Protecting our youth from YouTube
Okay, I know that there are things on YouTube that some teachers are evidently afraid of. Raw, uninhibited freedom of expression of whatever viewpoint the poster happens to have – this can be very intimidating, especially for teachers who are unprepared to deal with students having the same freedom.
Several of the resources given for this assignment (one, two, three) advocate a very selective use of internet video sources. Most of these articles admonish teachers to find the videos they want to show, and then present them to the class. This is all very controlled, and teachers can be selective about what the class gets to see. One commenter even goes as far as recommending SchoolTube.com because “no videos are viewable on the site until they are approved by a teacher or SchoolTube staff.”
Ultimately, teachers can ‘protect’ students while they are in school, but what is the point when there’s a free-for-all after the final bell rings? And in the end, what is it that we are supposedly protecting them from? YouTube does not allow mature content, thus making ideas the most dangerous thing on YouTube, and why should we, as educators, be afraid of ideas? If they’re bad ideas, lead a discussion on why the idea is “bad” and whether or not there is any redeemable quality.
The article YouTube Course is a Class Act was excellent in its viewpoint that students study YouTube and what makes videos successful through their own participation. The teacher of the YouTube course was right on when he said, “After all, one of the jobs of a teacher is to help kids make sense of the world they live in.” I agree that we must help students understand what the implications of their actions are in a digital society.
For instance, students in Port Elizabeth posted video of a teacher cursing at students to YouTube. First, I don’t care whether or not the teacher was being provoked, his response was uncalled for. Second, students learning to pay attention when inappropriate behavior is taking place is a positive thing, although since they provoked the response, this was not exactly the case. Third, YouTube is not to blame here, this is an immature prank that is taking place in a digital age instead of a one-room schoolhouse. It’s the equivalent of putting a frog on the teacher’s chair after recess. Similarly, professors are concerned about being videotaped and put on the web. Their concern seems mostly for their dignity and professionalism, however, putting a stop to YouTube videos will not halt students from badmouthing professors who have accents, or professors who may be flat out poor teachers. RateMyProfessors.com already exists for students to review their college professors, and now professors have the ability to respond to complaints about them. Maybe some of these professors are in denial, but how can a person not know that their teaching is poor? This public forum provides a way for teachers to receive unbiased feedback – unlike the end-of-term surveys that students always have to fill out to rate their professors. I was an instructor at the University of Kansas, and I can tell you, those surveys are not private, and I have been personally targeted as a result of giving a professor my honest opinion about their teaching. I also have ratings at RateMyProfessors.com, and they’re not all positive. However, I do own up to most of the negative feedback, since those aspects of my teaching were seen as strengths to the majority of the other students who reviewed me. But, this website provided a space for students to be very honest about their opinion of a professor, and how can that be construed as a negative? Students who bash a professor unfairly will have their voice drowned out by other students giving their opinions.
In the end, concerns about the internet would be largely assuaged if we taught students how to use these resources. The more voices that are being heard, the better – that way the voices of the many can outweigh the voices of the few, without silencing anyone along the way.
