Ingress GBL

Today we payed 20 v 20 Ingress in the local parkland. Controlling portals, raiding and strategy. We’re looking at ARGs and how to make out school site VR and AR rich. Great way to explore and battle. Enlighten won the day … but I suspect the kids will stock up and be back for more.
Yes they are using their phones and the game is free. So don’t let anyone tell you games are isolated and indoor … or that MeincraftProfit is the apex of inquiry, creativity and fun. Try it … kids love a factional skirmish.

What creates access to better education?

Little local research exists towards professional development of teachers into STEM (Science, technology, engineering, maths). As it stands, the E is misleading as there isn’t an ‘engineering’ syllabus in the Australian curriculum. The lack of training or the existance of a syllabus hasn’t prevented politicians announcing how important it is, how they are going to make it happen. It follows that education systems have echoed the ‘need’ and keep the funding flowing.


We have lost the focus on new media literacy. The last political panic created the “every child will have a laptop” agenda and the infamous “digital education revolution”. That plan is long dead, and there’s no real evidence of its success or failure in the literature. Today, the BYOD policy perpetuates and accents disadvantage, widening the participation gap in new media literacy.

I could use a number of conferences as rails to run my discussion on, but I’ll use this one, as I wasn’t there – so can only interpret it through the communication of those who did. The event was billed as “A gathering of educators, policy makers and other stakeholders from all sectors in NSW education”. I’m wondering whether STEM was a visible theme, or whether it’s simply an object in the ongoing meta-issues of reform.

The above photo from #nswedu16 is a vivid reminder of how we still attempt to reform education in the modernist paradigm.

The obvious:

  1. Everyone in education is well aware of the growing disadvantage. Politicians and bureaucrats also know that teachers are deeply embedded in social media based communication. This conference – and invite only affair of ‘top thinkers’ – was by an large a list of social media names  and system ‘top brass’.
  2. The event isn’t based on scholarship of teaching, but an enviornment to further generalize and promote the idea of “a future that is better”. Humans generally like this idea – so most of the social media communication was representative of  the ‘technological rationality’ problem which is widely known in research.

As I stated, this event – like so many around K-12 education, is not based in scholarship and therefore doesn’t require any empirical evidence to support the claim being made. “Every child has access” is in the legislation, and so every child in NSW should be at school. Every child isn’t – and that’s because of a raft of issues, the least of which is access to robot.

This idea of ‘the best’ can be left undefined at a ‘peak’ event is problematic. These people are presumably the key stakeholders in education. Without clarification, this is assumptive, contextual and clashes with a a raft of known soci0-economic issues that cause disadvantage.

This isn’t a statement of reform – other than to vilify certain groups such as teachers (not present) who are not providing access to it.

From the distance created by social media, the central ‘discussion’ at #nswedu16 was familiar – and much of the ‘solutions’ have been shut down before (despite their success) – Please take a bow, everyone involved in the NSW “PLANE” professional development project. I is noticable that many of those who have worked on such projects were not invited. So the solution is this: another ‘think tank’ where people who have failed to deliver in the last decade, or had closed down things that do – are once again proposing they keep doing it – and to recruit new faces to provide their labour.

The confrences seemed to wander. I picked up this Tweet which seemed STEM related, and typical of the dogma that has bogged down EdTech – and I accept that this is an unpopular opinion … however, should someone release this into the public channel, then it seems worth taking to task. I see Audrey Waters doing the same in the US … so that’s at least two of us with raised eyebrows.


Recent research emphasizes into STEM and inquiry learning in participatory cultures (Jenkins, Ito, Gee, Buckingham etc)  describe the need for teachers to deliver compelling, contextual and relevant content, using new media literacies etc, They emphasise the connectedness of children who can access networked congnition, play and transmedia spaces. This helps minimize disadvantage (gender, SES, culture, geographic etc.,).

I don’t agree teacher and student performance is  measured by ‘inspiration’ either. Clearly a vast amount of todays K-12 education is not delivered though sustainable, equitable or cutting edge technology. There is no evidence to suggest teachers have more than a working knowledge of learning management systems, communication networks and controlling’real world’ objects though the “internet of things”. Some teachers have already been replaced by technology, but I think ‘robots’ and a visual over plays cultural concepts of science fiction narratives.

