SocialTech

Cetis 2013 Keynote - Digital Citizenship: Underpinning Open Education

 

 

 

Notes from my recent Cetis keynote:

I'm very happy to have been invited here to speak today, on this important anniversary - the 10th annual Cetis conference. JISC and Cetis  - the UK Centre For Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards, are organisations many countries in the world are rightly envious of. Cetis, with it's focus on establishing interoperability specifications, standards and application, and on the implementation, effective use and adoption of open learning technology specifications and standards is just as relevant, and even more vital a national resource today than it was 10 years ago.

It's also great to be speaking in and supporting Open Education Week, and to be part of a worldwide community who are committed to promoting and creating open education opportunities for all, through free and open education networks, learning materials, open data, open standards, and open source, to making the most of technology to increase access to education globally, and to supporting those who need and want to learn to be able, across a range of circumstances.

While the numbers of high quality open learning resources and opportunities online are increasing, we shouldn't take for granted that this will always be the case or underestimate the significant barriers that exist exist in terms of access. There are many, many issues around access. Infrastructure, connectivity, devices, skills, confidence.

Today I'm going to focus on digital literacy and in particular, digital citizenship, as critical agendas in terms of supporting access and protecting gains in open education, and enabling participation in society.

I'm also going to be talking to you from the future :) Cetis's remit focuses on the post 16, Further & Higher Education sectors, but I'm going to be specifically looking at school level education - young people under 17 year old who we want to support in continuing their engagement with education successfully.

Some of you will have children, and many of you will have been to school. Some people here today may have even been young people at one point- so hopefully there will be something of interest to you.

 

The image above comes from Seattle's 5 Point Café, who recently issued a ban on Google Glass, in anticipation of the products mooted market release at the end of 2013. 

Mark Hurst recently posted on the spectacle the development of Google Glass technology raises of an electronic Stasiland - an invasive surveillance state freed up of the need to employ spies on mass by the wonder of technology.  Always on, undetected recordings that are live streamed, stored and synced across services, and can be trawled by facial recognition programmes. Mark Zuckerberg, a big fan of variable definitions of both privacy and openness, is apparently enthusiastic about developing Facebook Glass apps.

However plausible you think Hurst's concerns are,  web-based, mobile and gaming technologies are already integrated into mainstream social life, and represent mainstream culture.  From being in utero to dying, and even after death - our lives in all their varieties, shades and complexities are already mediated, shared, constructed and lived out online. Rather than the internet representing a 'virtual' world, or virtual space outside of 'real life', in post-industrial countries lack of connectivity, devices and online presence is in many ways already a marker of social exclusion.

I also think we already have significant, pressing problems now around the issues Hurst raises - rights and laws relating to privacy, identity, reputation, surveillance, consent and ownership in digital environments. The integration of web-based, mobile, and gaming technologies into everyday life means that new social norms are emerging and being fought over now. Rather than being problems we can look forward to, we already have a weight of issues to deal with around information people put online about us, the information we are putting online about ourselves, the information that services collect about us and the ways in which that information is being used.

 

This is a picture of Matt Britten tempting delegates at the UK's 2010 National Digital Inclusion Conference with the kinds of savings that might be made by moving services online. Leaving aside historic Government adventures in technologies for economies of scale - one of the key issues with online only or predominantly online services is also a key issue for open education - that is, that the people who are most dependent on those services - in the case of Government services, and the people who could potentially most benefit from access - in the case of online education - are typically people facing the biggest barriers to access.  Infrastructure, connectivity and device ownership aside (and that is a pretty big aside), one of the biggest barriers to being able to engage with, take advantage of and be an active citizen in online environments is digital literacy, and lack of digital literacy education for all.

How do we ensure every learner has access to the  knowledge and skills necessary to make to most of technology in terms of educational, social and economic opportunities? While they are at school, and when they go on to employment, training or further education? This is a key issue I'm trying to address in practical terms in the work I'm currently doing in Leicester right now. One of the key ways is by ensuring all school staff - leadership, teachers, learner support and library staff - have the skills and confidence to support learners.

As part of Leicester City Council's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme ICT strand,  I'm working with schools across the city, and framework lead Lucy Atkins (our Digital Literacies Research Associate)  in partnership with De Montfort University, supported by Richard Hall (Head of DMU's Centre for Enhancing Learning through Technology (CELT)).

The two-year project will produce and review the results of a self-evaluation city-wide survey  of secondary school staff. Fundamentally, the project seeks to do three things:

• Drill down on what digital literacy looks like, and what the key knowledge, skills and practices are  in terms of secondary staff classroom and school based practice

• Identify what current the strengths and gaps are across city schools in relation to this

• Support staff in developing their digital literacy skills and confidence levels, in the context of their practice, wherever they currently might be

We are being explicit about the important role open education plays within the context of what digital literacy looks like in a school setting - particularly in terms of the ability to find, create, build on and use open educational resources, and in connecting to, participating in and creating open learning networks. And the framework itself is going to be available under open licence for others to make use of, build on, or adjust for their own settings.   

Since we know young people routinely make effective use of mobile and web based tools and technologies   - particularly Google, Wikipedia and Facebook - for learning, why do we need to worry about digital literacy? 

Ofcom's Children and Parents Media Use and Attitudes Report, released in October 2012 draws on a range of large scale quantitative and qualitative surveys carried out across the UK. Some of the headline findings include that nine in ten 5-15 year olds (91%) live in a household with access to the internet through a PC, laptop or netbook - with internet access at home in financially better off families being close to universal (98% for AB households, and 97% for C1 households), and with internet access for children in poorer households (DE) continuing to be lower than the levels across all other socio-economic groups at 81%.

Half of all 5-15 year olds surveyed had mobile phones, and 3 in 5 of all 12-15 year olds had smart phones.

46% of parents surveyed agreed with the statement "My child knows more about the Internet than I do", which increases to 67% for parents of 12-15 year olds.  

While some young people might have great access to mobile and web-based technologies, and high confidence levels when it comes to navigating sites and using services, the report highlights some of the gaps that exist in terms of critical engagement - rather than passive consumption - with digital environments, services and information. The slide above, for example, looks at 12-15 year olds understanding of results listed by search engines.

Less than half (45%) of the 12-15 year olds in the 2012 survey evidenced a basic critical approach to evaluation of online content, agreeing that “I think that some of the websites in the list will show truthful information and some will show untruthful information.” was the statement closest to their opinion. This represents a slight (4%) decrease since 2009.

A third (31%) of 12-15 year olds most closely agreed with the statement “I think that if they have been listed by the search engine the information on the website must be truthful.” 17% of 12-15 year olds agreed most with the statement “I don’t really think about whether or not they have truthful information, I just use the sites I like the look of.”

