post that started it all, I think it's worth the time to give a somewhat lengthy response.

[Paragraphs numbered for ease in responding]

Doug,
[1] To start at the beginning of your comment (sans introduction), you say that 14-15 year-olds don't "have a full part to play in the edublogosphere." Your next few points outline some reasons for that, but it's not clear where you'd draw the line. Perhaps you'd say a newly-certified teacher would be sufficient? But they have no experience, right? I'm just saying that I don't know that it's a clear division.

[2] And as to the "full part to play," I'm not sure what part you think students should be playing. Can they comment on their classes? Thousands do each day on various websites, though often not in a very well-considered manner. Should they be disallowed from commenting clearly? I'm pretty sure you'd agree they shouldn't. The same thing goes for pretty much anything else: Make suggestions? Complain? Respond to teachers? I'm not sure it makes sense to exclude someone from those activities for the reasons you enumerate, if any.

[3] Your first reason for saying students have a full part to play in the blogosphere is that they haven't had much life experience. While that might be true to some extent, discounting someone's opinion simply because they haven't seen as many things as you seems foolish. To say that "teenagers [...] only see one side of the picture" is true, but it quickly sweeps by the fact that very few people, if any, see all sides of the picture. That is, Arthus' comments are distinct from, say, yours, and that's okay. He sees things differently than you, but taking the additional input from a student (even, as you point out, one that doesn't necessarily speak for others) seems to me to be a benefit, not something that should be discarded because it's not the same as that of everyone else.

[4] Your second reason is the one I have the most trouble with, and it's the one you seem to hold as an unquestionable value. You say that students can't provide the "transparency" required in the edublogosphere. While Arthus certainly has shown a significant amount of transparency (except, as you point out, his official name), I understand your point that many students cannot or do not choose to do so. However, I would question the use of such a standard. Are you actually saying that if we can't verify that a "real" person said something that it's not of any value? That if we don't know what they look like, where they live, and where they went to school, their comments mean less (or nothing)? I would certainly hope that you would have different methods of discriminating value in comments. I'd like to expand on this topic, and perhaps will separately, but that seems like enough commentary in this comment.

[5] Your third point, that students tend to change directions frequently, appears to be true. I'm not going to pick at that part of the issue, other than to ask if that's necessarily a bad thing: take their comments while they apply, ignore them when they don't, and stop paying attention if it doesn't seem worth it. I'm not entirely sure why you think the best way to learn to "imitate" "more mature people" is offline (they need online skills as well, yes?), but that's a completely different topic.

[6] I understand you acknowledge that students in the edublogosphere can have a purpose for informing, though hopefully that "informing" can at least lead to a conversation. I'm not saying that students should be treated exactly the same as adults in such conversations, far from it: they have a different set of experiences, they see things differently, and they are in a vastly different position than the teachers with whom they are discussing.

[7] I do agree with the idea that some of Arthus' followers latch on to his comments as representative of more than they are. Call it the "Cult of Arthus" or whatever you'd like, I think that he and you both agree that some people ascribe different meanings to what he is saying than were necessarily intended. Also, he claims to not be being manipulated by others, and I tend to believe that. I'm guessing, Doug, that you would agree that his comments are his own, no matter how others represent them as worth more (or less), and thereby twist what might be his original intent.

[8] (Note that this comment is not intended to be an attack on Doug (nor on Arthus), but rather some comments and questions on Doug's original post. I agree with some of his points, and have trouble with others. Nothing here is intended to be inflammatory.)

[1] I seem to be misunderstood by those who think that I want some type of formal demarcation. Not at all: I just want to raise questions about the role of teenagers in the edublogosphere. It's not up to me who you subscribe to or who you follow, but to me at least, all voices are not equal - for the reasons I've already outlined.

[2] I'm not trying to 'exclude' people - I've no problem with students making their voices heard it's just what we *do* with those comments that matter. As I said above, I see their role as being similar to the role a student council has in a school.

[3] Indeed, but I think you'd agree that the more education you have, the more you tend to see and begin to understand the views of others. For example, I was almost a completely different person before and after my degree in Philosophy...

[4] No, I'm not saying that comments *mean* nothing if not attributed to someone who's accountable and transparent. But it's important to understand context if I'm trying either replicate or understand something that's going on. Anything taking in isolation or out of context tends not to be applicable or useful in another situation.

[5] You're probably right that I need to expand on my 'offline' comments, but it seems that online you can hide behind things and pretend to be anything you want. In a community of professionals, that's not something I would want. The Internet is a very two-dimensional place and we need to be raising and encouraging rounded, 3D people!