The role of professional networks which have focused on efficacy, content and practice (as I’ll talk about) such as PLANE have been killed off  – more than once. Who remembers EDNA or Learn Scope?

The aim of setting this post out – is to reflect on a central question about whether or not I would participate.  Why is the new STEM agenda going to be any different – if it  will have the same minds driving the agenda, making choices and attending events etc.,


What does effective professional development look like?

We also know much of #edunsw16 style events suffer from the “technical rationality” problem. Teachers and administrators can see problems in their practice but not yet devise solutions for them – and a range of opinions emerge under the broad human interest of creating a better future. It’s only days after that we reflect on these things. Reflection is a key element of teacher self-assessment, which is embedded within the framework of social cognition theory.

Self-assessment is seen as integrating three processes: (a) self-observation of aspects of instruction considered relevant to success; (b) self-judgments about meeting or not proposed goals; and (c) self-reactions or interpretations of the extent to which goals have been attained and degree of satisfaction about the process.

It’s therefore more interesting to ‘see’ other teachers at work, than listen to someone who vaguely does something with education, once was a teacher or occasionally visits ‘one of my schools’ etc., i.e. managers are rarely capable of reform and keynotes generally leave five minutes after their ‘talk’.


The power of efficacy beliefs

Self-assessment influences self-efficacy beliefs and in turn affects future decisions about teaching The big question is: do these ‘think tanks’ and pithy comments  have any positive impact on teacher efficacy?

Efficacy is a person’s sense of being able to deal effectively with a particular task. Agency is the capacity to coordinate learning skills, motivation and emotions to reach you goal. So the slide above assumes that teachers and student have sufficient efficacy to act. That’s the problem with drawing circles.

The difference between the two being that self-efficacy actually effects human agency…depending on how well you think you can do something, your human agency which controls making choices will be effected.

I’m less and less convinced we’re building efficacy, an so unable to activate the agency so many ‘presenters’ talk about. The result is a plurality conflicting and unproven ideas.


  1. To meet expectations of public involvement (including teachers) in STEM-related decisions there is a need to assure citizens have fundamental understanding of STEM concepts.
  2. Driver, Leach, Milar, & Scott (1996) argued without prompting or encouragement, young learners will naturally develop and hold STEM-related conceptions and misconceptions. Therefore, from early education, there is no need to teach STEM related concepts, but to follow these conceptions and interests using STEM-content. – To correct mis-conceptions and to nurture their natural curiosity and interest. As I’ve said before, this means maths, science and technology content. Arguably ‘engineering’ is held in the intersections of these.
  3. So far, almost all the STEM projects I’ve see represent TEACHER CENTRISM which assumes students have no self-efficacy in this domain themselves.
  4. Teaching STEM requires teachers to have more than a system perspective and broad content knowledge. This supports the need for content expertise.
  5. The body of research in the last twenty years shows it unlikely that without considerable continuing education K–12 teachers can be prepared to teach effectively STEM curriculum around themes being suggested at the meta-political-system level.
  6. The literature shows  STEM training has been in decline in last decade and that teachers have limited training towards methods of inquiry in the same period.

That makes sense, as teacher professional development in the last decade has been dominated by technological determinism and the never ending “EdTech” conference.

Efficacy is the key to improvement in practice

Those systems, schools and leaders who understand it also invest in teachers – towards themes they are passionate about. There are some good reasons to put efficacy and content at the top of the professional development agenda. I guess if your principal spends most days at these ‘events’ then they don’t understand or at least, don’t read much.

  1. Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares (2008) argued efficacy beliefs are of particular importance for success within the STEM domains  and efficacy may be a proxy for the larger issues of teacher knowledge and preparedness for teaching STEM content, particularly primary teachers.
  2. Efficacy is a known major barrier to school improvement.
  3. Research shows in-service teachers  increase their efficacy due to their engagement in professional development which gives them skills, knowledge and experience that can be explicitly used in their context.

I make no bones of saying that it’s the same people at conferences offering anecdotes above evidence, visions of the future in place of understanding of the present resolves itself as the “technical rationality problem”. But, if you’re in power and get to attend these things, it is probably very rewarding.