Being aware that some website content might be misinformed, misleading, or biased is pretty fundamental to developing skills to evaluate web content, to verify information, or to identify how information might be factual but still presented in support of particular points of view. The ability to judge the validity of information, or to at least not just uncritically accept it, is an important skill for everyone.

 

The Ofcom Adults media use and attitudes report (March 2012)  looks similarly at 16-65+ year olds who use search engines about their attitudes towards the accuracy or bias of the websites returned by search. More than half (57%) agreed most closely with the statement "I think that some of the websites in the list will be accurate or unbiased and some won’t be."  With just over a third (38%) saying that the uncritical statements ('it's online so it must be OK', or 'I just like the look of it') were closest to their opinion on search returns. 

 

So how are we addressing basic digital literacy issues for all learners?

In February 2013, Michael Gove, the UK Government's Secretary of State for Education, announced the public consultation on the reform of the national curriculum for school children in England, which closes in April.

In one of the few references to young people as active social agents, the draft Computing Programme of Study (PoS) purpose of study statement opens with "A high-quality computing education equips pupils to understand and change the world through computational thinking"

Digital literacy and e-safety make an appearance in the National Curriculum, with self expression and use of ICT for employment and civic participation explicitly linked to and framed within the context of a computing education. I've previously written about the limitations of this approach, although I am happy that some elements of digital literacy and e-safety are included somewhere as important components of school level education. 

 

The draft computing PoS for Key Stage 2 (7-11 year olds) includes learning about how search engines work, how to to use them effectively, how to evaluate information online. They are also going to be taught about intellectual property, and how to keep themselves safe in their use of technology. 

There's some further development of knowledge of the technical aspects of search engines at Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds), and some continuation of digital literacy, in terms of "create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property and audience." Given that both that digital literacy and e-safety are linked to practice - to how young people engage with, learn and socialise within digital environments, and given that these practices are very different for young people at 7 than they are at 11, or 14, or 16, the expectation to ensure they are "responsible, competent, confident and creative users of information communications technology" seems insufficiently supported within the draft PoS. 

 

 

The future of citizenship education as an entitlement for English secondary school pupils looked uncertain during the period of review,  but it's inclusion was confirmed in the draft curriculum. The draft curriculum defines the purpose of study as helping "to provide pupils with knowledge, skills and understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in society." I'll leave aside the fact that children and young people do already, and can't really avoid already playing a full and active role in society - as citizens, as family members, as members of school and local communities, sometimes as carers themselves, as consumers. The scope of draft aims are to ensure young people have an understanding of UK governance and how citizens engage in democracies, the role, production and implementation of law, understand the importance of and develop a commitment to volunteering, and personal financial management.

 

The table above is taken from David Kerr's guide for the Citizenship Foundation on the implications for citizenship of the draft curriculum. 

Politics, democracy, and government have been retained from the previous PoS, as have the justice system, law making and elections. The role of the Monarchy, personal finance and volunteering have been added. There is more emphasis on Britishness, less emphasis on rights and freedoms. Topics that have been removed include the media, actions to impact community or environmental change, local/national conflict resolution, public services/third sector, Human rights & freedoms and the struggle for these, employee/employer/consumer rights & responsibilities.

Teachers will address the final programme of study as they've always done - flexibly, framing their teaching and their exploration of topics around their learners. Even given this, I'm not sure why learning about key critical human rights issues - for example the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, isn't embedded.

What's also missing is the role of digital. If "Citizenship education is about enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities," and if we acknowledge that digital tools and environments play a critical role in how lives are lived, in how communities engagement takes place, in legal and political process and protest - that the internet is a site of active political life, it's very difficult to see how issues relating to young peoples use of technologies can be left out.

Many of the issues addressed through citizenship education are inseparable from the use of technology and digital environments, and I’d like to see citizenship within the curriculum reflect the realities of learners lives. Although it depends on the teacher delivering the curriculum, typically citizenship schemes of work and lessons don’t address rights and responsibilities in digital environments, or political and  legal  issues online, or identity, conflict, and communities in online environments.

The draft computing PoS at Key stage 3  (11-14) proposes one of the things pupils should be taught to be able to do is to "create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property, and audience"

Young Rewired State (YRS), a network of software developers and designers aged 18 and under, is an organisation that models how this can be done, very effectively, in the context of solving real-world challenges.

YRS runs an annual Festival of Code,  that introduces Junior and Secondary school aged children and young people to open data sources and helps them develop real world applications for the use of open data, working in teams to design and produce prototype web services and apps that use open data over the course of a week. The young people involved are a mix of ages and experience - some had never coded before, most hadn't been through the kind of rapid scoping, design, development and pitch process.

The Festival of Code 2012 winning projects made use of open data about house prices, crime rates, employment and education statistics.

My favorite prototype project from those that won awards - and there were many brilliant projects that didn't make it to the finals - is Way to go which provides local accessibility information for people in wheelchairs and with limited mobility. The design team ensured users could also contribute to the project by rating the accessibility of locations and by this feedback being available to other users. The project was explicitly designed to increase options and access - "hopefully this will help people get around and find new places instead of going to the same places because they know it's accessible", as well as ensuring the people who are the experts on accessibility can share their knowledge to help continually develop the tool.

These projects combine a huge range of skills with coding- working with data, identifying, defining and addressing real world issues, identifying work goals and sharing these within coordinated teams. YRS demonstrates what well supported young people are capable of learning and achieving, and enjoy learning and achieving, in an extremely short period of time.

 

If digital literacy is "those capacities that equip an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society", what is digital citizenship? I see digital citizenship as a distinct but overlapping area in relation to digital literacy. Digital literacy is the ability to use, critically engage with and make use of digital tools and environments - it's not just about supporting learners to understand and engage with the world, but about enabling learners to challenge, shape and change their worlds. Digital Citizenship for me addresses  social,  political, economic and legal participation in relation to the use of technologies and online environments. It isn’t an ‘add on’ to the area of citizenship as a whole, but a recognition that technologies and digital environments are a part of the real world, and they mediate all aspects of UK life: from meeting partners, finding jobs, contacting the local council, protesting, organising, developing our social and professional networks - the list goes on. Some of the areas I'd specifically draw attention to as relevant include digital access, inclusion and exclusion; legal and illegal economics relating to data, digital services and goods; the use of technologies for mainstream and grassroots political organisation and representation; the use and abuse of technologies and data for governance and decision making; freedom of speech and censorship in relation to digital communications;  digital copyright laws, privacy and data protection; data ownership, management and security.

