Emerging Trends in Cyber Ethics and Education

Ashley Blackburn University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Irene Linlin Chen University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Rebecca Pfeffer University of Houston – Downtown, USA

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2019 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Blackburn, Ashley, 1979- editor. | Chen, Irene Linlin, 1961- editor. | Pfeffer, Rebecca, 1983- editor. Title: Emerging trends in cyber ethics and education / Ashley Blackburn, Irene Linlin Chen, and Rebecca Pfeffer, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017060869| ISBN 9781522559337 (h/c) | ISBN 9781522559344 (eISBN) Subjects: LCSH: Internet in education. | Internet in education--Moral and ethical aspects. | Computer-assisted instruction. | Computer-assisted instruction--Moral and ethical aspects. Classification: LCC LB1044.87 .E546 2019 | DDC 371.33/4--dc23 LC record available at https:// lccn.loc.gov/2017060869

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected]. Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series ISSN:2326-8905 EISSN:2326-8913

Editor-in-Chief: Lawrence A. Tomei, Robert Morris University, USA

Mission Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and distributed to both child and adult learners. From distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of the educational experience and is also affecting the way educators communicate information to students. The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series is a resource where researchers, students, administrators, and educators alike can find the most updated research and theories regarding technology’s integration within education and its effect on teaching as a practice.

Coverage

• Social Media Effects on Education IGI Global is currently accepting • Virtual School Environments manuscripts for publication within this • Higher Education Technologies series. To submit a proposal for a volume in • Collaboration Tools this series, please contact our Acquisition • Curriculum Development Editors at [email protected] or • E-Learning visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/. • Hybrid Learning • Online Media in Classrooms • Bring-Your-Own-Device • Instructional Design

The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances- educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. ©© 2019 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global. Titles in this Series For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678

Curriculum Internationalization and the Future of Education Semire Dikli (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) Brian Etheridge (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) and Richard Rawls (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 360pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522527916) • US $195.00

Handbook of Research on Integrating Technology Into Contemporary Language Learning ... Bin Zou (Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China) and Michael Thomas (University of Central Lancashire, UK) Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 626pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522551409) • US $265.00

Engaging Adolescent Students in Contemporary Classrooms Emerging Research... Prathiba Nagabhushan (St. Mary MacKillop College, Australia) Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 216pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522551553) • US $135.00

Impact of Learning Analytics on Curriculum Design and Student Performance Manoj Kumar Singh (Mekelle University, Ethiopia) Zenawi Zerihun (Mekelle University, Ethiopia) and Neerja Singh (Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, India) Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 215pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522553694) • US $175.00

For an entire list of titles in this series, please visit: https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com List of Reviewers

Franklin Allaire, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Matthew Fugate, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Shohreh Hashemi, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Yu-Han Hung, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Zhi Liu, Central China Normal University, China Richard Alan McMahon, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Joseph O’Brien, University of Kansas, USA Lorayne Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Ash Tiwari, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Tom Winn, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Table of Contents

Preface...... xiii

Acknowledgment...... xxi

Chapter 1 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education...... 1 John Nnaji, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

Chapter 2 Teachers as Models of Internet Use...... 22 Thanh Trúc T. Nguyễn, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA

Chapter 3 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics: A Teacher’s Journey Shifts Direction...... 40 Nicholas Lawrence, East Bronx Academy, USA Joseph O’Brien, University of Kansas, USA Brian Bechard, Mission Trail Middle School, USA Ed Finney, Maple High School, USA Kimberly Gilman, Hocker Grove Middle School, USA

Chapter 4 Cyberbullying: Safety and Ethical Issues Facing K-12 Digital Citizens...... 65 Terry Diamanduros, Georgia Southern University, USA Elizabeth Downs, Georgia Southern University, USA

Chapter 5 Cybercitizens at Schools...... 91 Irene Linlin Chen, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Libi Shen, University of Phoenix, USA

Chapter 6 Intentionally Secure: Teaching Students to Become Responsible and Ethical Users...... 118 Judith L. Lewandowski, Purdue University, USA

Chapter 7 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics: Collaborative Reflection Between School Librarians and Education Technology Learners...... 131 Lesley Farmer, California State University – Long Beach, USA

Chapter 8 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice: Considering the Ethical Implications of Disparities...... 164 Alicia Marie Godoy, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Rebecca Pfeffer, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Chapter 9 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students and Ethical Issues in a University Cloud Classroom System...... 183 Zhi Liu, Central China Normal University, China Hai Liu, Central China Normal University, China Hao Zhang, Central China Normal University, China Sannyuya Liu, Central China Normal University, China

Chapter 10 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning...... 215 Howard A. Doughty, Seneca College, Canada

Chapter 11 Digital Privacy Across Borders: Canadian and American Perspectives...... 234 Lorayne P. Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Heather Leatham, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada James Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Bill Muirhead, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

Compilation of References...... 259

About the Contributors...... 300

Index...... 306 Detailed Table of Contents

Preface...... xiii

Acknowledgment...... xxi

Chapter 1 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education...... 1 John Nnaji, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

The interactivity, flexibility, and convenience offered by information and communication technologies have led to an educational paradigm shift from teacher- centered model to learner-centered whereby computers and the internet allow for active involvement of all participants in the learning process. However, the unbridled dynamics in the growth and features of these technologies poses several ethical challenges in their use in administering the essential goal of education, which is to foster a balanced development of the individual through appropriate knowledge acquisition and experience. This chapter examines various ethical conflicts involved in the prevalent usage of new technologies in virtual education. It argues that technology is malleable by nature. Therefore, fomenting mechanisms that promote transmission of socio-cultural and academic values would serve as a viable approach to resolving peculiar challenges constantly emanating from the use of technology in education.

Chapter 2 Teachers as Models of Internet Use...... 22 Thanh Trúc T. Nguyễn, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA

As the use of computers increases in schools, students’ primary role models in computer use and the internet are their teachers. However, teachers themselves are still learning their way through technology in education and how to best use technology to support student learning. This chapter discusses seven issue areas in relation to cyber ethics and decision making online that go beyond the pedagogy of technology in learning contexts. In particular, the chapter is focused on how teachers

can model and conduct best practices in digital copyright, student privacy, student access, digital citizenship, digital communication, social media and empathy, and digital literacy.

The authors explore a teacher’s 10-year journey to foster his urban middle school students’ public voice and then their ability to engage in participatory politics. The authors first provide a conceptual and experiential context for how the teacher came to question whether cultivating 8th grade students’ online public voice in a U.S. history was enough. Second, they discuss how two teachers created online interschool deliberations about contemporary issues and how a third teacher used low and high tech to enable her students to take civic action. Third, they discuss the essential elements of an online participatory learning space. Fourth, they address the challenges of integrating digital deliberations about contemporary public issues and online civic action into a U.S. history curriculum. Finally, they present how they adapted a site devoted to deliberations about just war in the context of U.S. history to a focus on just action in a contemporary setting.

Chapter 4 Cyberbullying: Safety and Ethical Issues Facing K-12 Digital Citizens...... 65 Terry Diamanduros, Georgia Southern University, USA Elizabeth Downs, Georgia Southern University, USA

This chapter describes cyberbullying with a focus on K-12 students. Cyberbullying has evolved with the increased use of information and communication technology. As electronic information becomes more a part of everyday life, there has been a negative aspect to the use of computers and mobile technology. Cyberbullying presents a complex set of issues that can negatively impact students’ safety and wellbeing. Cyberbullying includes many of the same issues as traditional bullying but extends the aggression beyond the physical schoolyard. In addition to the cyberbully perpetrator, these aggressive acts include cybervictims and often find the cyberbully-victims who move from victim to perpetrator. This chapter explores the safety and ethical issues facing K-12 schools and the challenges associated with this electronic form of aggression.

Chapter 5 Cybercitizens at Schools...... 91 Irene Linlin Chen, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Libi Shen, University of Phoenix, USA

In recent decades, cyberethics, cybersecurity, and cybersafety have been the center of interest at schools. This chapter uses a case study approach to describe the issue of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity (3Cs) as well as how problems of these three Cs are intermingled to become general cyberethics issues for the society. The chapter also promotes good cybercitizens at schools because it is of great importance for the school districts to take some measures to improve students’ knowledge and awareness of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity, to enhance the safety and security of school infrastructure, to avoid cyberbullying, to ensure students are good cybercitizens, and to help train teachers to be cyber professionals.

Chapter 6 Intentionally Secure: Teaching Students to Become Responsible and Ethical Users...... 118 Judith L. Lewandowski, Purdue University, USA

This chapter focuses upon the need to intentionally incorporate the principles of digital citizenship as an integrated curriculum element. Specifically, the infusion of information security and cyberethics principles should occur at the same time and rate as the use of technology within the educational setting. Through the development of a universal curriculum set, the author provides a content list and sample strategies for making these issues a natural part of the curricular goals of these courses.

This chapter explains how case studies can be used successfully in higher education to provide an authentic, interactive way to teach ethical behavior through critical analysis and decision making while addressing ethical standards and theories. The creation and choice of case studies is key for optimum learning, and can reflect both the instructor’s and learners’ knowledge base. The process for using this approach is explained, and examples are provided. As a result of such practice, learners support each other as they come to a deeper, co-constructed understanding of ethical behavior, and they make more links between coursework and professional lives. The instructor reviews the students’ work to determine the degree of understanding and internalization of ethical concepts/applications, and to identify areas that need further instruction.

This chapter provides an overview of the findings from a study of students at a four- year university who were surveyed about their experiences learning in both online and face-to-face modalities. While some students reported perceived equitableness between their experiences in online and face-to-face classes, there were some findings that demonstrated the need for further inquiry. Of note, the majority (61%) of students indicated that they learned more or much more in face-to-face classes than online. Students in online classes were also much less likely to make use of faculty office hours or, in some cases, to even have contact with their professors at all. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the ethical issues corresponding to the disparity between online and traditional learning modalities.

In a private learning environment, each learner’s interactions with course contents are treasured clues for educators to understand the individual and collective learning process. To provide educators with evidence-based insights, this chapter intends to adopt sequential analysis method to unfold learning behavioral differences among different groups of students (grade, subject, and registration type) in a university cloud classroom system. Experimental results indicate that sophomores undertake more learning tasks than other grades. There are significant differences in task-related and self-monitoring behaviors between liberal arts and science learners. Registered learners have higher participation levels than non-registered ones. Meanwhile, a user study aiming to analyze students’ learning feelings indicates that a fraction of students have dishonest behaviors for achieving a good online performance. Finally, this study discusses behavioral ethical issues emerged in cloud classroom, which deserve the attention of educators for regulating and optimizing the online learning process of students.

Chapter 10 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning...... 215 Howard A. Doughty, Seneca College, Canada

Cybernetics is the science of communications and control. It has been applied to everything from household thermostats to non-verbal communication. Ethics is the study of beliefs about right and wrong thought and behavior. The synthetic subfield of cyberethics deals with the application of ethics to the technologies and practices of cybernetics. This chapter will explore a definition of cybernetics that goes beyond its association with computers, information networks, and the rights, roles, and responsibilities of people involved in information technology. This more adventuresome approach will embrace broader themes in education and offer insights into the “box” outside of which we are relentlessly being told to think.

This chapter examines digital privacy and key terminology associated with the protection of online personal information across two countries and through an education lens. The authors raise awareness of the identified risks for students as their online presence grows. The authors highlight some of the potential consequences of a lack of awareness of the risks associated with sharing information online. They outline the obligations of multiple parties (from the vendor to the end user) when students use online apps, including the teachers and parents who want to protect students’ digital privacy. Employing policy analysis and a comparative approach, they examine federal, national, and local legislation, as well as curriculum responses to this issue in the USA and Canada. When the authors compare federal policy responses from these two countries, they find that they differ in instructive ways. The chapter concludes with a focus on risk abatement, including solutions and recommendations.

Compilation of References...... 259

About the Contributors...... 300

Index...... 306 xiii

Preface

Most students today, whether in elementary schools, secondary schools, or postsecondary colleges or universities, have grown up with ample access to technology, both in their personal lives and as an integrated part of their learning (Taylor & Steele, 2014). While the integration of technology in classrooms adds new dimension to both teaching and learning, it has another very important function: creating a foundation of knowledge of technology-based skills that will be imperative for students’ future participation in workplaces that are increasingly digital. With the rapid increase in the use of digital technologies in classrooms and workplaces worldwide, it is important that part of the training that takes place for students is how to be good cyber citizens, who are ethical in the decisions that they make and in their interactions with others across digital platforms. Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of what is wrong and what is right and how we ought to live (Banks, 2017). Ethics help to form the moral principles that people in society utilize to make decisions about behavior. Cyber ethics, then, is a branch of ethics concerned with behavior in an online environment. Topics of particular concern related to cyber ethics in a school setting include plagiarism or any other appropriation of other people’s intellectual property (Baum, 2005), cyber bullying (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008) or any other use of a computer to harm others, and the use of technology to access resources that one should not access, such as the answer key to a textbook. These same concerns apply to the framework of cyber ethics outside of an educational setting, where there are additional concerns such as interfering with other people’s online work or computer files, accessing other people’s computer files or email without permission, or any other general use of computers or the Internet in ways that do not show respect for other people. Concern about moral behavior in the digital sphere permeate most institutions with a presence online. As a result, it is increasingly common for individuals and organizations to develop and circulate standards for ethical digital behavior (Herschel & Andrews, 1997). One such set of standards that has been widely adopted and adapted is “The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics,” developed by the Computer Ethics Institute (1996). These guidelines are as follows: Preface

1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people. 2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work. 3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people’s computer files. 4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal. 5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness. 6. Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid. 7. Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization or proper compensation. 8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people’s intellectual output. 9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing. 10. Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your fellow humans.

In this digital age, professions and academic disciplines alike have developed codes of ethics that guide professional decision-making and behavior. Harshman and colleagues (2005) explored how standards for technology-related professional practice have been adapted and implemented and how professions have dealt with the impact the Internet has had on the ability to abide by these standards and keep “professional imposters” from harming the public. To this point, while codes of ethics, and even, to an extent, training on ethics, may exist in schools and the workplace, they are at times not enough to stop someone who is likely to behave in an immoral way. In addition, some may argue that the use of technology-enhanced learning can be in itself unethical. There have been numerous recent examples of cyber and white-collar crimes nationwide and across our global society, as the Internet knows no borders. One of the more common forms of these crimes is using someone else’s personal information for profit. This could be a credit card number, a social security number, passwords, or other information offenders can use to “steal” another’s identity for financial gain. Phishing schemes and hacking into the servers of large corporations or data management systems allow offenders access to such information. As described by Harshman and colleagues (2005), offenders can also use the Internet to pose as a professional consultant and provide illegitimate services to unwitting victims. Like educators and educational administrators, legislators have had a difficult time keeping pace with this ever-changing landscape of criminality, especially that which happens on the “dark web.” The profession of security management, for which there are now undergraduate and graduate programs, is an example of how society has adapted to cyber and other white-collar criminals. Not only should students be aware of crimes, such as identity theft and fraud, in academic settings, they should also be taught that these acts are unethical, harmful, and can potentially lead them to involvement with xiv Preface the criminal justice system. After all, it may be the academic setting where they are learning what may ultimately be used as the “tools of the cyber criminal trade,” such as coding, online systems management, or other technology-based skills. Cyberbullying has also recently made news, especially when such acts end in the victim committing suicide. In 2010, Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge in New York after a roommate posted private behavior recorded by web cam on Twitter without Mr. Clementi’s consent (The New York Times, 2012). Often, it is only after the suicide that loved ones find out how bad online bullying had been for the victim. Social media provides 24-hour access and the Internet can provide the anonymity needed for someone to commit acts of harassment and bullying with little chance of negative repercussions. These acts can even happen within the online learning environment as students have access to and can comment on one another’s ideas or works in progress. Ultimately, anyone can be a victim of this crime and while nearly all states have laws against bullying, not all have specific language regarding cyberbullying. Here again, the law has yet to keep up with the reality of online social interaction. Cyber ethical frameworks can and should be a growing part of knowledge acquisition at every level of educational attainment. The more sophisticated the environment, the more complex issues of cyber ethics, teaching cyber ethics, and the consequences of immoral online behavior can be discussed. These discussions should no longer be optional. Instead, given that our students are now digital natives, educators across the globe should spend time teaching their students about cybercitizenship, netiquette, and how we can make the online environment a safer place for all.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTENT IN THIS BOOK

Even in education, too often, we are seeing students as well as adults, including educators, misusing and abusing technology. Because so many events are recorded online, trust and norms are becoming of great importance for technology users. The role of cyber ethics starts as soon as one clicks on the Internet. Cyber ethics, sometimes called “digital wellness” or “digital citizenship,” is important not only in the United States but all around the world. Several education associations have started to see the problems associated with cyber ethics and the needs to update the curriculum for the sake of preventive education to raise public awareness. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is the most commonly referred to in schools and colleges across the United States and even worldwide for technology curriculum. The latest addition to the ISTE Standards for Students (2016) describes the expectation for the Digital Citizen as follows:

xv Preface

Students recognize the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living, learning and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal and ethical.

The ISTE Standards for Educators (2017) has the following new expectation for teachers:

Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world. Educators:

3a. Create experiences for learners to make positive, socially responsible contributions and exhibit empathetic behavior online that build relationships and community.

3b. Establish a learning culture that promotes curiosity and critical examination of online resources and fosters digital literacy and media fluency.

3c. Mentor students in safe, legal and ethical practices with digital tools and the protection of intellectual rights and property.

3d. Model and promote management of personal data and digital identity and protect student data privacy.

The interactivity, flexibility, and convenience offered by information and communication technologies have led to an educational paradigm shift from a teacher-centered model to one that is learner-centered whereby computers and the Internet allow for active involvement of all participants in the learning process. However, the unbridled dynamics in the growth and features of these technologies pose several ethical challenges in their use in administering the essential goal of education, which is to foster a balanced development of the individual through appropriate knowledge acquisition and experience. In the beginning chapter of the book, “Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education,” Nnaji examines various ethical conflicts involved in the prevalent usage of new technologies in virtual education. He argues that technology is malleable by nature and that fomenting mechanisms that promote transmission of socio-cultural and academic values serve as viable approaches to resolving peculiar challenges constantly emanating from the use of technology in education. This beginning chapter on the ethical dimensions of the increasing usage of new technologies is followed by a number of chapters regarding cyber ethics in K-12 education settings. Being responsible and respectful when using the Internet is

xvi Preface important for all teachers and students at schools as teachers play a critical role in prevention education. As the use of computers increases in schools, students’ primary role models in computer and Internet usage are their teachers. However, teachers themselves are still learning how to best implement technology in education and how best to use technology to support student learning. In the chapter, “Teachers as Models of Internet Use,” Nguyễn, an educator at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, discusses seven areas in relation to cyber ethics and decision-making online that go beyond the pedagogy of technology in learning contexts. In particular, Nguyễn’s chapter is focused on how teachers can model and conduct best practices in educating students about digital copyright, student privacy, student access, digital citizenship, digital communication, social media and empathy, and digital literacy. The authors, including one university faculty member and four education practitioners, of the chapter “Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics: A Teacher’s Journey Shifts Direction” explore a teacher’s ten-year journey to foster his urban middle school students’ public voice and then their ability to engage in participatory politics. The authors first provide a conceptual and experiential context for how the teacher came to question whether cultivating 8th grade students’ online public voice in a U.S. history course was enough. Second, they discuss how two teachers created online interschool deliberations about contemporary issues and how a third teacher used low- and high-tech practices to enable her students to take civic action. The authors then discuss the essential elements of an online participatory learning space and address the challenges of integrating digital deliberations about contemporary public issues and online civic action into a U.S. history curriculum. Finally, the authors present how they adapted a site devoted to deliberations about just war in the context of U.S. history to a focus on just action in a contemporary setting. Cyberbullying arises when a student is threatened, humiliated, harassed, embarrassed, or targeted by another student. The chapter, “Cyberbullying: Safety and Ethical Issues Facing K-12 Digital Citizens,” written by Diamanduros and Downs describes cyberbullying with a focus on K-12 students. Cyberbullying has evolved with the increased use of information and communication technology. As electronic information becomes more a part of everyday life, negative consequences accompany the positive and useful advantages of computers and mobile technology. Cyberbullying presents a complex set of issues that can negatively impact students’ safety and well-being. Cyberbullying includes many of the same issues as traditional bullying but extends the aggression beyond the physical schoolyard. As we find with other crimes types, unfortunately, in some circumstances, cybervictims may, in turn, become cyberbullies themselves. This chapter explores the safety and ethical issues facing K-12 schools and the challenges associated with this electronic form of aggression.

xvii Preface

In recent decades, cyberethics, cybersecurity, and cybersafety have been the center of interest at schools. Chen and Shen’s chapter, “Cybercitizens at Schools,” uses a case study approach to describe the issue of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity (3Cs) as well as how problems related to these 3Cs are intermingled to become general cyberethics issues for society. The chapter also promotes good cybercitizenship at schools because it is of great importance for school districts to take measures to improve students’ knowledge and awareness of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity, to enhance the safety and security of school infrastructure, to avoid cyberbullying, to ensure students are good cybercitizens, and to help train teachers to be cyber professionals. Lewandowski of Purdue University echoes Chen and Shen’s call for cybercitizenship education in the K-12 context in her chapter, “Intentionally Secure: Teaching Students to Become Responsible and Ethical Users,” which focuses upon the need to intentionally incorporate the principles of digital citizenship as an integrated curriculum element. She proposes that specifically, the infusion of information security and cyberethics principles should occur at the same time and rate as the use of technology within the educational setting. Through the development of a Universal Curriculum Set, the author provides a content list and sample strategies for making these issues a natural part of the curricular goals of these courses. Moving forward from the K-12 setting to the university setting, in “Learner- Developed Case Studies on Ethics: Collaborative Reflection Between School Librarians and Education Technology Learners,” Farmer explains how case studies can be used successfully in higher education to provide an authentic, interactive way to teach ethical behavior through critical analysis and decision-making while addressing ethical standards and theories. Numerous case study examples are provided throughout the chapter. Following, Godoy and Pfeffer’s chapter, “Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice: Considering the Ethical Implications of Disparities,” provides an overview of the findings from an empirical study of students at a four-year university who were surveyed about their experiences learning in both online and face-to-face modalities. While some students reported perceived equitableness between their experiences in online and face-to-face classes, there were some findings that demonstrated the need for further inquiry. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the ethical issues corresponding to the disparity between online and traditional learning modalities. Due to their dynamic nature, cyber ethics issues transcend age groups, national borders, and geographical barriers. Continuing on the university level, in the chapter titled, “Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students and Ethical Issues in a University Cloud Classroom System,” Liu and colleagues describe how, in a private

xviii Preface learning environment, each learner’s interactions with course content are treasured clues for educators to understand individual and collective learning processes. To provide educators with evidence-based insights, the authors adopt a sequential analysis method to unfold learning behavioral differences among different groups of students in a university Cloud Classroom system. The authors further discuss behavioral ethical issues emerging in the Cloud Classroom, which deserve attention of educators for purposes of regulating and optimizing the process of online learning among university students. Doughty’s chapter, “Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Mediated Learning,” examines cyber ethics through the lens of a social scientist. He explores not only what lies behind the theory and practice of cybernetics as a mode of communication, but also how to understand larger questions of systems theory that bind ethical systems to one another and cybernetics to other fields. The chapter inquiries into how cybernetics relates to learning theory and technologically mediated learning practices and how universities can best serve their students through the use of technology. In the final chapter of the book, “Digital Privacy Across Borders: Canadian and American Perspectives,” Roberson and colleagues examine digital privacy and key terminology associated with the protection of online personal information across two countries and through an educational lens. The authors raise awareness of the identified risks for students as their online presence grows. They outline the obligations of multiple parties from the vendor to the end user when students use online applications, and include perspectives of the teachers and parents who want to protect students’ digital privacy. Employing policy analysis and a comparative approach, they examine federal, national, and local legislation, as well as curriculum responses to this issue in the USA and Canada. When the authors compare federal policy responses from these two countries, they find that they differ in instructive ways. The chapter concludes with a focus on risk abatement, including solutions and recommendations. This chapter serves the purpose of eloquently wrapping up this text by highlighting the potential consequences of a lack of awareness and the threats associated with cyber ethics which result from users’ information sharing and other online behaviors.