On balance, the literature tells me that STEM will be corrupted by the dogmatic behavior that failed to deliver the 1:1 laptop “revolution” and create a professional development agenda – beyond the existing elites. My view is this is the oligarchy at work and it’s in bed with commercial brands. Evidence: the message education is about delivering better workers to the existing system; there are a lack of workers in jobs that don’t exist and the number of commercial company executives presenting  nonsense at educational entertainment themed conferences. This is exactly the fluff you find at EduTech and has an overall negative impact … seen in the decline of efficacy in the last twenty years.

This also makes sense.

The research shows STEM should focus on enhancing content knowledge as a means of impacting an array of variables that influence teacher practice. That means getting teachers to build efficacy though their understanding of the discipline itself, and not how to use robots and other fancy-goods that are being symbolized as “STEM” learning though commercial companies.

The next line to be crossed is where we see ‘leaders’ actively allowing brands into their schools as ‘partners’. The leaders will identify themselves though their unceasing engagement with social media spaces and appearances at events which appear on the surface to be the ‘apex’ of civic thinking.

The ‘better education’ isn’t achieved through access, but a much more complicated set of behaviors, impeded by the technical rationality problem. I propose three things to reflect on – how do you feel about these things … are they happening to you or around you?

  1. Increasing teacher PD towards content in their discipline towards STEM?
  2. System acceptance that children will naturally develop and hold STEM-related conceptions and misconceptions and the focus is on content not concepts?
  3. Teacher efficacy can be built though a framework of social cognition theory – but has been corrupted by commercial agendas and elite-self interest? What networks are you in, what access to ‘elites’ do you have? Have ‘elites’ changed their opinion and dialogue as a result?

I do believe that STEM is worth promoting in schools, however I also believe all stakeholders have a professional obligation to ensure their practice is ethical and based in scholarship if children are to get a ‘better education’ and that starts with think tank reform, and investing in professional associations, scholarly short courses relevant to their discipline and more opportunities to be involve in the process that create the all import ‘shared vision’. I am on-board with the message of hope, but unconvinced that education is investing in the professional development needed to see classroom reform towards many of the statements set out in the National Curriculum.


Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L. and Pajares, F. (2008) A comparative study of self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45: 10361058

Driver, R., Leach, J., Milar, R. and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science, Buckingham, , UK: Open University Press.



Six years later

This is six years old. I can’t remember why I made it. Some of the tech has been rebranded but the core interchange is still relevant and still unresolved in the classroom to a large extent … whars missing is the participation and equity gap that almost guarantees only the wealthiest student will experience it in the current climate.


I’ve not really engaged with the emergent STEM culture online. A two-day conference is, therefore a real opportunity to try and better understand teacher motivations, belief, and practices. As ‘design and technology’ teacher I tend to take the view “why is this new to you?” when it comes to teachers from all disciplines discovering how creative, curious and enthusiastic many kids can be. On the other hand, I ask myself, what these people were doing before someone showed them a “maker” handbook of 101 things or pointed at the pearly king and queen of PBL etc.,

At this level, STEM, like other recent emerging cultural-focus points, such as ‘design thinkgin’ helps raise awareness of design and technology more broadly. This is not to say it changes practice or revises prevsiously held beliefs or attitudes .

STEM speficicially impacts cultural conceptions and knowledge about Science, Maths, Design, Technology and Art. The question is: why have these people not been working together before now? .. the answer lies in the medium and the message.

Those of us working in these fields are probably successful and don’t welcome yet another attempt to introduce a ‘deficit’ debate. STEM is manifested as a ‘slogam’  to appear new  – and superiour to inferred ‘older’ ideas and methods.

The hidden agenda creates new revenue streams for selected elites and corporations. This well known subdefuge is achieved by valorization – using teachers and laneway experts to endore and amplify the central message to make it appear true.

In reality, schools have been teaching STEM for decades and some teachers may have taken the time to visit the HSC work of students, but few will have asked the TAS department if they can ‘borrow’ their workshop makerspace. Why is that?

Mulder (2006) argues the medium determines what information can and cannot be transmitted. As STEM is a vibrant topic on teacher-dominated-mediums such as Twitter, the main discourse predicably follows the on-going commercialization and technological determinism. It favours wealthy urban technofiles. As humans  generally believe the ‘future’ is going be better, these mediums support sufficient environmental factors, such as in-group bias, out-grouping those with opposing view etc., in otder to to sustain the on-going vision of the future message – experienced vicariously through selectivity and competition and individual undertanding and desire to belong.