These are all issues that impact on young people's lives in the UK and their everyday use of technology that we aren’t addressing.

The world is facing  extremely difficult social, economic, and sustainability issues - and it's unlikely that these will be addressed through the power of computational thinking alone. In terms of citizenship, restricting our ambition to teaching people how to"behave well" in digital environments is a dangerous proposition, particularly if we aren't addressing the context of the societies we live in. The point of citizenship is not just to understand and do what you are expected to do by your community and by law, but about equipping young people to actively and critically engage in the local and national agendas and decision making that affect their, and their communities, lives. The Citizenship foundation defines citizenship education as "enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities." and quotes  Bernard Crick on the critical role citizenship plays "Citizenship is more than a subject. If taught well and tailored to local needs, its skills and values will enhance democratic life for all of us, both rights and responsibilities, beginning in school and radiating out."

Openness and diversity aren't merely pleasant things to have access too, or easy principles to support or work with. A commitment to the principles of openness and to right of access to education is about ensuring that we make the most of the talent and contribution of all. A commitment to making information, discussion and participation available to as many people as possible, regardless of their personal or social circumstances

Democracies need active, informed and responsible citizens; citizens who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and contribute to the political process.

"Democracies depend upon citizens who, among other things, are:

• aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens;
• informed about the social and political world;
• concerned about the welfare of others;
• articulate in their opinions and arguments;
• capable of having an influence on the world;
• active in their communities;
• responsible in how they act as citizens.

These capacities do not develop unaided." - What is citizenship education? - The Citizenship Foundation

Children and young people grow up and develop their identities in both physical and digital environments. While they might be confident users of mobile and gaming technologies, and online sites like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and Google, it doesn’t follow that they are socially and politically aware and engaged citizens in these spaces - just as simply being in the physical world doesn’t guarantee they have the tools and self confidence to understand their rights and responsibilities, and to take an active part in their communities and in governance.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Digital Citizenship

My notes from a  recent interview on Digital Citizenship for TES:

I see digital citizenship as a distinct but overlapping area in relation to digital literacy. Digital literacy is the ability to use, critically engage with and make use of digital tools and environments - it’s not just about supporting learners to understand and engage with the world, but about enabling learners to challenge, shape and change their worlds. Digital Citizenship for me addresses  social,  political, economic and legal participation in relation to the use of technologies and online environments. It isn’t an ‘add on’ to the area of citizenship as a whole, but a recognition that technologies and digital environments are a part of the real world, and they mediate all aspects of UK life: from meeting partners, finding jobs, contacting the local council, protesting, organising, developing our social and professional networks - the list goes on.

Children and young people grow up and develop their identities in both physical and digital environments. While they might be confident users of mobile and gaming technologies, and online sites like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and Google, it doesn’t follow that they are socially and politically aware and engaged citizens in these spaces - just as simply being in the physical world doesn’t guarantee they have the tools and self confidence to understand their rights and responsibilities, and to take an active part in their communities and in governance.

Formal Citizenship education is a well articulated and understood area in England, which has been a part of the curriculum for over two decades. It’s defined by the Citizenship Foundation as “enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities.”

Many of the issues addressed through Citizenship education are inseparable from the use of technology and digital environments, and I’d like to see Citizenship within the curriculum reflect the realities of learners lives. Although it obviously depends on the teacher delivering the curriculum, typically schemes of work and lessons don’t address rights and responsibilities in digital environments, or political and  legal  issues online, or identity, conflict, and communities in online environments. The internet is still broadly framed as a place to get resources from, rather than as an active site of political life.

There isn’t a transparent relationship between how we act, are acted on and represent ourselves in physical environments and how we act, are acted on and represent ourselves in digital environments.  While most of the key concepts of Citizenship education apply to activities in online environments, a range of digital-specific issues have been left largely under explored. I’d include issues around the use of technologies for mainstream and grassroots political organisation and representation, the use of technology for governance and decision making, freedom of speech and censorship, digital copyright laws, privacy and data protection, harassment and discrimination. These are all issues that impact on young people's lives and their everyday use of technology that we aren’t addressing at national level.

Citizenship is a social responsibility. Any citizenship agenda that stops at ‘behaving well’ is potentially a dangerous one - the point of citizenship is not just to understand and do what you are expected to do by your community and by law. Citizenship should be about equipping young people to actively and critically engage in the local and national agendas and decision making that affect their, and their communities, lives. There are specific social, economic and political differences, as well as significant similarities, when it comes to rights and responsibilities in physical and digital environments . The social and legal challenges that life online pose are substantial and changes in these areas are rapid. The integration of mobile, gaming and web based technologies into everyday life means that new social norms are emerging and being argued over now.  Privacy is one of the key examples of this. What is a reasonable expectation of privacy, at time when many people are publishing personal information about themselves online? How do laws that aim to regulate and monitor online and mobile activity in order to protect people impact on our individual rights to and expectation of privacy? How are companies whose income is based on the tracking and selling of user activity data regulated?  

I’d very much like to see parents, as citizens themselves, supporting and engaging with Digital Citizenship. I also believe schools have a critical role to play and would like to see Citizenship education really get to grips with digital issues. I think there is also a huge role to play for parents and schools supporting young people in using and understanding the ways in which technology can help them organise - school councils have a vested interest in active engagement in the digital citizenship agenda. Young people are already using Facebook, Twitter and mobile technologies to effectively organise campaigns, protests and establish their own interest groups. How are we supporting them in this? What can we learn from them?

I'd identify three priorities in taking forward Digital Citizenship education. Firstly, schools need to understand the importance of Digital Literacy for all staff members, as well as for all learners. If a school doesn’t have an appreciation of the critical role technology can play for learning and that it already does play in social life of its community, and isn’t developing a culture of digital literacy, it’s missing out on key opportunities to support all learners. Secondly, national and local Citizenship education needs to more effectively integrate Digital Citizenship into curriculum design, resources and delivery. Thirdly, students need to be supported in their use and understanding of mobile and web based technologies, tools and environments for organising, collaborating and for governance.

Developing digital literacies in practice

Picture Credit: Scaffolding by Victoria Pickering

Last week I took part in The Guardian Higher Education Network's Developing Digital Literacy in HE live chat. How we defining digital literacy obviously shapes how we take work in this area forward, and I added the definition I use to the conversation:

Currently, my favourite definition is the one Sarah Knight uses here and in the recent Guardian article:

digital literacy defines those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society

The definition I use most frequently is based on the version introduced by the wonderful Tabitha Newman in her still pertinent 2009 presentation Digital Literacy literature review: from terminology to action:

The 'short hand' definition I most frequently use is this one:

Digital Literacy =
digital tool knowledge +
critical thinking +
social engagement

My version only changes Tabitha's in the last point - she uses the term 'social awareness' whereas I'd always use the term 'social engagement' or even 'social activism', to highlight the importance of real world practice and activity as critical to socially situated digital literacy. Digital literacy is not just about supporting learners to understand and engage with the world, but about enabling learners to challenge, shape and change their worlds.

JISC adviser Helen Beetham replied to my definition post with a great link and a summery of how we can go about translating our aspirations for digital literacy into practice:

 Hello Josie, thanks for the chance to come out in public and admit to coining that definition - along with my colleagues Allison Littlejohn and Lou McGill, in our report Thriving in the C21st.

More important than our definition, I stick by what we concluded about actually developing digital literacies in practice, that it requires:

- providing authentic contexts for practice, including digitally-mediated contexts
- individual scaffolding and support
- making practices of meaning-making explicit
- anticipating and helping learners manage conflict between different practice contexts
recognising and helping learners integrate their prior conceptions and practices

Anyone doing all that? I thought not. But it's very important to me that the Developing Digital Literacies programme involves groups of staff that have always taken this person-centred, culturally-situated approach to student development i.e. careers/employability staff, and learning development/learning skills staff. As well as student-facing staff in libraries of course.

I'm currently developing and rolling out a city-wide digital literacy programme across Leicester's Secondary Schools, as part of my role with Leicester City Council as ICT Strategy Lead for Children's Capital. One of the approaches I am taking is to work with the schools to talk about and to design a range of activities that support the development of digital literacy in the context of meeting challenges and solving problems faced by school communities. I'll write more about these and the process of supporting them as we get further along - there are some really exciting projects - but in this post I'm going to focus on the framework I'm using with schools to structure conversation around the ways in which developing skills, and reviewing or introducing new policies and processes can meet current needs and support learner outcomes.

The topics have been identified and developed in discussion with schools and with a range of individuals, governing bodies and working groups. They act as development framework markers to frame discussion, activity and research, and to structure the ongoing review of projects and commissioning taking place at individual school and estate-wide level.

The bullet points are indicative of areas that actions might be agreed and developed with schools to address. The majority of the 25 secondary (supporting students between 11 and 16 years old) have completed their first draft of actions and from these a range of activities and projects - either at individual schools, or where shared interests and issues have been identified, across clusters of schools, subject areas, or role.

Space & Place

• Ensuring the best possible use is made of digital environments in relation to the physical environment of the school buildings and grounds in supporting learning and teaching.

• Ensuring access and active participation as appropriate for all members of the school community from any location via both school and user owned internet connected devices; recognising that the function and role of the school is not confined to the school grounds and restricted by the school day.

• Increasing the numbers of parents and carers actively engaging with and contributing to school activities.

• Ensuring schools’ digital presence supports whole school community development, takes full advantage of engagement opportunities and keeps it’s community well informed of activities.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Innovation

• Identifying and addressing ICT training strengths and weaknesses at estate-wide and local school level.

• Raising the level of skills and confidence across the estate to ensure schools and individual staff are equipped to recognise and take advantage of opportunities for technology to support and enhance learning, teaching and school management.

• Promoting and supporting learner-centred and learner-led practice and pedagogy.

• Supporting staff in modelling effective and positive uses of technology for both learners and peers.

• Targeting the development of staff skills, competencies and confidence to support innovative and effective use of technology by learners.

Network Learning and Communities

• Supporting staff and learners to participate within, develop, create and manage collaborative web and mobile based networks.

• Ensuring staff and learners are equipped with the skills to support their own developmental personal learning networks.

• Supporting and developing collaborative working practices and activities between learners across schools, the city, nationally and internationally, including learner-organised activity.

• Supporting learners to utilise mobile and social technologies and practices for learning.

• Embedding a whole community approach to school practice and engagement in decision making.

• Ensure digital environments are safe and inclusive, support and promote equality of access for all members.

Information Management

• Supporting a city wide, robust approach to information management school policy and practices which address the management, handling, storage and disposal of data legally, effectively and safety.

• Managing the move to cloud based services and storage.

• Planning and support for the management of User Owned Devices and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) across the school estate.

• Promoting the creation and use of Open Education Resources.

Green ICT

• Ensuring a robust and accessible approach to Green ICT issues in schools, focusing on reducing unnecessary energy consumption and using technology to support schools in developing a culture of practical engagement with energy reduction.

• Ensuring that energy consumption data can be easily and effectively used to support the curriculum and evidence the schools commitment to ensuring energy consumption is kept to a minimum.

• Supporting effective user engagement programmes which allow learners and staff to manage their school environment.

e-Safety and Cyberbullying

• Ensure robust internal education, policy and processes are in place to effectively address e-safety and cyberbullying with regard to awareness, prevention, reporting, incident reporting, response and sanctions.

• Ensure that issues are addressed through whole community education and discussion, and responsible and safe use of technologies is addressed across the curriculum, wherever appropriate.

• Ensure that discussion, planning and accounts for the schools wider responsibility to learners and employees, and activity taking place outside of the school day, premises and networks are recognised and action taken where the school has responsibility/liability.

• Ensure that e-safety and cyberbullying guidance and activity accounts for the ways in which learners are using technologies, and that information, policy and planning remains up to date and relevant, and that learners are actively involved in shaping and supporting the schools approach.

• Ensure that the needs of vulnerable learners are identified and met.

TMSEN12: awesomeness, next steps & the debate results

TMSEN12 - a TeachMeet event focusing on practice and approaches that work to support learners with Special Educational Needs (SEN) took place on Saturday 28th February. It's fair to say it was an awesome day:

 

TeachMeet SEN 2012 (TMSEN12 for short) focused on practice that works for learners with Special Educational Needs - learning difficulties or disabilities which make it harder to learn or access education. According to 2010 Government figures, approximately 21% of all pupils in England are identified as having SEN.

Credit needs to go to my partner in crime, Jo Badge, and to Leon Cych and Mike McSharry for their stirling support. Most of all, huge thanks has to go to everyone who took part and particularly all the amazing speakers. Thanks also to everyone who joined us by live stream and in Twitter.

TeachMeet SEN 2012 followed the traditional TeachMeet format of practitioners talking about and demoing practice that works, in 7 minute micro presentations or 2 minute nano presentations.

Over 70 school leaders, teachers, trainee teachers, academics and Local Authority officers from Leicester and right across the UK spent their Saturday morning sharing effective practice, resources and generating new ideas.