REFERENCES

Banks, C. (2017). Criminal Justice Ethics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Baum, J. J. (2005). Cyberethics: The new frontier. TechTrends, 49(6), 54–55. doi:10.1007/BF02763731

xix Preface

Computer Ethics Institute. (1996). The ten commandments of computer ethics. Computer Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cpsr.org/dox/cei.html DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217–223. doi:10.1089/ cpb.2007.0008 PMID:18422417 Harshman, E., Gilsinan, J., Fisher, J., & Yeager, F. (2005). Professional ethics in a virtual world: The impact of the Internet on traditional notions of professionalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 227–236. doi:10.100710551-005-1417-4 Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H. (1997). Ethical implications of technological advances on business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 160–170. doi:10.1177/002194369703400203 International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). National education technology standards and performance indicators for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). National education technology standards and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators Taylor, J., & Steele, R. (2014). Impact and evolution of technology in college unions. New Directions for Student Services, 145(145), 57–68. doi:10.1002s.20080 The New York Times. (2012). Tyler Clementi. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes. com/topic/person/tyler-clementi

xx xxi

Acknowledgment

First, the editors would like to thank each one of the chapter authors for their unique and important contributions to this text. We appreciate their expertise and the time they dedicated to this project.

Second, the editors would like to acknowledge each of the content reviewers for the valuable feedback they provided, enhancing the quality and coherence of each chapter. Some of the referees reviewed more than one chapter and some of our authors also served as referees. We especially thank them for taking on these dual roles in the preparation of this text.

Ashley Blackburn University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Irene Linlin Chen University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Rebecca Pfeffer University of Houston – Downtown, USA 1

Chapter 1 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

John Nnaji University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

ABSTRACT The interactivity, flexibility, and convenience offered by information and communication technologies have led to an educational paradigm shift from teacher-centered model to learner-centered whereby computers and the internet allow for active involvement of all participants in the learning process. However, the unbridled dynamics in the growth and features of these technologies poses several ethical challenges in their use in administering the essential goal of education, which is to foster a balanced development of the individual through appropriate knowledge acquisition and experience. This chapter examines various ethical conflicts involved in the prevalent usage of new technologies in virtual education. It argues that technology is malleable by nature. Therefore, fomenting mechanisms that promote transmission of socio-cultural and academic values would serve as a viable approach to resolving peculiar challenges constantly emanating from the use of technology in education.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch001

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

INTRODUCTION

One of the major areas where modern educational technologies have brought tremendous transformation is in the area of virtual education, also known as distance learning. Virtual education is the process whereby student learning processes occur in circumstances where the educator and the student are geographically separated, and the communication across this distance is accomplished by one or more forms of technology (Loane, 2001). Web and computer innovations have created increased opportunities in distance learning. Innovations such as Web 2.0 have largely been assimilated into the educational settings due to its ability to promote a more collaborative education whereby students could have a public space to interact with one another and content of the class. Recent years have witnessed enormous increase in its use and application for course work and academic purposes (Brown, 2012). Web 2.0 has been efficient in fostering learning habits like engagement, encouragement of autonomy, intentionality, reflection and community among students (Chen, Lambert & Guidry, 2010; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009). Studies have shown that it not only helps in fostering student learning but it also enhances academic performance and teacher-student interaction (Hrastinski & Aghaee, 2012; Junco Heiberger & Loken, 2011; Mazman & Usluel, 2010). However, the growing influx of new technologies in virtual education has generated new dimensions to the ethical challenges witnessed in integrating technology into the learning process and achieving desired outcome. There are issues relating to identity and confidentiality, surveillance and plagiarism etc. A representative national sample of 2,142 adults aged 18 years or older surveyed in the United States showed that only 29% agree that a course taken only online provides an equal educational value compared with a course taken in person in a classroom. The remaining sixty percent disapproved online taught courses as having equal educational value as physical classroom taught courses (Parker et al., 2011, 11). More still, roughly nine out of ten presidents of colleges (89%) believe that computers and the internet have played a major role in the increase in plagiarism on papers over the past decade (Parker, Lenhart & Moore, 2011, 17). Unlike the cheating systems prior to the advent of the internet, facilities provided by internet and computer technologies have made cheating much easier in online courses (Chiesl, 2007; Young, 2010). Other ethical challenges concern big data, whereby data mining is used as a tool for surveillance and control. Regrettably, not many students know that once any data is put on the internet it stays permanently regardless of the effects it might have on the subject of the data. One of the major ethical challenges with data mining in higher education is that it mostly analyses students as a collective and hardly recognizes that they are unique individuals engaging in the learning process. Likewise, the complex algorithms developed by scientists to mine data are uncritically accepted as fact just

2 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education because they were developed by them without considering the ethical challenges and burden such practice has on the learning process (Johnson, 2014). Besides, research has shown that most of the data clustering algorithms used in data mining are uncertainty-based and are not effective in big data (Tripathy, Seetha, & Murty, 2018, 1). Most privacy issues in online education are directly linked to big data. Hence, these ethical challenges created by prevalent usage of new technologies in online education requires perennial mechanisms on situating the desirable balance between the social surround and digital surround in education (Nnaji, 2012, 45). This chapter examines ethical issues such as digital plagiarism, illegal copying of copyrighted media, accuracy of information, breaches of informational privacy and confidentiality in the use of new technologies in virtual education. It argues that though these technologies have the potential for promoting collaborative learning and enhancing academic performance, such potentials would hardly be realised without sufficient ongoing professional development of teachers’ and instructors’ ICT skills on best ways to integrate them into teaching and administration. If teachers are not equipped with the required skills to effectively integrate the capabilities of the new technologies into their teaching methods the learning process will be adversely affected in two significant ways. Firstly, these technologies would remain underutilized. Secondly, their misuse will promote plagiarism, property right infringement and predatory behaviours among students thereby undermining the transmission of genuine academic and socio-cultural values. Finally, the chapter commences with an explanation of distance learning and the modes of technology usage in learning. It continues with an illustration of the expansion of ´new technologies´ in distance learning, using the term ´new technologies´ to refer to web and computer technological innovations simultaneously. Ethical issues concerning their increased use in learning are analysed. Also, how challenges in virtual education contribute to techno-ethical issues are highlighted. Then, the importance of readjusting the objectives of learning technologies and understanding that technologies are mere tools incapable of taking the place of teachers and students in the learning process is discussed.

E-Learning

Even though formal university-based distance education started over a century ago with the establishment of the Correspondence University in 1882 by Cornell University, it was not until the 1990´s that the emergence of technology-enhanced distance education emerged. Correspondence courses are characterized as one or more courses in which the institution provides instructional materials and examinations are issued via mail to students who are separated from the instructor. However, with the expansion of computer and web technologies, e-learning has become the most recent

3 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education trend in technology-mediated education. Learning program and materials are hosted and available online, allowing students to learn, interact, and even earn degrees in the comfort of their own homes (Chapman, 2009, 1280). The integration of computers and web technologies into the learning system has allowed teachers and students to have access to a large world of information and experience beyond the classroom. It opens up great opportunities for learning by enabling learners to access, extend, transform and share ideas and information in multi-modal communication styles and format. Clark and Mayer (2011) define e-learning as instruction delivered by any technological mode intended to promote learning. They state that, “e-learning courses include both content (that is, information) and instructional methods (that is, techniques) that help people learn the content,” (p. 9). The use of technology in distance education tends to foster four major objectives which include: intensification of the educational process; increasing the efficiency of education, i.e, the criteria of evaluating results; facilitating access to quality education; and provision of additional skills unavailable through traditional methods. The achievement of these objectives has invariably determined the modes of use of technology in online education. These technologies are used as communication, archival, expository and exploratory medium respectively. As communication medium, they provide the facility for communications that could be both one-to-one and/or one-to-many, both synchronous and/or asynchronous. They guarantee free and rapid dissemination of ideas and information. Advancement of the internet and spread of personal computers have made individuals to become active disseminators of information. It is a development that has created a profound shift in the control of information sharing in a society, which used to be the sole right of governments, schools and organisations. Hence, students can readily access any kind of information with just a click on the internet. However, there are ethical concerns regarding the type of information, not just the enormity of information the internet makes available to students, and how such information contributes to their intellectual and personal development. As archival medium, these technologies offer the ability to search multivariate data rapidly and efficiently. It is now relatively easy to collect and compile data of all sorts very readily. However, as archival medium, they generate diverse ethical dilemmas regarding intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is the term used to describe works of the mind such as art, books, films, formulas, inventions, music and processes which are distinct, owned or created by a single person or group. It is protected through copyright, patent and trade secret laws. Before the advent of the internet, a student might painfully copy a paragraph or two from any reference book or works of authors while writing an essay or term-paper. But now all software tools for writing offer the user the ability to cut, copy, and paste whole blocks of text from essentially any source that can be displayed on a computer screen. Such development

4 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education breaches the sort of academic integrity and values genuine education should uphold. These are values that are essential for the development of the individual and include honesty, objectivity, fairness, trust, collegiality, respect, accuracy, thoroughness, independence, openness, curiosity and responsibility (Brey, 2006, 92). As expository medium, they present curricular materials to the user-learner, and try to assess how well the presented materials have been absorbed and understood. The motive for this kind of use derives from the assumption that computers and internet can deliver instruction to students at their own pace and in a way that reflects their idiosyncratic needs and backgrounds. But how does their use as didactic device delivering instruction impact better values than the grouping of students such that they interact socially with one another? Would not a profound learning experience, which includes the transmission of academic, cultural and social values, require real-world settings in which people engage in face-to-face interaction? Dreyfus (2001, 32) illustrated that “the American Federation of Teachers ….critical of the sterility of distance learning, noted, ´All our experience as educators tells us that teaching and learning in the shared human spaces of a campus are essential to the undergraduate experience.” As exploratory medium, the new technologies help the users to explore the breadth and depth of their own understanding of a subject. Appropriately crafted software environments that allow students to make and explore conjectures can lead to profoundly different views of the subject. Such unguided exposure could undermine the authority of the teacher as an educator. Hence, the question remains what authority would a teacher have when such exploratory tools make it possible for students to generate knowledge for themselves, possibly even knowledge that is new to the teacher? In addition to the ethical challenges mentioned, a new cluster of issues relating to the increase in proliferation of learning management systems and lack of professional use of these technologies have expanded the scope of research on ethical issues of distance learning. Therefore, there is need for an active and continuous response to what values these learning technologies should embody or promote. Who should have access? What social or personal interests should the electronic connections they allow serve (Johnson & Nissenbaum, 1995, 531)?

Influx of Learning Technologies

A 2014 market report on the learning management systems (LMS) market showed how the industry has grown rapidly over short period. The same year, the market grew by over 21% and was made up of at least 350 systems worth over $2.5 billion. Most learning management systems were 4-7 years old and 61% of companies planned on replacing their learning platforms in a short period of time (Bersin, 2014).

5 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

An LMS is a software application used to plan, implement, and assess specific learning process. It helps teachers to deliver content, administer tests, monitor student participation, track student progress, evaluate student performance, and manage records. According to Chapman (2009, 1280), “A learning management system (LMS) is Web-based software solution to simplify the administration of learning programs.” LMSs provide each student with a portal so that the student receives curriculum information aimed directly at him or her. Most learning programs now hosted or made available online are mainly conducted on these popular LMS softwares such as Moodle, Edmodo, Blackboard, SkillSoft, Schoology, Cornerstone, Instructure, Collaborize Classroom, D2L, SuccessFactors (SAP), Litmos, DigitalChalk, Interactyx, Docebo, Meridian Knowledge Solutions, Latitude Learning, Educadium, Rcampus, eLogic Learning and BIS Training Solutions. Even though the characteristics of good LMSs like the first four mentioned above might differ, they make planning of courses easier, bring digital communication between students and teachers into one easy platform, and allow teachers to incorporate any form of media they want into each class and assignment. A recent report by TMR Research shows that LMSs have increased from 350 they used to be in 2014 to 600 LMSs in 2017. “Each system possesses unique features to meet the needs of a number of educational and training programs,” (TMR, 2017, para 4.). An increase in LMS usage in institutions and e-learning platforms is not the only force behind this market growth. Rapid advancements in wearable e-learning technologies and gadgets are also playing very pivotal role. The proliferation of mobile devices such as tablets, smartphones, and laptops has further facilitated the incorporation of learning management systems in schools and distance learning programs due to their capability to make access to the systems easier and unlimited. Mobile technology possesses great potential in offering rich multimedia experiences and resources of a varied nature while enabling students to learn without being restricted by time or location in both formal and informal educational settings (Lam, Yau, & Cheung, 2010; Milrad, et al., 2013). However, while utilization of mobile LMSs in tertiary education is still in its early state (Park, 2011; Cheon et

Table 1. Upward trend in LMS market growth

Estimated number of LMSs in 2020 Year No. of LMSs Growth rate in 3 years (%) by 71% rate 2014 350 71% 1,026 2017 600

6 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education al., 2012), its effectiveness in supplementing formal learning still remain an issue (Gikas & Grant, 2013). With the overwhelming increase in the number of LMSs and their use in education it would be expected that the role of the teacher as a monitor to digital classroom becomes easier and better. However, there is no evidence that shows commensurate growth in teachers’ ability to use them and also act as mentors in ensuring adequate individual consumption of content by students from vast digital curricula resources available. Therefore, the enormous challenges in coping with the influx of LMSs in distance learning have little to do with the immensity of content sources they provide than the changing role of the teacher in relation to administering these contents. Mostly, the gap between incessant expansion of these technologies and the lack of teachers´ proficiency in administering learning through them provides space for digital plagiarism and property right infringement to flourish. In addition to the challenges teachers have to deal with in mastering the LMS is the increasing dynamics in the development and improvement of the features of the LMSs. In 2010, Moodle lunched its Joule 2.0 platform which includes collaborative tools and social networking that exists outside of Facebook (i.e plagiarism checker, outcome- based student evaluations etc). Its third-party plug-ins like web conferencing and e-portfolios are much like the features of web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 will be explained briefly to illustrate its features and highlight the ethical challenges their usage in distance learning pose.

Web 2.0 Technologies

The term Web 2.0 emerged as a result of new ideas in web-related technologies and website services. It refers to an interactive and social web facilitating collaboration between people. According to Tim O´Reilly who popularised it in 2004, it indicates a strategic positioning of the web as ‘platform’ whereby users control their own data, allowing for remixable data source and data transformations, harnessing collective intelligence, creating services rather than packaged software and serving as architecture of participation (O´Reilly, 2005). This change in the use of World Wide Web technology has led to the development and evolution of Web-based communities and hosted services such as social-networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), wikis, blogs, etc. Rather than a change in technical specifications, Web 2.0 is an evolution of web use from passive viewing of content to more active participation, creation and sharing of content by users. Its incorporation in learning has greatly led to a shift from the traditional role of teachers as transmitters of knowledge and experts to facilitators of knowledge and collaborators. Likewise, its social aspects of easy communication, coordination and online self-expression make it quite appealing to young learners. It synchronises

7 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education well with required learning delivery and curricula in virtual education. Its features like folksonomy (free classification of information), authoring, easy search, and extensions allow for open/flexible delivery and inquiry based curricula unlike the rigid delivery (fixed time and space) and facts cramming phenomenon traditional classroom imposes. Greenhow and Robelia (2009) describe how the use of MySpace gave students the feeling that their creative work had been validated and appreciated, and that they were supported by peer alumni and encouraged in class related tasks. Principally, Web 2.0 offers students new opportunities to take more control of their learning and create customized information, resources tools, and services. Web 2.0 technologies like weblogs and wikis give teachers and students a public space to interact with one another or add to the information published there (Richardson, 2010, 9). However, the joint production of text that Web 2.0 facilitates do generate ethical conflicts regarding privacy, accuracy and intellectual property right.

Privacy

Trust forms the basis of privacy and is the prized currency of social media. However, it is mostly violated. Construction of text on social media such as Facebook or MySpace is usually meant for different purposes and audiences than the classroom. Hence, serious privacy issue arises when texts students access or bring to class are an assemblage of texts from authors that include different people in different discussion settings who have not provided permission for their texts to be disclosed in a classroom environment. Besides, “Many adolescents who use personal journal sites like Xanga and MySpace include full names, addresses, and provocative pictures of themselves, behaviour that can only increase their chances of getting into trouble,” (Richardson, 2010, 12). There is hardly clear distinction between what private data is and what is public with regard to the social media. What is often perceived as public by participants in a social network could be different from what is publicly available on the internet (Rosenberg, 2010). Big data gives permanent status to any information put on the internet and students do not fully understand the conditions of information they share online nor the long-term implications of posting certain information to social media. The very nature of the social media continuously decontextualises and recontextualises personal information, leaving it “out of context” and available to misinterpretation (Mayer-Schönberger, 2009, 13). Hence, there is a serious ethical challenge in maintaining a balance between the benefits of students taking ownership of the work they publish online and their privacy. Privacy issues have been a prevalent factor hindering the acceptance and use of the social media in education by many institutions. A 2013 report on a ¨Social Media in Higher Education¨ survey conducted by Pearson Learning Solutions in collaboration

8 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education with Babson Survey Research Group showed that most faculty participants indicated privacy and the integrity of student submissions as the major barriers to faculty use of social media in teaching. It states, “Over 72 percent report that ¨lack of integrity of student submissions¨ is an ¨important¨ or ¨very important¨ barrier, and 63 percent say ¨privacy concerns¨ are an ¨important¨ or ¨very important¨ barrier,” (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013, 16). This concern indicates that the integrity of an academic work which accords it appropriate authority is not adequately guaranteed by the social media. The reason is that there is no paramount trust on such media capability to ensure the privacy of users and authenticity of information generated.

Intellectual Property Right

Web 2.0 is a wide participation platform, which allows for user-generated content, whereby a community of people share common interests, ideas and information over the internet. However, it does not have required mechanism for sufficient acknowledgement of owners of the information and ideas shared. The identity of the owner of the information or idea is mostly lost in the common identity of ‘content creators.’ There is not sufficient information on who owns materials placed in social media. Besides, accrediting ideas on social media can be very difficult. These challenges explain why accidental misuse of information and inadvertent plagiarism on social media could easily be forgiven than in academic journals and books. However, such permissiveness questions the essence of incorporating the social media in the classroom in the first place when there is not a common and grounded trust on the integrity of its content.

Accuracy

The era of Web 2.0 technology has witnessed unprecedented proliferation of ‘fake information’ as a result of the anonymity it mostly accords its contributors. Due to its speed and easy access, inaccurate contents generated through it are easily shared and received before they are detected or corrected. Just as the internet has become a mass medium and searching the Web a daily activity for everyone from children to research scientists, the availability of online material that is unreliable, unproven, or incomplete has burgeoned (Marchionini, 2006, 41). Invariably, such trend vitiates the trust on the authority and authenticity of information they contain. The basis of authority of an information lies on the trust on its authenticity. If the mechanisms of these new technologies undermine this trust, there is need to reconsider the extent and their mode of deployment in distance learning. The anonymity these technologies offer their users create serious identity conflicts which further complicates the issue of trust on the accuracy of information. For

9 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education instance, in a virtual community of students using weblog or podcast to discuss class content it could be difficult to ascertain the true identities of the participants as parents and friends could hide under the guise of students to comment for their own in the group. Nevertheless, an interesting advantage of such anonymity is that some people only feel they can be themselves when online. This is because they feel relieved of the shreds of prejudice their physical form might cause them, either because their immediate peer group cannot accept their true nature or their sense of self is at odds with their physical form. In this sense, their anonymity in such platform grants them the liberty for genuine collaborative interaction.

