Group items tagged

Encontré un post relacionado con las Alfabetizaciones digitales y competencias fundamentales en http://futurosdellibro.com/alfabetizaciones-digitales-y-competencias-fundamentales/ Tal vez interese: El pasado 5 de marzo los expertos de UNESCO dedicados a la alfabetización mediática y digital, en reunión preparatoria de la siguiente World Summit of Information Societies, rubricaron lo que es una evidencia ya incontrovertible: que la alfabetización mediática e informacional (MIL. Media and information literacy) ocupa un lugar central en el mapa escolar de competencias del siglo XXI. Esto no es nada esencialmente nuevo: Viviane Reding, la hoy Vicepresidenta de la Comisión Europea y ex-comisaria de Información entre los años 2004-2009, declaraba en el año 2006: "Hoy, la alfabetización mediática es tan central para el desarrollo de una ciudadanía plena y activa como la alfabetización tradicional lo fue al inicio del siglo XIX". Y añadía: "también es fundamental para entrar en el nuevo mundo de la banda ancha de contenidos, disponibles en todas partes y en cualquier momento". De acuerdo con el European Charter for Media Literacy podríamos distinguir siete áreas de competencias que, de una u otra forma, deberían pasar a formar parte de todo currículum orientado a su adquisición: Usar adecuadamente las tecnologías mediáticas para acceder, conservar, recuperar y compartir contenidos que satisfagan las necesidades e intereses individuales y colectivos. Tener competencias de acceso e información de la gran diversidad de alternativas respecto a los tipos de medios que existen, así como a los contenidos provenientes de distintas fuentes culturales e institucionales. Comprender cómo y porqué se producen los contenidos mediáticos. Analizar de forma crítica las técnicas, lenguajes y códigos empleados por los medios y los mensajes que transmiten. Usar los medios creativamente para expresar y comunicar ideas, información

Yes, Social media has both positive and negative results. We need to watch our children how are they using it. We can explain them how to benefit from social media without disturbing our identity and image. We can also explain them use as much as required only not to sit with that hours together. Children completely now on internet and not having outdoor games now a days. There is a requirement of awareness program to them.

Social media is both an asset and liability…great for connecting with others but too much information can lead to issues between peers…some fresh air away from a device might do better!

Similar example to what Adobe software has done with collecting information…users/students seem to have to accept this "new-normal" of spying, etc.

I agree. Cameras should be there for security, not for surveillance. But just like the Adobe software, before we use it we have to "agree" on its' terms. I believe very few actually read those agreements, because we have to use the software, "agreeing" on those terms might just be "agreeing" on allowing them to collect our information. I live in Vancouver, BC. I know there are people who dislike the idea of the buses with cameras. I personally like that idea, it makes me feel like I am protected. When I was in high school in Victoria, BC, I feel safe taking the taxi even when it is late, because they have cameras in every one of them. When I was in Hong Kong, I feel insecure taking a taxi even when it is noon. So even if some of our information or our identity is given away, I agree on the idea of having cameras on buses and taxi's. I wonder if there is a gender difference on this, and there is also a gender gap of taxi drivers, maybe that is also why I personally feel insecure. Back to the point, if the purpose of cameras is for security, I agree to that. If it is for surveillance, I do not think it is essential; referring to the Harvard University attendance, at least they should inform the students about it.

This line caught my eye: "The study was approved by the US federally mandated Institutional Review Board, which assesses research and determined that the study "did not constitute human subjects research" and therefore did not require prior permission from those captured by the study." I have been debating with my own campus IRB over what constitutes human subjects research and what doesn't--they seem to be operating under the idea that if it's not invasive medical studies involving blood or drugs, it's not really human subjects. I think the issue in this Harvard study is that the IRB also has a clause that if you are collecting data in public spaces and not interacting with the people there, it doesn't require IRB approval; the question is whether these classrooms should be considered public spaces. My feeling is they aren't--in order to be in a room at a particular time, a person has to have chosen to attend that class, and within college classes it is assumed that the students can know that what they say is to some extent private among their classmates and professor. Even if the photos were destroyed after analysis, the fact remains that there were cameras inside what I would consider private spaces, without the consent of the people doing what they might feel is dangerous work (given the current assault on public intellectuals and academic freedom). My guess is that Harvard could easily have asked all the relevant parties to sign consent forms at the beginning of a semester but not indicated on which days they would be filming--people would probably continue doing what they normally do either way, but at least would have the option of asking not to be filmed. There's always a way to set up an area in a lecture hall where the cameras couldn't reach, so students who didn't want to be on film could opt out.

Thank you so much for sharing this article, I meant to read it a few days ago and got side-tracked!

Thanks for sharing this! I have mixed feelings about this article. At first, I was super opposed to the whole initiative Harvard did to their students because I would feel that my privacy has been violated completely, but after realizing that there are many more subtler forms of violations in privacy online (social media sites, tracking cookies etc.) I wasn't as opposed to the article. Although initially, students were not informed about their surveillance, there were told in the aftermath, and their information was destroyed. When using social media sites or installing new applications, there are terms of agreement before continuing on with the installation in which personally I don't read at all. Those terms and conditions have statements inside which notify us of tracking personal information which I have not read earlier but am still not opposed to giving. The information is probably sold to advertisers and we're probably not aware of it but we still give them the information via the signup of the program. Hence, even though there are contradictory views and feelings about their initiatives, we should be more aware and cautious of other forms of surveillance when we sign up for things (e.g. social media sites etc.)

Thank you for sharing. This does raise some concern. I guess there may be good and bad with cameras installed in the school. The cameras installed without students' consents may be violating their privacy and rights. However, it may prevent wrong doings, i guess. When my friend was doing final exam, the prof asked the whole class to put their belongings in front of the classroom, but when he went to pick up his stuff after he was finished, his bag was missing. Through the security camera, they were able to see who stole his stuff.

Did any body else remember George Orwell's novel (1984). By accepting this type of behavior we accepting the image of a holly power that is ethical, care and neutral. Does this exist? and who will monitor the observers?

I think this is a really good point, who will monitor the observers? What kind of power do those people hold and what are they doing with all those information? It makes people uncomfortable.

Interesting news! It's surprising to get to know that Harvard University places cameras without letting students know, photographs them during lectures to measure attendance. This reminds me of my high school in China. When I was in high school, I remember that cameras were installed at the back of every classroom to prevent students from distraction in class or cheating during exams. It mainly worked as threatening students, from my understanding. Because you never know when the camera will be opened, actually, it never opened. What happened in Harvard University just reminded me of that, which is quite satiric.

Thanks for sharing this article. In my personal opinion, I think the action of secretly installed the cameras from Harvard University violates students' privacy. If it's just for measuring classroom attendance, I think Harvard University could definitely find a much better way instead of installing the camera.