Not just for SEN learners

Marc Faulder's tweet "So much at #tmsen12 today is valid for all learners" was a thought echoed by many of the participants, and reflected in the event debate, most explicitly in John Galloway's Accessible by default priority.  As many participants commented, the ideas and resources shared weren't just of benefit to learners with learning difficulties or disabilities - but could be of benefit to all learners. The message of the obvious benefit of putting lessons learnt from and effective approaches with our most disadvantaged learners squarely at the centre of planning and provision was loud and clear. By engaging with tools, resources and planning for SEN learners, we can more effectively support everyone.

Next Steps

I'm hopeful that the day was a valuable one for everyone who was able to take part. The value to, and validation of, participants is a really important aim of any event - it's critical that we support and celebrate our practice and provide opportunities for individual development, networking and sharing.

Modeling good practice is also a critical activity. This was brilliantly done by our speakers, and I very much hope that everyone introduced to the TeachMeet format as a process took away some inspiration for looking at how they approach their own activity scaffolding.

In my closing remarks I asked all participants to think about and let us know about their next steps. This event was inspired by the last TeachMeet Jo and I attended, although it took a little longer than we expected to organise:)

My follow up from the day will be to collect and curate the days outputs to ceate a micro site of the days presentations, talks and links. In the mean time, please do carry on sharing resources under the #tmsen12 tag, and let us know what your next steps are!

While you're waiting, you can check out:

Jo Badge Reflections on TeachMeet for Special Education Needs #TMSEN12

Simon Finch TMSEN12 pictures

& my TMSEN12 pictures

Technologies for Inclusion: The Critical Debate - results

TMSEN12 included a panel debate looking at technologies for inclusion. Sal Cooke, Bev Evans and John Galloway, presented and defended the issues and areas they identified as current national priorities. You can read their priority descriptions here. At distance participants and people at the debate we're invited to comment and vote on the outlined priorities, and here are the vote results:

Sal Cooke's Helping staff stay up to speed with the pace of technology practice and development won the vote by a clear lead. In second place was Bev Evans priority Funding for SEN technology in all schools. In third place was John Galloway's Accessible by default priority.

This was very much in line with the discussion on the day. There was a recognition that many mainstream services, tools and programmes were effectively being used to support SEN learners. There was also a recognition that many schools had been given or had invested in specialist or mainstream services, tools and programmes that could be used in fun, creative and effective ways, but weren't being. While no one disputed the need for parity of funding for SEN learners and schools, there was agreement that the critical issue was ensuring that staff could and were using technology, when appropriate, to enhance and make learning interesting, fun and engaging.

TMSEN12: The Critical Debate

It's almost time for TeachMeet SEN 2012! Last minute tickets available here.

Signups for TeachMeet SEN 2012 have gone really well. School, University and Local Authority staff have signed up from across the UK to come along, network, learn and present this Saturday in Leicester.

Our TeachMeet focuses on practice that works for learners with Special Educational Needs - learning difficulties or difficulties which make it harder to learn or access education. According to 2010 Governement figures, approximately 21% of all pupils in England where identified as having SEN.

TeachMeet SEN 2012 follows the traditional format of practitioners talking about and demoing practice that works, in 7 minute micro presentations or 2 minute nano presentations.

 

We will also be hosting a debate, with opportunities for both delegates and at distance participants to join in - looking at the broader strategic level issues and priorities. Our panelists are:

 

Sal Cooke, Director of JISC Techdis, one of the leading UK advisory services on technologies for inclusion. Sal has overall responsibility for the strategic focus and direction of JISC Techdis as guided by funders and stakeholders, ensuring it continues to be the pragmatic voice of inclusion and accessibility and promotes the innovative use of technologies, to support users within education, business and community sectors across the UK.

 

John Galloway, an ICT/SEN Advisor in Tower Hamlets, a consultant to a number of special schools going through BSF across London and Essex, and a freelance writer with several books and many articles to his name. He has been using computers with learners with a broad range of special needs since the mid-1980s and still gets excited by what technology can enable them to do. 

 

 

Bev Evans (@bevevans22/@TES_SEN) is the new Subject Leader of SEN Resources at TES – and spends time sourcing and creating resources and guidance to help support teachers, who have pupils with SEN, within the classroom. She also spends time visiting schools and events to find out what sort of resources practitioners are currently looking for to help support their work at school and beyond.

 

Our panellists have been asked to set out the current agenda for technologies for inclusion, and present and defend the issues and areas they have identified as current national priorities.

Our speakers have outlined their priorities - what do you think? Which of the panelist priorities resonate most strongly with you? Do you think there is a more pressing issue? Let us know and join in the debate by voting for the priorities you think are the most important, or contributing your own suggestions, either when you vote or in the comments below.

Sal Cooke:

1. Rethinking 'Assistive Technology

What is Assistive Technology in 2012? - or should we now call it something else?

As more and more of the mainstream technologies, including some free or very low cost solutions are displaying and integrating features that can aid our learners in a myriad of ways,  how do we need to think and re think what we “buy” download or access as assistive technologies?    

The Assistive Technology companies themselves are now operating in a very different world and equally so are schools, colleges and universities and of course so are learners and their families.  As a recent addition to the BATA Council I am very aware of the different pressures in this economic climate for both industry, and from my role as Director of JISC TechDis for the learning providers where the impact of technology (financial or pedagogical) can have such an impact on learners with specific needs.  

2. Keeping staff stay up to speed with the pace of technology practice and development

What about the people?  How will they gain the skills and knowledge about Assitive Technology in this ever changing world?

With the advent of apps, tablets, gesture based gaming and all manner of hand held devices - how do we expect staff to keep pace and obtain best value, the best information, and most of all the best for their learners?

The moves within the industry to more and more freemium offers and services could radically help schools and Local Authority budgets - but how do we know? Where are the sources of information? Do we need to be radical with mandatory training  - what about teaching and learning, and budgetary implications?

The recent post-16 Ofsted review recommended that the Department for Education and the Department of Business Innovation and Skills should jointly create a database of assistive technologies - is that a viable or desirable solution?

John Galloway

3. Accessible by default

With disability becoming more prevalent, why is accessibility optional?

We know that about twenty per cent of school children will have some sort of SEN, about half of them struggling with text. We also know that computer systems aren’t specially made for school children, they are made for average adults - it’s Microsoft Office, after all. But we also know that in Europe we have an ageing population which is leading to increasing numbers of people with disabilities, approximately 80m at the moment. And we know that adopting a principle of ‘inclusive design’ makes life easier for everyone.