Challenges of a Digital Classroom

The way teaching and learning in a digital classroom takes place is different from the traditional classroom. The transition from traditional teacher-student relationships and roles to virtual ones presents diverse challenges which mostly contribute to techno-ethical issues in distance learning. Students complain about their lack of knowledge of information and communication technology (ICT) and state that teachers provide little support in that area (Drent & Meelissan, 2008). It implies that distance learners who have teachers with ICT expertise would achieve more from the digital resources than those who do not. Having access to the digital resources that new technologies provide does not automatically translate to improving learning. Teachers’ support is still required for adequate assimilation of the information provided in them. Unfortunately, while there are prolific reports on the market growth of new technologies and their increased usage in virtual education there are very few reports on simultaneous advancement of teachers’ performance with them. The idea behind the introduction and adoption of technology innovations in distance learning is to improve learning and enhance the roles of the participants. However, such objectives would be defeated when teachers have to deal with technologies which inversely inhibit learning rather than facilitate due to their incapability in administering them properly. The gap between the expansion of new technologies in distance learning and low level of teachers’ proficiency in using them creates a new form of digital divide. A few years ago, the problem of digital divide was between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. But due to the affordability of many information technologies today, the digital divide has become more about closing the gap between using the resources appropriately to obtain quality educational outcomes than not having access to the technology (Bernard, 2011). Students who know how or have teachers who know how to help them achieve quality learning experience through these technologies would definitely gain a better education than those who do not. The digital divide only changes its

10 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education form in creating inequality of opportunities for learners. Apart from the technical aspect of digital divide in distance learning, there is also a cultural aspect. Distance learning is supposed be an essential tool in achieving inclusive education because it transcends geographical, social, linguistic and cultural limits. However, in some cases it generates cultural and contextual difficulties. For instance, various websites used in distance learning are made for local needs by designers in a particular context and culture, but visited by people of other cultures. Such phenomenon leads to cultural alienation and misunderstanding whereby contents considered inoffensive by one group are seen as very offensive by another. Therefore, online courses aiming for cross-cultural participation must be designed and facilitated in ways that enhance culturally inclusive learning (McLoughlin, 1999). The functionality and usefulness of ICT are key factors in student usage. Pituch and Lee (2006) observed that systems’ characteristics and their perceived functionality are the determining factors on students’ use of a LMS. However, availability of a good and efficient LMS is not sufficient to sustain students’ interest in using them. It remains the responsibility of the instructor or course designer to create the right online environment where students would want to learn and feel successful. Most times, e-learning environments lack a variety of communication options creating an unwelcoming online learning atmosphere (Hastie et al., 2010). They require teachers who have necessary ICT training to help the student in the choice and use of more effective interactive platform. Education Dive’s 2015 State of Education Technology survey polled 150 education leaders and teachers to learn how technology is being used in schools. Inadequate professional training and budget limits were identified as the two greatest challenges facing the use of technology in education (Riddell, 2015). Often, when schools mandate the use of a specific technology, teachers are left without the tools and skills to effectively integrate the new capabilities of such technology into their teaching methods. The outcome is that the technologies are underutilized, not used at all, or used in a way that mimics an old process rather than innovating new processes that may be more engaging to students. Many teachers are also struggling to catch up with the enormous exigencies and pressure upward advancement of massive open online course (MOOC) has put on tradition educational models. Consequently, the usefulness of these technologies are undermined if the teachers are not well trained and encouraged to use them well in administering course work. There is also a frequent experience of technical problems in the use of the computer and web technologies in the virtual classroom. When high bandwidth or strong internet connection that online courses require are not provided students find it hard to meet up with their virtual classmates. It makes it hard for them to follow the Course Management System thereby frustrating their learning experience.

11 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

Techno-Ethics in Virtual Education

Over the past 50 years, use of computers have moved from computational problems of life support, from machine language to graphical user interface (GUI—interface that allows users to interact with electronic devices using images rather than text commands), from abstractions of work to virtual reality on the World-Wide Web. These transformations have brought with them situations that have ethical implications (Conger and Loch, 1995, 30). In Computer Ethics, Deborah Johnson (1985) emphasized the need for a thoughtful approach to the introduction of computer technology in online education. She focused on computer technologies’ potential to promote and even impose on the unsuspecting user a variety of different cultural and moral values. Thus, a critical attitude towards information transmitted through computer systems is required. In fact, computers, “pose new versions of standard moral problems and moral dilemmas, exacerbating the old problems, and forcing us to apply ordinary moral norms in uncharted realms,” (Johnson, 1985, 1). It is such critical attitude to technology application that has led to the emergence of what is today known as Technoethics. It is an interdisciplinary research area that draws on theories and methods from multiple knowledge domains (such as information and communication studies, technology studies, applied ethics and philosophy) to provide insights on ethical dimension of technological systems and practices (Luppicini, 2014, pp. xvi-xv). For instance, the emergence of big data and filtering software has ignited debates on the ethics of higher institutions controlling access students could have on current information like gender dysphoria, smoking, drug addiction and how data mining infringes on student´s privacy. Institutions place filters on their internet traffic which effectively block access to certain websites, bulletin boards or messages that contain certain types of content (Rosenberg, 2001). It is a good development when such blockage is done as a form of censorship to control access to certain types of information that are considered immoral, illegal or otherwise undesirable. However, the mechanism of the filtering software creates an ethical problem, which is that it invariably filters too much. A filter program scans the text of the requested website. If that text contains any of a long list of forbidden words then access to the site is blocked. This mechanism ignores the context search topic and so often leads to suitable or instructive content being blocked. Technoethics is the study of moral, legal and social issues involving technology. It examines the impact of technology on society and evaluates the social policies and laws that have been framed with regard to challenges emanating from its development and use (Tavani, 2007). In education, technoethics simultaneously addresses similar challenges as computer ethics (Weckert, 2007; Himma & Tavani, 2008). The predominant issues in the ethics of technology arise because there is policy vacuum about how technology should be used (Moor, 1985, 266). Technology is malleable

12 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education by nature as it is constantly modified to meet specific needs and purposes. It implies that constant adaptation of policies to the changing features of technologies would be required to sustain its appropriate use. The revolutionary power of technology lies in the fact that it is logically malleable. According to Moor (1985),

Computers are logically malleable in that they can be shaped and molded to do any activity that can be characterized in terms of inputs, outputs and connecting logical operations …. Because logic applies everywhere, the potential applications of computer technology appear limitless. The computer is the nearest thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computers are largely the limits of our own creativity. (269).

The malleability of technology illustrates why reinforcement of the authority of the teacher as monitor to digital classroom is important. Learning management systems and Web 2.0 technologies, on their own, cannot be universal solution to the wide range of challenges in virtual education. The issue is that new technologies vendors try to position their tools as the centre-point of e-learning thereby removing control from the end-users, which are the instructors and learners. Certainly, some learning tasks like learner administration and content management are well suited for a LMS. However, learning itself is a different process. It is multi-faceted by nature and as such online instructors require ongoing professional training on best ways to facilitate and regulate the use of these technologies to improve learning. More still, production of information could be costly. Therefore, transmission and reproduction of the information without appropriate permission is an invasion of the rights of the producer. Intellectual property laws exist to protect creative works by ensuring that only the creators benefit from marketing them or making them available, be they individuals or corporations (Brey, 2009). However, when learning management systems are not useful to students either because they are ignorant on how to use them or the systems are simply ineffective, students may resort to all sorts of academic dishonesty to succeed. Academic dishonesty has become a central issue among students enrolled in online courses and programs. It is not clear how many students involved in such practice realise the risk they are taking and the burden they are placing on their institutions (Bedford, Gregg & Clinton, 2011). As Education Dive´s 2015 State of Education Technology report shows, lack of professional training of instructors and budget limits are the biggest challenges hindering effective use of technology in learning. The new technologies are often expensive and not within reach for all schools and individuals who would like to use them. Often, private schools are better provided with learning technologies than public and rich students have better access to computers and high bandwidth than the poor ones. Johnson (1985) cited inequality in access to information as

13 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education an undesirable potential consequence that could further widen the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” both within industrialized societies and between industrialized and developing countries. Evident disproportion concerning web and computer technologies allowed a conclusion that such technologies split society into “information rich” and “information poor” (Wilson, 1987). In fact, the problem of information inequality has both national and international aspects (Cash, 1985; Virgo, 1983; Suprenant, 1987). In developing countries, there are schools that do not have electricity, not to mention the availability of internet or Wi-Fi. In cases like this, it becomes problematic to justify distance learning as an essential tool to achieve inclusive education since it further widens the gap between the ‘information rich’ and ‘information poor.’ Invariably, continued expansion of new technologies in distance learning even when it appears to have made inclusive education difficult rather than facilitate it could only fuel the perception that it is strategic mechanism to perpetuate denial of quality education to the poor.

Readjusting the Objectives of Learning Technologies

The growing demand for distance learning is mostly instigated by globalization of the world economy and the need for educated employees and improved professional skills. In developing countries, virtual education is in great demand since traditional education is unable to satisfy the requirements of higher educational level. In Africa, where the percentage of young people studying in colleges has been low, the World Bank set up Virtual University of Africa. The idea of this university appeared in 1995; in 2000 there were more than 12000 students (Carnevale, 2000). Currently, the number of young people enrolled in colleges and universities has grown tremendously across the continent with more open universities and virtual programs established by governments and private sectors. In February 2017, the 380 members of Association of African Universities signed agreement with elearnAfrica to deliver MOOCs from major e-learning providers including Edx, FutureLearn, Havard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc. Not all academics and administrators are receptive about the quality of virtual education. The Pew Research Center report on the digital revolution and higher education mentioned at the beginning of this paper shows a typical example. Hubert Dreyfus (1999) gives a striking example of such a critique. He argues that the major goal of education involves the transmission of skills and a process by which educators foster commitments in their students and motivate them to develop strong identities. Dreyfus insists that these skills cannot be adequately transferred in distance learning. Hence, the presence of a teacher is essential for effective implementation of the learning processes. He argued that face-to-face education could be jeopardized by

14 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education wanton advancement of technology-enhanced education. According to Dreyfus, “Only by working closely with students in a shared situation in the real world can teachers with strong identities ready to take risks to preserve their commitments pass on their passion and skill so their students can turn information into knowledge and practical wisdom,” (Dreyfus, 1999, 20). It therefore reiterates the ethical dilemma on whether the transmission of the socio-cultural and academic values, which have a long history in traditional system of education, can be adequately communicated over computer networks? Prosser and Ward (2000) clearly demonstrated that the transfer of practical wisdom in education requires communities with interpersonal connectivity among its members. Distance learning does not offer such possibility, and the relative anonymity it fosters among its participants makes it hard to develop genuine commitments thereby impoverishing the transfer of the appropriate socio-cultural values in education. However, it is not that virtual education cannot achieve same purpose or even higher ones as the traditional school system. Achieving such an objective means that the distance education courses have to be set up in a way that does not depend excessively on web and computer technologies. Likewise, its administrators have to be duly committed to achieving genuine academic and socio-cultural objectives. The reason for most of these critiques drives from the ethical challenges that the prevalent use of new technologies in distance learning generates. However, such ethical conflicts do not have to do with these technologies themselves, rather than the way they are used. Technology does not involve ethics but the way it is used does. Learning technologies have such immense capability to improve learning when used properly. Most importantly, they should not be adopted into the learning process as omniscient tools capable of resolving all the problems of the learning processes. No, they cannot. Besides, “all technological change is a Faustian bargain,” whereby there is a corresponding disadvantage for every advantage a new technology offers (Postman, 1995, 192). Rather, when instructors are equipped with the necessary skills to use them properly in administering learning, their best potentials could transform the learning processes and add greater value to them. It is all about creating new virtual education paradigms in which learning has many of the same good qualities that conventional education has bequeathed on our system of learning. Such restructuring will definitely help to foster achievement of adequate interactive and collaborative learning environments in distance learning and promote academic values. Such values include freedom of research, freedom of teaching, and freedom of learning (Clark, 1983, 248). Often, the source of information on the internet is not clear and students often resort to this information without questioning the source. To guarantee genuine interactive learning requires the need to know the real sources

15 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education of information. And to understand the credibility of information, it is necessary to be sceptical a bit. Is it really true? Do other resources say the same? Certainly, the use of the new technologies in education enhances interactive learning environment by offering students more choices. One major problem to sustaining such interactivity through them is the challenge of content selection with resulting limitations on free speech and free access to information through filtering software. This happens when an administrator or system operator of a school inadvertently blocks certain types of messages, delete certain web pages or block certain e-mail addresses that might be really sources of valuable information, in the name censorship.

CONCLUSION

This paper has illustrated various ethical challenges the proliferation of new technologies in distance learning raise and how they relate to privacy, accuracy, intellectual property right, accessibility and academic integrity. Web 2.0 technologies are discussed as peculiar source of ethical conflicts in learning due to their potential to undermine trust and authenticity of information which are the basis of academic authority. It indicated that technologies by nature are malleable and subject to constant modifications thereby creating perennial ethical challenges as their features change. Ongoing ICT professional training scheme for instructors and teacher is illustrated as a precautionary mechanism to addressing the ethical challenges emanating from the use of new technologies in distance learning. The transmission of socio-cultural and academic values, which are the core objectives of education, cannot be adequately achieved by overdependence on educational technologies. Technologies are neither omniscient nor omnipotent to take the place of instructors and students in the learning process as their providers would make them appear. They are still tools which required constant control and supervision to achieve the purpose of facilitating and improving learning. Unfortunately, higher institutions and e-learning providers have been so absorbed in the mechanics of bringing more and more new technologies into virtual education that the ethical implications of the challenges they pose are often neglected. Rather than erode face-to-face interactions among the learning participants educational technologies need to reinforce it. Finally, teachers are disoriented in the absence of sufficient guidelines on the use of new technologies like the social media in the classroom. Local or national educational stakeholders have a role to play in establishing such guidelines. Considering the immensity of electronically available information ready for the students to navigate

16 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education through these technologies, especially the social media, it is of paramount importance to accord the use of these technologies appropriate rational scrutiny. The purpose of education is to enhance balanced development of the individual through knowledge acquisition and experience. Its goal is to transmit socio-cultural and academic values which will underpin the students working lives, as members of the society, and their interaction with their fellow citizens. Such genuine cooperation with self and the society is definitely realisable by effective interpersonal connectivity which does not require interference by predominant technology.

REFERENCES

Bedford, D. W., Gregg, J. R., & Clinton, S. M. (2011). Preventing online cheating with technology: A pilot study of remote proctor and an update of its use. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11(2), 41–58. Bernard, S. (2011, August 8). Crossing the digital divide: Bridges and barriers to digital inclusion. Edutopia. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from http://www.edutopia. org/digital-divide-technology-access-inclusion Bersin, J. (2014, August 28). The Red Hot Market for Learning Management Systems. Forbes. Retrieved November 3, 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/ sites/joshbersin/2014/08/28/the-red-hot-market-for-learning-technology- platforms/#38f4e76047bb Brey, P. (2006). Social and ethical dimensions of computer-mediated education. Journal of Information. Communication & Ethics in Society, 2(2), 91–102. doi:10.1108/14779960680000284 Brey, P. (2009). Computer ethics. In J. Berg-Olsen, S. Pedersen, & V. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Technology (pp. 406–411). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444310795.ch70 Brown, S. A. (2012). Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003 Carnevale, D. (2000). Assessing the quality of online courses remains a challenge, educators agree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(24), A59. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Assessing-the-Quality-of/21862 Cash, J. J. Jr. (1985). Internationalized systems: An information society opportunity or threat? The Information Society, 3(3), 199–228. doi:10.1080/01972243.1985.9 960001

17 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

Chapman, D. (2009). Introduction to learning management systems. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, J. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Distance Learning (Vol. 3, pp. 1280–1286). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch183 Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008 Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015 Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic Methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203–211. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. doi:10.3102/00346543053004445 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. doi:10.1002/9781118255971 Conger, S., & Loch, K. D. (1995). Ethics and computer use. Communications of the ACM, 38(12), 30–32. doi:10.1145/219663.219676 Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001 Dreyfus, H. (1999). Anonymity versus commitment: The dangers of education on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 15–21. doi:10.1023/A:1010010325208 Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. London, UK: Routledge. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–135. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cell phones, smartphones and social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

18 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1130–1161. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812 Himma, K., & Tavani, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470281819 Hrastinski, S., & Aghaee, N. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 451–464. doi:10.100710639-011-9169-5 Johnson, D. (1985). Computer Ethics (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (1995). Computers, Ethics, and Social Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnson, J. A. (2014). The ethics of big data in higher education. International Review of Information Ethics, 21, 3–10. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x Lam, J., Yau, J. & Cheung, S. K. (2010). A review of mobile learning in the mobile age. Hybrid Learning, 306 –315. Loane, S. (2001, December). Distance education and accreditation. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/distance.htm Luppicini, R. (2014). Evolving Issues Surrounding Technoethics and Society in the Digital Age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6122-6 Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Communications, 49(4), 41–46. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008

19 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally inclusive learning on the web. In Teaching in the Disciplines/Learning in Context: The Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum. University of Western Australia, Perth. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from http://clt.curtin.edu.au/events/conferences/tlf/tlf1999/mcloughlin.html Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of Mobile Learning (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge. Moor, J. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x Nnaji, J. (2012). Ethical issues in technology-mediated education. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 2(2), 44–51. doi:10.4018/ijcee.2012040105 O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1 Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v12i2.791 Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The Digital Revolution and Higher Education: College Presidents, Public Differ on Value of Online Learning. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education. New York: Vintage Books. Prosser, B. T., & Ward, A. (2000). Kierkegaard and the internet: Existential reflections on education and community. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(3), 167–180. doi:10.1023/A:1010005605872 Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (3rd ed.). Corwin Press. Riddell, R. (2015, November 9). What does the future hold for K-12 ed tech? EducationDive. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from https://www.educationdive.com/ news/what-does-the-future-hold-for-k-12-ed-tech/408804/

20 Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education

Rosenberg, A. (2010). Applying the “contextual integrity” model of privacy to personal blogs in the blogosphere. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 38–47. Rosenberg, R. S. (2001). Controlling access to the internet: The role of filtering. Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 35–54. doi:10.1023/A:1011431908368 Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social Media for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions. Suprenant, T. T. (1987). Problems and trends in international information and communication policies. Information Processing & Management, 23(1), 47–64. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(87)90039-2 Tailor-Made Reports. (2017). Learning Management Systems (LMS) Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, Growth, and Forecast 2017 – 2025. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from https://www.tmrresearch.com/ learning-management-systems-market Tavani, H. (2007). Ethics and Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Tripathy, B. K., Seetha, H., & Murty, M. N. (2018). Uncertainty-based clustering algorithms for large data sets. In B. K. Tripathy, H. Seetha, & M. N. Murty (Eds.), Modern Technologies for Big Data Classification and Clustering (pp. 1–33). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2805-0.ch001 Virgo, P. (1983). Political aspects of information technology. Information Age, 5(4), 170–172. Weckert, J. (Ed.). (2007). Computer Ethics. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Wilson, A. (1987). The information rich and information poor. Aslib Proceedings, 39(1), 1–6. doi:10.1108/eb051034 Young, J. R. (2010, March 28). High-Tech cheating abounds and professors bear some blame. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(29), A1–A14. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/High-Tech-Cheating-on-Homework/64857

21 22

Chapter 2 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

Thanh Trúc T. Nguyễn University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA

ABSTRACT As the use of computers increases in schools, students’ primary role models in computer use and the internet are their teachers. However, teachers themselves are still learning their way through technology in education and how to best use technology to support student learning. This chapter discusses seven issue areas in relation to cyber ethics and decision making online that go beyond the pedagogy of technology in learning contexts. In particular, the chapter is focused on how teachers can model and conduct best practices in digital copyright, student privacy, student access, digital citizenship, digital communication, social media and empathy, and digital literacy.

INTRODUCTION

Cyber ethics is a growing area of concern for our increasingly connected society and a very specific concern for our K-12 schools. Cyber ethics, in general, is concerned with the decision making of computer users and how those decisions affect other individuals and society. In providing students with opportunities to create and explore online environments via school-provided computers, teachers are arguably the most present role model in computer usage and ethical behaviors online. The current International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students list a set of seven standards that encourage student voice and student-driven learning. The seven standards are empowered learner, digital citizen, knowledge constructor,

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch002

innovative designer, computational thinker, creative communicator, and global collaborator (ISTE, 2016). As Nguyen (2009, 2011a) and Bennett, Aguayo, and Field (2016) argue, teachers have a tremendous amount of power and responsibility to nurture a student’s sense of exploration online. In encouraging teachers to facilitate student learning so that students can thrive in the changing technological landscape, schools should also support the teachers in their own professional development on computer and internet use. There are some honest misunderstandings of copyright laws as well as a blurring of professional and personal lives online. Following is a set of seven topics in a professional development series developed for teachers in the state of Hawai‘i that was part of a pilot program to implement 1-to-1 device programs in eight schools.

BACKGROUND

The Pew Internet Life study has been tracking internet and broadband usage since the 2000s. In their first survey in 2000, about 52% of Americans were online; the figure in 2016 was 88% (Pew Research Center, 2017) and the age at which people are exposing children to internet-connected devices is getting younger (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). Societal use of the internet and computers are also shifting, where people watch television programs on computers or mobile devices, bank only online instead of visiting a bank itself, socialize more online than in person, consume news from social media feeds instead of from newspapers or news programs, and conduct all their holiday shopping online instead of in stores. Where adults are generally able to self-monitor the time spent on devices and how they make decisions online, children are less able to self-moderate their own behavior (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2011). Their decision-making skills are not fully developed because of both brain development and the lack of life experience. Their sense of ethics, or what is right and wrong, is still strongly influenced by adults--namely what mom, dad, and teacher tell them is right and wrong. Yet, children are given internet-enabled devices as early as the age of two, and sometimes earlier, and many are able to search for cartoons that amuse them or even place an actual call to grandma by mimicking their parents. Adolescents, however, are more influenced by their peers and less so by adults. There is a strong risk-taking culture in the adolescent years (Chein et al., 2011). A study with grade 6 students by Lim, Tan, Nizam, Zhou, and Tan (2016) demonstrated that students given devices with no teacher instruction or modeling led to cheating in games, cyberbullying, and visiting inappropriate websites. Research has shown that seeing a positive role model demonstrating positive behaviors is critical in the adolescent

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 23 Teachers as Models of Internet Use years (Lumpkin, 2008). Where parents and guardians should occupy that important space as primary role models and rule setters, teachers can also serve as models in their use of the computers and the internet. Because schools are providing more access to computers, teachers are in a prime position to model and encourage positive behaviors on computers. School leaders see digital devices like computers, tablet devices, and smartphones as important to equalize access to and opportunities for learning. This belief has led to an increase in personal ownership and presence of Internet-enabled devices in schools. Some schools provide Internet-enabled devices to their students while others are establishing “bring your own device” policies so to not only maximize budgets, but to minimize a student’s learning curve on the technical features of a new device. But, providing these devices also means providing access to the Internet. Being an unregulated and unfiltered medium, the Internet can expose children to inappropriate topics. The laws protecting children online are continuously shifting and changing. The law most directly related to schools and children is the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA, § 54.520 47 U.S.C. 254(h)), which placed requirements on schools and libraries that received federal supports for computers and Internet access. The CIPA requires protective measures on the technology that includes filters and firewalls against “visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or, with respect to use of the computers by minors, harmful to minors.” Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2016) reported that 16.2% (N = 13,877) of students reported being victims of electronic bullying in 2010. In response, the CIPA additionally required, effective July 1, 2012, “Internet safety policies [that provide] for educating minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness and response.” Though bullying is a dominant issue, other concerns such as online privacy, impersonation, identity theft, and hate groups are addressed in various laws too. Teachers should be made aware of CIPA and other laws at school meetings and be updated on their roles and administration’s expectations of their enforcement of policies meant to uphold these laws. The major policy in most schools is the Acceptable Use Policy, which defines the rules that guide the use of the school’s network. Oftentimes, it also identifies the responsibility of not only the students, but also that of the school in providing computers and Internet access. Teachers modeling appropriate Internet use may be even more critical in distance learning environments. Some school districts and states have added completion of a distance learning course as a requirement for high school graduation. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2017), at least five states have a distance learning requirement. The availability of online courses and blended courses,

24 Teachers as Models of Internet Use which combine online and in-person instruction, provides more course options for students at schools with limited course offerings. Online instruction requires more self-regulation on the part of the student and more interaction between the teacher and student in an online environment; sometimes the communication is only via digital means. Some distance programs designed for special needs students are still trying to develop and promote self-regulation instruction (Rice & Carter, 2016). Other schools see distance and online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students, making student autonomy and responsibility and teacher modeling and expectations critical factors for success (Xu & Jaggers, 2014; Lewis, Whiteside, & Dikkers, 2014; Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015; Borup, Graham, & Drysdale, 2014).

