For today’s Morning Pages prompt, my CO301D students are thinking about the dark side of technology (remember that Darth Vader image in my post below?), cyberbullying to be exact. When I put the prompt on our class website, I did a quick search for statistics. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, 1 in 4 students has been a victim of cyberbullying, and 1 in 9 has been a cyberbully. Wow.
Given this trend, Emma and Angela have asked to think about this today:
What can be done about cyber bullying? How can we create an environment where students feel like being themselves, like being vulnerable and open, yet safe? How do we create a classroom where peers support one another and stand up to the bullies, stand up for the bullied?
That’s a tough set of questions, but what interests me most is the idea of “being vulnerable and open, yet safe.” I’ve been thinking about vulnerable teaching and learning on and off this blog for a while now and on the page, too. It’s a concept that Antero and I introduced in Pose, Wobble, Flow .
Basically, vulnerability is the controlling emotion in wobble
. Since writing the book, I’ve started burrowing farther down into the concept and writing about it (offline). In fact, in my office over the weekend, I found a sticky note where I’d recorded some working terminology. The note read “punitive vulnerability” vs. “generative vulnerability.”
I won’t go into too much depth about those ideas now because I think the terms probably convey the distinctions on their own. (Also, because I actually just did start going into depth, and the post was getting so ridiculously long and exploratory, I decided that these ideas clearly aren’t ready for prime time.) Until today, however, I’d been thinking about vulnerability in the broader sense of face-to-face interactions between teachers and students in the classroom, not in the context of cyber-bullying.
Thanks to the wonders of technology, writing publicly is almost effortless now. The willingness to put your thoughts in the full view of others requires risk, yet also permits the existence of a forum where conversation can extend and sharpen thinking and establish emotional connection. The vulnerability you exercise as a writer online can be generative; it can lead to an expansion of self and community. In these cases, your learning is connected
–driven by your unfolding interests
, networked openly
with an audience of hopefully supportive peers
, organized around the shared purpose
that has been established through a receptivity to the ideas you have produced
, which can even lead to academic
growth and emotional efficacy.
The blind date says yes.
But what if the answer is no? Or, hell no? Or hell no and now I’m going to mess you up, psychologically and even physically?
If and when the response goes all Lord of the Flies, the learning is decidedly (dis)connected. The network can openly jeer at you for following your interests and mock you for producing such pathetic ideas and putting them out there. It can co-opt your purpose toward damaging ends that shut down even the possibility for academic and emotional growth.
I’m a fan of permeable walls for learning, but we all have to remember that either response is possible. We can’t control Facebook, but we can do everything that is in our power within our brick-and-mortar classrooms and the virtual extensions of them to help kids learn to speak up for themselves and others, to learn resilience, to create not just a safe space that is entirely free from risk, but one where they can exercise their vulnerability so that it is generative.
There’s much more to say on all of this, but in the meantime, I found these resources on the Cyberbullying Research Center website, both for teachers
and for students
themselves. If you want to go the Emma Pillsbury route, you could display the downloadable pdfs in your classroom. Better yet, you could use them to open a conversation about what is/could happen out there and how they might respond.
[IMAGE CREDIT: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/559501953676940659/]