Banning Facebook is like banning the telephone. What people in authority don’t realise is that it is just a tool. Any tool can be used or misused. What they should be focussed on is harnessing its potential not being paranoid about what people do with it.
Facebook, like so many social tools, is actually primarily about learning. Yes learning what people had for breakfast – but also learning news, learning what works, learning what books are best to read, learning where to find the right bit of information.
It is particularly ironic when schools ban Facebook as they are the very ones who should be teaching effective use of this technology – not keeping their pupils stuck in some industrial, factory model of learning.
The Obvious? 
totally agree. well said.
LikeLike
Succinctly and well put!
LikeLike
Schools need more people like you.
LikeLike
I totally agree with you. When I was at School we didn't have FaceBook but I would most certainly have been peeved if it got banned.For some people these days its a primary means of communication.
LikeLike
When I was at school they banned speling.
LikeLike
As I don't have children, I don't really understand HOW a school could "ban" any aspect of social networking. Presumably the kids still use it at home?My point is that, surely it's up to the parents to complain to the school about their ridiculous policy?It's sobering to think that such small minded people are responsible for the development of our next generation!Banning pencils can't prevent the kids from writing swear words 🙂
LikeLike
Facebook can be dangerous. The girl who was murdered earlier this year by the man she contacted, the 14 year old who only this week ended up with 20,000 people threatening to gatecrash her party are just two examples of this. Consequently, children need to be taught how to use Facebook safely. They need to know what information they can and should make available to people. They need to learn how to set privacy levels. They need to be taught how to check out people who want to friend them. This means that parents and teachers need to have their own accounts in order to know how it works, so that they can discuss it sensibly with the children. Anything else is a complete abrogation of their responsibilities.
LikeLike
People can be dangerous – Facebook is just a thing. But otherwise totally agree Phil.
LikeLike
When you're at school, you are there for learning. Learning the important stuff – and the even more important stuff about being social in the first place, by talking to friends, face to face.Social sites don't help with this, which is why this ban (to which I can relate very well) is so interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/17/us-college-facebook-blackout
LikeLike
Guns are just things.Porn is just pictures. Crack is just a substance. "Facebook, like so many social tools, is actually primarily about learning. "This statment strikes me as absurd and untrue. Absorbing random bits of information piecemeal is actually the opposite of learning and is, as we are finding out, having a very negative impact on young minds's ability to function in reality.Is information systhesised on facebook or twitter? Are worthwhile discussions ever had?
LikeLike
Huge assumptions being made there Helen and Christian. I wonder how much experience you have actually had of these tools or of the way people and kids use them?Yes those things are just things and can be used for good or ill. Demonising the things without dealing with our issues ducks the issues.Social tools enable millions of us to meet, build relationships, and have better informed and enriching conversations about all sorts of things.Otherwise what are we doing now and why did you leave a comment?
LikeLike
Am not assuming anything, just reporting my direct experience (I work part-time with teenagers – outside the US) and I see that constant distraction and inundation with trivia from electronic impairs cognition (not just while the devices are being used). Depth of consciouness and patience are learned attributes. Most of us older folk grew up in environments where that was instilled and valued.The social environemnt has changed vastly and our teenagers now, will reap the whirlwind. Of course Social Networks "enable" many positive things, but just because something is "enabled" it does not follow that it actually happens. Like schools, nightclubs also "enable millions of us to meet, build relationships, and have better informed and enriching conversations about all sorts of things".Should schools be converted to nightclubs so that the kids may enrich their minds. communicate, network, bond and "learn" dance moves, chat up routines etc etc? You first assertion that social tools are about learning, gives a very skewed idea of what learning is. (Assuming he is adolesent) its natural, that your son is more interested in learning social / romantic skills etc etc, rather than other skills that might be of value later on, but we as parenst, I think would serve his generation better, by demonstrating that not all learning has the same value no matter how cool and groovy.
