© © © © ©


Copyright. Intellectual Property. Intellectual freedom. How many of us think about these issues on a regular basis, or even rarely?

I know some people do. A few years ago I ran across an article I had written which had been copied and posted, unattributed to me, on someone else’s site. I sent an email that said something simple like, “Hey, I noticed you have an article I wrote on your site.” The webmaster wrote back, apologizing, asking which article it was and assuring me that I would be credited properly. In fact, I wasn’t worried about getting credit at all, I was only interested in making a connection with a person who thought enough of my work to post it online. I understand that some people in my shoes may have been hankering for attribution or credit or payment, but I wasn’t. The article was originally published in a magazine that had a limited readership, so I was just stoked that someone had the gumption and ingenuity to prolong the piece’s viewing lifespan and widen readership. It had been published a few years earlier and I had already been paid and received my byline, so if someone could learn or be entertained by it in a new format, more power to the webmaster.

What this incident illustrated to me is that some people placed more importance on crediting others’ work (at least the early years of the World Wide Web) than I did, even when it was my work being copied and pasted. My original article and the magazine it was published in contained little or no opportunity for someone to contact me and request permission for republishing. No harm, no foul.

Fast forward to today, when sharing information, collaborating, and learning in an online setting all offer a myriad of opportunities to steal, plagiarize, copy and paste and generally act irresponsibly (or illegally). Simple guidelines for what constitutes fair use and what is copyright infringement are either not easily accessible or at least not-so-simple for most students or educators.

I have touched in a previous blog on the attitudes and learning habits of digital natives. But today’s computer users and their attitude to copyright and intellectual property deserve a closer examination. David Pogue has related with dismay that according to his very informal research, many digital natives have no compunctions when it comes to downloading music or movies without paying for them. Should it be a surprise that many people today don’t find it necessary to pay for what they find online or worry about attribution or giving credit to others? In fact, the vehemence with which downloaders justify their actions is evident in our wired world, and there are many examples to be found on YouTube. Here’s a short one:



Yet music companies are suing downloaders (and winning!), and anti-piracy ads from the film industry have become ubiquitous. It seems that these real-life instances aren’t affecting peoples’ attitudes about copyright and intellectual property, so the need for direction from educators is clear. Although it may seem that it’s tough to figure out where to begin, Mike Ribble’s Passport to Digital Citizenship could be one place to look at first. The article offers readers a definition of digital citizenship, 9 elements of digital citizenship, and a 4-stage Technology Learning Framework for Teaching Digital Citizenship. One important component of Ribble’s article is that he stresses that because of the disconnect in what is being done in schools and what is done by students in their free time, parents need to be aware of issues within digital citizenship if there is to be some success in helping foster good choices.

And of course aside from downloading music and movies, what are many of those students doing in their free time? Checking out Facebook and MySpace, of course. Annette Lamb’s article Intellectual Freedom for Youth: Social Technology and Social Networks includes some very eloquently stated points. For example, Lamb asserts that social technologies “test the boundaries of intellectual freedom precisely because they provide an open forum for ideas”. It seems like a simple point, but I hadn’t thought of it in that way previously. If we are filtering or blocking social networks in our schools and libraries, are we hindering intellectual freedom? I touched on filtering a few weeks ago on this blog, but Lamb points out that students need to be aware of digital citizenship and copyright as well:

“While social technologies can support the creation of original poetry, music, and scientific data, it also can be a source of negative content, including gossip, violent images, and misinformation. Teens may use adult mediasharing Web sites such as Flickr for photos or YouTube for video. If so, it is essential to help them act responsibly in a social environment not intended for children. Students need to understand how to evaluate Web content, follow copyright laws, and develop effective methods of communication to make optimal use of this environment.” Therefore, if we ignore social networking sites, we may not only be impeding intellectual freedom, but we may be putting student digital citizenship on the backburner.

Also, Helen R. Adams has written about goals for school library media specialists, such as: “Guard against barriers to intellectual freedom, such as age or grade-level restrictions, limitations on access to electronic information, requirements for special permission to use materials and resources, and restricted collections.” If intellectual freedom means that young people should be allowed to access social networks such as Lamb suggests above, then Adams is arguing against filtering. It seems to me we have a long way to go before filtering ends in North American schools.

So what kinds of things can we do to help students learn more about their intellectual freedom and copyright? I think we need to create more resource lists like this one – it helps students find images and sounds that aren’t illegal or morally suspect.
I’m also really excited about the possibilities of Creative Commons, which is described as “a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.” I’ve been using images from Creative Commons for a while now, and the possibilities for students to find pictures, music, written works, and so on and use them responsibly are great. Now, it’s also time for educators to take the idea even farther and help their students to be a part of that community that shares, guiding learners to upload and make the resource banks even larger and richer.