[6] Oh yes, I'm all for a conversation, but not for those that involve some teenagers claiming to have some amazing skills and telling others not to 'teach' them stuff. That, to me, doesn't seem like reflective learning - which, after all, is what most of us are here for.

[7] I absolutely believe that Arthus' comments are his own. But, as you say, that doesn't mean they can't be twisted and used by others in ways that he didn't intend. I've learned from experience that people try to use you for their own ends...

[8] That's what it's all about - raising questions and issues that make people stop, think and reflect. I'm certainly not comparing myself to Socrates, but he was known as the 'gadfly', irritating people by asking questions and forcing them to reflect on why and how they do things. :-)

Doug, I'm not sure I agree with you on point three. I know some people with a good few letters after their name who really struggle to see the views of others. Interpersonal skills aren't something I'd say go hand in hand with formal education. 'Education' isn't just about what goes on in universities, schools, etc. The main reason I'm not going to do a masters is that I'm dyslexic and the amount of writing is a hideous prospect for me. That doesn't mean I'm not intellectually capable, it means I need to learn in a different way.

I think a student's role in the edublogosphere is different to that of a teacher, headteacher, etc. Pretending to be a teacher is really unhelpful as we're trying to reflect on actual practice to improve educational provision. Hearing the views of students is very useful in informing our practice.

Teaching a class of 30-40 students, all unique with differing abilities and needs, is hard to understand unless you've done it. If you're a student, commenting as a student is the most useful way to improve education.

Interpersonal (social) skills are different from those of empathy and (academically) understanding the views of others though, surely?

Yeah, you're right. I still don't think empathy necessarily goes hand in hand with academic achievement, but I think you're right about academically understanding the view of others.

I'm late to the party, Doug, but I wanted to go on record as saying that the only thing I agree with you about in this entire thread is this line: "in my opinion there's a lot of educators who are using Arthus to show how 'progressive' they are. I don't think that's right."



Each of your three points in the post above are just plain wrong. Perhaps you and i are too young (at 27 and 30) to be voicing our opinions in public. (Oh, wait - nope. At what age does that become an okay thing to do?) Child protection issues? Nah - we both know those are mostly promoted by "sky is falling" types. And ships without rudders? Um. Plenty of grown ups fit that description.

Well I'm glad you agree with me on *something*, Bud! You can't just
say that I'm 'plain wrong' - you need to argue a case, surely?

I have to agree with what you've said Doug.

I feel there's a valuable place for students to contribute and to inform our teaching. I often pick up on bits of technology from the students that I can then use in my teaching. I spotted somebody in a computer room the other day using Wordle ( http://wordle.net/ ) and the potential for using that in the classroom is huge. I wouldn't hand over the teaching of the lesson, including the planning and delivery to the same Y9 student. I thought aged 15 that I was equal with the teachers, and now I have the life experience I wasn't then, and I'm not yet. As an NQT come September there's a still long way for me to go.

I also agree about the transparacy aspect, I've finally got my blog moved onto my danwoodhouse.co.uk and I need to sort out my disqus account now. If we're going to be sharing our opinions across the internet we need to be open and honest about who we are, it increases the credibility of what we're saying. It also prevents trolls hiding behind a 'fake' persona.

I have no problems with students commenting on my ideas and my teaching (either online or offline), but I won't ever place the same value as I do on comments who come from fellow professionals.

Exactly. When I was 15 I knew that I was as 'intelligent' as those 10
or 20 years my senior. I thought that they'd just learned more of the
thesaurus than me. What I didn't realise was that the discussion,
although I could understand the words and sentences, was going on at a
higher level than I could comprehend. It's that difference, that
context, that I'm talking about. :-)

Give me a single instance where something is on a "higher level than I can comprehend."

If you want to say I don't have the experience to truly appreciate certain things, that is perfectly valid. But if you are going to insult my intelligent (which comprehension invariably is tied to, not experience), then cite an example.

Things can be understood on many levels, Arthus. For example, when I said in a previous comment that 'you can't respond by video', obviously I didn't mean you were *physically* unable to. I meant that you were unable to whilst remaining consistent with the idea that you remain anonymous online.

Comprehension has very little to do with intelligence, actually. For
example, if I set a comprehension activity in class, most pupils will able to complete it (read text, answer questions). If I get them to do something that involves a bit more thinking, then I see far different results.

Wait, so now *thinking* doesn't have to do with intelligence? Give me a break.

No, that's not what I said. Let me explain in bite-size chunks:

Comprehension = low-level skill
Thinking = higher level skill

Thinking therefore involves engaging one's intelligence, whereas comprehension does so to a much lesser degree (more to do with literacy).

That clear things up? :-)