So why do we have ‘Accessibility options’ on our computers, instead of ‘Accessibility by default?’ Many aspects of improving access - high contrast, variable colour schemes, enhancing the cursor - would work for most of us  (if we knew about them) These should be the defaults.

4. Anti-social networking  

Online communities promise so much for those with SEND, so why aren’t they more accessible?

Those with special needs and disabilities can sometimes find themselves isolated or excluded. Social networking could be a way of mitigating that isolation by both connecting them with others in a similar situation, and a leveller, including them in a world without the usual barriers. Yet there seem to be limited incidences of this happening, probably because:

• the interface is complex;
• the medium is predominantly text;
• families and carers don’t appreciate what it offers.

As it stands, social networking can exacerbate a digital divide, that it could so easily help to bridge.

Bev Evans:

5. Funding for SEN technology in all schools

How do we stop schools from being left behind in the technology stakes?

As technology becomes more and more important in schools around the country what can be done to help those pupils in badly funded areas progress or have the access to the equipment they need? Some areas within Wales are particularly lacking in funding or support in this important area ( I am sure this is true of other areas within the UK too) - is it really good enough that this is still happening in 2012?

6. Bring services to pupils

Why is support for pupils with SEN so patchy across the UK? Is it purely a funding issue or are other things contributing?

In my area of Wales I have always been aware that many parents of children with SEN, in particular those with children who have autism, move into the county to access the provision available. I’m also aware of this  happening between schools across Wales and, from the emails or messages I get through position at the TES, it is obviously something that happens elsewhere in the country too. Why do some school or LAs put less effort into properly supporting and addressing the needs of pupils with SEN? Is it always a funding issue or do other factors come into play?

You can vote here for the priorities you agree with, suggest additional priorities or leave your comments below.

Computer Science is not Digital Literacy

I'm a huge fan of the current wave of enthusiasm and political will to transform the way that ICT is delivered in schools. This morning at BETT, the UK's Education Secretary Micheal Gove will outline the Government's endorsement of the development of Computer Science and hopefully, a more interesting, relevant and creative computing curriculum.

I'm a big supporter of brilliant initiatives like Code Academy, who are making getting started with coding easier and more accessible than ever before, and the fantastic work going on to get children and young people not just consuming tech but creating it, such as Coding for Kids (check out the #codingforkids hash tag on Twitter for related links, discussion and resources).

I've also done a huge amount of work over the years promoting, supporting and contributing to the idea of digital literacy. I currently work for Leicester City Council, and this year will see the role out of a city-wide digital literacy programme which aims to support every teacher across the city's 25 Secondary schools in developing digital literacy, both as individuals and as whole school communities, positively impacting on education, providing opportunities for, and engaging every young person in the city. The City Council is working in partnership with the schools, both of Leicester's Universities, and with local community initiatives and entrepreneurs, as well as with national and international partners, to make sure our ambitions for the city are realised.

In a recent article, 'Digital literacy can boost employability and improve student experience' Sarah Knight argues that digital literacy - which she defines as "those capabilities that equip an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society" are important for the post-compulsory education sector to address. The recognition of how important digital literacy is to the post-compulsory sector throws the importance of ensuring children and young people are not disadvantaged by an education system that fails to equip them for real life into sharp relief.

While it was still around, Becta defined digital literacy as 

“…the skills, knowledge and understanding learners need to participate fully and safely in our increasingly digital world. 

It is a combination of:

functional technology skills

critical thinking

collaboration skills and

social awareness” (2010)

The definition I most use is similar to this, but I replace the passive connotations of social awareness with social engagement - active participation - as a better description of what digital literacy should look like.

For me, the main characteristics of the many of the available definitions of digital literacy are that:

• it supports and helps develop traditional literacies – it isn’t about the use of technology for it’s own sake or ICT as an isolated practice
• it's a life long practice – developing and continuing to maintain skills in the context of continual development of technologies and practices
• it's about skills and competencies, and critical reflection on how these skills and competencies are applied
• it's about social engagement – collaboration, communication, and creation within social contexts

It's dismaying then, to see in a week where we are seeing a huge move forward in the promotion of technology and a fresh look at how ICT as a subject area is designed and implemented in schools, to see digital literacy being used as an interchangeable term for computer science skills. 

Not being able to code doesn't make you digitally illiterate. Not being able to participate in  social, economic, cultural and political life because you lack the confidence, skills and opportunity to do so is what makes you digitally illiterate.

It should not be acceptable that after 11 years of compulsory education any young person should lack the skills and confidence to access information, or to be able to critically use and consume products and services. It should not be acceptable that we are neglecting to support children and young people in realising their rights to participation - as active, engaged community members and citizens. Digital literacy means the the skills and confidence to take an active role in engaging in networks, and in shaping and creating opportunities - social, political, cultural, civic, and economic, and we shouldn't be collapsing these broader rights into the relatively narrow concerns of computing science as a curriculum area. We need to be supporting and developing the work that schools, teachers and educators are doing across all curriculum areas, for formal education and extra-curricula and community based activities.

In Leicester, I am developing, designing and implementing a digital literacy programme in partnership that encompasses a wide range of areas - including basic skills, online identity management, digital research and learning skills, e-safety and cyberbullying, collaborative learning, and online citizenship. We will be supporting and celebrating computer science, coding, and ways in which young people can become active in creating and critically engaging with technology. But our ambition for our young people, education provision and communities, and the ways in which we can see these being transformed by digital literacy, certainly exceed the boundaries of computer science skills.

 

TeachMeet SEN 2012

Tickets here!

I'm very excited to be organising TeachMeet SEN 2012 - or TMSEN12, a meetup talking place later this month on Saturday 28th of January, in Leicester's lovely Phoenix Square.

What's a TeachMeet?

A TeachMeet is an informal meet up of people working in and passionate about education - they support grassroots professional development. Events are framed by short talks and demos from people working within education - sharing practice that works. You can check out the Wikipedia definition here.

Practitioner talk and demo slots at TMEN12 are typical of TeachMeet talk lengths - 7 minute micro presentations or 2 minute mini presentations. These are short to encourage a wide range and diversity of contribution, to make sure as many people attending as possible get the opportunity to share, and to make joining in more accessible and less scary for people who have never spoken at an event before.

What's different about TMSEN12?

1. This is a Special Education Needs (SEN) focused TeachMeet. Learners with SEN are a significant and diverse group, and we expect the first SEN focused TeachMeet to be an exciting one - reflecting the creativity, enthusiasm and the wide range of knowledge and approaches of practitioners.

2. This is the first face-to-face SEN focused TeachMeet. There was an online TeachMeet for Additional Support Needs/Special Education Needs back in April 2009. We are very proud to be continuing the tradition.

