Good Participation: Exploring Civic Engagement in the Digital Age

by Carrie James

When the militant group, Boko Haram, abducted hundreds of Nigerian school girls last month, the major news outlets began to report the story. Yet worldwide awareness of the crisis didn’t reach a tipping point until the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls began to circulate across Twitter and Facebook. As of May 13, the hashtag was used 3.3 million times on Twitter alone. While some skeptics question whether “hashtag activism” can lead to real world impact, the potential of social media to shine a spotlight on an urgent issue seems clear.

The growing use of social media sites to call attention to political crises and broader social issues is a current area of research for the Good Project. Our research team is part of the MacArthur Youth and Participatory Politics (YPP) research network, an interdisciplinary group of scholars and practitioners who are exploring how digital life affords new modes of participation with civic and political issues.

The YPP network has identified five core “participatory practices” which, while not new in and of themselves, are facilitated in new ways by the digital technologies, social media, and other aspects of the internet. These practices include:

– investigation: researching social issues in order to become more informed
– production: producing content that contains a civic or political message
– circulation: sharing civically- or politically-oriented content created by others
– dialogue and feedback: engaging in discussion of social issues and giving feedback to powerholders
– mobilization: inciting others to take action on behalf of a cause

As part of the YPP network, our Good Participation research team has been conducting qualitative interview studies with civically active youth focused on how they engage these practices online. For instance, we’ve spoken with youth who produce videos or blog posts in which they seek to inform others about issues such as child sex trafficking. We’ve looked at how youth leverage sites like Change.org to mobilize people to sign petitions. We’ve explored how civic youth use Facebook to circulate words or images that signal their beliefs about issues such as gun control, environmental issues, or marriage equality. We’ve found that civically engaged youth are excited by the potentials of digital media for action in the world. Yet, we also find that expressing the civic voice in the digital space – especially given its public, networked nature – can pose challenges and dilemmas, including unintended audiences, uncivil dialogue, and even backlash.

Our work on these issues is being shared in different forms. Researcher Emily Weinstein published an article in the International Journal of Communication about how civic youth manage dilemmas of voice online. Margaret Rundle is the lead author of a forthcoming paper about different approaches youth take to digital civics. In my forthcoming book, Disconnected: Youth, New Media, and the Ethics Gap, I point to broader moral and ethical dilemmas in digital life that are relevant to civic uses of the web as well.

Finally, in an educational initiative called Educating for Participatory Politics, our team is working with Facing History and Ourselves to develop classroom materials that address both the opportunities and challenges for civic participation posed by digital life. We look forward to sharing these materials with our educator community in the near future.

If you are excited to learn more, consider joining us at Project Zero’s San Francisco conference, October 10-12, 2014. The implications of growing up in the digital age for civic education will be a featured theme.

Backchannel Etiquette is a Matter of Good Work

by Amma Marfo

“#NACA13 the awkward moment when bubba sparks [sic] was here the entire weekend and people just now noticed it”

“I’m at a wake…no wait im [sic] at block booking. Can we use 5 hour energy instead of paddles?#NACA13”

“Go home#NACA13, you’re drunk”

The snippets above are excerpts from a backchannel, or a collection of messages arranged topically, of thousands of Tweets sent during the 2013 National Association for Campus Activities Conference in Nashville, TN. NACA is a professional organization for student activities; its conferences target higher education professionals and professional vendors, and is heavily attended by college-aged students. A concern voiced in the latter half of the conference was the disturbingly frequent use of the backchannel as a means to demean performers, conduct inappropriate or irrelevant discussions, and belittle individual attendees. My colleague Christopher Conzen of Suffolk County Community College (NY) and I tasked ourselves with the composition of an article for the governing body’s magazine, designed to drive home a simple point: conscientious behavior on a backchannel, particularly for the backchannel of a conference, is a matter of GoodWork. The piece will appear in the Campus Activities Programming magazine this fall.  In this essay, I report how the GoodWork tenets of Mission and the Mirror Test (Personal and Professional versions) create a means for students to be more aware of the effects of their backchannel messages on themselves and others and to act more conscientiously when authoring backchannel messages.

Let me first unpack explain the term “backchannel”. At conferences, a backchannel can be collected from social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or even Instagram, and used by those at the conference to keep in touch with attendees and follow up on questions from presentations. The backchannel can also serve as a record of conference proceedings, for those unable to attend but wishing to follow along from home. With all that said, the integrity of a backchannel is necessarily tied to its proper use. Improper or impolite use of a backchannel may mean that the information shared loses credibility, as do those who share it.

I found that the GoodWork Project provides a framework that has proved useful for helping students (and to a certain extent, professionals) attending the conference to understand the many lenses through which their 140 character messages might be viewed. By recommending impressions of the Mission and Mirror Test tenets to emphasize the importance of excellence, ethics, and engagement, we simplified a conversation that otherwise is fraught with “what if’s, “what abuts, and a multitude of qualifying questions. Here’s how we found these tenets to be applicable to promoting more responsible engagement with the backchannel.