STEM (to me) is best understood in the context of children expressing themselves through the interplay of digital and non-digital media and the practice of social skills and cultural competencies. This is now new! This can be easily applied to the previous ‘wave’ or ‘trend’ towards ICTs, Web2.0 etc.,

Arguably, there is now migration of teachers and laneway experts from the ICT marketplace to a new STEM marketplace because of the economic and political shifts.

Previously, the non-digital vs digital shift objectified and vilified ‘traditional’ approaches (which include the practices in the STEM areas). For example, the need to discontinue workbooks and posters.

Today the dialogue is about robots and duct tape, reclaiming the ‘maker’ space . It seems to ignore broader culture – particularly entertainment including video games. For example; why not build replica props, get into Cosplay and merge their gaming and film and comic interests with technology. Why do we once again return to ‘adult’ ideals about what is pro-socilisation – in a world where Trump is on the cusp of being President while the powerful kill innocent civilians in ‘wars’ few people really understand. Do adults believe the future will be better, if teachers somehow create a pathway to the post-war society – which was also the on-ramp for consumerism.

I’d argue workbooks and posters are well and truely back.  Where Computing Science was looted to allow ICT, Web2.0 to be commodified and generalized – so it is with Industrial Design, Technology, and Science. The fact is, that STEM further erodes the science lab, workshop and visual art room. It’s a playground for the rich and those who see commercial value in jumping into it – and promoting it online.

Where Computing Science was deminished economically, physically and culturally to allow ICT, Web2.0 to be commodified and generalized -this is now being applied to Industrial Design, Technology, and Science. The fact is, that STEM further erodes the science lab, workshop and visual art room. It’s a playground for the rich and those who see commercial value in jumping into it – and promoting it online.

So far, there is a lack of data, analysis and evidence on offer. Where the above faculties have been arguing for more funding for years — they are unlikely to get it now, unless they conform and comply to the new STEM agenda.

This means businessmen give keynotes about ‘the future’, sidestepping data and evidence again. STEM activities are not ‘new’ and when talking to kids about what they do – when not in STEM class – guess what, they are doing workbooks and other modernist practices. Of course, they like it, the alternative is teacher-dominated, content and skills focus. There in limited evidence to suggest this is constructively aligned to University.

University, it was said, is not producing sufficient maths, science, medical and engineering graduates (no source). The inferrence is that schools are not driving interest or that the school curriculum is once again – in deficit. What is omitted is any discussion about political policy, youth under-employment, casualisation of the workforce etc., For many, the cost of being at university is simply too high.

I can only conclude from this: STEM will not solve the lack of graduates or their willingness to work for corporations – let alone be successful entrapreneurs. While we are hinting at creating STEM teachers, we’re still ignoring the need to improve Media Education and in so doing, infuse that with existing disciplines – Maths, Science, Engineering, Technology and Art.

There are some inherent problems with generalising.This is evident in the communication of STEM ideals. Parents are homogenous groups, technology is generalised and ‘jobs of the future’ lack any meaningful explanations. We are left with ‘stories’ based almost entirely on personal belief and agendas.

There is an assumption that the purpose of STEM education is to deliver bodies to univiversities and corporations, parents can be discussed as homogemous entity, that providing ‘sources’ of claimed facts doesn’t matter … and that the development of a child, includes a plurality of interests and abilities expressed though thier communication in transmedia forms. A wicked problem is a complex problem – embedded in the socio-political economy and a long history of disadvantage towards certain (non elite) groups in society.

The key new media literacies – for active and fulfilling participation in society involve much more than 4 letter buzzwords. Play, Distributed Cognition and Transmedia Navigation are key to living in the “digital age”. We are dealing with a generation where over eighty percent of their ‘down time’ is spent on media and eighty percent of that is spent watching movies and videos. STEM does not change this reality and I think there needs to be a lot more added to the discussion: the growing equity gap; the participation gap; the gender gap; low SES access; disabilities; universal design; policy and much more.

As it is, kids are having a hard time self-regulating media and technology. Making things is a way to develop problem-solving and design thinking skills, Reggio can help move an inquiry forward – but the underlying need is not to erode what we already have and replace it with STEM. We need to be wary of ICT Integrators and App-Gurus who are now talking about STEM in their keynotes and pithy tales of reform and change.