3. We recognise that parents and carers play an important role in supporting children and young peoples education, and that while parent and carer partnership with schools are always important, parents and carers sometimes play a particularly critical role in supporting learners with SEN. We also recognise that parents and carers of learners with SEN may home school. Because of this, we are also inviting parents and carers who would like to share effective practice to come along.

Is TMSEN12 just for SENCos and people who work at SEN Schools?

No! Every school supports learners with SEN.

What kind of thing do people talk about/demo at TeachMeet?

All sorts of things! You might speak about a really useful app, web tool or site; a technique that supports listening or speaking; an interesting and successful project; how you capture or share achievement; a simple, little change that has made all the difference to your learners; something you've created or a resource someone else has shared.

I think TeachMeet SEN is a great idea! How can I support it?

Excellent! Here are 7 ways you can help us:

1. Sign up to present your ingenious and effective practice. Come along and share.

Get your free ticket here, and then head over to the wiki to tell us what you will be presenting on.

2. Sign up to encourage and support. Get your free ticket here.

3. Tell people and organisation who need to know about TMEN12 - send them a link, encourage them to sign up to speak. We really appreciate it!

4. Tag your favorite blog posts, resources and ideas: Use #TMSEN12 on Twitter, TMSEN12 on Delicious. Let us know what and where else you tag resources. We will curate and share!

5. Watch the live stream and join in the debate on Twitter. The link will magically appear here and across the web nearer the time.

6. Sponsor TMSEN12! Help towards the event costs/resource for sponsor credit. Get in touch to find out more.

7. Suggest other ways you/people can support and celebrate TMEN12. Share your ideas!

 

Should you friend your students? The short answer is no

Earlier this year I delivered a further cyberbullying guidance document on behalf of Childnet International for the UK Government's Department for Children, Schools and Families. The Guidance follows up (and designed to compliment) cyberbullying guidance, a comprehensive document  that formed part of the Safe To Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools suite of advice. While the initial document was really well received both within the UK & internationally, teachers unions and associations were increasingly being asked to deal with school employee cyberbullying cases - in which the staff member was the person being victimised. I welcomed the opportunity to produce further guidance which would both support employees in term of basic digital literacy information and encourage employers to meet their statutory obligations. The document set out, ambitiously, to encourage policy and procedure be put in place for preventing and dealing with cyberbullying as a whole school community issue - which includes meeting and recognising the specific needs, rights and responsibilities of employees. In no other area of harassment would it be acceptable for an employee to be expected to deal with cases that rose within the work place on their own - yet the reports from school staff included cases where cyberbullying was not taken seriously or understood, and where they had been expected to sort out situations for themselves.

Cyberbullying: Supporting School Staff (PDF) was released in April this year (Google doc version here).  I've been talking about the document a lot recently, and I want to just explore in a little more detail the thinking behind the advice given to school employees regarding friending students in social networking services. The actual text is (with my emphasis):

‘Friending’ refers to the act of giving contacts permission to view information or contact you within web-based services. The terminology will vary from service to service – ‘Friends’ may be called contacts or connections, for example. Most social sites enable you to give different levels of access and set privacy levels on your own content and activity. These functions will vary from service to service but typically include:
•     Information that is only available to the account holder
•     Information that is accessible by contacts on the account
holder’s approved list, and
•     Information that is made publicly available, either within
the service or across the whole of the internet.

‘Friends’ does not necessarily refer in this case to people who are your actual friends, although you may choose to restrict your connections to that. ’Friends’ in this context may also be work colleagues, family members, and people that you have met online.

If you have a social networking account, do not friend pupils or add them to your contact lists. You may be giving them access to personal information and allowing them to contact you inappropriately. They may also be giving you access to their personal information and activities

So the text above outlines three basic levels of permissions granularity that can be found on most sites, gives a definition of friending, and very explicitly says don't friend pupils. This is explicitly prescriptive advice, based on the case studies reviewed during the document negotiations, and an implicit understanding that the school staff accounts referred to are either personal, or contain elements of personal activity (I previously posted on a definition of three basic online identities, characterised as personal, professional, and organisational).

The approach taken then - don't friend pupils - reflects the kind of boundaries between staff and learners that we'd expect to see in offline behavior. You wouldn't expect a teacher to give a school aged pupil their home phone number, show them pictures of their friends or regale them with the weekends social exploits. Obviously friending isn't the only issue here - managing publicly available information so that you are comfortable with what co-workers, learners and employers can access about you is also addressed in the document. The research and anecdotal evidence indicates that we operate within social network services as if we were in a closed, private world. This isn't naive - I think it's a necessary fiction which makes social networking services human spaces. The do not friend advice is there to reinforce the message that private online is typically back of a post-card private, especially if we are within environments where we're not entirely sure who has permission to see what (*cough*Facebook*cough). It also reflects the leakiness of our online identities, the way in which the personal is often hand in hand with the professional.

What the advice isn't trying to do is to put anyone off evaluating social networking services to see if they could support learning & teaching effectively. The advice goes on to state:

If you want to use web-based social networking sites for a class or for the whole school, use a service that doesn’t give contacts access to personal information and updates, or allows collaboration without requiring permissions.

Alternatively ask pupils to create new, work-focused accounts for themselves, and run them as they would an online portfolio or CV.

You can find more information and advice about Social Network Services at www.digizen.org/socialnetworking.

Personal - Professional - Organisational: three basic online identities

There are three main ways we can characterise most peoples online internet and mobile activity and presence. Let me state up front that these distinctions are purposely blunt, but do act as effective and critical distinctions, especially when talking to people about how and why they can manage their online identities. They're also very indiscreet, leaky categories, although it is of course possible to find examples of people who's online identity is confined to or dominated by a single category. Why are these differences important? Because they provide us with the building blocks to talk about and actively reflect on our online activity. How we represent ourselves, and how we are viewed online, is increasingly a part of daily social and economic life. Critically, for people working within social media or supporting digital literacy, they provide a robust framework within which to talk about key issues: privacy, data ownership/mobility, representation and voice.

The three main categories I use then are personal, professional, and organisational.

Personal use might include using dating sites, having a social network account to connect to friends and family, uploading your family photos to a photo-sharing site. Personal use is most likely to be the category where attention to social network service permissions - who is able to see what - is particularly important to users.