LikeLike
So you have assumed that I have a son, when in fact I have two daughters, that their approach to life is inherently superficial without my input, and that my input is to convey the impression that learning is cool and groovy.Hmmm ….
LikeLike
It seems to me that for nigh on 15 years parents and schools have been abrogating responsibility. Preparing our youngsters for using the internet just isn't given priority. Parents think it's the school's task and the school expects parents to play a part. It's just too haphazard. There isn't just a gap in provision of sound IT education there's a chasm. The ability of teachers to teach IT intelligently and safely is hit or miss: some are definitely not equipped to undertake this crucial task. Some parents are terrified of computers and IT. Therefore many 10s of thousands of youngsters are falling into that chasm.I believe we should all take a part in teaching the next generation safe use of the internet so that our youngsters benefit from all its wondrous knowledge and fun. Safety has to be inculcated from a very young age, ideally from first exposure to computers, by experts in the field, and then reinforced by family members.Parents should take on board the need to firmly implant sensible and safe use of IT – that means the computer should reside in a main living room and should NOT be tucked away in the child's bedroom. All to often it's location is used to guarantee the parent's own quiet time: the parent has 'rid' of the child while the child is surfing the net or using social media in their bedroom, and the parent is happy for the peace and quiet it affords.I speak with some authority on this matter having spent a long time working in the education sector. One of the reasons I left teaching in the Secondary Education sector to move to Further Education was because of the sentiment of the Headteacher, and he was not alone, he believed that IT was a vocational subject and should NOT be taught in schools. I'm glad to say that nowadays IT is being taught in Primary Education however most teachers are ill-equipped because they have had it foisted on them. Some actually hate teaching IT almost as much as they hate kids!!:o((R Griffiths
LikeLike
Spot on! Thanks for dropping by Rhianne
LikeLike
I heard recently that a school near us Sheffield banned facebook because older kids had photos of themselves on a night out and semi-clad and that displaying such images where they could be seen by younger kids triggered (or at least reinforced) the notion that accessing facebook at school is inappropriate.I, like you, don't agree with this approach and believe that the behaviour should be addressed not the tool.I have also heard that teachers are being told not to join facebook to avoid social fraternization with pupils.Again, I don't see how a teacher is supposed to give considered advice to pupils if they don't have any experience of the tools.I have just spent the morning in a workshop at the Picnic conference in Amsterdam on imagining the school of the future with students from a local high school. They use social media and the Internet in general for learning all the time and definitely want to be taught differently.I think education should revolve around collaboratively researching, synthesizing and summarizing knowledge. I believe pupils will come to appreciate the value of depth, but they need to understand *why* they are required to learn what they are.I could go on and on.(I am not an education professional but I have two very young boys and I want them to have a better educational experience than I did.)
LikeLike
Great debate Euan. I do want to also pick up on some points rasied by Helen and Chistian (thanks for stoking this conversation both)"The social environment has changed raidly". Ageed and if we don't help to equip our childen to learn and thrive in that envronment then both we and our schools are abdicating all responsibility as educators for their future well-being. If we don't teach our children how to use all available resources safely and efficiently – for their own good and the good of wider society – then we set them and society up to fail in what is becoming a true knowledge intensive "attention economy""Depth of consciouness and patience are learned attributes. Most of us older folk grew up in environments where that was instilled and valued". These are still learned and valued attributes. If ever we needed to help our hildren learn the power of mindful attention an patience then this is the age. But we must teach them within, not without, the social environment in which they will live otherwise it won't stick. It is interesting to me that some of the most powerful and joyous advocates of "social technology" are those who are already deeply conscious and mindful. Simply because it provides opportunity for a growing awareness of our infinite and inherent "interdependence" as Ethan Nichtern calls . Check