Read this book if you want to know what frightens parents about kids using the internet.

Michael Carr-Gregg is a warm and charismatic speaker in person, and his writing in this book is very readable, aimed squarely at concerned parents. I love the cartoons by Ron Tandberg. Forewords provided by Senior Constable Susan McLean and Dr Tim Hawkes emphasise the seriousness of the topic. However, despite a warm tone, the overall message of this book is pessimistic and the case studies are alarming.

In this book, the internet is “a unique parenting problem”. There is only glancing mention of the important differences described by Marc Prensky between children who seize the riches of the emerging culture, and their elders who are not ready. The book’s focus is on the new hazards: (rare) predators, (common) inappropriate material, (endemic) financial traps, and identity theft, with more on (common) cyberbullying and (disputed) internet addiction.

The book tells parents to seek from schools an ‘Acceptable use agreement’, clear policies on use of personal technology at school, effective internet filtering, and consistent and fair response to offending behaviour. This may be less helpful than it looks. Policy takes time to implement, and the “Digital Natives” typically favourexperiential learning and example over reasoning from propositions. It is essential to mobilise consensus and cultivate community ethos, regardless of rules.

At home, the book argues for a family internet safety contract, filtering software, and supervision or monitoring of children with risky habits and under fifteen-year-olds. Two important criticisms of this strategy can be drawn from recent large-scale research.

1. Filtering is over-rated. In a large survey of British students (aged 5-19) and parents, Livingstone and Bober (2006) found that more parents claimed to rely on filtering software than knew how to install it. Certainly, fewer children than parents thought their home computers were filtered. Imposed filtering and monitoring are very often resented and circumvented by children.The difference between families matters: ABS (2006) found that 37% of children had used a computer at a friend’s house in the previous year.

2. Motives matter. In the same UK study, a small group of ‘Inexperienced risk takers’ were considered to be at highest risk: these were interested in pornography and unconcerned by violence while being the least regulated by parents who often have little online expertise. Filtering this group may not affect their attitude or behaviour. The other group at risk, ‘Low-risk novices’ have few risky encounters, but reap few online benefits due to limited access or to excessive regulation by parents who are typically unfamiliar with the internet. The authors cautioned all parents that ‘the internet must be perceived by children as an exciting and free space for play and experimentation if they are to become capable and creative actors in this new environment’ (p.31).

An alternative is Howard Rheingold’s approach – to cultivate in children an awareness of audience and sense of a ‘Public Voice’, distinguishing it from private conversation by using it online in blogs, etc. Unlike software filters, this solution cannot be instantly and unilaterally imposed… and for that reason it seems more realistic and healthy.

References

1. Carr-Gregg, M. 2007. Real Wired Child: What parents need to know about kids online. Melbourne: Penguin.
2. Smith, B., 2007. Cyber Cop Starts Internet Beat as Bullies Run Rampant. The Age. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/cyber-cop-starts-internet-beat-as-bullies-run-rampant/2007/04/01/1175366078758.html
3. O’Brien, A.H.W.K., 2008. At Home with Timothy Hawkes, Headmaster of The King’s School in Sydney, Writer and Rugby Tragic. The Australian. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24106038-5017468,00.html
4. Penguin Group 2008. Real Wired Child. Available at: http://www.penguin.com.au/lookinside/spotlight.cfm?SBN=9780143004653&Page=Details
5. Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part I. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Available at: http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm
6. Livingstone, S. & Bober, M., 2006. UK Children Go Online, London: London School of Economics and Political Science, . Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/children-go-online/UKCGO_Final_report.pdf
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, 4901.0 Children’s Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities – Australia. Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&49010_apr%202006.pdf&4901.0&Publication&4767CFCBCB66F4DECA2572440078021A&0&Apr%202006&15.12.2006&Latest
8. Rheingold, H. 2007 Vision for the Future: Keynote address. education.au conference, October 7. Available at: http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/seminars/Rheingold_Melbourne_Speech.pdf
9. Image: Product Safety 2007. Internet Safety. Product safety. Available at: http://www.product-safety.com/internetsafety.html
10. Image: Boy Helping Friend. Fotosearch.com Available at: http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IGS/IGS411/boy-helping-friend_~IS576-033.jpg

This week I looked at three different ways to learn about the US presidential elections.

Propositions

The CommonCraft video explains the US presidential election mechanism about as clearly as I have ever seen… and I still find it hard to guess at its effects.

Simulation

The Political Machine 2008 simulates an election. In a recent Wired article Clive Thomas learns something about the fairness/ethics/mechanics of this complex real-world system by playing the game, and writes:

The software of American democracy was designed to run on hardware — a particular population distribution — that no longer exists. If American democracy actually were a game, like Halo, players would call it unbalanced — and cry out for a solution. Or to put it another way: The software of U.S. democracy needs a patch. It needs some tweaks that force politicians to consider the whole map…

I see there is free demo for the curious.

Narrative

Isaac Asimov foreshadowed a possible outcome of improving electoral simulations in his short story, Franchise (1955), perversely reinterpreting the egalitarian phrase, “One man, one vote”. Revealing.

References

1. LeFever, L. and LeFever, S. 2008.  Video: Electing a US President in Plain English. CommonCraft. Available at: http://www.commoncraft.com/election
2. Stardock Corporation 2008. The Political Machine 2008. Available at: https://store.stardock.com/product.aspx?productid=ESD-TGN-W288
3. Stardock Corporation 2008. The Political Machine Express. Available at: http://www.politicalmachine.com/express/
4. Wikipedia 2008. Franchise (Short Story). Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

When I took the online test at plagiarismtest.org, I failed! (The pass-mark is 100%.) I flunked two types of questions.

Firstly, the test asserts that “Students who lend other students in the same class copies of their papers, tests, and homework should fail the class because they are allowing other students to cheat.” Of course, I disagree because I believe that collaborative learning is – sometimes – legitimate, effective and socially beneficial.

Secondly, assertions about punishments rely on knowledge of the institution. For example, I was ‘Unsure’ that “There has never been a student given an F for plagiarism who wasn’t really guilty.” (Supposedly, ‘True’.)

So I come to the conclusion that the severity of academic misconduct depends on cultural norms within the institution. Teachers who use Turn-it-in must still take care to apply the same standards that are taught to their students.

References:

1. Decker, C. & Burgess, C., 2003. Taking Plagiarism Concepts Test. Plagiarismtest.org. Available at: http://plagiarismtest.org/testing.cgi
2. iParadigms LLC, 2008. Plagiarism Prevention. Turnitin. Available at: http://turnitin.com/static/plagiarism.html