Professional use could include the use of a professional networking site, or the use of a social network, a blog or other website to showcase and record work, develop connections and contribute to national and international professional networks. It includes a public facing CVs, publicly accessible parts of a personal learning environment, or an e-portfolios, conversations across mailing lists or social network services. Typically, these activities are public facing, so the most pertinent issues are typically about voice, representation, reputation and trust,

Organisational use would involve the employee using tools or platforms on behalf of their employer or in the line of their work duties. For example, an employee may run a blog as part of their role, maintain a social networking profile in order to make information accessible to students and parents, deliver assignments using a Virtual Learning Platform or set up a group account for learners on a video sharing site. Organisational use may be public, promotional and conversational, or operate within walled garden environments, or, indeed, a mixture of the two.

ReTweet & other micro-conventions

 

picture credit: kenworker 推友團在世界遺產吳哥窟前示範「銳推」Taiwanese twitterers showing us how to "retweet" in Angkor Wat

Warning: If you haven't used Twitter or other microblogging services before, this post which focuses on citation issues will likely put you off completely. It deals with only one aspect of microblogging activity, albeit an important one, but it is quite possible to lead a happy and healthy life without ever retweeting (RTing) anyone, or being an RTer, ever.

If however you get to the end of this post thinking, blimey Josie, you haven't begun to scratch the surface of this fascinating and vital issue, then why not treat yourself to the even more detailed danah boyd, Scott Golder and Gilad Lotan review paper Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.

As anyone who's spent five minutes thinking about publication and referencing styles will have concluded, while format is important, constancy is critical. Twitter and microblogging are still very much environments in process, with Twitter in particular currently having a kickass impact on the social web, from blogging practices to social network service functionality to real time reporting. Like any online community, what is acceptable, in terms of all kinds of behaviors, is negotiated between and within networks of users.

Linkage is emerging as an important currency and network tool amongst microbloggers - especially since Twitter removed users ability to view the posts people in your network direct to people not in your network, aka #fixreplies

so for example, if

@kalamishere posts: @yiannopoulos Singing along yet?

It won't appear in my twitterfeed (the stream of posts I get from the combined posting of everyone I'm following), unless I am also following @yiannopoulos.

Obviously an rss feed, or a twittersearch by name of an individual users twitter feed, like the one in my left hand sidebar, will reproduce all posts regardless. However, unless you are stalking or otherwise have a special interest in a particular user, the likelihood is that you'll never see links to and conversations outside of your network, even though these may be some of the most valuable to you.

The way around this, for people who want to make conversational posts public within Twitter or within Twitter readers is to use any character before the @ symbol, the most elegant probably being a full stop, ie: 

@josiefraser posts: . @menjivar Reviews of Free - take yr pick @Gladwell http://bit.ly/1rUoVn @ajkeen http://bit.ly/jwm7A @gapperblog http://u.nu/4evh

Some Twitter readers have problems converting .@ into links, so you'll notice in my example I leave a space between the full stop and the @, since I can afford the extra character. The value to the network isn't in the recognition - simply the giving of the name - it's in the link - the ability to click straight through to another users twitter stream, quickly review their content and interest, RT their content or add them to your follower list.

However, 140 characters - the limit of an individual post on Twitter, only accommodates so much kudos. What happens when you stumble across a post with more RTers than you can fit? For example:

@flash_ahah posts: RT @mattlingard RT @josiefraser RT @timbuckteeth: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

The convention I'm using in this example is to put RT in front of everyone who has retweeted the post so far. This clears up, for example, someone in that chain who may have been addressing themselves to one of the others. For example:

RT @mattlingard @josiefraser RT @timbuckteeth: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

could imply that @mattlingard sent the RT to @josiefraser. I'm also using : to indicate the origional poster. Again, there are a lot of different ways to retweet, and I'm not suggesting my preference is any better than any other. But suppose I now want to retweet the whole message: 

RT @flash_ahah RT @mattlingard RT @josiefraser RT @timbuckteeth: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

Or - about 20 characters too many. There are four ways around this (probably more - please let me know).

1. Don't RT, just favorite. This will show up in your followers twitter stream, although not yours - i.e. it won't be non-manually exportable but it will be saved to your twitter favorites for later reference. I don't tend to do this, since I'm kind of mean with my favorites.

2. If the same story/link has turned up across several different groups of people you follow,  I tend to give up and just put "lots of people are posting about x today," or words to that effect. I figure once more than ten people have posted the same link, and unless there is a clear origional poster, it's best not to spend too much time worrying about on it.

3. edit content. Sacrifice pithy comments or indications of content for names and links. With cunning use of one of the internets many url shortening services, you could probably credit six or seven people. on the downside, this is going to look like a very boring and inexplicable link, so people probably won't bother clicking on it.

4. Cut out some of the RTers. I posted an intention this morning kickoff a new convention for posts with multiple RTers, roughly based on accepted academic practice, which is to use the et al as a heads up that other people were involved in getting the information to you. Obviously the main difference is that unlike an academic citation, where you can actually go somewhere and find out who the other contributors were, you can't necessarily do that on Twitter so you may well be consigning some people to the black hole of anti-kudos. I suggested that the person that I got the RT heads up was the last person to tweet, and or the person I read the information from. This is important, because although I might be following several people in the RT string, the serendipitous nature of twitter - the large amount of people followed, posts made, combined with ad hoc access (like most people I guess, I tend to dip in and out of my twitter stream) means that even though I might follow one person, I might not necessarily get the information directly from them, but via a third, fourth or fifth party retweet. So my amended RT would look like: 

RT @flash_ahah et al: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

Immediately the academics and information professionals in my stream objected to this, and quite rightly so, pointing out that the important person in terms of referencing should be the originator. I broadly agree with this, although it's often not so clear cut, since people bring information into twitter typically without referencing external sources. This means I may well have several independent citations or comments from unconnected sources. However, this isn't supposed to be a hard and fast rule, but a useful convention to fall back on where appropriate.

I put the three most plausible conventions to the vote, along with an open field for other suggestions. You can go vote yourself and check out the current wisdom of this particular crowd, but at time of writing the preference, given some mitigating factors, is clearly

RT @(origional source) via @(my source) or, as I'd interpret it

RT @flash_ahah et al RT @timbuckteeth: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

with RT @(origional source) or 

RT @timbuckteeth: Most important issue in e-Learning, final version including all comments: http://bit.ly/14S989

Favored in case of minimalism or if there really wasn't enough room. Not entirely happy with this last one, since it still doesn't indicate multiple posters.

Thanks to @jont @goatgirl74 @encratica @Eingang @sarahhorrigan @RecordedBooks @timdifford @shirleyearley @traceymadden, @paulbrichardson, @MarkRussell, @lyndsayjordan, @amcunningham for taking time to talk about this with me over at Twitter today. & cheers to everyone fr the RTs!