out Bhuddist Geeks or 21Awake/The Here and Now Project for what is a much more mature and evolved consideration on this: it is a necessary invitation and opportunity to explore what it means to be conscious and patient the 21st Century. The aspiraton is still the same but our children are growng up in a different time so it must a slightly different question."All learning is not equal" but why do we persist in suggestng that we – any of us – know what learning is most relevent and to whom. Even the way we study is being challenged as we learn for example that (as musicians already know) repitition of a single discipline/area of study in discrete chunks does not work well for sustaining retention and cognitive development. Rather, regular short bursts of a range of subjects/tasks/disciplines in one sitting yields much more. Even the recognition that so much of our best learning is social is underpinned by science. But back to my original point – not all learning is equal/as important as other learning. Agreed, but who is best placed to decide that? We continue to prepare so many of our students for a world we appear not to have noticed is changing in front of our very eyes. The capability to source, discern, synthesise and connect to both information and people (in a mindful and patient manner) are aong the key skills we will need for the future. As Steven Johnson says: "chance favors the conected world". But it also favors the conected (and skilled) person therein. If that's not among the "important stuff" then I worry for our young minds. The Battle of Hastings and long division will only get us so far.I'm fully behind Euan on this. How we learn/teach should reflect how we understand our young people to live. Without that much learning can (and will) feel redundant and stifling. Like everything else, Facebook isn't bad, but there are bad users of Facebook. Apparently some of our schools are among them.
LikeLike
I love it when comments are way better than my post! 🙂
LikeLike
Euan,Very interesting debate you've nurtured here . . . thank you.Having worked in the education sector for close to 20 years, albeit primarily with adults, my observation is that educators need to take full advantage of whatever tools and opportunities for learning that present themselves.So while I wouldn't take issue with teachers managing the timing and manner in which students utilize social networking tools, I believe that an outright ban is a misguided overreaction. The factory jobs that my generation has watched disappear since we joined the workforce will not be returning. Schools today have a responsibility for preparing children to enter a very different post-industrial information based economy. FaceBook and subsequent generations of social media tools will be part of that world. Manage inappropriate usage by all means, but don't miss the opportunity to enrich learning by integrating emergent tools, such as social media, into the mix.
LikeLike
I got here from Smartpei where Rob P wrote: "A friend of Euan son was banned -here is Euan's response. "He wrote that you have a son, I assumed you have a son. Not unreasonable.
LikeLike
Try reading it as "the son of a friend of Euan".
LikeLike
Christian – social interaction is much more than simply face to face and will increasingly include interaction via social networking sites. Social networking sites encourage interaction and it's vital that children learn how to use them safely.Helen – I have lots of very useful, interesting and valuable discussions on both Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I'd say that Twitter is now the primary way in which I engage with other information professionals. Far from the information being 'random' it can be highly focussed and tailored. The idea that content and contact via the net is *not* reality is what's absurd and untrue. You're also missing a huge point – or are unaware of the fact that Facebook is becoming a search resource in its own right. It's not at the point of challenging Google yet, nor will it for some while, but it's certainly becoming a useful tool. Just because you don't see much by the way of learning happening on Facebook doesn't mean that it's not happening – perhaps you're just looking in the wrong place.
LikeLike
'Is information systhesised on facebook or twitter? Are worthwhile discussions ever had?'I'd like to say that worthwhile discussions are had on FB. Remember Cadbury going Fairtrade last summer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxHSsluny9sFacebook was one of the places that focused the groundswell movement that caused that to occur, and helped put the right people in touch with each other:http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/topic.php?uid=2204802443&topic=2165Moving the huge operation that is Cadbury away from the Ghanian slave trade to setting an international example of Fairtrade, is pretty worthwhile in my opinion.
LikeLike
It is a strage fact that people who don't quite understand what a tool is credit it with superhuman powers and responsibilities. We all need to learn good and bad use of social media, not simply ban them. It's the human beings who achieve good or bad results as much as the technology, out of who they are.I'm reminded of the slightly crude story of the man who came out of the chemists with a box of Tampax. "Whatever did you buy that for?" asked the wife. "Well," he said, "I want to be able to swim, and ride, and play tennis…"
LikeLike
@helen “constant distraction and inundation with trivia from electronic impairs cognition” feels like a very old school and somewhat tainted perspective. I used to go to the library to read books in solitude and silence and my train of thought would be stopped dead in its tracks by a chair scraping on the other side of the room. Now I watch my teenage kids and marvel at their ability to multi task and absorb intelligence concurrently from multiple cues and triggers all around them. They all talk over each other. They read whilst listening to loud music. They watch TV while chatting on Facebook with their right hand and on the phone with their left. And yet they never miss a trick. They are outperforming their poor old one-dimensional dad at school and I have no doubt that their future employers will be the grateful beneficiaries of their multi-tasking capabilities.
LikeLike
I reckon a bishop of the Church Of England telling jokes about tampax is just the right response to people worried about standards on the web!
LikeLike
I don't think Facebook is the distraction from learning that officious educrats think it is. When I was in school (pre-Internet, my school got 2 of Radio Shack's new TRS-80 microcomputers my senior year), I spent most of my time daydreaming while my teachers droned on in front of the class. As a student, defocusing on the task at hand is actually a healthy part of the learning process. There is a limit to how long someone can focus on a particular topic without losing focus.The problem with distractions is when student X's activities distract student Y. Electronics makes that easier to do, but they aren't the cause. Remember the person who threw paper airplanes, shot spitballs / rubber bands / paper clips, or started a conversation with the person next to him / her? These discussions about Facebook or MySpace (a few years ago) are mostly a reflection of increasingly-rigid dictatorialism in the schools fighting against students' brain-resting.Let us recognize it for what it is, and realize that this dictatorialism is actually more harmful than Facebooking / Tweeting in class would be.
LikeLike
Staving off progress (granted, sometimes just "change") is like staving off the wind …. spitting in the wind …. jousting at windmills. It's neo-luddism … technophobia. The challenge of our species is to continually adapt appropriately to progress, to be mindful and agile, to benefit from the opportunities while avoiding the threats. Establishing blinders to things "out there" that can be scary certainly doesn't prepare us for when we'll eventually have to deal successfully with those things. An educational institution's policy of keeping kids ignorant of what they'll need to know to survive and thrive in tomorrow's world, of what to make use of and what to protect themselves from, is nonfeasance, dereliction. @Shane, I agree. @Jon, I disagree with part of what you say; i.e., your response to Helen: “'constant distraction and inundation with trivia from electronic impairs cognition' feels like a very old school and somewhat tainted perspective." Helen is quite right in this particular contention. Fairly recent research in neuroscience has clearly confirmed this suspicion. Teens THINK they're getting much more done thru multitasking, and they can appear so to others as well. But careful hard-science testing has found those opinions of their performance to be false. Results have shown that focusing on tasks more often than not produces better test results than surfing thru multi tasks and having to manage all the shifts & distractions–essentially flailing. (That doesn't mean long stretches of uncontextualized learning sessions are particularly good. I'm talking about multi-tasking. Actually, it's been found that rotating thru seemingly unrelated topics & learning challenges increases absorbtion & retention–something about neurons repeatedly firing together in different contexts building more robust synaptic connections. But that has nothing to do with multitasking.) There's also much neuroscience-community consensus surrounding the long-lasting (potentially lifetime) negative effects of TV watching by toddlers. Small children's brains, while they undergo basic formation, are literally wired differently by exposure to the attention yanking involved in TV. Babies & toddlers can emerge into childhood with brains physically unprepared to concentrate, and that deficit can last thru adulthood. But that doesn't mean older children shouldn't necessarily have a healthy dose of high-quality TV in their lives, as long as the experience is BALANCED with other engagements. It's not Thoreau OR Gates, it's Thoreau AND Gates. I want kids in the future to have the wherewithall to focus and think deeply for long periods, but also, when appropriate, to skim reality, multitask, and "satisfice." Some situations call for intense focus; some call for quick impressions from a wide & complex field of view and rapid responses. Kids need to learn the advantages & limitations of both kinds of capabilities. And they shouldn't be forced to sneak around to try to figure it out themselves. They deserve some aid from us. And it's in our best interests to help them do that figuring out.