I, and I suspect many others, also need to learn more about what constitutes fair use. Alisa Burch cites North Carolina State University’s copyright tutorial as telling readers that fair use allows the limited use of copyrighted material without prior permission of the copyright holder if the use is a fair one based on these four factors:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In his article Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad ©?, Doug Johnson hit the nail on the head when he wrote that few subjects “spark more disagreement and confusion than copyright. As an information professional, I’m often not certain that I have a firm grasp of it.” I’m not an information professional and am only starting to wrap my head around copyright and the issues surrounding it such as fair use and intellectual freedom. In fact, once you start thinking about copyright and the number of mistakes you or your students may have made, inadvertently or otherwise, it’s easy to go too far the other way and handcuff yourself into not taking advantage of the wide world of resources at your fingertips. Johnson gives an intersting anecdote about looking for permission or assuming permission is not given:

“A Singapore educator once told me that in his country, people tend to suffer from NUTS—the No U-Turn Syndrome—and Americans don’t. When no signs are posted at an intersection, Singapore drivers assume U-turns are illegal; United States drivers assume the opposite. He felt that our “assume it’s OK” attitude gives our country a competitive edge.”

Johnson’s anecdote relates to a fear of what’s “not allowed” and connects to the first of four points:
Change the focus of copyright instruction from what’s forbidden to what’s permitted. When there’s doubt, err on the side of the user. Be prepared to answer questions when a law makes little sense, seems inconsequential, is widely ignored, or when breaking it may serve a higher moral purpose. Teach copyright from the point of view of the producer, as well as the consumer.
To me, Johnson’s greatest point is that as educators, we can help change the focus from what’s “forbidden” to what’s “permitted”; we can be positive about what is legally and morally stable, create lists and links to sites that offer attributed use such as Creative Commons, steer learners to free easy-to-use online citation guides like Noodlebib, and encourage dialogue between students on all of the topics above. The Digiteen Global Project looks like a pretty good start for focused authentic learning. The creators say that Digiteen is a “digital citizenship global project…where schools and classrooms from around the world will discuss issues, research and take action to do with being online in the 21st century. The project also has an Digiteen Ning where students and teachers connect, interact, share multimedia and reflect on their experiences throughout the project”. Wow! Sounds like some educators and students are already tackling most of the tough issues surrounding copyright and digital citizenship.

While we’re feeling pretty positive about the possiblities of using Web 2.0 tools such as Digiteen does become more informed better digital citizens, I’ll leave you with a short video clip that made me stop and think. Although the video is funny (and also unfortunately contains some inappropriate language), it is also poking fun at attempts to curb online movie or music piracy. Aside from pointing out the absurdity of how the word “piracy” is used in this context, the video also mirrors how seriously many people feel about the issue. Don’t you think?

Digital Divide(s)

Ever wake up in the morning and think, “Wow! My digital divide really hurts!?!”? Neither have I. Nevertheless, the digital divide may be hurting all of us as an educational community, even though we don’t feel it in an immediate way.

Let’s backtrack a bit: what is the digital divide? The Wikipedia entry on this topic reads thusly:

“The term digital divide refers to the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all. It includes the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it is the unequal access by some members of society to information and communications technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. The digital divide may be classified based on gender, income, and race groups, and by locations.”

Clearly not everyone has access to the same technology. Occasionally, I am still surprised when a young adult tells me that he or she either has no Internet access at home or is still using dial-up. Except for the very young or very old, I think that many of us expect that we are consistently wired (unless we are very young or very old), when the truth is we aren’t all hooked up. My kids have been computer users from a very young age; heck, when they are at their grandfather’s, they’re surfing and playing and learning non-stop. My nine-year-old schools me every once in a while on some computer issue. But he’s also got a grandfather who has inexplicably taught himself at an elderly age to build computers, as well as a father who uses a computer daily for work, entertainment, and professional development. At any rate, my parents have never used computers, and I didn’t get Internet access until I was in my twenties; the generational divide is quite pronounced when comparing my Ma and Pa and my digitally-bedeviled offspring.

But what about others? George Sciadas’s research paper “The Digital Divide in Canada” discusses some of the complex issues surrounding this topic. Sciadas has used statistical analysis to break down some of these issues. However, nothing is as simple as we might want:

“From one year to the next, as more people use the Internet, there are more ‘haves’ and fewer ‘have-nots’. When groups of people are delineated by income (or any other variable), though, each one has its own penetration rate. The divide then becomes a relative concept whose measurement involves comparisons of the ‘haves’ between ‘have-more’ and ‘have-less’ groups.”

