“Is it more unethical to allow threats to students/schools (i.e., protecting students from objectionable content; protecting schools/personnel from security threats; protecting network bandwidth from "hogs"; etc.) or to deny students/teachers access to instructionally-relevant Web-based tools and content?
Issue: To block or not to block educational/instructionally relevant Web-based tools and content. A secondary question that becomes quite relevant is the identity of the individual making the decision about blocking portion of the Internet—it would be my assumption that more than one person would have input, but that an administrator, perhaps with the assistance of a risk manager and/or legal counsel would likely be making the final decision rather than an educator in the classroom.
Applicable Rules: Common law doctrine known as in loco parentis (“in place of a parent”), which defines the rights of students while at school in the United States. This commonly adhered to belief system establishes the school’s authority over students literally standing in for their parents while the student is at school. This boundary or parameter, upheld time and time again by the Appellate Courts, puts schools as entities and their employees as individuals in the position of needing to ensure the safety and well-being of minors and proscribes penalties for the failure to do so.
“Computer Ethics for Educators,” as described in Figure 8-20 on page 484 of the textbook outlines the general guidelines that teachers must follow; however, teachers are also held to the standards of abuse and neglect as described in Florida Statutes Chapter 39, which involve the exposure of minors to detrimental material online, along with the Children’s Internet Protection Act, as described in the textbook on page 492.
Analysis: Courts have struggled since the foundation of this country to balance the issues of safety and privacy. This struggle is especially poignant when children are involved. In attempting to arrive at a place where children are safe, privacy and access to the outside world have been sacrificed. My Juvenile Public Defendant colleagues continue to protest the intrusion of the government into children’s lives, contending that children should not be treated differently than their adult counterparts when it comes to the privacy and ability to choose their path, but that has not been the reality.
Recent comments by iKeepSafe President, Marsali Hancock, reveal that students and adults look at the issue from very different perspectives. See her comments and the blog begun by a high school student on Education.com here: http://ikeepsafe.blogspot.com/2009/09/educationcom-should-schools-ban-or.html.
These (and other readily available) comments demonstrate that there are those who contend for a happy medium—access to Web-based educational and instructional sites under the careful supervision of teachers. Yet, if this is to be so, time and effort and careful attention are required.
Dr. Sampson, a researcher at Florida State University, updated his 2002 article entitled “Quality and Ethics in Internet-Based Guidance” in 2006, stating that “Maintaining quality and ethics in Internet-based guidance applications is the shared responsibility of funding agents, policy makers, developers, practitioners, users, and researchers and evaluators.” His article, among others, demonstrates that if we are to be successful in presenting Web based learning to children, each part of the process must be at the table.
Conclusion: Until there is a viable method of ensuring the safety and well-being of students in place, it is far better to shield students from the potential exposure to inappropriate web-content. Having said that, the benefits of Web-based educational/instructional content can be so valuable that working towards the methodology of utilizing it safely in the classroom is a worthwhile endeavor.
Citations:
Hancock, M. (2009). Education.com: Should Schools Ban or Restrict Internet Use by Students Because Some Mis-use it?. Retrieved from http://ikeepsafe.blogspot.com/2009/09/educationcom-should-schools-ban-or.html on September 20, 2009.
Sampson, J. P. (2002) Quality and Ethics in Internet-Based Guidance. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, Volume 2, Number 3, pgs. 157-171. Revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date, DOI: 10.1023/A:1020665316813.
Shelly, Cashman, Gunter, and Gunter. Teachers Discovering Computers: Integrating Technology and Digital Media in the Classroom, 5th Ed., Course Technology - Thompson Publishing (2008). ISBN: 1423911806
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Module 3 Discussion Posting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwM4ieFOotA target=
1. Share your initial reaction to the networked student concept—My initial thought is that this model is an ideal and would only work with self-motivated students at higher levels of education. It has been my unfortunate experience in my professional life as well as my graduate studies at UCF that the majority of people/students are lazy, seeking to get the grade rather that truly learning and integrating new ideas into their daily lives. Secondarily, being a very rule oriented person myself and always craving specificity and predictability, I have to say that a class as described in the utube video is actually quite scary! To be student or a teacher under that model requires more and takes one beyond the “traditional” rote learning into something else, something less measurable and defined.
2. Note any personal experiences you have with the concepts and the technologies in the video—I can recall several seminar-type classes I took in my undergraduate career through the Honors College that tended towards the type of learning described in the video. The classes required a creativity and depth of introspection by students and teachers alike that were incredibly stretching for me as a student and as a person. However, looking back on those classes, I can definitively say that I remember the life-lessons I learned in those classes far more than any other class I’ve taken (and I’ve taken quite a few classes before and after those seminars!!) and recall the impact those professors made on me personally far more than any of the “substantive” classes I took.
3. Tell us how comfortable you would be in the role of the teacher in the video—I would quite anxious to be that teacher! I’ve been cast in the “teacher” role in my professional life and there is always much more definition and hierarchy involved. I am comfortable within that defined role and the clear parameters of instruction and goal orientation. However, based on my experiences in the past, I can also see the tremendous benefits to the type of consultant role described in the video, where the teachers learn just as much as the students. I’d like to say that if I’m given the opportunity, I would be open to being that facilitator.
4. Note the biggest challenge you see in making Drexler's vision a reality everywhere (based on your readings and your personal experiences)—From a practical perspective, the great technology described in the textbook is simply not available to everyone. Yes, many schools are as networked as the Chapter describes and many students have access to the technology to allow them to become networked with other students. However, that is not so universal, even in this day and age, to assume that all students will have the same opportunities at their fingertips. I think this is the first challenge. I think the second major challenge, based on my own experiences, would be that students are often lazy and motivating them to find the value in the experience as well as obtaining the grade for the class would not be an easy task!
5. Identify one small step that you as a classroom teacher can make toward this vision—since I’m not already teaching, this one is difficult to answer!! I think that the major challenge I have in general is trusting others. My tendency is towards control and micro-managing because I am responsible for the outcome. The ideas put forth in the video for this module is leaning towards a community of trust, mutual respect, and mutual growth. It would be my thought that as a matter of personal growth, I can learn and grow in my comfort level with trusting others to take ownership of their own learning process and to stay within a role of facilitation and mentoring.
Abigail
1. Share your initial reaction to the networked student concept—My initial thought is that this model is an ideal and would only work with self-motivated students at higher levels of education. It has been my unfortunate experience in my professional life as well as my graduate studies at UCF that the majority of people/students are lazy, seeking to get the grade rather that truly learning and integrating new ideas into their daily lives. Secondarily, being a very rule oriented person myself and always craving specificity and predictability, I have to say that a class as described in the utube video is actually quite scary! To be student or a teacher under that model requires more and takes one beyond the “traditional” rote learning into something else, something less measurable and defined.
2. Note any personal experiences you have with the concepts and the technologies in the video—I can recall several seminar-type classes I took in my undergraduate career through the Honors College that tended towards the type of learning described in the video. The classes required a creativity and depth of introspection by students and teachers alike that were incredibly stretching for me as a student and as a person. However, looking back on those classes, I can definitively say that I remember the life-lessons I learned in those classes far more than any other class I’ve taken (and I’ve taken quite a few classes before and after those seminars!!) and recall the impact those professors made on me personally far more than any of the “substantive” classes I took.
3. Tell us how comfortable you would be in the role of the teacher in the video—I would quite anxious to be that teacher! I’ve been cast in the “teacher” role in my professional life and there is always much more definition and hierarchy involved. I am comfortable within that defined role and the clear parameters of instruction and goal orientation. However, based on my experiences in the past, I can also see the tremendous benefits to the type of consultant role described in the video, where the teachers learn just as much as the students. I’d like to say that if I’m given the opportunity, I would be open to being that facilitator.
4. Note the biggest challenge you see in making Drexler's vision a reality everywhere (based on your readings and your personal experiences)—From a practical perspective, the great technology described in the textbook is simply not available to everyone. Yes, many schools are as networked as the Chapter describes and many students have access to the technology to allow them to become networked with other students. However, that is not so universal, even in this day and age, to assume that all students will have the same opportunities at their fingertips. I think this is the first challenge. I think the second major challenge, based on my own experiences, would be that students are often lazy and motivating them to find the value in the experience as well as obtaining the grade for the class would not be an easy task!
5. Identify one small step that you as a classroom teacher can make toward this vision—since I’m not already teaching, this one is difficult to answer!! I think that the major challenge I have in general is trusting others. My tendency is towards control and micro-managing because I am responsible for the outcome. The ideas put forth in the video for this module is leaning towards a community of trust, mutual respect, and mutual growth. It would be my thought that as a matter of personal growth, I can learn and grow in my comfort level with trusting others to take ownership of their own learning process and to stay within a role of facilitation and mentoring.
Abigail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)