In Hawai‘i

The state of Hawai‘i has about 96% broadband coverage and is considered the 7th most connected state in the US (BroadbandNow, 2018). Of its population of 1,454,295, there are about one million Internet users or 82.6% of the population (Internet World Stats, 2017), making the state comparable to the national figure of 88%. Of the over 23,000 school-aged children in Hawai‘i, about 80% attend public schools and 20% attend independent or private schools. About 40% of the public schools report being 1-to-1 devices schools, or schools that provide one digital device per child (Hawaii Department of Education, 2017). According to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey results from 2011, 14.9% (N = 4,300) of students in Hawai‘i reported being victims of electronic bullying in 2010 (see Mark, Nguyen, & Palma Elmore, 2014). The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) public schools’ acceptable use policy incorporates not only rules and regulations, but also states that equitable technology access for all students is a priority for the HIDOE. The HIDOE Acceptable Use Guidelines lay out the plans and procedures that schools are required to follow when using department-sanctioned computers, networks, and Internet services. Additionally, the HIDOE has Technology Responsible Use Guidelines, also known as the TRUG, for digital devices, network, and internet services owned and leased by the Hawaii State Department of Education for its students. In the initial development of a support program for schools that wanted to become 1-to-1 schools, the HIDOE recognized that training on the acceptable use policy was of critical importance for teachers and other school staff (HIDOE, 2017). Following are a set of seven topics in a professional development series developed for teachers in the state of Hawai‘i that was part of a pilot program to implement 1-to-1 device programs in eight schools. The topics have since expanded and shifted with the changes in devices and speed of Internet access in schools, but the core of the ideas remain the same.

25 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

MODELING INTERNET USE: TEACHERS

In the past, teachers taught from a set of curriculum in which content was available in formal textbooks and other types of printed, vetted materials. Video was available on discs and tapes that were accessible via the school library. In the internet age, a good deal of content is available online for download, streaming, reproduction, and dissemination. In trying to engage students through the use of video, audio and other information resources found online, teachers can easily find themselves in situations of digital copyright violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, U.S. Copyright Office, 1998), a United States copyright law. As identified in DMCA, use of commercial content without citation or compensation is potentially a criminal act, namely piracy. Fair use does allow for use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes, but taking clips from a disc could result in violation of digital rights management, or DRM. However, the U.S. Library of Congress ruled in 2010 that teachers could use of video clips from DVDs and other media for instructional use (Billington, 2010); this ruling also applies to college instructors, film and media studies students, documentary filmmakers, or producers of noncommercial videos. Furthermore, the ruling allowed for use of five other classes of work for educational purposes. These include computer programs on wireless phones, firmware or software types of computer programs that allow connection to a network on wireless phones, video games for the purposes of security studies, computer programs protected by dongles that are obsolete, and ebooks that do not allow for read aloud or screen assist functions. These latter allowances are of great use to teachers who are teaching coding, particularly advanced coding where students may want to understand the functioning of programs on mobile devices, video game programming, and specialized programming for accessibility and assistive devices. However, Librarian of Congress Billington (2010) also warns that breaking into a device to understand programming and security studies void manufacturer warranties, an important point to note to parents and school administrators when opening up potentially expensive devices. Additionally, this allowance for clips from movies is not the same allowance for entire movies and television programming available via monthly, personal subscriptions. If teachers are using their personal login information at school and showing movies to students, they are actually violating the terms of service of those companies; teachers at school are not in a personal space. Schools should acquire licenses to show movies in school settings for instructional use and additional licenses for non-instructional events. Teachers who use resources acquired from the internet should always make a point to cite their sources to model good practice to their students. Teachers could also

26 Teachers as Models of Internet Use discuss the reason why copyright law exists and what the fair use doctrine is so that students to enter the workforce later do not inadvertently break the law. Additional areas for exploration for teachers include Creative Commons and public domain.

Student Privacy

Increasingly, teachers are keeping records of their students’ progress in online grade books that can be shared with administrators and families. Teachers need to be vigilant about the physical security of their laptops on which they might keep those grades as well as the cyber security of their passwords and keeping virus protections up to date. When sharing best practices with fellow educators not from their own school, teachers should take care to not display a grade book in a conference or workshop environment. Displaying student names and grades is a violation of student privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, U.S. Department of Education, 2007), a federal privacy law that gives parents certain protections in regards to children’s education records, such as report cards, transcripts, disciplinary records, contact and family information, and class schedules. Teachers should seek parent permission before showing student work to anyone outside of their own school. Student privacy is also important on school websites, particularly when pictures might be displayed. In general, keeping student last names off of websites is recommended. Teachers should play close attention to pictures of students who have name badges on; blurring names is recommended too. Furthermore, posting pictures during a school field trip can cause problems and be an issue of student safety, so it is within a teacher’s professional right to ask parent chaperones to refrain from posting any pictures. On a separate note, parent chaperones who take pictures should seek permission from other parents if another child is any picture they took before sharing online. In general, minors are protected online through the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, also known as COPPA. Because of this act, a website cannot ask for a child’s personal information if he or she is under the age of 18.

Student Access

As computers and internet access become more regular parts of school instruction, teachers should also keep in mind that not all students have access to computers or the internet at home. While designing group work and homework, teachers should offer alternative ways in which students can get work done if a computer with internet access is needed. Teachers do not want to call attention to potential disparities of access, oftentimes called the digital divide. The digital divide, a term coined by Lloyd Morrisett (Hoffman, Novak, & Schlosser, 2001), is generally understood to

27 Teachers as Models of Internet Use be the disparities of access, use, and impact of information and communication due to social inequality and economics. Ribble (2012) maintains that teachers need to be constantly aware of providing digital access to students so that opportunities are available to everyone equally. Bennett, Aguayo, and Field (2016) additionally posit that digital access is potentially a human right, whereas Curran and Ribble (2017) extend that notion further and call student access to digital content and creation their digital rights. Student access is also important when planning how to organize online discussion groups and monitoring those groups. Monitoring conversations that students have in online discussion groups is considered good practice, as found by Zhang and Quintana (2012) in their work with middle school students. Teacher intervention and presence in the discussion groups signal students that they are in a safe environment for sharing their ideas and can depend on adult intervention if needed. One of the most important concerns regarding student access has to do with students with disabilities. Materials and resources that teachers provide online should be available in alternative formats. At minimum, text should be formatted for screen reader functionality, images should have alternative, descriptive text, and videos should have transcriptions or closed captioning. At the core is maximizing learning opportunities for students, so teachers being aware of particular student needs to benefit from digital content is meaningful. Librarians are likely the best resource to teachers as they consider digital access for students (Lynch, 2003). In addition to understanding the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, & Jacobs, 2001; Caldwell, Cooper, Reid, & Vanderheiden, 2008) and the evolution of those guidelines over the years, librarians can help with locating alternative resources and facilitate use of several large repositories of vetted information.

Digital Citizenship

Mike Ribble developed the concept of digital citizenship in the context of schools to help understand what students/children/technology users should know to use technology appropriately (2011, 2015). He identified nine key digital areas about which students should be aware: access, commerce, communication, literacy, etiquette, law, rights and responsibilities, health and wellness, and security. In his work, Ribble encourages schools to develop digital citizenship programs for the entire school so the effort is not left to only librarians and technology coordinators. Digital citizenship has gained such a strong following throughout educational circles that it is its own standalone category in the ISTE 2016 student standards. However, addressing digital citizenship can be daunting for most teachers. Some liken citizenship to a focus on civics, like Bennett, Wells, and Rank (2009) who proposed that the younger generation learns civically in a different way than adults,

28 Teachers as Models of Internet Use possibly linked to a mistrust of media, more focus on lifestyle politics, and increased communication through social media. Dotterer, Hedges, and Parker (2016) attempted to help teachers by providing some guidelines for classroom discussions, beginning with defining digital citizenship as “the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use” (p.58). However, as technology changes, so does the discussion of digital citizenship. Ohler’s (2011) notion was that the discussions about digital citizenship were originally difficult because students were presented with separate technology rules at home, if at all, and at school, resulting in diverging messages. In regards to digital citizenship and internet safety, Nguyen’s (2011b) study revealed that parents felt teachers should teach it and, conversely, that teachers felt that families should teach it instead. Hollandsworth, Donovan, and Welch (2017) compared 2010 results to 2016 results of a digital citizenship survey and found that awareness of digital citizenship issues seemed to decrease for teachers and remained relatively the same for administrators. The study also found that emphasis was being placed on social media use and cyberbullying, with importance made on involving families in the conversation. These and other studies brought families into the conversation and made them a critical component to digital citizenship discussions. As a whole, teachers can best model digital citizenship by embracing, not dismissing, the various technologies and digital tools that students will use to be positive contributors to society. There are jobs, careers, and service paths that do not yet exist for which teachers are preparing the students. Students will find creative and constructive ways to address the unknown nature of how some technologies could be used in the future.

Digital Communication With Students

Modern technologies have removed the need to be tied to physical communication. Written letters, fixed and corded telephones, and bulletin board postings are no longer the norm. Digital, internet-enabled communication allows for the transmission and receipt of information 24 hours a day. To increase efficiency and effectiveness, years ago companies started to assign electronic mail, or email, to their workers. Schools have now taken that same route and assign students individual email accounts too. Teachers can use email to model formal language with students. Jargon, vernacular, acronyms, and even emoticons are pervasive in student writing to each other. However, formal writing is a still a skill to develop. In foreign language classes, email has played a positive role in learning opportunities and feedback mechanisms (Bloch, 2002). Kleiman (2004) however, cautions that email is rather permanent, so teachers do need to be aware of the content of their communications to students and also to parents. Logistically, teachers also need to set boundaries of

29 Teachers as Models of Internet Use time for students with whom they communicate via email. Good practice is to set boundaries with students so that they understand that their teachers will not respond to questions 24 hours a day. Another form of digital communication is via mobile text messaging. Though it is not recommended that teachers share their personal mobile phone numbers with students, parents do sometimes have them in cases of emergency or during field trip chaperoning needs. Teachers should articulate when a text message is appropriate, if at all, and the kinds of messages that are acceptable.

Social Media and Empathy

Teachers have personal lives too. And, in the 21st century, that likely means that teachers have social media accounts to capture moments to share with their own friends and family. In 2016, about seven in ten people used social media. This represented about 69% of the U.S. population, an increase from 5% in 2005 (Greenwood, Perrin, Duggan, 2017). Teachers, like the rest of society, use social media to seek out information as well as share with others. However, teachers should refrain from both negative and positive comments about their students online. Even if a positive comment, others can perceive that as favoritism. And, negative comments can be viewed as technically in violation of student privacy. Additionally, the line of demarcation between professional teacher and private citizen can be blurred on social media. Personal opinions are sometimes interpreted as professional ones by those who do not know the teacher well. Teachers, on the whole, should understand that what they post in social media accounts may be seen by strangers and misinterpreted. Communities can be very small and sharing/ forwarding is too easily done in social media. Teachers can use discussions about social media to talk about empathy, or putting oneself into someone else’s shoes to consider how they might feel. Online, people often forget that there are real people with real feelings who might be reading a post or seeing a picture or watching a video that is shared. Children are especially removed from making that connection (Jacobs & Klaczynski, 2002; Crone & Van Der Molen, 2007; Chien et al., 2011). A teacher’s conduct on social media in their personal lives can be positive influences on the developing child.

Digital Literacy

Digital literacy is the process of learning from and through technology. Where most teachers will not need to teach the technical aspects of using new and emerging technologies, almost all teachers can model information digital literacy. Making sense of the overwhelming amount of information that is available through a simple

30 Teachers as Models of Internet Use web search is a critical skill to develop in students. In that same vein, teachers are well poised to model that process of refined searching and processing. Verifying information found through simple searches and validating that the information is reliable is a skill that will serve students well. Honda (2017) found in her study that digital literacy was the most difficult of all the digital citizenship topics she covered. Confounding the issue is that students seem to value self-expression and socializing over accuracy of information when sharing news. In their study with Singapore students, Chen, Sin, Theng and Lee (2015) discovered that 60% of their students shared misinformation, partly because they thought it was true; the immediacy of sharing was more important than the verification of the information. Teachers would do well to encourage students to slow down in the information-fast society and to be skeptical of sensational stories before sharing.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provided an introduction to topics that can be covered with teachers to model behavior on the internet. A major assumption is that not all teachers have the time to provide instruction in and discuss issues around technology standards for students, but that all teachers can model positive behaviors in their own use of computers and internet technologies. The seven topics were not presented in any order of importance. Each can serve as a conversation topic for 15-20 minutes in a school faculty meeting or can be discussed as a professional development session for three hours. Revisiting the topics throughout the year can be valuable in department teams or whole school conversations. Of note is that each topic can be preceded by a current news story, which can ground the conversation and make it relevant. However, there are some additional considerations when it comes to providing these supports to teachers and engaging them in serious consideration of their role as role models using a medium they likely did not grow up with. Three considerations are presented below—the ethics of teaching, policy and practice, and teacher preparation programs.

Ethics of Teaching

Though the topics presented here are suggestions by which teachers can model positive behaviors, some teachers in their personal lives may follow a different set of ethics, or personal beliefs of what is right and wrong. Separating their personal lives from their professional teaching lives is emerging as a difficult expectation as social media begins to blur the lines of personal and professional time. And, even if teachers set clear boundaries for themselves, students often step over that line because

31 Teachers as Models of Internet Use of the pervasive use of social media by students and their lack of understanding of those boundaries. Furthermore, teachers may not believe that digital access is needed for banking, communication, obtaining news, health and wellness tracking, and more. Sultana (2014) posits that teachers have a responsibility to society because many students want to be like their favorite teacher. To that end, Saltana suggested that teachers have a responsibility not only to adhere to a code of ethics, but a responsibility to conduct themselves ethically to their students, to parents and guardians and families, to the community, to their professional colleagues, and to their employers or schools. Teachers need to consider whether their personal beliefs about the importance of computers and the Internet in education align with their personal belief structures and values. Balancing their personal beliefs with the realities of what students will need as 21st century skills can be daunting. In her work on the professional ethics in teaching, Campbell (2000) cites the origins of a codes of ethics in education and warns that practical usefulness of a code be balanced against a code’s symbolic worth. Some codes are developed for accountability reasons and to serve as internal disciplinary action. Other codes are developed to influence and improve actual behavior in teaching. Campbell advised that codes of ethics be developed with key consideration for ‘whose values?’ at the forefront. Additionally, the manner in which the code is presented, whether positive (teachers must) or negative (teachers must not), should be crafted with clarity and without inconsistencies. Should teachers be expected to model positive internet use in a code of ethics, it would be important to develop a code not only as a mechanism for public accountability, but that could serve as what Campbell describes as “a concrete resource for teachers who currently cope with conflicting responsibilities, tensions among their various relationships and overall ethical uncertainty with little professional direction” (p. 214). A code of ethics, which likely already exist in all states, “contributes in three broad ways: as contributing to educational policy, as reflective of moral education, and as conceived as professional ethics” (Campbell, 2008, p.365).

Policy and Practice

Where ethics are about the personal belief of what is right and wrong, policies establish boundaries for acceptable behavior and guidelines for best practices in workplace environments. When changes occur in school settings, new policies may be established or updated for accountability and compliancy purposes as well as to define mandates and implementation expectations. A school’s policy related to distance learning and the Internet is usually the acceptable use policy or AUP. As with all school policies, acceptable use policies should be revisited frequently as new technologies are made available in schools to

32 Teachers as Models of Internet Use students and as schools start to allow personal devices onto the schools’ networks. A review of 100 school AUPs in 2000 by Flowers and Rakes revealed that the AUPs often defined areas of liability, online behavior, system integrity, and content quality, and violation of policies. More recent AUPs are starting to define social media and clarify support for educational uses of social media (Rodersiler, 2017). Rodersiler’s study also revealed that school administrators relied heavily on professional ethics policies and acceptable use policies when no guidelines were available regarding the growing use of social media in schools. In-service teachers should seek out expectations of the school when no social media policy is available. As policies are updated, support and funding for professional development, teacher preparation programs, and teacher certification/recertification programs by policymakers and state boards is essential. Additionally, teachers should be involved in any policy revisions on their computer, Internet, and social media use for instruction to ensure that policies are free of ambiguous statements that are left open to interpretation. Student voice in terms of their expectations of teachers could be another important stakeholder group too when revising policies.

Teacher Preparation Programs

The seven-topic program described in this chapter were offered as professional development for in-service teachers. However, these topics should not be left to only schools to provide. Teacher preparation programs should incorporate these topics into their curriculum and course instruction. For example, at Villanova University, the University’s Computing Sciences Department offers a course in ethics to all its freshman (Zimmerman, 2012). The course is also open to non-computer science majors, so teacher candidates can attend if able. Ranging in enrollment from 28 to 85 students, Zimmerman (2012) stated that the ethics introduction course did not fulfill any university requirements but was offered because of the importance to expose non-majors to the subject of computer ethics early in their university studies. The topics changed as students were given the opportunity to set the discussion topics based on relevant issues to them. In the course, students were informed that no formal research was required for responses because opinions and feelings were more important to share in regards to ethics. Topics included plagiarism, games, Facebook, social networking, privacy and government, newspapers and news, copyright, medical databases, and more. At the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s College of Education, a course is offered at the graduate level called Social and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology. The course focuses on the examination of social and ethical issues as they relate to technology in instructional settings. An emphasis is placed on social justice and

33 Teachers as Models of Internet Use societal impact. Discussion is a cornerstone of this course, with topics also offered by the students with strong relevance to their responsibilities in their schools. However, this course is not open to undergraduate students. A course on social media is offered to juniors and seniors at the undergraduate level called Social Media: Links to Lifelong Learning. The course focuses on exploration of the Internet and its application to effective teaching/learning, including finding, evaluating, using, creating information on the web, and integration with copyright law and standards (for example, see the list of Learning Design and Technology courses offered at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa). Ethics and teacher behavior is not a formal topic of study in the course, though it may come up during discussion. In all, teacher preparation programs should offer some kind of formal study so that teacher candidates can reflect on their own understanding of digital citizenship and technology’s role in education and in the future careers of their students.

FUTURE RESEARCH

As a professional development topic, teachers as role models in online use is an under-researched area. Current studies are general studies, studies of male teachers, and studies of ethnic representation of teachers as role models. A potential study area could be to look at whether students consider their teachers as role models in technology use or if encouraging teachers to model positive digital ethics is too far of a reach for children who think they know more about technology than adults.

CONCLUSION

This chapter focused on how teachers can model positive behaviors online. Learning about and modeling best practices in digital copyright, student privacy, student access, digital citizenship, digital communication, social media and empathy, and digital literacy are seven topics about which teachers can demonstrate best practice. If policies and codes of ethics are introduced, teachers should find ways to be involved in the crafting of new language so that they best understand what is expected of them regarding use of computers, the Internet, and social media in instructional settings. As technologies become more present in schools and more individualized in access, teachers will have the continual challenge of exposing students to the opportunities of learning that those new technologies provide. Teachers and students are both avid consumers and creators of information shared online, so constant reminders of positive behaviors and ethical decisions are needed.

34 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

REFERENCES

Bennett, L. B., Aguayo, R. C., & Field, S. L. (2016). At home in the world: Supporting children in human rights, global citizenship, and digital citizenship. Childhood Education, 92(3), 189–199. doi:10.1080/00094056.2016.1180892 Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105–120. doi:10.1080/13621020902731116 Billington, J. H. (2010). Librarian of Congress announces DMCA Section 1201 rules for exemptions regarding circumvention of access-control technologies. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-10-169/ Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/ S1060-3743(02)00064-4 Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2013). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. doi:10.1111/bjet.12089 BroadbandNow. (2018). Internet coverage in Hawaii. Retrieved from https:// broadbandnow.com/Hawaii Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Academic Press. Campbell, E. (2000). Professional ethics in teaching: Towards the development of a code of practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203–221. Campbell, E. (2008). The ethics of teaching as a moral profession. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00414.x Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index. htm Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1–F10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x PMID:21499511

35 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

Chen, X., Sin, S.-C. J., Theng, S. Y.-L., & Lee, C. S. (2015). Why students share misinformation on social media: Motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Leadership, 41(5), 583–592. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (2001). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Interaction, 8(4), 35–54. doi:10.1145/379537.379550 Crone, E. A., & Van Der Molen, M. W. (2007). Development of decision making in school-aged children and adolescents: Evidence from heart rate and skin conductance analysis. Child Development, 78(4), 1288–1301. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2007.01066.x PMID:17650139 Curran, M. B., & Ribble, M. (2017). P–20 Model of Digital Citizenship. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017(153), 35–46. doi:10.1002/yd.20228 PMID:28199061 Dotterer, G., Hedges, A., & Parker, H. (2016). Fostering digital citizenship in the classroom. Education Digest, 82(3), 58. Flowers, B. F., & Rakes, G. C. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the Internet in selected K–12 schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 351–365. doi:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782285 Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2017). Social media update. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/ Hawaii Department of Education. (2017). Future ready learning. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/ Future-Ready/Pages/default.aspx Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. E. (Eds.). (2001). The Digital Divide. Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hollandsworth, R., Donovan, J., & Welch, M. (2017). Digital citizenship: You can’t go home again. TechTrends, 1–7.

