Look further back, when I actually had the time to take photos. If my only crime is not being a good photographer, than I am far from alone.

Honestly? As a junior coach when I was 16 I was heavily involved in the changes within the various sports and martial arts clubs I attended (first qualified when 16 in Aikido, but was coaching from 15 with Judo). I have always been supportive of the younger students when they want to take lead on an activity or to take ownership.

But I do have to agree that these situations have been within a set context to let that student grow as a coach, as an instructor and as mentors for others.

This has been done by the introduction of a very simple thing. Accountability.

Within a school there is very limited accountability that we can put onto a student that has entered the edublogosphere other than by peer acceptance.

The whole situation with academic labels is there to put some structure onto this acceptance. Someone who is a qualified teacher knows there stuff about teaching. The quality of this varies, especially when you take into account the extension into the web 2.0 world. At this point we also have to rate 'teachers' by peer acceptance. This is done quite a bit already within the online education community. There are those we will listen to and those we will not, but there is still the fact that in the back of our minds we know that what they do and what they say is held accountable due to their day job.

I cannot do this at the moment with a student. I can understand a student needing an assigned adult to put some level of context in place for them and this might be a better thing.

I have nothing against Arthus or Doug, but I thin both of you need to take a step back and work out why both of your arguements fail and come to some constructive conclusions about why the role of students need to show accountability and how can accredited educationalists can help develop roles for students … not for some desire to be seen to be 'with it', but to help put some structure or 'context' to the situation that exists and is likely to disappear soon.

My point is that your points are moot. You complained of me not showing my image: I just did. That's how an argument works: you make ridiculous points, and I make counterpoints which trump your arguments.

Well if you were my 15 year-old son you wouldn't be making videoresponses to strange 27 year-old British guys, that's for sure. Thefact that you use an assumed name, then, isn't consistent with yourother actions online. We need accountability and transparency in theedublogosphere, which you're not providing by using an assumed name.

I'm not saying they're telling you what to write. I'm just saying that
people who want to appear that they're progressive align themselves
with others who think that you and other 'Student 2.0' folks are
representatives of others your age. That's all.

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 justsay that I'm 'plain wrong' – you need to argue a case, surely?

I always thought Tony Sheppard was the nom de plume and you were really called Grumbledook a bubble has been burst, Tony!

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

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.)

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?

No, that's not what I said. Let me explain in bite-size chunks:Comprehension = low-level skillThinking = higher level skillThinking therefore involves engaging one's intelligence, whereas comprehension does so to a much lesser degree (more to do with literacy).That clear things up? :-)

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

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.

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.