Emilie Johnson's List: DGL Vocabulary

• This study aims to investigate the effect of a proposed critical thinking program on developing the critical thinking skills of college students.

• Two lives or one? That's the question that should drive our desire to help children develop a sense of perspective about living in the digital age, which views success in terms of community and humanity, as well as abundance and bandwidth.

    

  The "two lives" approach assumes that students should unplug when they enter school, and then plug back in when they leave and reenter the zone of continual connectivity that had no place during the school day. This approach assumes that the digital technology so integral to their lives is too costly or distracting to use responsibly or effectively while at school. Most important, it assumes that studying issues related to the personal, social, and environmental effects of a technological lifestyle have no place in school. This leaves our children to fend for themselves as they come to grips with issues of digital citizenship, cyber safety, and the responsible use of technology.

    

  On the other hand, the "one life" perspective assumes the opposite -- that the most important job before us is to help students understand issues of digital responsibility, and to do so at school as part of a digital health initiative. It assumes that such an initiative should be largely dedicated to helping our digital kids balance the individual empowerment of digital technology with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility. Above all, the onelife perspective invites students to bring their digital lives into our schools so that we can pursue these objectives in ways that are meaningful to them. This can only happen if we help them live one life, not two.

• The "two lives" approach assumes that students should unplug when they enter school, and then plug back in when they leave and reenter the zone of continual connectivity that had no place during the school day. This approach assumes that the digital technology so integral to their lives is too costly or distracting to use responsibly or effectively while at school. Most important, it assumes that studying issues related to the personal, social, and environmental effects of a technological lifestyle have no place in school. This leaves our children to fend for themselves as they come to grips with issues of digital citizenship, cyber safety, and the responsible use of technology.

    

  On the other hand, the "one life" perspective assumes the opposite -- that the most important job before us is to help students understand issues of digital responsibility, and to do so at school as part of a digital health initiative. It assumes that such an initiative should be largely dedicated to helping our digital kids balance the individual empowerment of digital technology with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility. Above all, the onelife perspective invites students to bring their digital lives into our schools so that we can pursue these objectives in ways that are meaningful to them. This can only happen if we help them live one life, not two.
• Of particular concern in this scenario is that as issues such as sexting and cyberbullying emerge, educators tend to respond as though these cyber issues are unrelated. School systems tend to respond to all such issues either on a case-by-case basis, or by arbitrarily blocking Internet resources and punishing students who break rules of digital engagement the school district has developed. These approaches address symptoms, not issues. The first fails to acknowledge that all digital issues are ultimately related and most effectively approached that way. The second does nothing to help students develop the skills and perspectives necessary to be digital citizens. Both approaches reaffirm for students that they are living two lives, not one, and that they should pursue their digital interests apart from the help of adults, teachers, or the school system.
• Character education, a foundational part of western education for centuries, yielded to a period of morals clarification that began in the 1960s and has never really left us. In a morals clarification environment, instead of learning right and wrong from teachers, students are encouraged to get in touch with their own sense of right and wrong in relation to the morals of their communities. It has bred a certain amount of confusion as we struggle to understand what ethical perspectives public schools should advocate.

2 more annotations...

• Creating virtual worlds necessitates the articulation of physical and interaction rules that we take for granted in the physical world. Virtual worlds designers have to explicitly state how far voices carry, in what ways two people can help each other, and how many people can be in a group.
• This paper explores how the social architectures in virtual worlds can lead to behavioral changes at the community level by shaping norms and expectations.
• While  early laboratory research in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) suggested  that social interactions online were cold and lacked important social  cues that fostered trust and interaction (Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff,  1986; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler,  1986), subsequent field observations showed that strong and even intimate  relationships readily formed online (Parks & Floyd, 1995; Rheingold,  1993; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). Walther (1996) has offered  an explanatory framework for how CMC may actually enhance relationship  formation. First, senders are able to optimize their self-presentation.  Second, the receiver forms an impression of the sender by inflating  the few pieces of information that the sender has optimized. Third,  participants can reallocate cognitive resources typically used to maintain  socially acceptable non-verbal gestures in face-to-face interactions  and focus on the structure and content of the message itself, which  comes across as more personal and articulate. Finally, the idealized  impressions and more personal interactions intensify through reciprocity.  The cumulative effect is that the interaction becomes more intimate  and positive.

• I'm not sure why  I am such close friends with my EQ buddies. I do know that my  EQ relationships are better than most of my relationships in RL.  I think this is because when you are talking with someone on-line it's  easier to talk about certain things since you don't have to look at  a person face to face. [M, 15]

    

  It is amazing how  much complete strangers are willing to reveal about their personal lives.  I believe that the anonymity might make them more bold. [M, 28]  
• Also, players are not bound  by their physical age, gender, attractiveness or attire. Unlike the  real world where we are judged by physical attributes we have no control  over, players in Norrath are able to filter and optimize their self-presentation.

3 more annotations...

• The Idaho Commission for Libraries, in partnership with the Idaho Office for Refugees, developed a program that trains foreign language speakers to, in turn, teach digital literacy to others in their language groups.

    

  With an "Online @ your library" project grant (funded by the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program of the US Department of Commerce), commission staff trained 12 new Americans to use library tools to transfer digital literacy skills to others. The trainers now offer workshops and one-on-one coaching sessions in library facilities and in their communities using library resources. "Individuals are getting the skills they need to apply for jobs, find information for their families, help their kids with school, and live in our 21st-century America, where technology know-how is very important," said Gina Persichini, consultant for the Idaho Commission for Libraries.
• Commission staff members pulled together a collection of digital literacy tools available through Idaho's statewide database program (LiLI.org), the "Online @ your library" project, and other free online resources. The tools were organized into digital literacy guides addressing the following: finding a job, education, family and health information, access to e-government services, using a computer, and using the internet.
• Staff spent only three months to clarify goals, develop the guides, find trainers, and deliver the sessions. Partners set out with the modest goal of teaching 200 individuals over six months. Just three months into training, the refugee trainers have exceeded all expectations. In that time, 212 coaching and training sessions were held, reaching 914 refugees in Boise and Twin Falls.
• Two Somali refugees, an uncle in his 60s and a nephew in his early 20s, started learning English together at Franklin Learning Center (FLC) in Minneapolis, a part of the Hennepin County Library system. The uncle had never used a computer before. After English class one day, he watched his nephew using a social networking site at the Franklin branch and decided that he'd like to learn how to use a computer too. Staff members helped him practice basic mouse and keyboarding skills, and soon the uncle was exploring online on his own.
• Another FLC patron, a 69-year-old Jamaican immigrant, lost his job during the summer. He hadn't used a computer much but needed to learn in order to access unemployment benefits and apply for jobs online. "It was great to see him grow with his skills," said Nancy Thornbury, coordinator for FLC She said they first practiced setting up his account and how to get in and out of it; then she reminded him to sign out. "Very quickly he was doing this on his own," she said. "It paid off, because he found a new job."

3 more annotations...