(1) Mission

As professional members and occasional volunteers for the National Association for Campus Activities, Chris and I are aware of the mission of the organization. However, it was quickly apparent over the course of the conference that student delegates, as well as less involved professionals, might not be. The mission is as follows:

The National Association for Campus Activities™ (NACA) advances campus activities in higher education through a business and learning partnership, creating educational and business opportunities for its school and professional members.

The operative term, when considering backchannel etiquette, is “creating educational and business opportunities”. Messages rife with crudeness and designed to demean individuals contribute little to that goal. As such, we encourage advisors to caution students that statements of this nature not only compromise the spirit of the organization, but are a clear sign of disengagement from the learning opportunity at hand.  Additionally, viewers may soon question the credibility of the message’s author. To keep mission in mind, we posited, is to ensure that any messages sent identifying the organization are consistent with its key goals.

(2) Mirror Test, Personal Version

For many students, NACA is one of few opportunities to meet fellow students around the country that program for their campuses. Connections are made and networking occurs. Students ask their new connections to “friend” or “follow” them and these brief messages form the basis of new relationships. In what manner do these messages serve to mirror? That is to say, are the messages they send reflecting their true personalities? Or are Tweets, Instagram pictures, and Facebook posts with the conference tag creating “funhouse” versions of these students, versions that are not consistent with whom they believe themselves to be?

More and more, we are seeing that our students (and again, some professionals are still learning too!) aren’t fully aware of how they appear to others via their social media presence. I’ve tried to use the GoodWork tenets to help student affairs professionals guide students toward a more authentic expression of their daily lives. So many colleagues and friends I’ve spoken with about social media have become disillusioned with the negativity it seems to breed. Messages that darkened the feed of the NACA conference seemed to be fueled by an underlying current of negativity. This perceived pessimism can affect how competent, engaged, or ethical people appear. Instead I urge contemplation and redirection of frustration to balance perspectives shared online. But above all, we encourage those who work with students to invite the questions “When they read your tweets or Facebook posts about the event, what kind of person will they see in those messages? And does that image match the person you are the other 360 days of the year, when you’re not at an NACA event?”

(3) Mirror Test, Professional Version

Working in campus activities, or in any leadership role on a college campus, can inform one’s professional endeavors, both in skills learned and career paths taken. And although it has become cliché to call students’ attention to the “electronic trail” they’re leaving for potential employers to follow, we reminded students that posts can be seen by anyone viewing the conference tag. What’s more, those who wish to work in student affairs could be unexpectedly highlighting these posts, ensuring potential supervisors see them. Additionally, we widened that scope to include fellow students who could be selecting them for student leadership positions. In the absence of an understanding of NACA and what the organization does, posts could be seen as cruel, unprofessional, and off-putting, thus hindering their chances for selection.

So with these points all addressed, how should those who are stewards of GoodWork try to instill those principles in students?

●        Act when you see something questionable. Be it reaching out online, or using social media platforms as conduits to facilitate a face to face conversation, feel empowered to “call out” bad behavior and start a conversation about it.

●        Respond to concerns or complaints voiced. Often messages of frustration or even seeming indifference are a veiled request to be heard. Once you act, be open to helping the disgruntled party solve a problem. Your response could engender good will and help change his or her mindset about the organization.

●        Model how you want those around you to behave. There is a Chinese proverb, “Hearing something five hundred times is not as good as seeing it once.” To garner proper behavior from students and colleagues, you must show them what you believe excellent, ethical, and engaged dialogue looks like. Set an authentic standard. Chances are, they will follow suit.

Have you seen problems with backchannel use in your students or colleagues? How was it resolved? What methods worked for you?

Critical Literacy and Good Work in Scotland

by Kelly Stone

In Scotland, our new Curriculum for Excellence is intended to enable all young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, and effective contributors to society. Initial guidelines for Literacy and English appeared in 2008, claiming that “the important skills of critical literacy” were being foregrounded in the new curriculum.  Although critical literacy is a contested term, and definitions vary, I understand the two main elements of critical literacy to be deconstruction and reconstruction. David Wray (2006) makes this point succinctly, stating that “critical literacy is about transforming taken-for-granted social and language practices or assumptions for the good of as many people as possible.” I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of critical literacy, which creates exciting possibilities for discussing what it means to be a responsible citizen of the world, in both online and offline communities. Yet our problem in Scotland is this: as the government has issued more information to teachers, the “critical” element of critical literacy has been shifted to one side, and we now have “information and critical literacy” appearing. Issues of social justice are missing from the “official” constructions (for example, click here). But how can we have responsible citizens, participating in online and offline communities, who are not taught to think ethically and critically about the messages they encounter and to act to change what they think is unfair or unjust?