As ever, I’m much more interested in media cultures and games than I am in laneway topics such as STEM. I’m yet to see any ‘new’ or ‘unique’ properties in what is being displayed, but alarming bias and generalizations in the ‘online’ discussion.

Perhaps Day 2 will move me forward … perhaps not. I’m concerned that we’re repeating the issues of the past because we’re being told it’s better — and forgetting what we can already do.

EdTech Inc.

There isn’t a whole lot of research as to why teachers leave teaching and work for software, hardware and media brands. Highly successful ones leverage their social media influence and reputation built during their classroom days. This is a currency with which they attract attention to their products and services. I am not saying for a second that they don’t know their stuff – quite the opposite. Their insight and skill is often well above that of the people who attend their sales presentations conferences.

Brands have become adept at creating pseudo journals, publications and conferences. Such terms as “Official [Brand] Educational Provider”. This is of course a biased and self-appointed slogan, nothing more. Conferences sales presentations are given seductive titles hinting at both a better future, and attendees belong to the correct-thought group.

The point I’m making is that successful classroom teachers, with deep knowledge are running the sales front for brands who offer limited proof (being generous) that their products make any significant difference to the overall excellence and success of students. Further, in the slick workshops and high-tech playgrounds – the chances of this skill and insight being synthesized and replicated has been shown to be slim. Once the day is over, there is no sustainable support, other than online advice from the evangelists on social media. Again, research has show how important on-going, sustainable support is in teacher belief. We also know belief is a key influence on adoption.

I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile, as the equity gap between the have and have nots is ignored, much like the selective engagement with Gonski funding. To me, teaching has been a united profession, but there seems to be a vast gap between rich and poor, rural and urban, fast internet and slow. For example, research is showing that low SES families rely on mobile phones as their sole technology while others have access to more than one screen consistently. It used to be that educational events would discuss these things as well as watch demonstrations by vendors.

Teachers are somewhat implicated however. Vendors have often been ignored, yet fund the event. While Teacher X is showboating their ideas, the vendors are stuck outside – and that’s always been wrong. Now the vendors are running more and more events and attracting more and more great teachers from the classroom.

I do wonder how this happens … why do teachers bail the classroom and move to sales?

The solution to the web isn’t a website

This week I’ve done some work around updating the discourse about social media and mobile learning. I’ve made a big effort to reconnect with the core – and really happy to find lots of people have spent 5 or 10 minutes completing my survey. What survey? Well, the one about parenting young kids online – click here and tell me I sent you.

Recent figures out show that kids are not only spending more time online, but they are spending more time streaming and consuming than ever. Teens especially are hitting screens until the fall asleep. The are also not surfing the web anymore. The vast amount of websites and videos they watch – billions of hours a month in Australia alone – are though links … from mobile apps. This means that they are not searching the web – finding their own stuff anymore. Just 9% of kids activity is about learning, news or careers. Well over 60% is about streaming media, music streaming and gaming.

The are also not surfing the web anymore. The vast amount of websites and videos they watch – billions of hours a month in Australia alone – are via links … from mobile apps.

This means that they are not searching the web – finding their own stuff anymore. Just 9% of kids activity is about learning, news or careers. Well over 60% is about streaming media, music streaming and gaming.

The canon of EdTech has always been that  tools  presented and promoted as ‘better’ would also give children the power to read, write and re-write the web. Who didn’t read Will Richardson’s book and think – give me some of them there powerful tools. Of late the message has become a dullness of ‘lack of creativity’, ‘jobs that are not invented’ and ‘this product is what those kids need’. This era is dead. The issue is how do we get kids to log off from consumer culture long enough to sleep. Parents have no idea how to deal with it – most are answeting work emails at 8pm and binge watching season four of Longmire.

The vast numbers also mask the issue of who has access, at what price and how fast.

The poorest people don’t have tablets or laptops. They don’t have computers – they rely on mobile phones and pre-paid data plans to participate online – so the figures don’t indicate how big the have and have-nots has become – just that everything is bigger and getting worse – and it’s societies fault. You’d be forgiven for thinking media is or has been regulated …

While the government avoids the issue of a proper media education agenda, the office for eSafety (yes that’s what they called it) has a website – with things for parents to read and some videos which depict the various monsters under the bed. If you are keen (I was) then you can fill out a massive form, be evaluated and maybe you too could be a ‘volunteer’ to deliver their message in schools and the community.

