#UWinDig

This “technologist module” presented to us I think is a good idea done wrong to be perfectly honest.

Let’s start off first with the good aspects of it. The core information trying to be presented is excellent and is something that I would think about daily in the classroom. The “design thinking” approach I think is an excellent way for teachers to quickly triage which platforms and tools can be the most effective, and which other ones are superfluous. I think when new digital tools for the classroom are created, they are too often made by a tech start-up who are too invested in the original idea they had instead of going back to the drawing board. This is a problem not just for tools created for the educational market, but also any app or platform which started off as a good idea theoretically.

Making sure these tools are human centred and useful comes first and foremost when introducing these tools in the classroom. I like to think of it as “digital ergonomics”. I have no idea if this is a widely-used term yet, but if it hasn’t been created, then I will gladly take credit ;). I feel like a broken record saying this but far too often, humans are forced to work around the technology, rather than the technology working around their needs. I don’t blame anyone in Silicon Valley for it, technology moves too fast to be optimized. We must though take this especially into account as educators. We have higher stakes than your average joe much of the time, what we do affects the upbringing of the next generation, and the tools we use must be as close to perfect as possible.

The module also talks a lot about digital literacies and teaching them in the classroom. I think there is a deep irony to talking about teaching digital literacies in the classroom while also trying to introduce certain tools like Powtoon, and Piktochart. They make it easy and accessible for anyone to make a video or infographic respectively. Unfortunately, I also think that they do not really teach us true digital literacy. Instead they act as drag and drop tools which don’t really teach the students anything about the intricacies of the computers. They teach aesthetics and how to make something look presentable and professional. Those are real skills which students need to be taught. In terms of teaching about technology though their value is nil. We used to learn in school how to use photoshop and flash to create the same things Piktochart and Powtoon do now. I think those older tools taught us a much deeper understanding of how video and chart making is done professionally. You would never use one of these tools if you wanted to do it even semi-professionally. While I understand that there is an argument for these tools act as a “gateway” into doing more advanced things, I just don’t buy it. Students will choose the path of least resistance and if they use these tools once, they will be more tempted to use them in the future. The one place I do see a use for these tools though is when students must make presentations themselves to their class. Then these tools could be useful, but I still hold to my point that making videos and graphics using more advanced, professional tools even for a history or English presentation, will further their learning better than these easy platforms online.

Finally, I have my critiques of the module itself in this short YouTube video I made. (And yes I also understand the irony in the video of me attacking buzzwords and overly academic language while using some of that in my blog post)

• Connor Pierotti

Before this article, I was familiar with the practice of redlining as a historical concept. It is one of the least talked about and most damaging policies from the era of a segregationist America. Today we are now seeing a new form of virtual redlining, restricting access to knowledge for students. The most common reason to restrict and ban certain topics from being seen is for moral reasons. There are perfectly good reasons to ban and restrict certain content on network computers in schools. Illegal activities such as child pornography, and drug dealing are things which are unacceptable in any context. It is when institutions have to decide on something that is legal, but taboo to many people. The example of revenge porn is an excellent one. Sometimes in higher learning institutions students must do research on taboo topics. This isn’t just limited to porn though. If you wanted to do a study on alt-right or explicitly neo-Nazi groups, it might be helpful to go on websites such as 4chan, or Stormfront. These websites are vile places with some of the worst opinions of humanity being expressed. To do a thorough study on them though you must wade into the mud. I would guarantee that 4chan is banned on almost every institutional network and Stormfront on a good portion of them.

The obvious solution to this problem (especially in community colleges) is to have a more open attitude when either choosing what sites go on a banned list, or designing algorithms which are more open. This is the easy technical solution. The societal solutions are much harder. Community Colleges see more of these restrictions due to the opinion that their purpose is more about job training than abstract intellectual thought. The attitude being that why would they need to look up such taboo topics in such a setting? This brings up the fact that those in the ruling classes often feel a moral paternalism for the working classes. It has existed since the earliest days of progressivist politics in the late 19^thand early 20^thcenturies.

The most concerning thing about this article though is that it might be a bellwether for something more sinister in the coming years. The concept of the digital divide is not new and something we have explored already. Chris Gilliard in his article is explicit in stating that digital redlining is not the same as the digital divide. The two though I think will become more and more linked in the future. As laws surrounding net neutrality fall in the United States and are under threat in Canada, it is possible to see a future of the internet which divides what can be accessed easily and what cannot be based on your income. If you pay for an internet or data package which fast lanes certain popular websites, but leaves others behind a “throttle wall” then the information people will be able to access will be dependent on income. This is reintroducing the “gatekeeper” effect which plagued old style media institutions of the past. The beauty of the internet was that you had essentially the same amount of “digital square footage” that the New York Times had. The openness and democratic nature that we value in the internet will be lost.