36 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

Honda, M. (2017, April). It takes a village: A web and mobile based instructional module on digital citizenship for parents and guardians of K-12 students in Hawaiʻi public schools. Paper presented at the Teaching Colleges and Community Worldwide Online Conference, Honolulu, HI. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students Internet World Stats. (2017). Internet world stats usage and population statistics. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/unitedstates.htm#HI Jacobs, J. E., & Klaczynski, P. A. (2002). The development of judgment and decision making during childhood and adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 145–149. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00188 Kleiman, G. M. (2004). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools: Five years later. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 4(2), 248–253. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Dikkers, A. G. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 29(2), 1–11. Lim, W. Y., Tan, C. M., Nizam, M., Zhou, W., & Tan, S. M. (2016). Toward Digital Citizenship in Primary Schools: Leveraging on our enhanced cyberwellness framework. In Future learning in primary schools (pp. 97–107). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-579-2_7 Lumpkin, A. (2008). Teachers as role models: Teaching character and moral virtues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(2), 45–50. doi:10.1080/0 7303084.2008.10598134 Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327–336. doi:10.1353/ pla.2003.0039 Mark, L., Nguyen, T. T. T., & Palma Elmore, M. (2014). Internet safety programs and resources for educators, parents, and students in Hawaiʻi. Pacific Educational Research Journal, 15, 9–34. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017). Online learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/online-learning-as-graduation-requirement. aspx

37 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

Nguyen, T. T. T. (2009). Internet Safety: Readiness and Responsibilities. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1660–1665). Charleston, SC: AACE. Nguyen, T. T. T. (2011a). The Voices of the Youth (Nā Leo o nā ‘Opio): Our Safety Online. Honolulu, HI: Curriculum Research & Development Group. Nguyen, T. T. T. (2011b). School faculty perspectives about Internet-safety youth behavior online. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2011 (pp. 181–188). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Ohler, J. (2011). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1), 25–27. Pew Research Center. (2017). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education. Ribble, M. (2012). Digital citizenship for educational change. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 148–151. doi:10.1080/00228958.2012.734015 Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools (3rd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education. Rice, M., & Carter, R. Jr. (2016). Online teacher work to support self-regulation of learning in students with disabilities at a fully online state virtual school. Online Learning, 20(4). doi:10.24059/olj.v20i4.1054 Rodersiler, L. (2017). Local social media policies governing teachers’ professionally oriented participation online: A content analysis. TechTrends, 61(3), 293–300. doi:10.100711528-016-0139-z Sultana, M. (2014). Ethics in teaching profession. Asian Business Consortium Journal of Advanced Research, 3, 44–50. U.S. Copyright Office. (1998). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Parents’ guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act: Rights regarding children’s education records. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/parents.html

38 Teachers as Models of Internet Use

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659. doi:10.1080/00221546.2014.11777343 Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181–196. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016 Zimmerman, B. (2012). Ethics for non-computer majors in a digital world. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 27(6), 90–98.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Digital Citizenship: A concept developed by Mike Ribble that addresses what students/children/technology users should know to use technology appropriately. Digital Divide: A term coined by Lloyd Morrisett that is generally understood to be the disparities of access, use, and impact of information and communication due to social inequality and economics. Digital Literacy: The process of learning from and through technology. Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: Also known as DCMA, a U.S. copyright law that applies to digital, unfixed creative products. Empathy: Understanding how someone else if feeling by imagining oneself in the other person’s place. Sympathy is a similar concept, but an individual may actually know how they feel because he or she went through it the self. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act: Also known as FERPA, a U.S. federal privacy law that gives parents certain protections in regards to children’s education records, such as report cards, transcripts, disciplinary records, contact and family information, and class schedules. Student Privacy: The concept that personal information about a child should be protected by teachers and information about their progress in school not be shared without explicit parent permission. Additionally, this concept is supported by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

39 40

Chapter 3 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics: A Teacher’s Journey Shifts Direction

Nicholas Lawrence Brian Bechard East Bronx Academy, USA Mission Trail Middle School, USA

Joseph O’Brien Ed Finney University of Kansas, USA Maple High School, USA Kimberly Gilman Hocker Grove Middle School, USA

ABSTRACT The authors explore a teacher’s 10-year journey to foster his urban middle school students’ public voice and then their ability to engage in participatory politics. The authors first provide a conceptual and experiential context for how the teacher came to question whether cultivating 8th grade students’ online public voice in a U.S. history was enough. Second, they discuss how two teachers created online interschool deliberations about contemporary issues and how a third teacher used low and high tech to enable her students to take civic action. Third, they discuss the essential elements of an online participatory learning space. Fourth, they address the challenges of integrating digital deliberations about contemporary public issues and online civic action into a U.S. history curriculum. Finally, they present how they adapted a site devoted to deliberations about just war in the context of U.S. history to a focus on just action in a contemporary setting.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch003

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

INTRODUCTION

As an urban social studies middle school teacher, I have engaged in a decade long journey to foster students’ civic skills and online “public voices” (Lawrence & O’Brien, 2011, 2016). During the first phase of my journey (2008-14), I confronted challenges related to technology integration, curricular alignment, selection of relevant digital tools, and the establishment of online academic norms for students. As I met and adapted to those challenges, by 2014 new challenges began to emerge such as discerning what constituted student-driven learning with technology, deciding how to let middle school students’ thinking guide how justice related matters are addressed, and determining how to seamlessly weave hardware and software into a larger instructional system while remaining sensitive to technological change. During the second phase of my journey (2014-16), collaboration with Kansas and New York colleagues with shared interests caused me to realize that cultivating my students’ online public voices, which entails the art and skill of persuading “other people-beyond one’s closest friends and family-to take action on shared issues” (Levine, 2008, p. 120) related to matters of justice, was insufficient for two reasons. First, while I had grounded matters of justice in the New York U.S. history curriculum, I grew more cognizant of how “current, controversial public issues [are] inherently engaging for students,” particularly issues “related to students’ ethnic, national, gender, or religious identity” (Avery, Levy & Simmons, 2013, p. 112). I wondered if my students were missing a learning opportunity when I placed social justice matters primarily in a historical, rather than a contemporary, context. Second, I realized that cultivating students’ online public voice was but one component of participatory politics, which “are interactive, peer-based acts through which individuals and groups seek to exert both voice and influence on issues of public concern” (Kahne, Hodgin, & Eidman-Aadahl, 2016, p.3). Students needed not simply to deliberate about matters of social justice, but to consider ways to act on them in an online participatory learning space. What I learned during the second phase has served as the impetus behind the third and latest phase of my journey (2016-present), which ironically has resulted in a dramatic revamping of my use of technology and a revisiting of matters and challenges that I addressed earlier in my journey. In this chapter, I first offer a conceptual and experiential context for how I came to question whether cultivating 8th grade students’ online public voice in a U.S. history was enough. Second, I offer an example of how two teachers sought to create online interschool deliberations about contemporary issues and examples of how a third teacher used low and high tech to enable her students to take civic action, which inspired me to change the direction of my journey. Third, I explore the essential elements of an online participatory learning space as they relate to these core practices of participatory politics: research and dialogue with diverse

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 41 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics audiences about matters of public concern; the production and circulation of culture and ideas within a networked public; and mobilization for change (Kahne, Hodgin, & Eidman-Aadahl, 2016, p. 9). Fourth, I discuss the challenges of integrating digital deliberations about contemporary public issues and online civic action into a U.S. history curriculum. Finally, I present the emerging adaptation of a site devoted to deliberations about just war in the context of U.S. history to a focus on just action in a contemporary setting.

BACKGROUND: FOUNDATION OF MY ONGOING PROFESSIONAL JOURNEY

Cultivating Urban Students’ Online Public Voices

The use of digital tools to develop a public voice on social justice themes is becoming more and more critical for middle school teachers for two reasons. First, rather than seeking out diverse perspectives, adults using social media seem to gravitate toward like-minded people. In 2014, Hampton, Rainie, Lu, Dwyer, Shin, and Purcell surveyed adults about their willingness to discuss the Snowden-NSA story. They found 86% of respondents were amenable to discussing the surveillance program face-to-face, but only 42% of Facebook or Twitter users were willing to do so on either platform. Respondents were much more likely to engage in both a face-to-face and online discussion if they realized that others agreed with them. While online forums provide people with multiple opportunities for ongoing deliberations about public policy matters, adults seemingly are reluctant to take advantage of them. Such reluctance is unlikely to diminish as “builders of open social spaces on global communications networks will find it difficult to support positive change in ‘cleaning up’ the real-time exchange of information and sharing of diverse ideologies over the next decade” (Levine, Anderson, & Page, 2017, p. 5). Second, a troubling effect of No Child Left Behind is the decline of instructional time for elementary social studies (Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnson, Serriere, & Stewart, 2008; Center on Education Policy, 2008; Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Heafner & Fitchett, 2012; Van Fossen, 2005; Vogler, Lintner, Lipscomb, Knopf, Heafner, & Rock, 2007). This situation is particularly acute for those in high poverty districts (Befiore, Auld, & Lee, 2005; Pace, 2008, 2011; Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Linver, & Hoffereth, 2003), which means the students most in need of learning how to become civically engaged are the ones least likely to do so. Earlier in my professional journey, I realized that urban middle school teachers must discover and cultivate ways to use online social media to foster students’ “public voice[s]” so as “to forge a bridge between media production and civic engagement” (Kahne, Middaugh, Lee, & Feezell, 2012, p. 3).

42 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

One way to do so is for students to address social justice issues in an 8th grade U.S. history course via a social media platform where they interact with students from Midwestern rural and suburban districts. This method requires an instructional support system for technology integration and a teacher capable of doing so.

Integration of Technology and Instruction

In the New York State K-12 Social Studies Field Guide (2015), which provides guidance on how to equip students with “21st century skills” (p. 3), there is no mention of words like digital, online or technology. Thus, the guide offers New York educators little guidance on what technology skills that students are expected to demonstrate while learning U.S. history or how to weave such skills into student learning. While professional development sessions offer some suggestions for engaging students online, they hardly offer what teachers need to implement technology in a way that utilizes their capacity and takes advantage of their students’ every-day technology skills. In my district, the lack of sustained training in how to leverage the power of online tools to support instruction leaves most teachers using technology to dress up presentation practices they have implemented for years. This is hardly a recipe for fostering our students’ 21st century skills. Nationwide, almost 90% of teens own or have access to a cell or smartphone, and send 30 text messages a day, while 92% of adolescents go online daily. A third of teens with phones have a messaging app and close to half of Hispanic and African- American teens that own phones use a messaging app. Smartphones are becoming the means for teens to access the online world. Social media attracts adolescents for several reasons: interest driven participation (Ito, Horst, Bittanti, Boyd, Herr- Stephenson, Pascoe, & Robinson, 2008); user agency (van Dijck, 2009); content generation (Shuler, 2007); and, sharing and socializing. This aligns with what characterizes youth’s civic engagement where the “expectation of participation in production and sharing of information [is] driven by individual interests and trusted networks” (Wells, 2013, p. 619). In an online participatory culture “members create and share their creations with others, experienced members help the less experienced to acquire knowledge and skills and to solve problems, and participants develop a sense of connection with one another and with community norms” (Kahne et al., 2012, p. 496). Contrast what draws adolescents to social media with their experience in a typical history classroom. A study of Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers revealed that while 73% permitted students to use their cell phones, students typically looked up answers to questions, and accessed or submitted assignments

43 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics online (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Less than 40% of the teachers indicated they used the collaborative part of social media in their classroom, even while they were avid personal users of such media. Little wonder then that students confront a “digital disconnect” when they enter a history classroom.

Connection to and Implementation of the U.S. History Curriculum

The New York 8th grade curriculum is content-focused and centers on the United States and state history after the Civil War. The 8th grade curriculum in Kansas similarly focuses on state and U.S. history, but starts in 1800. The New York social studies curriculum is traditional, yet unique. Traditional features include a focus on U.S. political history and on “great” historical figures. However, statements such as students will “work to influence those in positions of power to strive for extensions of freedom, social justice, and human rights” (New York State Education Department, 2015, p. 67), and will “examine examples of World War I and postwar race relations, such as the East St. Louis riots, the Silent March, and the Tulsa riots” (p. 104), suggest a broader and deeper exploration of social justice issues than found in most state U.S. history standards. Terms like racism and discrimination though fail to appear in the standards. Other unique features include two years devoted to U.S. and state history in middle school, and the placement of U.S. history in a hemispheric and global context. Students are to demonstrate skills such as the ability to “analyze evidence in terms of historical and/or social context” (p. 61) and to “evaluate the relationships among multiple causes and effects” (p. 62). Addressing this standard requires the intense use of primary sources, which represents another unique feature, one supported by the inclusion of document-based questions on the state assessments. The curricular time devoted to middle school U.S. history, and an emphasis on primary sources, offer an opportunity to explore social justice issues by addressing significant historical events, such as the displacement of Native Americans. Investigating what people of the time discussed about the relations between the U.S. and Native Americans not only offers students insight into how those of the past exercised their public voice in pursuit of social justice, but also enables them to explore the context in which such people did so. Developing students’ public voice would complement the New York State’s civics participation practice of “negotiating and compromising in the resolutions of differences and conflicts” (p. 67). Given how the use of social media does not innately result in users becoming exposed to diverse perspectives, meeting this standard requires teachers to foster digital literacy skills so as to purposefully expose students to multiple viewpoints (Kahne et al., 2012).

44 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Adolescents, Social Media, and My Classroom

My students attend a Title I small school with grades 6-12 in New York City where more than 90% of them receive free or reduced lunch. Prior to entering the 8th grade, students’ academic experience with using interactive online technology is limited to some collaboration via Google Docs, such as giving feedback on writing. Students email teachers about missed assignments, and take pictures of assignments or presentation slides so they do not need to write things down. Each year I seek to transfer my students’ “informal learning that occurs in the context of participatory media” to “formal learning settings” and to sound “pedagogy …content …[and] learning objectives” (Bull, Thompson, Searson, Garofalo, Park, Young, & Lee, 2008, p. 6). This is critical for several reasons. First, while nearly all my students own or have access to a mobile device, they lack experience with using such devices for academic purposes. Second, if “civic engagement includes the production of culture,” (Levine, 2008, p. 121), then students’ use of social networking sites and the creation and uploading of videos to online sites represent nascent forms of civic engagement. Yet Levine wondered how we encourage students “to create—and… make products with public purposes—rather than use the Internet to get access to mass-produced culture” (p. 129). Third, when using social networking sites and video games youth follow a “learn to do” so as to “learn about” model of learning, while schools typically follow a “learn about” and then possibly a “learn to do” model (Thomas & Brown, 2009). In many respects, moderate and high-end student users of social networking technologies, no matter their socio-economic status, are more primed to learn than their predecessors so long as teachers are willing and able to meet them on common ground. When I began working at my school as a first-year teacher in 2008-2009, I sought to learn how to effectively use digital collaboration and communication tools to enhance student learning. This piqued the interest of my administrators who were seeking to build the school’s reputation as a place where teachers implement cutting-edge technology to positively affect students. My early use of technology was a trial and error effort (Lankes, 2008), which often meant learning what not to do in my classroom. As a K-12 student in the 1990s, I occasionally used instant messaging for social purposes, and used the Internet in school mostly to conduct research and download written work. Even in college technology still largely was used to deliver information by simply shifting from a textbook to online sources. There was little instruction on how to use online social networking platforms to support student-centered learning. Not surprisingly, given my students, school and several years of teaching experience, I initially faced three challenges in using technology

45 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics to cultivate students’ public voices and to engage them in discussions about social justice: building, validating and using an instructional support system for technology integration; aligning my technology use with the curriculum; and, selecting effective digital tools. The first two were particularly relevant to my future direction.

PHASE 1 OF MY JOURNEY (2008-2014): MEETING FIRST SET OF CHALLENGES

Challenge 1: Building an Instructional Support System for Technology Integration

In my search for digital tools capable of fostering students’ online public voices, I remained mindful of Lund’s work (2004) where he suggested that there were logistical, pedagogical, social and technical issues related to the adoption of such tools. As a new teacher, I was unable to address the pedagogical element of Lund’s instructional support system, let alone align this system with the 8th grade U.S. history curriculum (refer to Table 1). Early on, finding an online platform that met my students’ needs and addressed logistical issues associated with technology integration trumped my teaching and the district curriculum. Once the norms for managing the hardware and online use of technology were addressed, and students began to enter my classroom more experienced with the academic use of technology, I shifted my focus to my students’ social needs. Instead of dealing with slow Internet, computer sign-on issues, and broken machines, I began addressing soft skills, such as online etiquette and working collaboratively, which is “vital for the new demands of the twenty-first century global service and information economy” (Livingston, 2012, p.8). As I shifted my focus to instructional practices and on how to better align the practices with the curriculum, I started leveraging the use of synchronous online discussions between my students and those from two middle schools in Kansas and one in Virginia to promote ideas of social justice.

Challenge 2: Curricular Alignment

Initially, there was a high curricular cost to developing an instructional system that supported technology integration as I occasionally allowed the history content to take a back seat. That said, as I learned to better manage and resolve logistical and technical issues, I became more skilled at integrating the academic and social aspects of using digital tools, the power to leverage the technology to support state content standards became clearer.

46 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Table 1. Logistical, Social and Technical Matters Associated with Technology Integration

Year-Tool/Lund Logistical Social Technical

Technology implemented in Students struggled with Selecting a tool was secondary Year 1 (2008-09) two places. Ran across a hall to responsibly of caring for concern to getting students Laptop cart monitor students. computers. actively engaged in work.

Synched instructional time with 2nd school in different Limited versatility. Synchronous Year 2-2009-10 time zone First time that most interacted editing was problematic, leading Wiki Routines were paramount. with peers from rural or urban to much overwritten content. Class set of new Students used netbooks for area. Tool was used because teacher netbooks their needs, not for academic already had experience with it. purposes!

Synched instructional time W/online discussion, needed to with 2 other schools in continually refresh. Year 3-2010-11 Students familiar with different time zone. No notification when others Ning – social Facebook. Needed prep on Added more structure to replied to a post. media site how to use social media for student use of tech. Network can’t handle load when Netbooks academic purposes. Teachers Attempted to integrate a entire class was online. Digital Compass – online needed to manage behavior “canned” curriculum for 8th curriculum for 8th grade history curriculum during p2p discussions grade history separate from was abandoned due to technical wiki & Ning work. troubles.

Students learned to monitor Synched instructional time Used audio file for each major themselves, preempting with 2 other schools in reading. Learned basic HTML to teacher intervention. Year 4-2011-12 different time zone. embed widgets from other sites, Students still struggled with Ning-year 2 Classroom website established such as Soundcloud.com. sign-in issues & academic use Class Google Site to increase accountability and New laptops and upgraded Wifi of laptops. organize curriculum for teacher made for easier use and fewer Class website gave students and students. logistical problems. practice with digital tools.

Snowmegeddon! Disrupted Students learned to use social Upgraded subscription to retain Year 5-2012-13 scheduling of three online functions of site to monitor level of services consistent with Ning-year 3 interschool discussions. their behavior. changes in social media. JumpRope Online Students regularly used Students used technology Video file replaces audio file for gradebook multiple websites. Some sign- to monitor their grades and each major reading. on problems. access assignments online.

Pilot videoconference between Only able to involve a group Site intended for personal, as two schools. Requires new Year 6-2013-14 from each school in video opposed to educational use. set of norms. Some students Ning-year 4 recordings, as monitoring a Network issues. Laptop cameras struggle w/video use of their full class lack range to include full group. “voice.”

New site poses logistical and Students create videos. Shift to new platform requires Years 7-8- 2014- technical issues. Practice speaking to camera. learning curve for teachers. 2016 Easier to update site and Differentiated roles for high- Platform designed for teachers Schoology to schedule synchronous performing students are set makes implementation easier. Years 1 & 2 discussion. -facilitate live discussions. Leads to use in other projects.

In the 2010-11 academic year, I began working with two Kansas middle school teachers on a yearlong monthly series of sequenced, synchronous, online discussions about a nation’s use of military force, using an online social networking platform (www.ning.com). We designed and validated an instructional support system that we embedded in the Just War Ning site (O’Brien, Bechard, Fulbright, Green, & Lawrence., 2012). The first big curricular challenge I tackled was to align the U.S.

47 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics history standards across two, and then three, states. In New York 8th grade U.S. history starts with the Civil War and ends with contemporary times, while in Kansas students learn about U.S. history from roughly 1800 to 1900. During each online discussion, students deliberated about a different hypothetical situation about how nations might resolve a conflict. We designed the situations so that students addressed different reasons that might cause conflict between nations, and diverse ways to address each conflict. My colleagues and I connected each situation to different events in U.S. history. For example, in one situation students played the role of a national leader that just learned one of his nation’s battleships was sunk in another nation’s harbor. This situation was based on President McKinley prior to the Spanish-American War, which is part of both the Kansas and New York state curriculum. Dealing with similar ideas across several events in U.S. history enabled us to align what we were doing with our respective state standards, and allowed the curricular flexibility for our students to engage in synchronous interstate deliberations. The publication of the New York K-8 Social Studies Framework (2015) enabled me to strengthen the curricular connections by adding a focus on the various elements of historical argumentation. This shift in focus clarified for me that the delivery of content was not the central purpose of this work, but instead a way of getting students to interpret the world around them and begin to take action in the form of expressing their opinions about real issues, in this case live wars. As my work moved forward into the seventh year, the improvement in digital tools and the focus on students’ argumentative skills led me to ask, “What’s next for this curriculum?” The question was not about which new tool to use, but how to craft the “time structures…to provide space for the teaching and planning of social studies” (Heafner, 2017) so as to leverage instructional time to promote a curriculum anchored in the state standards and to focus on skills associated with learning about and enacting principles of social justice.

PHASE 2 (2013-2015): MOVING FROM FIRST SET OF CHALLENGES TO SECOND SET

By years six (2013-14) and seven (2014-15) of my journey, I grew more adept at selecting online collaborative platforms and integrating their use into the curriculum and an instructional support system, enabling my students to exercise their online public voices in peer-to-peer (p2p) deliberations about critical policy matters. As the pieces came together, new challenges emerged. At the end of each school year, my students and those from several other middle schools around the country, concluded their yearlong series of monthly, synchronized online discussions about the use of military force with a mock United

48 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Nations (U.N.) Security Council meeting. Two features distinguished this online discussion from the prior eight discussions. First, students applied their thinking to a contemporary, as opposed to a hypothetical, situation such as the civil war in Syria or the tension between Russia and the Ukraine. Second, adults joined the online discussion, representing Security Council members such as Russia, Britain or Argentina. This was the first time that adults played an active instructional role in the students’ discussions. The exchange among students from three schools and an adult that was playing the role of a Russian delegate illustrated several features of how students engaged with each other in the online limited networked public (Refer to Table 2). First, the students used questions to engage their peers and the adult in the deliberation. Second, the students engaged in hypothetical or “what if” thinking to test their ideas. Third, they challenged each other’s thinking, which occasionally resulted in a series of 15 or more related posts. Last, students treated the adults as equals as illustrated by how EMS-M chastised the adult for seemingly making light of people dying, yet used what the “Russian delegate” posted to make her point. I struggle imagining a student like EMS-M challenging an adult during a face-to-face discussion in my classroom! While the teachers didn’t teach just war principles, many students naturally gravitated toward them. Just war theorists argue that prior to deciding to go to war a nation must determine if there is a reasonable chance of success (Hurka, 2005; Rigstad, 2007), which is illustrated in this student’s post: “How would [using military force] be the best [option]? Wouldn’t you just be getting your country into a war with

Table 2. Exchange Between Students from 3 Schools and an Adult Role Playing a Russian Delegate

Reply by EBA-A: Why would you give weapons to rebels if you said you’re going to remove arm embargo and that means no guns will go to al assad or rebels. Russian Delegate: Russia promises to only send billions of dollars in weapons to the good guys. EBA-B: That’s really good but I got a question “What kind of weapons are the Russians going to send.” Russian Delegate: $4 billion will pretty much buy you whatever you want. PRMS-S: I agree we might need to use Russian forces to fight to get rid of Assad and all of his nuclear weaponry. EBA-C: I disagree with you when you say to send billions of dollars in weapons to the good guys. If Assad finds out then he might go and attack Russia. What you going to do if they attack you? PRMS-T: EBA-C. I’m pretty sure Syria would not be stupid enough to attack Russia because Russia could easily take out Syria. Russian Delegate: Hold on... Russia is almost done laughing. Assad can’t even defeat a bunch of scrubby rebels in his own country. Russia does not fear Assad. He NEEDS us. Reply by EMS-M: There isn’t anything to laugh about when assad is killing innocent people with his army and is forcing people to move countries and cant even keep his country as one because rebels are getting mad so what russia NEEDS to do is stay out of it.