LikeLike
Great debate! I just thought that I should throw in my tuppence worth by saying that Howard Rheingold, visiting lecturer of Stanford University, says a lot about our attention. He reckons that we have yet to work it out ourselves whether it is a good thing to tweet whilst having a conversation or driving! He hasn't got the answer for all of that one yet – time will sort it out.A very interesting technique he employs is the practise of "collaborative teaching". He divides his classes into small groups and invites each group to give a joint presentation on a given subject. What can happen is that each group tries to up the ante and give a better presentation than the previous. This is really exciting I think. Imagine the depth of research that happens using this method than one teacher standing and giving out notes!On a separate note, a relative was telling me about how wikipedia is banned as a learning tool. As well as Facebook, Bebo, Twitter etc. She had never heard of LinkedIn so she doesn't know if it is banned or not. (Hi Shane! Great comments :-))
LikeLike
I have to laugh at the vast quantities of information people put on social network sites… Exposing their children's names, where they live, what jobs they do/ where they work, when they are out of the house, or on holiday, their political stances, age, and just about anything.Fuel for terrorists, murderers, burglars, fraudsters, bullies or anyone to gather their whereabouts… what fools they are.However, I'm sure the wealthy liberal left will disagree
LikeLike
So much fear and prejudice in so few words.
LikeLike
At a recent conference I had the pleasure of hearing Baroness Susan Greenfield speaking about cognitive development in this sensory rich 21st century world we live in.The main thrust of her argument warning that the ability to understand and conceptualise at an abstract level, a key learning skill, is being eroded, is that in "screen culture" there is an emphasis on "process" rather than content. Young minds are occupied with the sensory stimulous of the "here and now" rather than being encouraged to understand the content, context and meaning. I think the key thing to understand here is that Facebook, in this example, is actually less about the sensory stimulus (although there is a high degree of that) and more about content and context. Unlike Twitter, for example, where the context has to be inferred and the content is limited to 140 characters of type, Facebook encourages abstract conceptualisation because it is all about the interconnected engagement with a network (in the abstract) of peers and that, by it's nature encourages understanding the context if not always the content. Opponents of anything tend to draw broad strokes across them but the truth is that not all screen experiences are the same. TV programmes with a large degree of emphasis on instantaneous sensory gratification are certainly not good for children's neurophysiological development but that doesn't make every TV programme bad. Casting a similar eye over social networks would show Twitter to be much closer to the here and now sensory experience than Facebook. That being the case it's at least worth considering that Facebook should be considered from an educational standpoint as to it's benefits not it's (as yet unproven) negative effects.It's also worth considering that there is an implicit assumption in the criticisms of people such as Baroness Greenfield that this type of neurological development is inherently bad (and she makes some compelling arguments to that effect which should not be ignored) but there's another perspective which posits that this information sipping, multiple input processing, short attention spanned individual is perhaps the evolutionary next step in human cognitive development evolved to cope in the 21st century.The science is infant in this domain and has not yet provided us with enough evidence to make conclusive deductions. That being the case we need to avoid tabloid hysteria and reactionary measures. Let's get some real scientific facts (with open minds) and base our decisions on those, not some knee jerk reactions to preserve the "status quo" based on fear of the unknown.
LikeLike
Very interesting post Joe VaughanHowever;"Facebook encourages abstract conceptualisation because it is all about the interconnected engagement with a network" I would like to see some evidence of this.
