It's really neat to be part of the community that's building at Worlbridges.net. The Webcast Academy is the brainchild of Jeff and Dave and I've been fortunate enough to be able to play a part in the community building that's happening.

Indeed, today three members of the community stepped up with firsts for the community.

Alex and Arvind had their first show about tech in the 21st century. I loved the fact that I could hear the traffic from NYC during the 'cast. For those of you who are familiar with the Big Apple, you'll know that its energy is palpable. I got a sense of this as I caught some backgrounds and imagined the cabs jockeying for position that I could hear honking at one another--from time-to-time during the 'cast. Of course audio purests are aghast at such "corruption" of the sound. To me, it's what makes the stuff on the worldbridges network more human and accessible.

We got to hear from Lee and Kathy's Gr. 8 students in Virginia and New York interact with one another. It was great to hear these students get warmed up to the idea of communicating with peers in another state in "real time" and to imagine the possibilities for the future.

We also heard from Jeff Flynn as part of his presentation on webcasting at a conference in Michigan. (Apologies to Jeff for not skyping into the conference, I had to step away for a sec and he and Jeff Lebow were signing-off just as I got back). Jeff Flynn did an excellent job with the 'cast between himself and Dave and Jeff Lebow. He had audience members in the chat room for the 'cast and even had participants skyping into the webcast from the audience. It's really powerful stuff to be able to have online and "real" audiences interact with one another in synchronous discussions. "Real time" discussions make the process more human and participatory by their very nature.

I also think that the need for synchronicity because of the value it brings in terms of social interaction in online environments should trump concerns regarding "production values"; however, I recognize a balance needs to be struck.

If it's me making the decision, I'll opt for "accessibility" over "quality" every time. (Although I do recognize that, at a certain point, quality will have an impact on accessibility).

It's good to be again getting the Stephen Downes' OLDaily Links in my inbox. As "uncool" as it may be to admit in a 2.0/RSS world, I still do rely on mailing lists for news from "trusted sources."

For those of you who don't know, Stephen's been "offline" for a bit and it's really good to see him back. His links and writings and recordings have been a fantastic resource for those of us interested in the use of technology in, by and for learning.
Good to have you back Stephen.

I'm really excited by the prospect of Jeff's trip to the Podcast Academy at Boston University.

It'll be especially exciting to hear Jeff's webcast of proceedings from his cell phone.

I have to say that it was a blast to be able to check in on the goings-on at the World Bridges webcastathon. It was an inspiration to be able to connect -- even if I was only listening, and making the occasional post in the chat interface -- with people around the world.

I think that technology provides the means for "real people" the world over who can see the sense in making connections and reaching out to others to make the best of opportunities and situations as they present.

It's scary to me that govenrnments have decided that "all bets are off" in terms of civil liberties and rule of law. My hope is that the 'net provides a way for the people to have a say in how things work themselves out.

My consideration of web-based literacy continues. Here's an interesting post in which Clare Brett, a professor at OISE/UT explains why Why reading matters even more in the digital age. I'd expand on the definition Clare offers to include an ability to "decode" or "read" "media" as well as text on the web. I think this is where "multiliteracy" and "metacognitive" approaches hold promise for defining semantics and developing web-based literacies.

In my research a recurring theme has been the issue of "walled gardens." Specifically, do students need to be "walled off" or protected from the outside world? There are strong arguments made on both sides of this argument and while I see the merits in both. My initial reaction is to agree with Barbara Ganley and others who say that students need to learn to be responsible citizens and learn to make their way in the world. Bud the Teacher, indicates in a podcast that it all comes down to choices and the importance of letting students make them.

I agree with Bud that it's more important to teach students how to make critical choices and recognize consequences than to try and protect them in "walled gardens." We already know that young people already spend much more time online at home, or elsewhere, than they do at school. I'd suggest that this goes a long way toward making Bud's point.

Youngster will be online, that's a given.

Isn't it important to give them a chance to develop the ability to make critical choices to be able to navigate our "wired", ever-changing world?