49 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics one of the largest armies in the world?” Using military force for the right intentions is another just war principle, one illustrated by this exchange:

EBA-D: Why would you want to send more advanced weapons? How will that help? EMS-K: I would send more weapons because it would allow [the Ukrainians] to…defend themselves. If they cannot defend themselves against pro-Russian invaders or violent protesters, or Russian military, then the whole nation could turn into chaos, and could be taken over by Russia as a whole. …We want to protect our ally….

While EMS-K implicitly suggested that providing the Ukrainians with weapons likely would result in deaths, he sought to enable the Ukraine to protect itself and its citizens, not to attack Russia. The idea of a just cause for war pervades just war theory (Walzer, 2004; William & Caldwell, 2006), an idea students embraced. Students continually sought ways to resolve disputes other than through violence, but they supported the use of military force to defend one’s nation after an attack, and to protect an ally and innocent people, as exemplified by this post:

PRMS-U: @ Argentinian Delegate I am for peace keeping and think sending a peace keeping force would help control the violence so we may come to a point where we could simply talk things out. If they eliminate the peace keeping force we would know that Russia really would want to start WW3 and we could rally nations around us to prepare for war.

The 2014 post by EMS-L’s below epitomized the value of allowing middle school students to engage deliberations about the just use of military force in an online limited networked public:

EMS-L: I believe these would be the correct responses to the issue at hand, but in the same respect we don’t have a quarrel with Russia yet. Sanctions makes sense because it imposes the sense that we will not let them dictate another nation, therefore they are not allowed in- but starting an all out war against Russia when they haven’t made an initial attack, even if we don’t like them, would put us in danger of being “the bad guys” and simply make them look like the innocents. We need a more tactical approach to expose these inhumane actions imposed by Russia.

First, she validated her peer’s choice of ways to respond to the Ukrainian crisis, but then suggested how at the moment the crisis was limited to Russia and the

50 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Ukraine. Second, she indicated how imposing economic sanctions demonstrated a willingness to take a stand, yet was not provocative. Third, she stated how more aggressive responses not only might intensify the crisis, but also might shift the focus from Russia as the aggressor. Finally, she referenced the need to shine a light on Russia’s “inhumane actions.” The way she composed this post in the midst of an ongoing synchronous discussion makes her thoughtfulness impressive. Recognizing the depth and richness of such thinking caused me to realize how I needed to shift my focus from what I was doing, to what I wanted students to do, which posed a new set of challenges for me.

OVERVIEW OF SECOND SET OF CHALLENGES

Challenge 1: Fostering Student-Driven Learning With Technology

While I started this phase of my journey focused on teacher matters related to my technology use, after digesting what my students were doing, I now faced several student-related challenges. As I sought to seamlessly weave technology into my instruction, I came to realize the need to shift my focus from students as navigators of mobile devices to navigators of their own learning. “[W]hen students are given adequate opportunities and support to critically discuss and evaluate differences between conflicting explanations, their conceptual understanding…improves” (Asterhan & Babichenko, 2015, p. 740). In providing such opportunities and support, I confronted Livingston’s (2012) query about whether the use of technology necessitates a “fundamental transformation in learning infrastructure” that “requires me to rethink the relations between pedagogy and society, teacher and pupil, and knowledge and participation” (p. 8). Our research suggests that providing students with an instructional support system and access to a sequenced set of synchronous online discussions on a similar topic better enables students to think more deeply. While research indicates that students balk at teacher intervention in online p2p discussions, our work with the mock U.N. Security Council suggested that students were receptive to certain kinds of adult interaction (O’Brien, Ellsworth, Barker, Lawrence, Green, & Bechard, 2014). During this discussion, students typically made 25% more posts than prior ones, which possibly was due either to the presence of adults and/or a focus on a contemporary use of a nation’s military forces. Thus, I explored ways to foster deeper thinking by students about the content in p2p online settings and to cultivate the soft skills essential in digital settings.

51 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Challenge 2: Aligning the Curriculum With Student Thinking

In allowing our students to engage in p2p discussions in an online limited public network, my colleagues and I learned about the power of middle school students’ thinking. While not yet able to express their thinking as precisely and eloquently as adults, 7th and 8th graders were able to engage in thoughtful and thought-provoking deliberations about the ethics of war. I was challenged to foster a dynamic, symbiotic relationship between my students and the course curriculum. This meant leading students to act on the content in a manner that reflected actions commonly taken to address social injustice and creating the sense of urgency for students during content instruction that leads them to leverage the use of digital tools in a similar manner to the leaders of successful movements outside of the classroom. Thus, I needed to keep abreast of changing technologies and to include more contemporary issues into my taught curriculum.

Challenge 3: Managing a Dynamic Instructional Support System

While I needed to continuously and seamlessly weave hardware and software into an ever-changing larger instructional support system, I was mindful how, like technology, my teaching was ever-evolving. There was the thrill of embracing constant change, yet the agony that arose when new technologies required dramatic change to the system’s architecture. The migration of the Just War project from the Ning platform to Schoology was akin to moving from a rectangular classroom with desks from one school to a circular room with tables in a second school. In light of my first two challenges, such a move now seemed like a minor inconvenience as I only began to fathom what might characterize an instructional support system dedicated to students as navigators of their learning, one intended to enable students to exercise their online public voices about public matters related to justice. Mindful how content generation was a critical component of social media (Shuler, 2007), my Just War colleagues and I moved from making videos to explain the hypothetical situations to requiring our students to use videos to make the initial group and individual final video posts and to upload them to their Schoology class site. As we sought to use such efforts “to forge a bridge between media production and civic engagement” (Kahne et al., 2012, p.3), I thought about broadening the focus from cultivating students’ public voice to more purposeful learning about participatory politics, which “are interactive, peer-based acts through which individuals and groups seek to exert both voice and influence on issues of public concern” (Kahne et al, 2016, p. 3). Rather than focusing on my own classroom use of technology, I turned to several colleagues for guidance during 2015-16 and 2016-17.

52 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

PHASE 3 OF JOURNEY (2015-PRESENT): A CHANGE IN DIRECTION

During this phase of my journey, I became the chair of the National Council for the Social Studies Technology Community, which has enabled me to collaborate with and learn from teachers nationwide, such as Mr. Bechard, Mr. Finney and Ms. Gillman. Their experiences related to their students’ deliberation about and action on public policy matters, which is described in the next section, have inspired me to shift the focus of the Just War site to Just Action. The Just Action site promotes several core practices of participatory politics: research and dialogue with diverse audiences about matters of public concern; the production and circulation of culture and ideas within a networked public; and mobilization for change. What follows is: a description of these teachers’ experiences; how their experiences informed me about the essential elements of a peer-based online networked public and how to embed them into the Just Action site; and, the challenges generated by this change in direction.

Online Interschool Deliberations About Contemporary Public Matters

During the 2016-17 school year Mr. Bechard’s 7th grade students from Mission Trail Middle School in Olathe, Kansas and Mr. Finney’s 7th grade students from Maple Hill Middle School in upstate New York weekly gathered online on Schoology (www.schoology.com) to discuss current events. Each Friday in their face-to-face classrooms, students watched the day’s episode of CNN 10 and then they logged onto the online discussion forum on Schoology. Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney uploaded a prompt about the day’s events and students posted a reply to the prompt, which launched them into a synchronous discussion about the day’s news. By participating in this interschool online networked-public, students broadened their audience and gained insight into varying views on civic concerns, such as the regional differences on events as diverse as terrorism and tornadoes. When discussing terrorism, for example, a Kansas student posted he was not worried about a bombing, while a New York student replied that he was scared because his father routinely traveled to New York City and his aunt lived near Ground Zero. After learning about tornados in the Midwest, one of Mr. Finney’s students asked his Kansas peers: “Why would anyone live in an area with tornados?” Such comments inspired excellent online inter-school discussions and led students to use Schoology to informally continue discussions for several days. Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney also used the p2p online discussions to model appropriate behavior and posts and to address the importance of creating and maintaining a positive digital profile.

53 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Given the success of the interschool discussions and a desire to deepen their students’ civic awareness, Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney brought their students together for online dialogues when school was not in session. As the first presidential debate unfolded in real time, for example, with their parents’ approval students logged onto Twitter and used a shared hashtag (#MHMTDEB) to tweet their thoughts about the debate. As the candidates addressed how to stimulate the economy, one student tweeted how “Clinton…has a well thought out plan,” while another countered how “Trump is right about Clinton’s plan about raising taxes.” Students able to read Twitter feeds, but not make tweets, posted their thoughts via a Google Form, which Mr. Bechard or Mr. Finney would tweet for them using a generic account. Prior to the debate, Mr. Finney and Mr. Bechard tweeted a reminder that students only were to post comments they would say in a classroom. Seemingly holding themselves to a higher standard than the candidates, the students did not make one inappropriate comment in their 450 tweets. Many parents indicated how this was their first opportunity to have a meaningful political discussion with their child, which is what Krutka (2016) learned when studying student use of Twitter. While Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney initially focused on the practice of researching and deliberating about matters of public concern, toward the end of the school year they shifted focus to the core participatory political practice related to the creation and communication of student-created material. Their students prepared presentations on historical events related to their school’s location. Connecting each other’s curriculum to their locality, Mr. Finney’s students used Schoology to address the Albany Plan or the Battle of Saratoga, while Mr. Bechard’s students addressed Bleeding Kansas or Westward expansion. While their students were fulfilling Kahne et al.’s (2016) recommendation to use digital tools to reach a wider audience by interacting with their cross-country peers, Ms. Gillman’s students reached peers beyond U.S. borders.

Using Technology to Reach a World Audience

Ms. Gillman, her 7th and 8th grade social studies students and the Student Council members at Hocker Grove Middle School near Kansas City use technologies such as What’s App, iMovie, and several Google apps to broaden their worldviews, seek public comment, share their work, and globally interact with other students. Since 2013 Ms. Gillman has partnered with Saint Mary Kevin School (SMKS) near Kampala Uganda and a non-profit group. What began as a service project to provide seeds for a garden at SMKS, blossomed into an international cultural exchange that uses a mix of low and high tech to overcome the challenges of distance, technological disparity and time zone differences. Hocker Grove students asynchronously interact with SMK students, many of whom are orphaned and struggle with health concerns. Her students regularly send school supplies and video greeting cards, and upload

54 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics short iMovies about U.S. pop culture and their lives as students in Middle America. Teams of local volunteers travel to Kampala and share copies of her students’ work with SMKS students via flash drives and laptops as Internet access is not always available at SMKS. SMKS students send back beautifully penned letters, cards and artworks. The volunteers make videos with the SMKS students, which they share with Ms. Gillman’s students. While now a mix of digital and physical interactions, students in both schools hope to make fuller use of an online public space as SMKS gains greater access to technology. Under Ms. Gillman’s sponsorship, Student Council (StuCo) members acted on Kahne et al.’s (2016) recommendation to use digital platforms like Google Hangout, Skype and What’s App to explore and exchange ideas with other Student Councils. Her StuCo officers hosted an All Schools’ Council Google Hangout to share ideas with officers from the district’s other middle schools. StuCo members used What’s App to discuss school improvement ideas with students at Kerala Samajam Model Schools in Jamshedpur, India. Finally, she worked with StuCo members, environmental clubs and science classes on the Going Green Program (www.teachaboutus.org) to share sustainability ideas with schools in Germany. During the school year, her students interacted with peers on three continents, illustrating the power of online participatory spaces.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN ONLINE LEARNING SPACE FOR PARTICIPATORY POLITICS

Drawing on these experiences and in light of the challenges of using a dynamic online instructional support system to facilitate learning about participatory politics, I identified several essential elements of an online participatory learning space.

Element 1: Focus on P2P Creation and Sharing of Knowledge About Contemporary Matters

Fostering “interactive peer-based acts” (Kahne et. al., 2016, p. 3) is the most critical, yet daunting element. This requires assessing both students’ experience with the use of social media technologies and their ability “to translate and connect their [social] media engagements toward more academic, civic, and production oriented activities” (Ito et al., 2013, p. 25). While Mr. Bechard and Ed’s students proved quite capable of academically engaging with each other about current events, many of them struggled with connecting a national news story to life in their community, which made deciding how to take local action very difficult.

55 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Element 2: Set Parameters for Safe, Social and Supportive Peer Learning

While research on the Just War sites revealed the importance of articulating and operationalizing norms as a crucial facet of the online instructional support system, those norms were not created for p2p deliberations about contemporary, often controversial, policy matters. While Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney’s students had participated in just war discussions, Mr. Bechard and Mr. Finney found themselves constantly reminding their students to “think” before they posted. Doing so helped to ensure that as students shared their thoughts, they treated each other with respect and civility (Kahne, et al, 2012, p. 10).

Element 3: Empower Learners to Engage in Participatory Peer-Based Acts

Ms. Gillman and her students taught me how participation in online collaborative learning spaces enables students to “identify ways to build bridges from voice to influence” (Kahne, et al., 2012, p. 24). Her students made rich use of social media as they created and shared material with their peers within their school district and across four continents. They not only shared their respective culture with each other, but learned about associative governance and acted on public matters such as sustainability.

Embedding Elements of a Participatory Learning Space Into the Just Action Platform

While the Just War site fostered deliberation about the use of military force as a matter of public concern with diverse audiences, such deliberations often were grounded in a hypothetical situation and its historical parallel, as opposed to a contemporary use of military force. The Just War site represented a limited networked public where students mostly produced ideas and cultivated their public voice, but stopped short of mobilizing for change. During Phase 3 of my journey, I and several colleagues are using the three elements of a participatory learning space to transform the Just War platform into one titled Just Action. The Just Action site is intended to:

• Enable students to gain an understanding of an enduring social justice issue by reviewing relevant news reports and discussing how that issue manifests itself across a school year; • Learn about the social justice issue in multiple historical contexts and ways that historical figures acted on the issue; and,

56 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

• Become familiar with ways to civically engage with a social justice issue and later decide on ways to act on that issue.

Fulfilling the first two purposes is feasible, given what I earlier learned about integrating an instructional support system into a limited networked public space on Schoology. I am uncertain though about using a limited networked public to accomplish the third purpose. While the logistical and technical aspects of engaging in online deliberations about public issue remain largely the same, shifting the focus from historical to contemporary public issues means infusing the instructional support system with ways to keep students abreast of relevant current events. Acting on the first purpose has necessitated, for example, building in news feeds and periodically identifying and uploading student friendly analyses of the issue. For the trial run of the Just Action site, students from two Kansas and two New York school chose to research and deliberate online about the pros and cons of using social media and to consider such use in the context of the First Amendment. The identified benefits ranged from you “experience new cultures,” “see the new trends” and “find information on any forum” to checking on “loved ones who are in a natural disaster,” “help others,” and “be creative and express yourself.” They expressed concern though about matters such as cyberbullying, cyberstalking, hate speech posts, the proliferation of fake news that harms people and the monitoring of people’s online actions. During the initial deliberation students struggled with appropriately placing the use of social media in a First Amendment context, which validated our desire to draw upon how historical figures conceived and acted on freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, many students expressed ambivalence about the use of social media, as best illustrated by one student’s post: “You should be able to do what you want to on social media but not something rude to people.” At the same time, other students revealed a diversity of interpretations of freedom of speech, such as two students who exchanged posts regarding derogatory tweets made about a celebrity. One student expressed great displeasure about the posts, while a second student noted how she “did not have a private account which allows anyone to look at her page and comment on anything.” This example demonstrates the need to explore the relation between public figures and freedom of speech, while matters like cyberbullying and hate speech raise questions about the use of public speech that encourages violence. Thus, in addressing the second purpose, we are adding historical figures as members of the limited networked public on the Just War site. The tweets about the celebrity raised questions about libel, which led us to add the parties in the U.S. Supreme Court 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, as “members” of the site. The third purpose potentially poses a fundamental shift because we are grappling with the feasibility of students engaging in authentic, relevant civic action in the

57 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics existing limited networked public. While addressing how to act online, one student best captured what we desire: “standing up for yourself is always important.” Given how our students are daily immersed in their digital social environment, I wonder if an academic online setting is the best avenue for them to engage in participatory politics. Harking back to how students dramatically increased their number of posts when they engaged with adults during the mock U.N. Security Council deliberations, we intend for students to identify a particular problem with social media use, such as online hate speech by adolescents, propose ways to address that problem, and then present their thinking to an audience beyond their limited networked public on the Schoology site. How we do so, still is a work in progress. Needless to say, as I and my colleagues seek both to better foster student-driven learning with technology and to align such thinking with our respective curriculum, new challenges already are emerging during the third phase of my journey.

SOMETHING OLD AND SOMETHING NEW: A THIRD SET OF CHALLENGES EMERGES

Challenge 1: Flipping the Curricular Focus

While I am experienced enough to modify the current Just War platform and instructional support system to meet the needs of online interschool deliberations about contemporary justice issues, shifting the curricular focus to these contemporary issues once again raises curricular integration questions. When we initiated the Just War project we purposefully chose historical events, such as an appropriate action for President Jefferson to take in response to the Barbary States, that likely were addressed in the three sets of state standards. By knowing the topics and dates of the monthly deliberations at the start of the year, each teacher possessed some flexibility in reaching an appropriate part of the curriculum for each deliberation. Flipping the focus of the monthly deliberations from the just use of military force in the past to questions of justice in contemporary society requires the following. First, the two New York and the three Kansas teachers need students to gain enough background on an enduring justice related issue in society to eventually engage in substantive deliberations about the issue. This means shifting the focus from a weekly news story to stories related to a contemporary, ongoing issue. Second, after reaching this decision, the teachers engaged in an online vetting process to identify two issues for students to track during the school year. They used the following criteria: a substantive, contemporary social justice issue; an enduring issue likely to receive substantial news coverage in the upcoming months; an issue of relevance and comprehension to middle school students; and, curricular viability and alignment.

58 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

The last criterion requires some curricular gymnastics by each teacher. The issue is defined broadly so as to allow students to pursue one or more story lines as they emerge, which means the teacher doesn’t know which direction the issue will take until days before the monthly deliberation. Thus, my colleagues and I will try to align three moving targets, our students’ thinking, an evolving social justice issue and technological change, with a target set in local and state policy, that is our respective curriculum. Thus, the students and administrators need to have confidence in each teacher’s ability to draw connections between how the social justice issue is evolving with what students are to learn from the history curriculum!

Challenge 2: (Re)Contextualizing the Deliberation Norms

As noted by the exchange between EMS-M and the Russian delegate during the U.N. Security Council online discussion, each year students in the Just War project became adept at engaging in thoughtful, thought provoking and respectful exchanges. Reaching this point is a learning process for students, particularly given how their informal learning about online social dynamics is grounded in their use of sites like Snap Chat and Group Me. In creating the instructional support system, we realized the importance of establishing clear norms for online, interschool academic discussions. While these were p2p discussions, we did monitor the discussions and occasionally “pinged” a student off the site for failing to abide by the norms. Aside from operationalizing a set of norms and ensuring a safe environment for expressing different perspectives, students periodically reminded us they were early adolescents, which is critical to remember as we offer them the opportunity to deliberate about relevant and substantive, yet controversial, issues. During the online discussions, students struggled when they personalized what they and their peers were discussing. For example, we created one hypothetical situation where students were assigned to one of two opposing roles, which set the stage for a debate, not a deliberation. As a result, many students wanted to “win” the debate. They lost sight of what they were discussing and personalized their role so that some took offense when others didn’t agree with them. The challenge we face now is how to allow students the space for a host of diverse perspectives on an issue, while ensuring they both feel safe to express such perspectives and remain respectful of those with which they disagree.

Challenge 3: Moving From Online Deliberation to Digital Civic Action

An online limited networked public for p2p deliberation ensures that students engage with each other in a safe and supportive environment, a hallmark of my use of digital

59 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics social media. Adding a civic action dimension to the deliberations necessitates moving students into a more open online networked public. During the first year of Just Action, we anticipate offering students several ways to act on their deliberation. First, we intend to create a public YouTube channel where students can post videos that range from their thoughts and ways to act on an issue to a discussion of a plan of action. Second, we plan to select a handful of crowdsourcing sites and to allow students to use one to gain support for action on an issue. Finally, we want students to identify others with shared interests and to explore ways to collectively act on the issue.

CONCLUSION

Continually adapting to technological changes, becoming knowledgeable about and responsive to enduring matters of social justice, and, allowing students’ thinking to guide curricular and instructional decisions makes for an exhilarating, exhausting and empowering combination for my ongoing professional journey. More importantly, by immersing students in online participatory spaces where they are able to deliberate about and act on significant public matters of social justice, I and my colleagues hope to “enable more youth to see and seize available opportunities for civic and political engagement that are empowering, equitable, and impactful” (Kahne, et al., 2016). Striving toward such a goal makes the journey imperative.