LikeLike
@helen c : I would have said "self-evident". The social network is an abstract concept in and of itself but even more so as many kids (most) on facebook have hyperextended networks far beyond their immediate physical friends and acquaintances through friends of friends and out beyond into complete strangers. They interact with, consume content from, produce content for, accept recommendations from, emotionally engage with and ultimately define meaning for (on an individual basis) this extended network even though it's conceptual, abstract and beyond their local experience. Euan has said before on more than one occasion (and I agree with him) that we need to wake up to the fact that our children are far more sophisticated children (even though they still are children, which mustn't be forgotten) than even we first or second generation digital natives were. In my opinion the worst thing about banning Facebook from schools isn't its effect on the kids, they'll find a way around the prohibition anyway, but the missed opportunity on our part to learn from them.
LikeLike
Howard Rheingold published this tweet recently. The video fits very I think into this coversation. @hrheingold Here's the video by Gr. 7 student on Personal Learning Environment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEls3tq5wIY (via @pollyalida)
LikeLike
"Depth of consciouness and patience are learned attributes. Most of us older folk grew up in environments where that was instilled and valued".I don't know about any of you, but I believe I am considerably deeper in terms of my use of my consciousness, and the ways I have grown the ability to be patient, than I was when I was 15 .. or 25 .. or 35 for that matter. And there weren't even computers around, let alone in use, for average Jane or Joe when I went to school or started working. And there were only a few television channels around until I was in my late twenties.Back then (I am being deeply reminded of "back then" yesterday and today as a result of attending the 40-year reunion of my high school graduating class and visiting the houses where I grew up in New jersey and Connecticut) .. sometimes I was able to concentrate, and sometimes not .. just like today. Sometimes I wanted to concentrate and learn .. and sometimes not. Somehow I have been able to continue to learn as my life has unfolded (or at least I like to believe I learn) regardless of whether it involves books, television, software, F2F conversations with others, online social networks. And yes, sometimes I have learned faster and better than at other times, but I am not sure that is down to any set of conditions or a given set-up or situation.I think (though I may be wrong) that it is useful to remember that teens are indeed teenagers, and that is around about when it begins to get harder and harder to control them, as well as when the efforts to do so usually intensify. By that I mean society imposes models for how we think and assume and have "proven" that people ought to behave.I am not ready to say that as humans we have figured it out yet. I think mostly we use our own preconception, prejudices and biases, and then ask for some kind of proof to either back up or refute the position we have taken.As Euan and others have noted, Facebook is a thing. if it weren't Facebook, today's serious adults / parents who are all anxious about this would find that today's teenagers are involved in something else that is undermining their ability to think otr walk or act appropriately, etc.Why do we not ban television in homes for all those under 16, say ? I am willing to argue that (as a generality) television is worse for young minds and the attention of those minds than social networking and social media. Of course there are some good television shows here and there, but will "your" 16 year old daughter or son let you dictate to them what they can and cannot watch ?I think banning Facebook at school is a stupid thing to do. I think it is or would be an useful thing to have comprehensive dialogues about the range of purposes both good and ill to which it can be turned, which then I will assume can be guided into frank dialogues about purpose, principles, values and why we do or do not do something.Video games ? Should they be banned ? Why don't you go ahead and try that at home if you have an adolescent or two or three around ?Anyway .. yes, using Facebook and other social media applicatons, platforms and tools has effects on cognition and attention. I do not think the final verdict is in yet summarising that they are officially "bad" or "good", and I think we will learn a lot more about this arena in the next couple of decades.Speaking only personally, I am glad and grateful every day that these new conditions have come into being, and I would not want to deny my children the opportunities to use them. But I would monitor why and how they do so, and work at listening to and talking with them about the whys, hows and wherefores.
