The policy implications for different theories have always been interesting, so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this angle. The ideas that I find most compelling are pointed out in this week’s Greenhow, Galvin, and Staudt Willet (2019) piece. The first of these is the mention of 21st-century skills. Being able to navigate the digital social world has become a practical instead of only a technical skill for children growing up today. This cognitive demand has been shifted onto our youth as a given, leading to concepts such as digital natives (Crook, 2012). Skills have been left aside, such as ‘ancient’ technical skills such as handwriting. The acknowledgment of 21st-century skills and its subsequent adoption into curricula is an excellent policy move as it isn’t just another iteration of standards, but an alignment change. The second is the focus on the connection to communities; students are to “understand their responsibilities as contributors to a global, digital society” (Greenhow et al., 2019). The connectivity that social media allows for between a person and their community can reinvigorate the feeling of compassion for the commons. When others within our community post about events, projects, and other activities on social media, we have artifactual proof that we are not alone and that we share our space with other compassionate individuals.
If I were given the power to dictate policy, I would swing away from mandatory use of social media within the classroom for reasons such as cyberbullying (Ahn, Bivona, & Discala, 2011; Krutka et al., 2019) but push toward optional assignments that encourage participation within students’ communities. The use of social media would aid in the accomplishment of these tasks but would not be required.
I did not find the argument made in Krutka et al. (2019) about suggestions for a democratic online space credible. Adding competition for a social media platform the size of Twitter or Facebook would be like saying we need another energy company in Lansing, the infrastructure needed would be too significant to be realistic. The policy conversation that needs to happen in the future is deciding at what point the decommodification of a service needs to happen. When is a service a public good instead of a private one? When does the need of the public outweigh private interest? These will be the policy questions of the future as we continue to discuss social media.
Hey Matt,
I agree with your assessment that integrating technical competency, as suggested by 21st century skills, into school curriculum should be an important feature in the future of education. Social media is a part of that technical competency, and as such, has a role to play in the education of youth. You then connect your comment about 21st century skills to your discussion of the role social media might play in classrooms. I also agree that optional use of social media may be the best way forward. Some students may naturally gravitate toward social media as an arena for learning and collaboration; however, others might be more comfortable using other tools and resources for learning. I my response I talk about schools’ acceptable use policies (AUPs; Ahn el al, 2011). I imagine that school might write AUPs specifically to encourage this type of social media use in the classroom. Finally, although I think you make a creative comparison between public utilities and social media, I am not yet convinced that social media is a “public good” which requires the same sort of protections that utilities receive. If internet access it not yet a utility, it seems difficult to conclude that specific websites be considered of commodification. Could you say more about the role you see regulations and laws playing in social media use in the future?
I think that the general conversation about decommodification has to happen in stages. The first stage would be starting the conversation around the internet as a public good akin to other commons. This is obviously not a small task and would require large institutional change (which we will hopefully see come this next election cycle). It is in that light that I agree with your point that it would be difficult to make a specific site a public good but it will be food for thought with public tensions in regard to who owns our data.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
cainwil1
Ming
Forum Stats:
Groups: 7
Forums: 13
Topics: 25
Posts: 70
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 89
Moderators: 0
Admins: 4
Most Users Ever Online: 51
Currently Online:
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)