At first glance, a reader might think that the digital divide is not a big issue. But when Sciadas looks at income and age in regards to computer usage, we can see that there are actually some pretty big discrepancies. For example, it might not be a surprise that many of those with lower incomes in Canada appear to use computers less, and 15-17 year-olds use the Internet way more than even those aged 30-34. Overall, Sciadas concludes that the “divide is generally closing, but the gap between the highest and the lowest incomes persists.” If that is the case, the digital divide may continue in some form or another for a long time. The Wikipedia entry on digital divide does not dispel this outlook:

“In small towns and rural areas, only 65% of residences accessed the Internet, compared to 76% in urban areas. The digital divide still exists between the rich and the poor; 91% of people making more than $91,000/year regularly used the Internet, compared to 47% of people making less than $24,000. This gap has lowered slightly since 2005.”

However, the points above mainly focus on one element of the digital divide, which is different forms of access to technology – mainly computers and the Internet. An article entitled Web 2.0 in Schools: Our Digital Divides Are showing! points out that the digital divide could be looked at on four different levels:

“The first level of digital divide is access. Access to adequate amounts and types of hardware is an ongoing issue, but we’re now seeing access play out in schools in terms of bandwidth available for applications like streaming video and audio.
The second level of digital divide is skill and Web 2.0 tools present a new professional development and personal mastery imperative for many schools.
The third, and emerging, level of digital divide is policy. All too often in schools, we’re seeing technology policies that enforce slow hardware replacement cycles or restrictive use and filtering policies that block Web 2.0 applications.
The fourth digital divide, motivation, cannot be overlooked. That is, we’re seeing children, teachers, media specialists, and administrators all having different motivations to either adopt, ignore, or actively thwart learning innovation with Web 2.0 tools.”

Personally, I think access and policy are two elements that are often closely linked. Is YouTube blocked because of bandwidth or content issues? A text expert in a school I was in recently responded to class problems accessing Web 2.0 by saying “we’re all trying to squeeze everything through one little pipe” - meaning there’s only so much the divisional and school system can handle. The teacher-librarian working with the students at the time could not take solace in the fact there was nothing to be done on a classroom facilitator level, but I could only applaud her perseverance. On some levels, I would say that skill and motivation can be pretty closely linked as well. I believe that if many teachers and students could see how easy and engaging many Web 2.0 tools can be, they would be motivated to adopt some of them. But change is never going to be easy, and although I have not witnessed personally anyone “actively” thwarting learning innovation with Web 2.0 tools, I also have not seen a lot of time or incentives given for educators to do so.

An article written by Sherril Steele-Carlin entitled “Caught in the Digital Divide” tells readers that not only might there be a digital divide along economic, societal, racial, and geographical lines, but gender as well. “According to Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age (2000), a recent study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education, a majority of high school girls are totally disinterested in technology education, and fewer women than ever before are entering technology fields.” The article also touches on the idea that a lot of “people, however, question whether a digital divide fueled by ethnic, geographic, societal, or economic factors exists.” From the plethora of evidence I’ve seen now, I’m beginning to think that there is not one digital divide, but many.


So what does all of this mean to educators and students? What can we do to work towards bridging the divide(s)? First of all, educators need to recognize, if not a tangible divide, then at least the reasons why many think there is a divide. In other words, be aware of all of the reasons why students may not be as comfortable or familiar with technology. Are students not completing assignments utilizing tech tools because they are lethargic or because they are frustrated with working on the computer? If we’re diving into Web 2.0 tools and becoming surprised when students are stumbling when using MySpace or FaceBook, maybe some students aren’t as wired as we think. At the same time, Web 2.0 tools may be part of the solution, as Ilan Tsekhman suggests:

The most obvious potential for Web 2.0 applications is that they provide free tools to the user which would otherwise require expensive software packages, one example of this is using the free Google Docs service to replace Microsoft Office. The concept of providing applications as internet services is known as "cloud computing". Parallel to this is a movement towards what is called "thin computing" where the majority of the computing processes of a task are handled by a central server as opposed to on the users local machine. Thin computing promises to lower the system requirements of common online tasks and therefore lower the costs of computing itself.

In fact, others have proposed that free online tools could benefit those with lower incomes in any part of the world. Also, using Web 2.0 tools may be advantageous for adult learners as well. An amazing project in Uganda saw a group of farmers exploring websites, SMS, blogs, RSS feeds, Google Maps, Flickr, Picasa and Skype, and it has been suggested that their experiments helped them to strengthen organisation, planning and information sharing within the community which improved their livelihoods considerably.

But closer to home, the digital divide is a gigantic problem that isn’t going away, and it needs much more than individual teachers, teacher-librarians, or administrators to create a solution. I’ll leave it to Will Richardson to have the last word on starting to decrease the divide:

One idea that I see starting to take root is getting old computers, stripping out all of the old drives, running a Linux thin client and just a Web browser. Right now, you can do 75% of what you do on a store bought computer out on the Web (see thinkfree.com, for instance, or writely.com). And those computers cost next to nothing. So if we could put together a program for that to happen, it might make a difference. But the reality of it is that we are living in a world where one out of every three people in Philadelphia have NEVER BEEN ON THE INTERNET much less have access. For that to change in all parts of this country, it's going to take vision and leadership that just isn't there right now.