REFERENCES

Asterhan, C. S., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755. doi:10.1037/edu0000014 Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A., & Simmons, A. M. (2013). Deliberating Controversial Public Issues As Part of Civic Education 1. Social Studies, 104(3), 105–114. doi:1 0.1080/00377996.2012.691571 Befiore, P., Auld, R., & Lee, D. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education: Equal access and a pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 855–863. doi:10.1002/pits.20116

60 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Boyle-Baise, M., Hsu, M. C., Johnson, S., Serriere, S. C., & Stewart, D. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 233–255. doi:10.1080/00933104.2008 .10473374 Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol8/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & VanFossen, P. (2014). An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 7–35. doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. G. (2012). Examining elementary social studies marginalization: A multilevel model. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40–68. doi:10.1177/0895904812453998 Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130. doi:10.1080/0093310 4.2010.10473418 Hampton, K. N., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence.”. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the- spiral-of-silence/ Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the role of social studies curricula. Social Studies, 103(2), 67–72. doi:1 0.1080/00377996.2011.592165 Hurka, T. (2005). Proportionality in the Morality of War. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(1), 34–66. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00024.x Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., ... Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

61 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., ... Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35. doi:10.1080/00933104.20 15.1132646 Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Youth online activity and exposure to diverse perspectives. New Media & Society, 14(3), 492-512. Krutka, D., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why social studies educators use Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 16(1), 38–59. Lankes, R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New approaches to credibility tools. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 101–122). Cambridge, MA: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Lawrence, N., & O’Brien, J. (2016). An Ongoing Journey to Foster Urban Students’ Online “Public Voices”. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 4(1), 32–45. doi:10.4018/IJCEE.2016010103 Lawrence, N., & O’Brien, J. (2011). Using online collaborative tools to foster middle school students’ “public voices”: Payoffs, perils and possibilities. In Cases on Educational Technology Integration in Urban Schools (pp. 97-126). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Levine, P. (2008). A Public voice for youth: The audience problem in digital media and civic education. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 119–138). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577938 Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: What, for whom and by whom? In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, CSCL (Vol. 3, pp. 167–198). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7921-4_7

62 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

New York State Education Department. (2015). K-8 Social Studies Framework. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-k-12-social- studies-framework New York State Education Department. (2015). New York State K-12 Social Studies Field Guide. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-k- 12-social-studies-field-guide O’Brien, J., Bechard, B., Fulbright, T., Green, K., & Lawrence, N. (2012). Online interstate student diplomats discuss what justifies war: “We don’t want people to die, but we don’t want to lose our oil.” Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1), 99. doi:10.5539/jel.v1n1p99 O’Brien, J., Ellsworth, T. M., Barker, T. W., Lawrence, N., Green, K., & Bechard, B. (2014). Online synchronous discussions, middle school students and mock UN Security Council. Digital Social Studies, 197. Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research & Practice, 3(1), 24–40. Pace, J. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32–60. do i:10.1080/00933104.2011.10473446 Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/ Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (2017). The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech- trolls-anonymity-and- fake-news-online/ Rigstad, M. (2007). Jus Ad Bellum after 9/11: A state of the art report. The IPT Beacon, 3, 1–20. Roth, J., Linver, M., Hofferth, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What happens during the school day?: Time diaries from a national sample of elementary school teachers. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 317–343. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00242

63 Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics

Shuler, C. (2007). D is for digital: An analysis of the children’s interactive media environment with a focus on mass marketed products that promote learning. Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/pdf/DisforDigital.pdf Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2009). Why virtual worlds can matter. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 37–49. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0008 van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58. doi:10.1177/0163443708098245 VanFossen, P. J. (2005). ‘Reading and math take so much of the time. . .’: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376–403. doi:10.1080/00933104.2005. 10473287 George Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital Learning Environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds.), Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (pp. 242–260). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118736494.ch14 Vogler, K. E., Lintner, T., Lipscomb, G. B., Knopf, H., Heafner, T. L., & Rock, T. C. (2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31(2), 20–34. Walzer, M. (2004). Arguing About War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wells, C. (2013). Two eras of civic information and the evolving relationship between civil society organizations and young citizens. New Media & Society, 16(4), 615–636. doi:10.1177/1461444813487962 Williams, R. E., & Caldwell, D. (2006). Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4), 309–320. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00256.x

64 65

Chapter 4 Cyberbullying: Safety and Ethical Issues Facing K-12 Digital Citizens

Terry Diamanduros Georgia Southern University, USA

Elizabeth Downs Georgia Southern University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter describes cyberbullying with a focus on K-12 students. Cyberbullying has evolved with the increased use of information and communication technology. As electronic information becomes more a part of everyday life, there has been a negative aspect to the use of computers and mobile technology. Cyberbullying presents a complex set of issues that can negatively impact students’ safety and wellbeing. Cyberbullying includes many of the same issues as traditional bullying but extends the aggression beyond the physical schoolyard. In addition to the cyberbully perpetrator, these aggressive acts include cybervictims and often find the cyberbully-victims who move from victim to perpetrator. This chapter explores the safety and ethical issues facing K-12 schools and the challenges associated with this electronic form of aggression.

INTRODUCTION

The effects of bullying on children have been well-documented (Graham, 2016; Salmivalli, 2010; Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, & Del Rey, 2015). Bullying has been a part of the human experience since our earliest ancestors and is an element of group culture not confined to the human experience as bullying behaviors are demonstrated

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch004

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Cyberbullying by many different species (Sherrow, 2011). In modern society, bullying has been documented in print as early as the 18th century (Koo, 2007) and continues to be a global concern (Gorzig & Frumkin, 2013; Zych, et al., 2015). As the internet and electronic media have become a pervasive part of global cultures, information and communication technology has been used as a format for bullying. The face-to- face, traditional schoolyard bullying still exists. However, an additional form of willful and repeated aggression now uses electronic transmission to deliver threats. Cyberbullying is currently a threat to the physical and emotional safety of K-12 students, and schools have an ethical obligation to create environments that reduce the instances of all forms of willful and repeated aggression.

BACKGROUND

The contemporary research on bullying has its origins with groundbreaking studies conducted by Olweus (1994), in the 1970’s. Beginning with Olweus’ early research, there has been a proliferation of studies on the topic (Zych et al., 2015). According to Olweus (1994), “A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (p. 1173). Another essential element of bullying includes an imbalance of power (Olweus & Limber, 2017). Bullies are thought to be motivated by status within the peer group (Salmivalli, 2010). The bully personality has been described as aggressive, impulsive, lacking empathy, having a desire to dominate others, and a positive attitude toward violence (Olweus, 1994). Victims have been characterized as anxious, insecure, or are victimized just because they are different (Graham, 2016). Bullying is a dynamic concept that involves more than the bully and victim. As research in the field expanded, a third category of bully-victim has emerged that describes those children who have been victims and who, in turn, bully others (Buelga, Martinez-Ferrer, Cava, 2017; Kochel, Ladd, Bagwell, & Yabko, 2015; Salmivalli, 2010). The traditional concept of bullying usually describes a schoolyard experience in which the bully and victim are in close physical proximity (Kowalski, Morgan, & Limber, 2012). However, as the 20th century came to an end, the internet added a new dimension to the schoolyard bullying problem. The internet has changed many facets of our lives. With the ubiquitous influx of personal media in the 1990’s a new delivery formats for bullying began to evolve. Email, texting, instant messaging, social media, social networks, digital video hosting, digital imaging, and other media sharing networks provided limitless platforms and

66 Cyberbullying formats for inappropriate aggressive behavior. The term that evolved to describe bullying through information and communication technology is cyberbullying. William Belsey is credited with coining the term at the turn of this century (Gregoire, 2013). Olweus and Limber (2017) suggests that cyberbullying should be considered a form of bullying. A majority of students who have experienced cyberbullying have also been bullied in a traditional form. Bullying and cyberbullying include the common elements of intentional harm, repetition, and an imbalance of power (Menesini, 2012). Different definitions have been developed as the concept of cyberbullying has been studied. One common definition for cyberbullying is intentional and repetitive harmful and aggressive behavior through the use of electronic media (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Smith et al., 2008). Although the definitions for cyberbullying contain the essential elements of bullying, some researchers suggest that there are features of electronic media that result in additional issues. Electronic media offers a tool that disassociates the bully from the victim, there is no longer the face-to-face confrontation associated with schoolyard method of bullying. The use of electronic media also provides the opportunity for total anonymity in which the victim does not know who the perpetrator is. The unique possibility for anonymity in an act of cyberbullying, where the victim does not know the identity of the bully, may increase feelings of vulnerability in the situation (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009). Patchin and Hinduja (2015a, b) have conducted an extensive review of published research on cyberbullying. They report ranges of 0.4% to 92% for reports of cyberbullying victims and 1.0% to 60.4% for offenders. They conclude that probably 25% of teens have been victims of cyberbullying. Juvonen and Gross (2008) found 72% of the students they surveyed had experienced at least one incident of cyberbullying in the previous year. There are various reasons for the discrepancy of reported cyberbullying incidents. One issue in the research is the discrepancy of factors included in the definition and the types of technology studied (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Zych, et al., 2015). Another possible issue is the use of self-report measures and non-experimental methodology (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). The high incidence of reported cyberbullying experiences is troubling as it impacts academic achievement, mental health, and depression (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014). It also has an effect physical health, pain, appetite, and sleep (Zych et al, 2015). Due to the extensive reported incidents of cyberbullying and the broad spectrum of emotional and physical impacts, schools need to address the safety and ethical issues surrounding cyberbullying.

67 Cyberbullying

Student Safety and Emotional Harm Related to Cyberbullying

For the past decade, cyberbullying has become a challenge for schools and poses a significant concern for the safety of youth. Although this form of bullying can occur off school grounds, it can generate a school environment in which students may not feel safe if they know that the online bully attends their school or if they fear their peers will see the negative, hurtful posts or images of them and begin to bully them at school. While cyberbullying from someone whose identity is unknown may be perceived as more threatening and inducing more fear and anxiety, cyberbullying by someone whose identity is known to the victim can be quite harmful (Dooley et al., 2009; Nocentini, Calmaestra, Schultze-Krumboltz, Scheithauer, Ortega, & Menesini, 2010). Online harassment and aggression create significant stressors for the victim, which impact his/her emotional well-being. Victims of cyberbullying experience psychological distress that can lead to serious mental health problems (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Some victims of cyberbullying are so emotionally distraught that they become suicidal threatening their own personal safety. Negative psychological outcomes of cyberbullying are not limited to the victims. Cyberbullying offenders are more likely to engage in risky behaviors that pose a threat to their safety (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Additionally, young persons involved in cyberbullying both as a victim and as perpetrator are also vulnerable to the emotional harm associated with online aggression and are thought to be more emotionally troubled than cybervictims and cyberbullies (Sourander, Brunstein Klomek, Ikonen, Lindroos, Luntamo, Koskelainen, Ristkari, & Helenius, 2010). Recently, digital self-harm in which a young person posts negative messages about him/herself has gained the attention of professionals in the field.

Perceived Safety at School and the Role of School Climate

The anonymity and elusiveness of cyberbullying can undermine the school environment and lead to the cyberbullying victim wondering if the person perpetrating the online bullying is a peer at school. Without knowing the identity of the cyberbully, the victim may become wary about his/her surroundings and begin to scan his/her environment in an effort to avoid possible cruel encounters (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). The cyberbullying victim may not know who to trust and may worry that others have seen the negative messages posted online which can lead to their feeling fearful at school. If the cyberbully’s identity is known, the victim may fear that the bullying will become physical which creates a sense of feeling unsafe at school. Victims of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying have reported feeling unsafe at school. In a study examining fifth-grade students’ feelings of safety at school, approximately 24% of the students in the sample indicated that they always

68 Cyberbullying or sometimes felt unsafe at school (Jacobson, Riesch, Temkin, Kedrowski, & Kluba, 2011). A majority of the students feeling unsafe reported that they had bullied or teased others. Approximately 33% of the students participating in the survey reported feeling stressed while about 50% reported believing they were at slight or great risk as a result of feeling unsafe. The authors noted that the possibility that students who feel unsafe at school may be likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as carrying a knife or gun for protection, needs careful consideration since it could possibly jeopardize their safety. Older students who had experienced cyberbullying have also reported being scared for one’s safety. In a sample of 13-16 year old Finnish adolescents, approximately 23% of students who identified as a victim of cyberbullying reported being fearful for their safety (Sourander et al., 2010). The authors of the study noted that, while victims of traditional bullying can seek refuge in their own homes, cyberbullying victims are vulnerable to online bullying 24 hours a day. The study revealed that adolescents who were targets of cyberbullying were more likely than cyberbullies or cyberbully-victims to feel unsafe at school and uncared about by their teachers. The degree to which cybervictims feel unsafe at school is illustrated in the findings of one study in which cybervictims were 8 times more likely to carry a weapon to school than other youth (Ybarra, Dierner-West, & Leaf, 2007). While the above studies focus on a sense of safety at school following cybervictimization, some studies have examined the role of school climate and its perception among students who have experienced cyberbullying. Hinduja and Patchin (2012a) examined the perception of school climate among students who had been either a victim of cyberbullying or who have bullied others electronically. Students participating in the study were asked whether they felt safe at school, enjoyed going to school, believed that their teachers cared about them, and believed that teachers at their school really attempt to help them be successful. The results of their study indicated that students who identified as having cyberbullied others or being a victim of cyberbullying were less likely to agree with these items and have a poorer perception of the school’s climate than students who did not acknowledge having cyberbullying experiences. School climate and school safety were the focus of a recent meta-analysis of research on cyberbullying in which these factors were examined as protective factors against cyberbullying (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). The results of the analysis indicated school climates in which school staff displayed respect, fairness, and kindness and school safety were inversely related to engagement in cyberbullying. Hence, positive, supportive school climates in which students felt safe limited involvement in cyberbullying. Therefore, students were less likely to engage in cyberbullying if they attended schools in which they felt supportive and

69 Cyberbullying safe but more likely to experience online victimization if they attended a school in which they did not feel supported or safe.

Emotional Harm

As noted above, many youth who experience cyberbullying feel unsafe and stressed. The cruel act of bullying someone online behind a wall of anonymity can lead to emotional harm for the victim of online aggression. But the negative emotional outcomes of cyberbullying also are associated with the cyberbully and the cyberbullying bully-victim who has been the target of hurtful messages and the perpetrator engaged in posting cruel messages about others online. In a rare, yet serious form of cyberbullying, some youth’s struggles with emotional problems result in their posting hurtful messages and images online about themselves. Emotional harm associated with cyberbullying can lead to such a deep sense of hopelessness that the young person’s escape from his/her torment results in suicide.

Cyberbullying Victim

One of the earliest national studies investigating online victimization and youth safety surveyed a sample of 1501 individuals between the ages of 10-17 who use the internet on a regular basis (Finklehor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000). Of the youth surveyed, six percent reported being the victim of online harassment. Results of the study indicated that, of the youth who acknowledged being the target of online harassment, 31% reported feeling very or extremely upset, 19% were very or extremely afraid, 18% were very or extremely embarrassed, 32% reported at least one symptom of stress, almost 50% who had experienced distressing episodes had at least one symptom of stress, and 18% exhibited five or more symptoms of depression after the incident. A five year follow up study found an increase in the percentage of youth reporting incidences of online harassment; nine percent of the youth surveyed indicated being the recipient of online harassment and three percent reported an incident of online harassment that was distressing enough to leave them feeling very or extremely upset and afraid (Wolack, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006). Youth reported 34% of the incidences as very or extremely upsetting, 24% as very or extremely frightening, and 22% as very or extremely embarrassing. Additionally, approximately one-third of the youth experiencing online harassment reported having at least one symptom of stress. The findings of these surveys indicate that incidences of online harassment can negatively impact the child or adolescent, rendering them upset, afraid, and stressed. More recently, negative reactions and outcomes related to cyberbullying incidences experienced by victims have been consistently reported across multiple studies. In a study that examined the effects of online aggression on adolescents’ emotional

70 Cyberbullying regulation and psychosocial adjustment, the results indicated that the most frequent emotional reactions reported among victims of cyberbullying were anger, humiliation, sadness, embarrassment, and fear (Gianesini & Brighi, 2015). Psychological outcomes linked to cybervictimization include depressive symptoms, emotional distress, low self-esteem and self-worth, loneliness, social withdrawn and isolation, peer problems, hopelessness, and poor school performance (Gianesini & Brighi 2015; Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010; Sourander, et al., 2010). In a comprehensive literature review of studies investigating negative outcomes associated with cybervictimization, Nixon (2014) found reports of depression, anxiety, anger, embarrassment, and decreased self- esteem across multiple studies. Additionally, it has been reported that higher levels of cybervictimization were found to be associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms such as sadness, hopelessness, and powerlessness (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). To determine the association between cybervictimization and depression as well as the association between cybervictimization and anxiety over time, Rose and Tynes (2015) surveyed students in grades 6 through 12 over a three year period. The results of their study revealed that the percentage of students reporting high cybervictimization increased at years 2 and 3 as did the percentage of students reporting depression and those reporting anxiety. Perren et al. (2010) conducted a study investigating the relationship between cybervictimization and depression in a sample of Swiss and Australian adolescents found that, when controlling for traditional bullying, cybervictimization accounted for a significant amount of the variance in adolescent symptomatology. Although some of these negative outcomes may also be experienced by victims of traditional bullying, the emotional harm resulting from cyberbullying may be greater given that it can occur at any time of the day or night, the wider audience it reaches, the degree of anonymity involved, and the power that the digital messages and images can have (Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Victims who have poor coping skills and a limited support system may be more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors as a means of dealing with the emotional distress that they experience following the cyberbullying incident. For example, Mitchell, Ybarra, and Finkelhor (2007) examined the relationship of online victimization to substance use, delinquent behavior, and depression in a sample of youth whose ages ranged from 10 to 17 years and found that cyberbullying victims were 2.5 times more likely to acknowledge depressive behaviors, 2.2 times more likely to acknowledge that they had engaged in delinquent behaviors, and 2.0 times more likely to acknowledge that they had engaged in substance use. Similar results were found in a study examining the impact of cyberbullying among multiethnic sample of adolescents which revealed an increased likelihood of substance use,

71 Cyberbullying depression, and suicide attempts among cyberbullying victims (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011). As noted earlier, victims of online aggression may experience depression, loneliness, social isolation, low self-worth, and a sense of hopelessness which renders a child or adolescent emotionally vulnerable and susceptible to thoughts of self- harm. There have been numerous reports in the news about suicide among youth who have been victims of cyberbullying. Ryan Halligan and Megan Meier are two well-known cases involving cyberbullying which resulted in both teens’ hanging themselves. Other cases of suicide involving cyberbullying have been reported in the media. Researchers have also studied the relationship between online victimization and suicide. Hinduja and Patchin (2010) conducted a study examining the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and suicidal ideation in a sample of 1963 adolescents attending middle school. The results of their study revealed that both traditional and cyberbullying experiences were linked to suicidal ideation in comparison to youth who reported no experiences of peer aggression. Of the youth responding to the survey, 20% reported that they had seriously considered attempting suicide. The results also indicated that traditional and cyberbullying victimization was a stronger predictor of suicidal ideation and behaviors than traditional and cyberbullying offending. Furthermore, the results of their study indicated that victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying were more likely to have attempted a suicide attempt than their peers who had not experienced traditional or cyberbullying experiences. Specifically, traditional bullying victims were 1.7 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who had not experienced traditional bullying while cyberbullying victims were 1.9 times more likely to have attempted suicide in comparison to peers who had not experienced cyberbullying. These results indicate the significant impact of cyberbullying victimization on the emotional well-being of youth and the risk that it poses to their safety. It should be noted that, while some victims of cyberbullying do commit suicide, their experience of cyberbullying may not have been the sole contributor to their suicide as there may have been other factors that may have influenced their mental health status and contributed to the decision that led to the suicide (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b).

Cyberbullying Offender

The negative outcomes associated with cyberbullying experiences are not limited to the victim. While many studies have examined the emotional outcomes among cyberbullying victims, fewer studies have focused on the emotional reactions and mental health problems of cyberbullies. Emotional reactions reported by cyberbullies about their involvement in cyberbullying include the following: no reactions, feelings

72 Cyberbullying of guilt, feeling good, being ashamed, and feeling confident (Gianesini & Brighi, 2015). Studies have demonstrated an association of mental health problems among youth who cyberbullying others. As early as 2004, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found that, in the sample of youth they surveyed, 16% of youth who identified as an online aggressor reported symptoms of severe depression. Depressive symptomatology also was reported in a study by Didden et. al (2009) who explored cyberbullying in a sample of youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The results of their study found a positive correlation between cyberbullying others and feeling depressed; the more one cyberbullies others the more depressive feelings they report. Similar mental health outcomes associated with cyberbullies have been reported in other studies. In a sample of Australian 6th to 12th grade students who acknowledged cyberbullying others, Campbell, Slee, Spears, Butler, and Kift (2013) examined cyberbullies’ perceptions of the emotional harm and impact that they inflict on their victims through cyberbullying as well as perceptions of their own mental health. The results indicated that most participants in the study who identified as a cyberbully did not believe that their actions were cruel or caused any harm to their victim. In comparison to students who did not have any cyberbullying experiences, cyberbullies participating in the study reported higher scores of anxiety, depression, and stress. Behavioral problems have also been identified in bullies of online aggression. In a sample of Finnish youth between the ages of 13-16, Sourander and colleagues (2010) found that cyberbullies report conduct problems, low prosocial behaviors, hyperactivity, and frequent drinking and smoking. Other studies have also reported behavioral problems among cyberbullies that include delinquent behavior, dropping out of school, and substance use (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). A strong association between cyberbullying others and exhibiting aggressive behaviors at school was found in a sample of 12-13 year old youth in the UK (Fletcher, Fitzgerald-Yau, Jones, Allen, Viner, & Bonell, 2014).

Cyberbullying Bully-Victim

For some youth, their involvement in cyberbullying will have a dual role in that they are the target of cyberbullying at the hands of someone else but are also actively harassing others online. This dual role may be an attempt at gaining a sense of power in response to possible feelings of helplessness experienced as a victim of online aggression. Being in the role of both the bully and victim may render a young person psychologically vulnerable. Several studies report that this category of participants in cyberbullying experience more emotional problems than individuals having a status of victim only or bully only. Kowalski and Limber (2013) conducted a study in which 931 students in grades 6 through 12 completed a survey about their experiences with cyberbullying. The authors categorized participants in the study

73 Cyberbullying into four groups: cybervictims, cyberbullies, cyberbully-victim, and no involvement in cyberbullying. Measures of anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and suicidal ideation were administered. The findings of the study revealed that the cyberbully-victim participants had more negative scores on measures of anxiety, depression, and self- esteem in comparison to participants in the other three groups. This finding was particularly evident in male participants. As Kowalski and Limber (2013) note, these results are consistent with previous studies indicating that cyberbullying bully- victims experience many of the emotional problems associated with cybervictims while they also experience behavioral problems often associated with cyberbullies (Kowalski, Limber & Agatston, 2012). The emotional vulnerability of the bully-victim engaged in cyberbullying is also evident in other studies. Sourander et. al (2010) found that individuals in their study who were cyberbully-victims experience several psychological risk factors and were considered to be the most troubled in comparison to cyberbullies or cybervictims. Similarly, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found that aggressor/targets of online harassment were likely to report serious psychosocial challenges such as problematic behaviors and substance use.

