Category Archives: Internet and public issues

games, digital badges, and alternative assessments in civics

2 Replies

Badges are portable credentials that demonstrate that someone possesses a specific skill. They differ from diplomas, which signify the completion of a whole course of study. Critics worry that adopting badges widely would undermine the holistic value of a traditional degree, which is supposed to stand for more than the sum of its parts. That’s a valid concern, but I see huge advantages to badging for civics. For one thing, civics is now very poorly served by curricular mandates and tests; at best, students are required to learn and demonstrate very low-level, individual academic knowledge, rather than the interactive skills we need from citizens. But adding more elaborate assessments would just put new burdens on students and schools. Meanwhile, some young people do obtain advanced civic skills; but without specialized qualifications, they can’t demonstrate their abilities to college admissions officers, prospective employers, or citizens’ groups that might be looking for leaders.

To explore the pros and cons, CIRCLE’s Felicia Sullivan has written “New and Alternative Assessments, Digital Badges, and Civics: An Overview of Emerging Themes and Promising Directions” (published yesterday). She’s also produced a Prezi presentation to summarize the key themes:

(See also “the movement to badges in education, and what it means for democracy,” “badges for civic skills,” “the controversy over badges,” and Peter Levine, “Education for Civil Society,” in David Campbell, Meira Levinson, and Frederick M. Hess [eds.], Civics 2.0: Citizenship Education for a New Generation [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2012], pp. 37-56.)

texting kids to Do Something

1 Reply

(Washington, DC) Earlier today, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, I heard a presentation about Do Something‘s text-messaging campaign. Apparently, teenagers are about 55 times more likely to respond to a suggestion to volunteer or take another civic action if it comes in a text rather than an email.

To know whether the different medium is really the cause of the difference in outcomes, I would want to know a bit more about the data. It could be that the kids who receive texts are different to start with–after all, they are the ones who shared their phone numbers, instead of (or in addition to) their email addresses. But it rings true that texting is more effective than email at reaching teens, if only because email doesn’t work at all.

The next question is whether that is because of some intrinsic difference in the two media that makes texting better. For instance, maybe shorter is better, or maybe receiving a message on a phone catches your attention. The alternative explanation would go like this: We keep inventing new electronic modes of communication. Each one quickly gets overused by organizations, to the point that anyone who can tune it out, does so. Working adults can’t yet ignore their email because some of the messages they get are important. But teenagers can and do ignore their email. Because text messaging is not yet so heavily overused, it’s still worth reading every message. Soon that will change, at which point we’ll all have to talk about how to reach teens through the new mode.

Service and Activism in the Digital Age

1 Reply

(In DC for a Street Law board meeting) For anyone interested in the potential of the new electronic media to enhance young people’s active citizenship, I recommend “Service & Activism in the Digital Age: Supporting Youth Engagement in Public Life,” A Digital Media and Learning Working Paper written by Ellen Middaugh with contributions by me and five colleagues/friends. Thanks to Ellen, this is an ambitious, detailed, and compellingly written report, drawing on extensive scholarship and offering numerous current examples of programs. (PDF here).

One way to summarize the report is to list four “Core Principles” that should generally guide youth civic programs, whether offline or online. For each principle, the report offers a theoretical argument, provides examples of excellent practice, explores the potential of the new electronic media, and then raises unresolved questions for research and practical experimentation

1. “Youth civic development is best supported in the culture and context of communities and movements.” (But we don’t know enough about “how to effectively use new media in building and connecting to community and movements.”)

2. “Youth civic development is best supported when youth are treated not just as future civic leaders, but also capable participants in the present.” (But we don’t know, for example, whether being young is a disadvantage in online discussions of real issues, or whether it is better to mix ages or create youth-only spaces online.)

3. “Youth civic development is best supported when youth have access to authentic learning experiences.” (But I think there is an important unresolved debate about what counts as “authentic” in an era of games and simulations.)

4. “Youth civic development requires opportunities for youth to grapple with issues of what is just and what is fair.” (But we don’t know whether typical methods, such as asking students to post videos online, contribute to rich and productive discussions.)

the Engagement Commons from Code for America

Leave a reply

(Washington, DC) In preparation for a conference later this week on “Tech for Engagement” (at MIT), I have been exploring the Civic Engagement Commons, a compendium of apps and sites that help citizens to engage with government, use or generate public data, or create and circulate news. The focus seems to be on municipalities around the world–the anticipated user is a public official–but the diversity of tools and purposes is worth exploring. It’s interesting to compare this compendium to Participedia, a broader collection of projects that engage citizens in government and politics. Both sites are global and collaborative; they welcome additions from anywhere. One question I will be asking is whether these tools or projects can spark civic concern, confidence, and skills in people who weren’t already interested in participating. That’s perhaps the greatest need in civil society now that we have lost large “recruitment” organizations, such as labor unions and grassroots political parties.

under the Wikipedia hood

Leave a reply

Intrigued by a work of art by Allan Chochinov, I went looking at the Wikipedia entry on “Freedom of Speech” and opened the behind-the-scenes page where you can see all the revisions to that entry. It has been revised 2,551 times, almost once per day, since 2005, by people sitting at 1,142 different computers (or IP addresses, to be precise).

The Freedom of Speech article itself is only about 6,000 words long. It strikes me as a little miscellaneous (frankly), with extensive citations from well-known authorities like J.S. Mill as well as minor figures. Its opening sentence, “Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s ideas via speech,” is actually controversial. (Political right–or moral right? Should you only be free to communicate ideas?)

But what I appreciate most is the large array of obsessive, pseudonymous, multinational, uncivil, unregulated discourse that is collectively generating the 6,000 words about “Freedom of Speech.” Samples: