Privacy matters

I grew up just outside the small village of Wellesley, that only had a population of 500 inhabitants (give or take). Everyone in town knew who I was, and privacy did not exist – especially with the party phone lines. As a result, there is very little difference between my personal and social identities. What you see, is what you get. I feel that this is pretty important when working in a profession that keeps us constantly in the public eye, and teachers are often held to a higher standard of behaviour than the general public whether we are on or off the job. “School districts expect teachers to set a ‘moral’ example” both in person and online in both our personal and professional lives (Johnson, 2008). After several years of traveling the world and attending large Universities that allowed me to blend into the anonymity of larger crowds, I chose to settle in a small town with a similar feel to the one I grew up in. I’ve come to discover that I like knowing the cashier at my grocery store personally and appreciate seeing my students or their parents on the trails mountain biking or sailing with them during weekend races. It may not always be convenient to run into my students while sun tanning at the lake, or enjoying a bonfire with my friends at the river, but I still feel that I don’t have to live separate public and private lives. As Palfrey and Gasser note, digital natives also do not separate their personal and social identities “because these forms of identity exist simultaneously and are so closely linked to one another, Digital Natives almost never distinguish between the online and offline versions of themselves” (2008, p. 20). However, the difference that exists between me and my students is the ability to “recognize the risks associated with online activities [and] the knowledge and tools to mitigate those risks” particularly when it comes to privacy. (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada).

According to the office of the privacy commissioner of Canada, “about half of Canadian youth say they never read privacy policies on websites they visit and the majority believes that if a website has a privacy policy, the information they provide will not be shared with anyone else”. There is also plenty of other evidence that also suggests “that no one…reads privacy policies or does much to adjust the default settings for online services” ( Palfrey & Gasser, 2008, p. 57). This false sense of security needs to be addressed with students especially when popular networking sites like Facebook change their default settings to openly share all information, as they did in December, making it even harder for people to protect their privacy. Only 35% of the population went out of their way to change their settings, meaning 65% made their material public, probably without even realizing it (Boyd, 2010). I would wager that many of my students are unaware that once information we post about ourselves is part of a public domain, it can be viewed by virtually anyone, and can be shared widely and without our being totally aware of who has access to it and can also be retrieved even after it’s been modified or removed (Stoddart, 2007).

“In many ways our privacy is diminishing, but many people’s relative lack of concern for it may have more to do with a lack of experience in life than a real change in values” (Litwin, 2006). Danah Boyd also supports this notion saying “there is a large myth out there that young people don't care about privacy, and I think that that really needs to be dispelled” (2010). Young people DO care about privacy, but they need more knowledge and education about how social networking sites collect their personal data and use it as a valuable commodity (Stoddart, 2007). “Today’s social sites are a goldmine of information for marketing companies, or political interest groups, and potential employers” and everything that you enter about yourself forms the basis for how people view your “employability, your work ethic, and your other preferences, all without your knowledge or consent, or without even being asked” (Stoddart, 2007). An education based approach is needed to discuss this very important issue, and show students how to set and maintain their privacy settings on the sites they use. It is also critical to encourage them to “think ahead to gauge the consequences of the data they are leaving behind” or the digital footprint that is being formed and teach them how to get unwanted information removed from search engines (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008, p. 53). It is also important that parents and teachers model smart behaviour in their own online contexts and share these with the young adults in their lives.

Here are some very helpful videos that you could use in the classroom to help achieve this:


How to set privacy settings:



I , for one, have happily traded some of my own personal privacy to live and teach in small community that enriches my life with a variety of diversified and rich relationships. I suspect that my students also feel the same way about their online relationships, and hopefully they can be taught to maintain their personal identities with integrity, privacy and safety both in the physical and digital world.

References

Boyd, Danah. (February 24, 2010). Millennials, media and information. Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved from: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1516/millennials-panel-two-millennials-medi

Johnson, Doug. (June/July 2008). Lighting Lamps. Learning and Leading with Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/LL/LLIssues/Volume_35_2007_2008_/JuneJulyNo8/L_L_June_July_2008.htm


Litwin, Rory. (May 22, 2006). The central problem of library 2.0: Privacy. Library juice blog. Retrieved from: http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=68

Palfrey, John., & Gasser, Urs. (2008) Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stoddart, Jennifer. (November 7, 2007) “Privacy and Social Networks”. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7gWEgHeXcA

Motivation for change

I just got back to Vancouver in time to enjoy the last few days of the Olympics. As I wandered around Robson street I couldn’t help but enjoy the warmth of the sun and the beauty of the cherry blossoms on the trees downtown. Spring has definitely arrived early this year. Despite the warm weather conditions and lack of fresh snow, the winter Olympics have managed to carry on successfully. As the old adage goes “Where there is a will…there is a way”. I saw this first hand at the end of January, when Cypress mountain closed to the public and began building the course for the moguls event and snowboard cross course using straw bales and transporting in snow via helicopters from neighbouring mountain tops. The time, expense and commitment to alter mother natures’ own plan has been phenomenal. The International Organizing Committee (IOC) for the Vancouver Olympics has shown us first hand what great things can be achieved when government, organizers, volunteers, trainers and athletes are all determined and motivated to achieve a common goal. I spent a great deal of time last night (while watching the women’s curling final) musing over what changes would have to take place in our education system to get administrators, teachers, librarians, parents and students all motivated to work toward the common goal of integrating technology into our schools effectively.

The digital divide that currently exists in our education system is not only about those with limited access to computers and information and communication technologies (ICT) but is about the unequal acquisition of related skills to use that technology effectively (Wikipedia). It is a complex issue that has many structural, cultural and social influences that impact it, including: income, education, geography, gender, age, disability and aboriginal status (Looker & Thiessen, 2003). The unfortunate nature of these influences is that “many of these divisions overlap, so that some groups are doubly or triply disadvantaged” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003). According to the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) blog post entitled “Web 2.0 in Schools: Our Digital Divides are Showing”, the contributing factors to the digital divide in schools can be amalgamated into four broader categories: access, skill, policy and motivation.

Quite simply, without access to computers, adequate software and ample Internet connections, our students will be unable to participate fully as digital citizens. However, as funding to public education continues to be cut, “administrators report that they are increasingly unable to meet the budget strain to maintain adequate computer facilities” and upgrade hardware (Couture, as cited in Looker & Thiessen, 2003). We need continued government and administrative financial support to make information technology purchases and upgrades a priority in schools.

Secondly, “providing schools with technology is not sufficient to close the digital divide. Teachers must receive the appropriate training in order to use technology effectively and to increase student learning (Wikipedia). Teachers need adequate time and training to acquire pedagogies for teaching information literacy skills such as locating and evaluating digital information and using collaborative Web 2.0 tools effectively. Without proper skills, intellectual access to information will continue to widen the digital divide between students.

A third inequality exists in the policies that schools adopt with respect to restricting and filtering websites that block access to Web 2.0 tools. Although I believe that all policy makers have the same intent to protect our children in the online environment, there needs to be equality in filtering policies so that all students have the ability to access Google Docs and other programs that can be effective collaborative learning tools (Nelson, 2009).

Perhaps the largest factor that is interconnected with access, skills and policy is motivation. As my colleague Mark mentioned during our class discussion this week motivation “fundamentally influences all of the others” (Harewood, 2010). Motivation and perceived needs is what determines which restrictions policy makers put on students’ access to particular websites. It also drives government and administrative mandates for funding and providing technological equipment needed to schools. Motivation also plays an integral role in a teacher’s own professional development to gain the skills and pedagogy to effectively teach their students the skills they need. The motivation of parents also directly impacts whether their children have computer access at home. Finally, a student’s motivation will greatly determine whether they embrace information and communication technology and demonstrate responsible digital citizenship. Without motivation from all stakeholders, none of the other barriers that contribute to the digital divide can be overcome.

How I can motivate my administration, my colleagues and my students to recognize the importance of information technology and adopt its use so that it becomes infused in the curriculum is perhaps the biggest challenge I have as a librarian. Starting the discussion on the contributing factors to the digital divide is only the necessary first step. Some of the suggestions made by Jan Gahala in her article “Promoting Technology Use in Schools” that I would like to try are:
1. Request time from administrators for teachers to partake in ongoing professional development. This could take the form of paid release time for independent practice or classroom-embedded mentoring.
2. Advocate for adequate tech support.
3. Recognize teacher successes with technology and share these stories with all staff members during meetings.
4. At faculty meetings, share ideas for using technology within different content areas.
5. Continue to design collaborative projects for students with authentic uses of technology for real-world application in the classroom.

When people are motivated they have the ability to overcome tremendous obstacles and achieve great things. Nothing could illustrate that better than Olympic athletes like Brian McKeever, Petra Majdic or Joannie Rochette. Despite the difficulties and problems they have endured and have persevered to not only become successful, but inspirational. They have shown us all that the seemingly impossible is yet possible. I still believe that this can hold true for narrowing the digital divide that exists in our schools today.


References
American Association of School Librarians. (October 30, 2008). Web 2.0 in Schools: Our Digital Divides are Showing. Retrieved from: http://www.aasl.ala.org/aaslblog/?m=200810

Gahala, Jan. (October 2001.) Critical Issue: Promoting Technology Use in Schools. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te200.htm

Harewood, Mark. (February 21, 2010). Information Tech for Learning: Digital Divide Discussion Question One [Msg 24]. Message Posted to: https://vista4.srv.ualberta.ca/webct/urw/lc5122011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Looker, Diane. Thiessen, Victor. (June 2003). The Digital Divide in Canadian Schools: Factors affecting student access to and use of information technology. Research Data Centres Program.

Nelson, Cathy. (December 30, 2009). Educational Inequality: more than just race or funding. TechnoTuesday blog. Retrieved from: http://blog.cathyjonelson.com/?p=1078.

Wikipedia (n.d) Digital Divide. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide

Image Credit
Olympic Rings Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_Rings.svg

Filters: A Matter of Trust

As I get older I start to appreciate my mom a whole lot more and wonder if I would ever have the same strength to accomplish what she did. My father died when my twin sister and I were only 3 years old, leaving her to raise 3 children on her own in a very isolated country cabin. I sent my mom a Valentine’s Day card this year to let her know I love her but I also felt compelled to express how thankful I was for her constant love, support and trust. Instead of clinging to us, as some mothers might when faced with such a dear loss, she raised us to be inquisitive and adventuresome. She allowed us the freedom to explore (“I’ll send you a postcard from every country I visit!”) and trusted us to set our own boundaries (“I’ll be home by midnight”), and learn from our own mistakes (“oops…I won’t do THAT again!”), knowing that we could come to her for help or assistance if needed (“mom, we dared Jen to lick the mailbox and now she can’t get her tongue off”).Her implicit trust allowed for reciprocal honesty and a lack of fear that there would ever be unwarranted repercussions for mistakes and accidents, as long as we acted responsibly. She managed to find that delicate balance between protection and trust in our abilities. This is something that I think all parents juggle with. As a teacher, I also feel that most educators feel the need to create a safe, learning environment and protect our students’ safety. But I often wonder if we aren’t being too overprotective and create an atmosphere that limits creativity and inquiry, and impinges on intellectual freedom, especially when it comes to online, internet filters.

Almost all schools across Canada and the US have some form of content-filtering system in place. “In many cases, schools have cranked up their filters so high that students searching for an innocuous but easily misunderstood term can’t get anywhere” (Villano). This can be extremely frustrating for both students and teachers. For students, my concern goes beyond being blocked to valid information during research projects on topics like the Canadian beaver or breast cancer. When students are blocked by sites that they regularly access outside of school, it starts to create a “digital disconnect” and further supports the sentiment that “real-learning takes place at home” (Bell). It also sends the clear message to students that we don’t trust them to make the right decisions or stay safe online.

Many teachers are also frustrated by filtering. Again, my concern here goes past the obvious point that blocking sites is infringing on intellectual freedom. I am more concerned about the message that is being sent to educators that tech personnel (who haven’t necessarily studied education) have more right to judge which interactive sites are educational or not. To many teachers, it becomes a question of professional respect that they are not trusted to judge and make choices about the sites they’d like to access in their classrooms. Of course teachers can request to have sites unblocked. However, from my discussions with other colleagues, this can often be an onerous and time-consuming task, that requires administration to step in on our behalves. The end result, as pointed out by Cathy Nelson is complacency by many educators to accept the status quo, even if they don’t agree with the decisions being made.

I support Villano’s opinion that “filters are well-intentioned, but inadequate”. The fact is, many teens can still get around a standard filter and “surmount the protective wall constructed by school staff to keep them safe” buy using anonymous proxies (Losinski). This information is readily shared on Facebook sites that are devoted to sharing strategies for getting around school filters (Warlick). Not only does this waste valuable instructional time, but is a constant source of frustration for tech personnel. It also erodes the trust between teachers, students and administration. Again, I have to agree with Villano that this is not a dispute about whether or not we need to protect kids, but “whether or not mandated internet filters are the best way to achieve those safeguards” (Villano).

The best long term solution that I have seen proposed is “shifting the emphasis from policing the way students use the internet to educating them about using it more safely” (Villano). How will this impact my teaching in the short term? I will continue to teach my students some of the topics suggested by David Warlick including: digital citizenship, how to safeguard personal information, reporting and ignoring advances from strangers, how to handle cyber-bullying, and being courteous in online communication. I will also follow Buffy Hamilton’s advice and continue to educate my administration and tech personnel about the sites I want unblocked and show how they will improve student engagement and achievement. Most importantly, I need to remind my administration that students need guided instruction and opportunities to learn how to use social media thoughtfully and wisely (Hamilton). We need to give our students as many opportunities as possible to think for themselves, apply what they know and develop good judgment.

My mom is not only one of the greatest people I know, she was also a fantastic teacher for over 30 years. In my own classroom I often think about what makes for a successful student. The answer is often comprised of what my mother gave to me and my sisters – honesty, open dialogue, freedom to explore and many opportunities to build trust by allowing us to think for ourselves and show good judgment. I think we should be enabling our students to do the same.

References

Bell, Mary Ann. (Sept/Oct. 2008). I’m Mad and I’m Not Gonna Take it Anymore! Multimedia & Internet@Schools. p. 37-39.

Hamilton, Buffy. (December 10, 2009). Fighting the Filter. The Unquiet Librarian Blog. Retrieved from: http://theunquietlibrarian.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/fighting-the-filter/

Losinski, Robert. (March 2007). Patrolling Web 2.0. T.H.E Journal. 34 (3), p. 50.

Nelson, Cathy. (October 17, 2009). Filters? A Problem of Complacency? Techno Tuesday Blog. Retrieved from: http://blog.cathyjonelson.com/?p=954

Villano, Matt. (May 2008). What Are We Protecting Them From? T.H.E. Journal. 35 (5), p. 48.

Warlick, David. (July 11, 2009). Filters Work. 2Cents Worth Blog. Retrieved from: http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=1794