LikeLike
Well, this certainly provoked a lively debate. Thanks, all. Having enjoyed reading through everyone's posts, I think Jon H's final paragraph (in his Sept 22nd comment) sums it all for me, and that's pretty much where it all (Euan) started.Fitting for this post + debate in particular that we're reading "the obvious"; the 'anti-banning camp' here are making points as self-evidently sensible to me as disagreeing with burning books. I don't think any of the Facebook-detractors (inc Helen C), meanwhile, are actually advocating banning it, are they? And that just proves again the sense behind the original post & many comments. Blaming and banning the tool is obviously missing the point. Helen writes: "I just see very little learning of value happening on facebook". Having spent several months at the 'sharp end' of secondary school education within the last few years, I didn't see a great deal of valuable learning taking place in many elements of (1) the national curriculum, or (2) the methods used to teach it. Might sound like a cheap shot, but it's true. And still the official Educators persist on the We Know Best approach, as though teachers have nothing to learn.Is it something to do with our age? Feels to me like the Obvious needs spelling out ever more frequently.
LikeLike
Sorry, Jon – I mean your Sept 27th comment
LikeLike
Hi Tim, Thanks for that link. It is simply awesome. For anyone that missed it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEls3tq5wIY
LikeLike
Yes thanks for the link Tim. Funnily enough Howard and I are going to meet again early next year when we both speak at a conference on education!
LikeLike
It certainly seems a good idea to teach children information literacy skills (including searching Facebook and Twitter), not least for their own safety – and so that some day they might become more self-directed learners.But I'd rather that my kids didn't spend their day at school actually on Facebook and Twitter – as what they did would no doubt have rather little to do with learning, most of the time.My niece spends an awful lot of time on Facebook, and partying with friends. You can probably guess roughly how badly she just did in her GCSEs.The boring truth is that it is boring and traditional approaches to teaching that seem to turn out to be most effective *when people actually do research that compares the outcomes of different teaching approaches•. (This is rarely done!).The largest and most expensive ever research study comparing different educational approaches was called 'Project Follow Through' (in the US).It found that a really 'boring' and traditional approach called 'Direct Instruction' was the most effective. Most approaches were actually damaging, from what I remember. Direct Instruction was even better for self-esteem than the official self-esteem-focused approaches!Upon seeing these decisive results, the teaching profession re-orientated their faddish and child-centred approaches to build on these improvements and turned round many failing schools nationwide.Just kidding, of course…The teaching profession did what it could to bury these findings and continue with all the usual progressive and 'child-centred' approaches that they find much more exciting and in tune with the anti-authority zeitgeist.As in the comments above, any kind of 'traditional'-looking perspective is dismissed as an "old school and somewhat tainted perspective".Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) is so much more fun, who cares what the evidence says…I'm also unconvinced that kids these days "never miss a trick" and "are outperforming their poor old one-dimensional dad" etc.If so, how come the UK is plunging down the international league tables for educational achievement? There was even some research that found teenagers' IQs are getting lower, in the UK – which is surely unprecedented, because if anything IQ is meant to gradually rise (due to the Flynn Effect).Matthew
LikeLike
I think each school should have the right to decide for itself. I personally think it's silly to ban Facebook, but I'm sure there are some schools with good reasons.
LikeLike
Are schools for socializing or learning? Facebook is a social network, it has as much place in a classroom as whispering and note passing.
LikeLike
Actually I think they are for both but you should watch kids using Facebook to collaborate on projects some time.
LikeLike
I could possibly see how Facebook could be useful, but I really don't see how it is necessary to a classroom. Yes, you can use Facebook to collaborate, but couldn't the students just meet in person and collaborate? If you do use Facebook in the classroom it needs to be in a very controlled environment, possibly restricting access at times. There is just so much risk involved, and I wouldn't feel comfortable with my children using it in the classroom, unless they were teenagers.
LikeLike
Please explain to me how children from different countries can meet face to face in order to collaborate. I presume that you don't allow your children to get involved with any chemistry lessons since there is the potential for danger. Or play sports since they could injure themselves. Or take part in cookery lessons in case they burn themselves. Or carpentry in case they cut themselves. Your attitude does not *help* your children, it leaves them open to more danger because they can and will use Facebook and other social media. They either do so in a safe manner with an adult to assist them, and learn how to be safe online or they do it in a totally unregulated manner which then opens them up to danger.
LikeLike