I don’t mean to suggest that critical literacy for social justice isn’t happening in Scotland. Many educators here are committed to these issues, and I was fortunate to meet some of them as part of my doctoral research. I have spent much of my time these past few years thinking about critical literacy, wondering why it has been deflated, or sidelined, in Scotland. One theory I have is that people might be afraid of the implications of a critical education which encourages and promotes challenge, critique, and action for transformation. Maybe it is lack of understanding about what “critical” really means in educational terms. I have wondered if we might be better talking about “literacy for responsible citizenship?” Is there more clarity in using that term? Is it less daunting, less intimidating? Other educational systems do not seem to have trouble using and understanding critical literacy, and changing terminology would bring Scotland out of alignment with them.

As Paulo Freire explained it, critical pedagogies enable “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.” I am hopeful that the use of The GoodWork Toolkit here will create spaces for reflection, discussion and action. Many teachers in the United Kingdom believe that there is an urgent and widespread need for the development of digital fluency or critical literacy skills that will enable children to evaluate the information they encounter online. They have also identified the need for support in understanding how to teach critical digital skills (Bartlett and Miller, 2011). As part of my doctoral research, I interviewed teachers and librarians who similarly identified a lack of resources to help them understand how to teach critical skills.  Participants spoke of the difficulties faced by children with handling the volume of information they find online and of the need for them to know how to help children deal with it, in order to prevent them from being manipulated or taken advantage of. The fact that they identified a dearth of resources to help them teach critical, evaluative skills, particularly as they relate to digital practices, highlights the need for such resources to be disseminated more widely. This is why materials such as The GoodWork Toolkit have such potential and value for educators. I have recommended its use to practitioners (in the online safety materials or here). Further, as part of a talk I gave at a recent conference workshop on the importance of critical skills in preparing children to use the internet safely, I  informed conference delegates about GoodWork principles, and how to find the toolkit.  At that workshop, while I was speaking with a group of multi-agency professionals about how we can prepare children and young people to become responsible digital citizens, it was clear that there is a real appetite to know more about how we can help foster ethical and critical thinking skills.  I look forward to using the Toolkit to open up discussions about ethics, rights, and responsibilities, and reporting back on these experiences.  It is, I believe, one key way to do good work as teachers, and to find how we can guide and support children in doing good work when they participate in communities, online and offline.

Bartlett, J. and Miller, C. (2011) Truth, Lies and the Internet: A report into young people’s digital fluency. London: Demos.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.

Wray, D. (2006) Developing critical literacy: a priority for the 21st century [online].

The Value of Play

by Margot Locker

The importance of play in a child’s life has been debated from every angle in recent weeks.  Articles have discussed the value of recess, the significance of structured play during the school day, the need for creativity, and most recently, from the perspective of the “Tiger Mother,” the benefits of extreme structure and no play. Groups, such as Alliance for Childhood,  have formed that are dedicated to increasing the culture of play in children’s lives, while at the same time, schools are devaluing the importance of recess, art, and physical education as a result of NCLB and the focus on standardized testing that has swept the nation.  Parents, educators, and researchers all have varying, often conflicting views on what is appropriate for children in their “free” time.

During my two years teaching 3rd grade in West Philadelphia, I viewed the 30 daily minutes of recess time as almost equally important to time devoted to math and reading.  8 year-olds have a remarkable amount of energy and, without a space to release it, behavior, anger, and attention issues are sure to follow.  On days without recess, my students’ behavior and attention levels were noticeably decreased. Their engagement in lessons was not there, and thus, their ability to internalize the material declined. Learning was far more challenging for my students without the 30 minutes they usually had to run around, socialize, and have the freedom for creative play.  Further, for many of my students, this was the only time they had to run around outside, as many lived in urban areas where outdoor safety and supervision were unavailable for them if they desired to play outside. Recess was a special time for my students, and a time where they could explore, create, and be kids.

Recess took place on a large blacktop. There was no playground equipment, and the toys and sports gear were long lost or broken. Despite the lack of resources, I was always amazed to watch what my students did during their free time. They created games, made up dances, and devised elaborate games of tag. Their ingenuity and resourcefulness impressed me, and I viewed this time as its own form of learning. Due to space and financial constraints, gym classes had been cut to once a week, so recess truly was a unique time of day.

I find it hard to consider the issue of play without thinking about GoodWork. Teaching a lesson where students stayed in their seats and were talked “at” often resulted in sleepy eyes, heads on desk, and an obvious lack of engagement.  However, when I attempted to incorporate some aspect of play in a lesson-a skit about verbs, a race outside to learn decimal points, a hands-on science experiment-the engagement level skyrocketed. Further, the understanding of the material, and the excellence at which the students retained and processed the lesson was always far higher following creative lessons. No child can be expected to sit still in a classroom for 8 hours a day and remain focused.  Countless studies reveal that physical activity aids in learning and triggers brain activity. Beyond the academic benefits  of play and movement, the childhood obesity epidemic in our country, coupled with the fact that children spend  7 hours 38 minutes a day on average in front of a television or computer (according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation last year)  should motivate teachers and parents alike to encourage activity, structured or not.  Taking away the chance to play from a child is taking away an essential part of growing up.