I don’t deny the need to educate society – after all, people have been calling for ‘media education’ for years – but this is it – a website that assumes parents are going to take a look at themselves and follow the guidelines. One can only assume this cost a small fortune to create and run – but the end node delivery relies on volunteers.

We need (because we pay taxes and are subjected to the media’s onslaught of news, opinion polls and advertising) media education. We need it to be funded. We need actual teachers in school teaching it. We can’t rely on the good will of teachers to do it or for people ‘who know a bit about it’ to become volunteers. That works for traffic management at the Olympics – but I poor response to the government’s own research.

Did you wear Digital Sunsreen today?

Yesterday’s post was a bit of brain-dump. I hate doing that, but twenty-four hours later, it feels good to have let a monster run free across the metaverse.

I think I’ll do more work around the idea of digital sunscreen, as I’m welded onto the idea that managing screen-time isn’t easy, but distraction is abundant. I’m hoping to raise awareness among the teacher and parent community – those with concerns about screen-time, especially towards social media and games. To that end, I think I’ll actively promote two hours a day (school+home) is an essential contract between parents and teachers.

I’ll let others continue their good work towards overall digital diet and the quality of screen-time. I think we all want the same thing – children who are connected to the world around them, having both the emotional intelligence and media management skills to be happy, mindful and be the best they can be. No tall order, given the vile media culture of outrage, fear, hate, and lies which bombard news broadcasts and social streams.

Two hours a day is going to sound ridiculous to kids and adults alike – but a decade ago, most kids didn’t get two hours a week in school computer lab. Fifteen years ago, they’d be sharing the family computer with siblings and parents, using dial-up and waiting to use MSN Messenger. It’s not so long ago that watching a movie was a day’s download – seed people seed! and no one had more than 2mpbs for the whole home or school. In short, not much used to happen in 2 hours – yet today, we’ve turned up the dial and can watch 2 hours of UHD movie’s via Netflix instantly while the kids are playing Overwatch.

Let us not forget, that most school Internet use is allowed though a risk-to-us mentality and is dominated by the commercial agendas and belief of a few mega-brands – Apple, Google, and Microsoft. The ‘social stream’ of edumedia is seduced and propositioned by brands (using teacher and ex-teachers) all the time – as no one has to declare their interests nor account for their actions later – but I suspect one day, parents will take legal action over the time a teacher ‘forced’ a child to spend on a computer which led to them doing something … addictive, violent or otherwise. No one’s using sunscreen – they are still manning ‘the great firewall’ in the dumb pursuit of ‘content’ being the monster under the bed.

However, the speed of the Internet is not a sign we can make sense of the media streams we can access. It’s faster, but we are not. In fact, as I said yesterday, the faster it gets, the bigger the deficit of attention is – and the less likely we are to cope with what is happening around us. Take US Politics – is it just me, or are kids not talking about it at school? Since when did Aussie kids do that – do they care, are then activating their global citizenship – or is Trump simply another ridiculous meme – among the clowns, Pokemons and gorillas? How much of that two hours a day should be allocated to Trump’s latest gaff? How do kids discover it? We simply don’t know because we don’t know much about the content that kids see – let alone engage with. As teachers, we can’t reasonably claim to be experts … but we can help them develop the kind of intelligence and competencies that allow them to manage and select the media they engage with – better than we are.

We simply don’t know much about the environments and emotions that trigger that thumb to swipe across the screen. That seems amazing, given the data streams and users, however, the research is very limited. We suspect a lot, but we know little. That’s why I’m saying, be cautious – think about what we lose every time we add another hour of exposure – are they 100% focused for that hour – Had they focused the last hour? – Do you even know what they used or saw in the lesson before yours? How much time has Amy spent online today? … The current mentality is to simply ban or take the phone away.

As teachers, we can’t reasonably claim to be experts or timekeepers in today’s media environment … but teachers can help them develop the kind of intelligence and competencies that allow them to manage and select the media they engage with – better than we are doing.

The first step is to think long and hard about our own behaviour online … and that of those we ‘see’ – are they modelling a two-hour exposure … or pervasive eduaddicts?