Filters, Fans, and who watches the Watchmen?

“Who watches the Watchmen?” Alan Moore. The Watchmen

No, this is not going to be one more fanboy drooling about the new Watchmen movie; I’m referring to the slogan/question recurring in the original graphic novel because it seems relevant to this week’s topic. The question of the week is, Should provincial Ministries of Education create web filtering standards for schools? In a way, the Watchmen catchphrase means, “Who is in charge of keeping an eye on those who protect us?” On a personal level, I don’t know if many of us educators have given a great deal of thought to this question. But the topic of web filters in schools begs a few more questions:

Do we need filters in schools? Unfortunately, I don’t believe that some students will not deliberately access inappropriate sites or material at this point. And a horror story (from a peer in my Information Technology for Learning course) about viruses taking down entire networks in Vancouver makes me think that the need for high security is evident.

Nevertheless, there are clearly problems with web filtering. Alvin Schrader has argued that:

Internet filtering and rating technologies are theoretically unworkable. It is not that they are technologically unworkable or technologically limited. It is that the essential ambiguities of language, text, reader, rating and blocking methods ensure the failure of automated filtering. The problems of identifying and describing Internet content for purposes of control and prohibition are intractable: new sites, new terms, new issues, the world cacophony of languages, variable interpretations of meaning, variable perceptions of offensiveness, variable perceptions of age appropriateness and variable cultural norms.

At the same time, Jenny Ryan has pointed out that there can be a positive role for filters in collection management and responsible service. To date, I have not seen many alternative solutions to getting rid of filters other than educating students about responsible internet use, ensuring educators are vigilant, and creating good Acceptable Use Policies.

A technology specialist in my school division informed me that many feel filtering is required to limit liability, while a small contingent appreciate that filtering is a band-aid at best and would rather approach the issue of how to deal with inappropriate content through education. I think that is a good way to look at web filters, as band-aids that are going to stay on longer than we wish. Make no mistake, if we really want to help students become safer when using the Internet, we would teach them how to do so – after all, they are accessing the web outside of the classroom all of the time on their phones, laptops, home computers, and so on. But the information I gathered from my local tech specialist indicates that some discussion has already taken place as to the place of filtering, at least in my division. Since Learning with Information and Communication Technology is a big push in my province and school division, it makes sense that web filtering should be a part of how technology is used in schools. Many schools and divisions in Manitoba have in the past few years started utilizing MERLIN (Manitoba Education and Research Learning Information Network) as a provider of several IT services including the filtering of web content. MERLIN employs a hardware-based technology called 8e6 R3000 Enterprise. I have been told that although we still have the ability to selectively block or unblock sites via the tech consultant, a fair degree of control has been relinquished subject to our deal with MERLIN. A look at MERLIN’s website shows that the system:
· Allows administrators to create their own categories of blocked sites (“black list”)
· Allows administrators to create their own lists of acceptable sites (“white list”)
· Allows differentiated Internet access criteria for groups of users
Nonetheless, I don’t know that schools or school divisions are taking enough responsibility. For example, if our filter allows differentiated access for groups or users, shouldn’t teachers, librarians, and administrators all have unfettered access? Should high school students have more access than elementary school learners? I think as a start for a provincially mandated web filter standard, all educators should have no restrictions except for security reasons (viruses and so on). Optimally, educators should have free access to whatever they need to perform their job, and limiting that access while pushing information technology literacy makes no sense.

Who should decide what is filtered? – Peers in my Information Technology for Learning course have informed me that some schools do not filter out YouTube and Facebook – so why do so many other divisions exclude them? Clearly a divide has been created that allows greater access in some divisions. Wouldn’t a common web filtering standard help level the playing field for all students in a province? A decision to unblock a particular site or web 2.0 tool could mean a victory for all, not just one division, if a standard was created that allowed for regular (daily?) updating. It would seem to me that this issue may be too big to leave to individual divisions, and the same goes for individual schools – how could one tech specialist, or even a small team, have the time and expertise necessary to make the big decisions about what is accessible for all students?

Why should Ministries of Education create web filtering standards? – Isn’t the purpose of a Ministry of Education to oversee educational matters? In addition to idea of leveling the playing field, the provincial arm of the government has the capability and power to ensure that all school divisions follow the standards. In the spirit of the collaborative nature of Web 2.0, I would like to see provinces bring together teachers, librarians, administrators, and tech specialists work together to create the standards that would benefit all. In Manitoba, a former teacher (who won numerous awards for his work in schools) is the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth – I say we take advantage of his being in office to create a policy of web filtering standards sooner, rather than later. Why? Because who watches the Watchmen? Why, we do, of course.