e-wot?

Interesting post and comments on Weblogg-ed. It’s about new literacies, cyber-bullying and the roles of teachers and parents, the curriculum, etc… The comments are full of good links and stuff. Worth a look.

I tried to post this as a comment to the post, but couldn’t. So I’ve posted here instead.

First up, it made me think of the Byron Review Report commissioned by the UK Prime Minister: Safer Children in a Digital World I can highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it before. I particularly like this quote:

“Children and young people need to be empowered to keep themselves safe – this isn’t just about a top-down approach. Children will be children – pushing boundaries and taking risks. At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.”

Second, I thought of a course a colleague’s just written. We were recently given the opportunity to write a teacher training course in ‘Media Literacy’ for teachers in Singapore schools. One of the main focuses of the course is to develop knowledge and skills to enable the critical evaluation of different types of content across the different media available today. Helping teachers to empower children by helping them to understand, assess and manage risks - so they can make better choices.

Third, I thought of another colleague who’s helping secondary students to use blogs responsibly, by getting them to apply better strategies for writing online than they’d resorted to before. link to e-wot post

The last two aren’t a direct attempt to ‘teach’ ‘cyber-wellness’, instead they do something which I think is more powerful. They help develop the literacies which are the foundations of better risk management and self-regulation.

Mark Boulton draws a parallel between good airport sign design and good web design. Click for Airport sign design - dont’ screw with conventions He cites the source of his post as coming from this Paul’s Corner post

My favourite point about signage:

The number of passengers capable of reading (and correctly interpreting) a map is negligible. By and large, maps are display windows for the presentation of airport facilities and not substitutes for signposting.

Other points

• Sign colours should make the signs instantly discernible from their visually chaotic surroundings
• Use words that make sense to the user - avoid concocting clever gibberish
• Use sans-serif fonts like Frutiger, Gill sans reg, Clearview or Meta
• Test the signs to make sure they work

Mark Boulton says:

It’s not difficult to draw parallels with airport signage (in fact, most wayfinding systems) and website design. Good signage should enhance a user experience, it should help a user complete their task, and it should do it in a way that is unobtrusive.

Yeah. I find this sort of thing very compelling. Let me put on my trainspotter’s anorak …

About ten years ago I got interested in the possible relationship between good traffic sign design and good website ’sign’ design (meaning typography and layout). I tried to find out if there were any rules on typography, color, prominence for road signs that could be applied easily to web design. I couldn’t find any precise rulings on this in any UK traffic regulations, although I’m sure there must be some. I figured that any rules in a road traffic context for sign design might be useful to apply to web typography. Some kind of signage algorithm, maybe? =)

I’m still particularly fascinated by how the best traffic sign design has obviously been adapted to account for the speed at which people might be driving: everything becomes bigger, simpler and more conspicuous. Greater care is taken over where signs are placed so that drivers can clearly read them in time to act on the information they contain. This strikes me as very similar to good web design, which I’m sure takes account of the speed at which people move through pages in their browsers. Not the same kind of ’speed’ as a in car, but a similar problem of limited attention.

I was having a conversation today with a colleague and, without much thinking, I slipped these terms into our conversation about people’s attitudes toward engaging with new technologies. I thought, hmm, maybe I should think about this a bit more. And on reflection, I think that these terms help to frame some issues EduTech and KM people often face.

I first used these terms when training workshops on continuous learning in the 90s. I don’t know where they originated from, but I must have picked them up from the team of trainers I was working with at the time. So they’re not terms I’ve made up. I’m sure lots of educators use them. Here’s my take on how they’re normally used to describe people in a learning context:

• Explorers are continuous learners who actively seek new learning opportunities. They extrapolate their experience into different contexts and construct new meaning from what they find.
• Tourists will take on most new ideas, they’ll do the work they’re given, they’ll make an effort to learn. They’ll do as much as they need to get the job done if they see that it’s relevant.
• Prisoners are reluctant learners. They have habits that they can’t unlearn easily. They’ll do as their told, if forced to, but not much more - often less.

Now I also reckon that these terms are a good way to describe people’s attitudes towards technology. After all, learning to use technology is still Learning. Here’s how I’ve translated them:

• Explorers will actively seek out new technologies and constantly try to find how they’re relevant to contexts they’re familiar with. They learn how to use these tools by applying them to different situations and construct or invent relevancy. By understanding the tools and the contexts, they’ll often find solutions to problems where others can’t see that there’s a problem in the first place. They thrive on open access to technology - and they will find it, often at the expense of IT security. For them, obstacles are merely challenges to be overcome - and they don’t give up easily: they iterate.
• Tourists will appreciate how technology can improve how they do things. They’ll be open to the benefits and advantages, but they might need to be persuaded of these. For these people the tools must work first time, every time, and the benefits must be explicitly obvious and clearly relevant to their context. If all these things are in place, they’ll happily take on new technologies. Once they do, these people are powerful allies.
• Prisoners will have their own way of doing things that has always worked. They’ll see no compelling reason to change. In fact, they’ll usually find every reason not to. They’ll say, ‘technology for technology’s sake‘ when a new tech idea is tabled; and they’ll say, ‘told you so‘ when technology fails to deliver. They’ll point out the obstacles and go stand behind them.

Now you can probably guess that I like to think of myself as a bit of an explorer, but I flatter myself and I know that I’m dreaming when I compare myself to some people that I know. And in defense of prisoners, ‘prisoners’ are the barometer against which any change to the technological climate needs to be measured, and carefully if it’s to succeed. Prisoners often have a good point, they often have well-tested ways of working that get the job done. Change might indeed be a bad thing. The risks that technological ’solutions’ might bring, can often weigh against the benefits of not changing at all. So where does that leave us?

I’m a firm believer that if you give people access to technology, enough people will use it to make it worth the effort. Without open access to technology, people are handed a reason to give up, lose interest and become averse to any new technology we might wish to introduce in future. And although restricting open access because of the risk of security threats seems a common and plausibly valid corporate position, it also seems to engender a culture where prisoners can thrive - I don’t think that’s what we need.