Digital Self-Harm

A form of cyberbullying that has recently gained the attention of professionals is digital aggression toward one self. Digital self-harm is defined as “anonymous online posting, sending, or otherwise sharing of hurtful content about oneself” (Patchin & Hinduja, 2017). It is a more severe form of cyberbullying which poses serious safety issues for youth and has resulted in suicide for some youth and occurs when an individual posts or sends negative, hurtful messages online about oneself through electronic means such as email, social media, or other online platforms (Patchin & Hinduja, 2017). One of the first studies conducted on digital self-harm found that, in a sample of college students, nine percent had engaged in digital self- harm while in high school (Englander, 2012). The results also indicated that more boys acknowledged posting negative messages or images about themselves than girls. Among the participants who acknowledged involvement in posting negative information about themselves, the primary motivation for engaging in digital self- harm was to get attention. A more recent study on this rare form of cyberbullying found that, in a sample of 5593 adolescents between the ages of 12-17 who were surveyed, six percent reported engaging in digital self-harm (Patchin & Hinduja, 2017). The findings of this study also indicated that boys were more likely than girls to engage in digital self-harm. Another finding of the study was that youth who were depressed or had engaged in off-line self-harm were more likely to participate in

74 Cyberbullying digital self-harm. This is a concerning finding given that, as the authors point out, depression is often a precursor to suicide and digital self-harm might potentially be a precursor to suicide. Additionally, the study demonstrated a link between digital self-harm and traditional and online bullying.

Effects of Cyberbullying on Motivation and Academic Achievement

The implication of being victimized by bullies or cyberbullies extends beyond the emotional effect of these events. Traditional bullying often takes place in the school environment and although cyberbullying takes place through an electronic medium, it also often involves classmates. One outcome of these types of aggressive behaviors is the impact on academic achievement. Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara and Kernic (2005) found that both victims and bully- victims had lower academic achievement. Van der Werf (2014) found that increasing the frequency of bullying has a lasting negative impact on academic achievement. Also, bullying seems to have a more pronounced effect on younger student victims (van der Werf, 2014) although it can continue into the college years (Young-Jones, Fursa, Byrket, & Sly, 2015). Beyond the academic implications, a low level of academic performance can cause students to become targets of bullying (Young- Jones et al., 2015). Therefore, teachers, administrators, and parents should be aware of the needs of underperforming students and the possibilities of additional negative impact beyond academics. Academic achievement is a complicated outcome that results from a combination of variables including access to resources, teacher input, time on task, and environment. The majority of literature discusses student victim status as it relates to academic achievement as a result of participation or psychosocial maladjustment (Fan & Dempsey, 2017). One important component of academic achievement that has not been included in these discussions is the amount of effort put forth by the student as a result of their motivation (Gamboa, Rodriguez, & Garcia, 2013). Academic motivation influences how students think, behave, perform, and work in the school environment. It is important to recognize the complexity of academic motivation and not attempt to oversimplify a multifaceted construct that includes such diverse components as age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and cultural background (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). However, research indicates that the impact of aggressive behavior from peers can have an influence on motivation (Fan & Dempsey, 2017; Young-Jones et al., 2015). Young-Jones et al. (2015) found that victims of these incidents have significantly lower academic motivation than non-victims.

75 Cyberbullying

The effect of interfering with school success and academic achievement can have long-term implications on life success; both the victim and the bully might suffer the effects through various aspects of their lives. School success has an impact on one’s ability to flourish beyond K-12 and therefore, influences the overall socio- economic outcome of students’ lives (van der Werf, 2014).

Ethical Issues Related to Cyberbullying

The very nature of cyberbullying makes it a playing field for acting unethically. Behind a digital screen of anonymity, cyberbullies can become disinhibited and engage in cruel acts that they might not pursue in a face to face situation in which their identity would be known. Bystanders who are aware of the cyberbullying that is occurring are faced with an ethical dilemma of how to respond to the cyberbullying: ignore the cyberbullying and take no action to help the cybervictim, encourage the continuation of the cyberbullying by joining the cyberbullying in tormenting the cybervictim, or attempt to intervene so that the online aggression ceases and the cybervictim is no longer subjected to the emotional harm inflicted by the cyberbullying.

Bystanders

The role of the bystander has gained much attention in recent years. Bystanders are individuals who are aware of cyberbullying that is occurring by seeing cruel messages or rumors about someone posted online or having heard about someone being cyberbullied. Some bystanders may even be encouraged by the cyberbullies to participate in posting hurtful information about a peer online. This can place them in an ethical dilemma in that they have to decide how to respond by ignoring the cyberbullying that is occurring, participating in the cyberbullying, or intervening in some way to prevent the online harassment that is occurring. Some bystanders decide to ignore the cyberbullying and not intervene. Research studies have found that, when presented with a simulated case of cyberbullying, most participants in the study selected not to intervene or felt helpless to help (Shultz, Heilman, & Hart, 2014). There are a number of potential explanations for taking no actions (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). Some individuals who are aware that cyberbullying is occurring may believe that it is none of their business so they take a passive stance in the situation and do not want to get involved. Their decision to ignore the online bullying may be a reflection of their fear that they might become a target of the cyberbully if they take a firm stand to report the situation or to intervene in some way. Another reason for ignoring the cyberbullying and not taking action may be related to their belief that any action that they take would be ineffective in stopping the online bullying. If an individual had attempted to intervene in similar

76 Cyberbullying situations in the past by telling an authority figure and no actions were taken to stop the bullying, he/she may believe that any attempts to report the situation or intervene would not bring about change to protect the victim. If the decision is to ignore the cyberbullying, one must consider the consequences of that decision. The decision to passively accept the online harassment allows the victim continued exposure to cruel, hurtful, and embarrassing messages. Bystanders who take this course of action may be apathetic to the suffering of the cybervictim and does not care about the emotional harm inflicted onto the cybervictim. By having a passive role, the bystander allows the torment experienced by the cybervictim to continue, leaving that victim in a very emotionally vulnerable position of feeling helpless and powerless. Additionally, ignoring the online bullying gives the cyberbully more power and control over the situation and, by taking no action, the bystander is encouraging the cyberbully to continue harming the cybervictim which can be viewed as reinforcing the cyberbullying (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). Some bystanders may be aware of cyberbullying that is occurring at the hands of their peers and may be encouraged to participate in the online aggression by those doing the online bullying. Some reasons for joining in the online aggression may be to avoid becoming the target of the online aggression if they refuse to participate in posting cruel messages about the cybervictim. Other individuals may begin to participate in the online aggression because they succumb to social influences by their peers. Bastiaensens et al. (2016) examined the social influence of others on the bystander’s decision to join in cyberbullying among a sample of adolescents. The outcome of their study revealed that bystanders’ perception of peers’ approval of cyberbullying was related to more social pressure to participate in the cyberbullying. The third decision of a bystander regarding how to respond to known cases of cyberbullying calls for the individual to respond and take some form of action to help the victim. Some individuals identify with the victim and have empathy for them. Shultz, Heilman, and Hart (2014) found that participants in their study who identified with the cybervictim had higher empathy scores than those who identified with the cyberbully. They also found that the most frequently given reason for intervening is to defend the victim and mediate the situation. Some bystanders may experience a struggle in their desire to help the cybervictim and their caution in making sure their actions cause no harm to the victim. This can be dilemma for some youth in that they want to do the “right” thing to help the cybervictim and end the torment for that victim while being mindful that they respond in a way that does not cause harm to the cybervictim. Some studies have found that the decision to defend the cyberbullying victim was related to the expectation that the cybervictim would feel better as a consequence of defending and the value associated with helping to make the cybervictim feel better (Pöyhönen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012).

77 Cyberbullying

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Cyberbullying is a phenomenon that has posed a challenge to schools for over a decade. It can have a significant impact on the safety and emotional well-being of children and adolescents. Schools need to be proactive in establishing safe, supportive environments in which students believe that others care about them and are concerned for their well-being.

Role of Schools in Addressing Cyberbullying

There are several ways in which schools can be proactive in addressing cyberbullying. School professionals such as school psychologists and school media specialists can work with school administrators to educate students, teachers, and parents about cyberbullying and its impact on youth (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008; Diamanduros & Downs, 2015). Strategies that can help address cyberbullying among students include the following: promoting awareness of cyberbullying in the school, establishing a cyberbullying prevention program, creating a positive school environment, and developing a school policy that addresses cyberbullying.

Promoting Awareness of Cyberbullying

One of the first steps that schools can take is promoting awareness of cyberbullying among school personnel, students, and parents. In-service workshops led by school psychologists, school counselors, and school media specialists can be provided for teachers, administrators, and school staff (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The focus of the workshops can include the definition of cyberbullying, its prevalence among youth, the psychological impact on students, the need for a prevention program to address cyberbullying in the school, and the importance of establishing a school policy. A resource that may be useful for teachers and administrators is Willard’s (2007a) Educator’s Guide to Cyberbullying: Addressing the Harm Caused by Online Social Cruelty. This resource provides information about cyberbullying and ways in which schools can address cyberbullying among students. School psychologists, school counselors, and school media specialists can collaborate with teachers to plan classroom presentations and activities on cyberbullying. The focus of these presentations should be to teach students about cyberbullying and address what it is, how it can psychologically affect others, potential dangers associated with cyberbullying, consequences of engaging in cyberbullying, and responsible internet use (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). Classroom activities can include the use of cyberbullying crossword puzzles (Patchin & Hinduja, 2014a), word-finding activities (Patchin & Hinduja, 2014b), researching cyberbullying

78 Cyberbullying to learn more about it (Patchin & Hinduja, 2014c), and digital citizenship activities (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a) such as those that are available at the Cyberbullying Research Center website (https://cyberbullying.org/). Informational sessions about cyberbullying can be provided to parents so that they become more aware of the impact that cyberbullying can have on youth. These sessions can focus on a general overview of the research on technology use among youth and the potential harm that can occur when technology is used to harass others. Parents can be provided with information about how to recognize signs of cyberbullying and how to respond if they discover that their child has been involved in a cyberbullying experience (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). Providing parents with resources about how to communicate with their child regarding internet safety and misuse of technology to harm others would be helpful. Hinduja and Patchin’s (2013a) resource Cyberbullying Prevention: Questions Parents Should Ask Their Children about Technology is a useful tool that helps initiating a conversation with their child about cyberbullying. Some parents may find prepared scripts, such as Cyberbullying Scripts for Parents to Promote Dialogue and Discussion (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013b) useful when discussing cyberbullying with their child. Another available resource that may be helpful to parents is Willard’s (2007b) Parent Guide to Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats which provides information on ways to help prevent their child from becoming a victim or a perpetrator of online bullying.

Cyberbullying Prevention

Schools have a responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students. Developing a plan to address cyberbullying is critical in order to address cyberbullying among students. A team of school professionals such as school psychologists, school counselors, school media specialists, and teachers can work together to develop a plan to address cyberbullying and to organize cyberbullying prevention activities (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The plan could extend to other schools in the district. As Feinberg (2003) points out, it is helpful if the school district has a clear prevention plan that is implemented consistently in all the schools so that students receive consistent training in prevention as move to other schools when they advance in grades. It is important that schools are aware of their state legislation regarding bullying and cyberbulling. Many states in the U.S. require that schools have an established policy on bullying prevention that includes cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015b). Schools can be proactive in addressing cyberbullying by incorporating cyberbullying prevention into an existing bullying prevention program or implementing a cyberbullying prevention program that helps students to understand what it is, how it impacts others, and how to respond if it occurs. For schools seeking to develop

79 Cyberbullying their own cyberbullying prevention program, the inclusion of certain components is essential. According to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008), a cyberbullying prevention program should address the following components: a) the need for students to feel safe at school, b) a clear definition of cyberbullying and how it occurs, c) the prevalence of cyberbullying, d) the impact that it has on individuals, e) an understanding of possible legal consequences associated with cyberbullying, f) the need to take a firm stand against cyberbullying, g) the need to report known incidences of cyberbullying, and h) the need for bystanders to intervene and report incidences of cyberbullying. Additionally, it is important that a prevention program also addresses the need to understand that a) electronic messages can be traced, b) personal information needs to remain private, c) internet safety guidelines and online etiquette rules need to be used, d) use of the internet requires respect for others, and e) one must be a responsible user of technology (Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins, 2008). For schools seeking commercial cyberbullying prevention programs, there are several tools available. One program, Cyber Bullying: A Prevention Curriculum, consists of two separate curriculums for grades 3-5 and 6-12 and is available through the Violence Prevention Works website from Hazelden Publishing. The curriculum includes an explanation of cyberbullying, how it is harmful to others, how to interact with others online in a respectful way, and how to respond if cyberbullying occurs. Another resource that is designed to address cyberbullying among 11-15 year old youth is the program Let’s Fight It Together: What We Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying produced by Childnet International (2014). This useful resource consists of a video, lesson plans, and a teacher’s guide which provides information about cyberbullying such as how it impacts others, strategies to help prevent it, and ways in which to respond if it occurs such as blocking the bully, save the evidence, and tell an adult. To address any cyberbullying targeted toward LGBTQ students, the resource Gone Too Far published by Childnet International (2016) can be used in the classroom. This resource is designed for adolescents and consists of a video that focuses on cyberbullying of LGBTQ students and accompanying lesson plans and teacher’s guide. Both of these resources, Let’s Fight It Together: What We Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying and Gone Too Far are sponsored by the U.K. Safer Internet Center and are available on the Childnet International website. In addition to being used in the U.K., Let’s Fight It Together: What We Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying has been adapted to be used with Australian students. Prevention efforts can also involve teachers utilizing lesson plans on internet safety and students becoming ethical digital citizens. A useful tool that can be used for these sessions include the Scope and Sequence: Common Sense K-12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum (Common Sense Education, 2015). This resource consists of

80 Cyberbullying grade-differentiated units consisting of lesson plans, interactive activities, tip sheets, and video clips for K-12 students. It is aligned with the Common Core standards as well as standards established by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and International Society of Technology Education (ISTE). Another available program is i-Safe’s DC4 Digital Programming package that includes K-12 lesson plans and videos on various topics such as cyberbullying, internet safety, appropriate online behavior, and cell phone safety. It also is aligned with the Common Core and AASL standards and is available on the i-Safe Ventures website (http://isafe. org/?q=content/i-safe-dc4-digital-programming).

Creating a Positive School Environment

In addition to implementing a cyberbullying prevention program, it is important that schools help to create a positive learning environment in which students feel safe. As mentioned earlier, evidence indicates that schools with a positive environment in which students feel safe have fewer incidents of cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012a; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). There are several activities that school can engage in to create a positive learning environment. Hinduja and Patchin (2015c) recommend the following activities to promote a positive, safe school environment:

• Promote awareness of cyberbullying and the harm that it can cause to others. • Encourage open communication between school staff and students so that students have at least one trusted adult whom they can seek help from if needed. • Learn the names of students in order to form a connection with them and develop a relationship with them. • Establish relationships with parents, professional, and local organizations to address cyberbullying. • Launch an anonymous reporting system that is safe and private so that students can report incidents of cyberbullying without worries of retaliation and follow through on investigating each report. • Cultivate a sense of hope, compassion, and positivity within the school by providing support and empathy when needed. • Build positive social norms in which youth are recognized for using technology appropriately and acknowledge student successes and the positive things that they do. • Engage the help of students in promoting positivity in the school and empower them to become involved in prevention efforts.

81 Cyberbullying

• Conduct an assessment to determine the extent of cyberbullying among students, factors that may contribute to the cyberbullying, and negative consequences that occur in response to cyberbullying. • Be diligent in learning new technologies and how they can be misused to hurt others.

All of these activities help to foster an environment in which students feel safe, supported, and cared for by school personnel which also fosters positive interactions with their peers.

School Policy on Cyberbullying

As mentioned earlier, it is imperative that schools are aware of their state’s legislation regarding school policies on bullying and cyberbullying. School policies should address specific components of the state legislation on bullying and cyberbullying. It should be clear that the purpose of the school policy is to protect students, staff, and the school environment as well as to document that cyberbullying is prohibited (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The policy should also state clearly that the school has the authority to intervene in cases involving a student engaging in dangerous behavior that affects another student, the school staff, or the school environment (Aftab, 2007). Schools may tend to be reluctant to become involved in cyberbullying incidents that occur off school grounds because of legal issues related to violation of students’ freedom of speech. However, it should be noted that schools have the right to intervene in cases involving cyberbullying that occurs off school grounds if the cyberbullying has resulted in a considerable disruption of the school environment (Aftab, 2007). Key components of an effective school policy on cyberbullying have been proposed by Hinduja and Patchin (2015b). These components include the following:

• Detailed definitions of harassment, intimidation, and bullying including electronic versions • Graduated penalties and remedial responses • Reporting procedures • Investigating procedures • Using language that indicates that a student can be disciplined if his/her on or off-campus behavior and/or speech results in a considerable disruption in the school environment or violates the rights of other students.

A more detailed discussion of these key components can be found elsewhere (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015d).

82 Cyberbullying

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Future research should expand the investigation of cyberbullying from the K-12 school setting to the college setting. At the college level, prevalence rates of cyberbullying among students could be examined along with psychological correlates such as psychological well-being, life satisfaction, social connectedness, and empathy. Academic correlates such as school engagement, academic identity, academic self- efficacy, and achievement also could be investigated.

REFERENCES

Aftab, P. (2007). Parry Aftab’s guide for schools. Retrieved from http://www. stopcyberbullying.org/educators/guide for schools.html Bastiaensens, S., Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development, 25(1), 193–211. doi:10.1111ode.12134 Buelga, S., Martínez–Ferrer, B., & Cava, M. (2017). Full length article: Differences in family climate and family communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bully–victims in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 164–173. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.017 Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P. T., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’ perceptions of bullying: Traditional and cyber and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 389–401. doi:10.10 80/13632752.2012.704316 Campbell, M. A., Slee, P. T., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2013). Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health. School Psychology International, 34(6), 613–629. doi:10.1177/0143034313479698 Childnet International. (2014). Let’s Fight It Together: What We Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://www.childnet.com/resources/lets-fight-it- together Childnet International. (2016). Gone Too Far. Retrieved from http://www.childnet. com/resources/pshetoolkit/cyberbullying/gone-too-far

83 Cyberbullying

Common Sense Education. (2015). Scope and Sequence: Common Sense K-12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/ education/scope-and-sequence Diamanduros, T., & Downs, E. (2015). Creating a safe school environment: How to prevent cyberbullying at your School. In School Library Management (7th ed.). Academic Press. Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. J. (2008). The role of school psychologists in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 693–704. doi:10.1002/pits.20335 Didden, R., Scholte, R. H., Korzilius, H., de Moor, J. M., Vermeulen, A., O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 146–151. doi:10.1080/17518420902971356 PMID:19466622 Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. The Journal of Psychology, 217, 182–188. doi:10.1027/ 0044-3409.217.4.182 Englander, E. (2012). Digital self-harm: Frequency, type, motivations, and outcomes. Retrieved from http://webhost.bridgew.edu/marc/ DIGITAL%20SELF%20 HARM%20report.pdf Fan, W., & Dempsey, A. G. (2017). The mediating role of school motivation in linking student victimization and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 32(2), 162–175. doi:10.1177/0829573516655228 Feinberg, T. (2003). Bullying prevention and intervention. Principal Leadership Magazine, 4(1), 10–14. Feinberg, T., & Robey. (2008). Cyberbullying. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 10–14. Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442039.pdf Fletcher, A., Fitzgerald-Yau, N., Jones, R., Allen, E., Viner, R. M., & Bonell, C. (2014). Brief report: Cyberbullying perpetration and its associations with socio- demographics, aggressive behaviour at school, and mental health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1393–1398. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.10.005 PMID:25448835

84 Cyberbullying

Gamboa, L., Rodriguez, M., & Garcia, A. (2013).Differences in motivations and academic achievement. Lecturas De Economia, (78), 9-44. Gianesini, G., & Brighi, A. (2015). Cyberbullying in the era of digital relationships: The unique role of resilience and emotion regulation on adolescents’ adjustment. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 19, 1–46. doi:10.1108/S1537- 466120150000019001 Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 159, 1026–1031. PMID:16275791 Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J. Y. (2011). The impact of cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1282–1286. doi:10.100710995-010- 0672-x PMID:20824318 Gorzig, A., & Frumkin, L. (2013). Cyberbullying experiences on-the-go: When social media can become distressing. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(1), 1. Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 136–144. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1148988 Gregoire, L. (2013, September). Cyberbullying. The Walrus. Retrieved from: https:// thewalrus.ca/cyberbullying/ Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2009). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.4941 33 PMID:20658375 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012a). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (Corwin Press). Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012b). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 539–543. doi:. (2012).70644810.1080/17405629 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013a). Cyberbullying prevention: Questions parents should ask their children about technology. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Questions-Parents-Should-Ask.pdf

85 Cyberbullying

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013b). Cyberbullying scripts for parents to promote dialogue and discussion. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https:// cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-scripts-for-parents-to-promote-dialog-and- discussion Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from: https://cyberbullying. org/Cyberbullying-Identification-Prevention-Response.pdf Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015a). Digital citizenship activities: Ten ideas to encourage appropriate technology use among students. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/Digital-Citizenship-Activities- Educators.pdf Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015b). Cyberbullying and case law: Implications for school policy and practice. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https:// cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-legal-issue.pdf Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015c). Developing a positive school climate: Top ten tips to prevent bullying and cyberbullying. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying. org/School-Climate-Top-Ten-Tips-To-Prevent-Cyberbullying.pdf Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015d). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jacobson, G., Riesch, S. K., Temkin, B. M., Kedrowski, K. M., & Kluba, N. (2011). Students feeling unsafe in school: Fifth graders’ experiences. The Journal of School Nursing : The Official Publication of the National Association of School Nurses, 27(2), 149–159. doi:10.1177/1059840510386612 PMID:20956581 Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. The Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. doi:10.1111/j.1746- 1561.2008.00335.x PMID:18786042 Kochel, K. P., Ladd, G. W., Bagwell, C. L., & Yabko, B. A. (2015). Bully/victim profiles’ differential risk for worsening peer acceptance: The role of friendship. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2015.05.002 PMID:26309346 Koo, H. (2007). A timeline of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 107–116. doi:10.1007/BF03025837

86 Cyberbullying

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. doi:10.1037/ a0035618 PMID:24512111 Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13–S20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018 PMID:23790195 Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 505–519. doi:10.1177/0143034312445244 Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313. Menesini, E. (2012). Cyberbullying: The right value of the phenomenon. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 544–552. doi:10.1080/17405629.20 12.706449 Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12(4), 314–324. doi:10.1177/1077559507305996 PMID:17954938 Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: The impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 5, 143. doi:10.2147/AHMT. S36456 PMID:25177157 Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumboltz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(02), 129–142. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129 Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development, 48(4), 1301–1313. doi:10.2307/1128488 PMID:608360 Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x PMID:7806605

87 Cyberbullying

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2017). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 PMID:29279213 Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014a). Cyberbullying activity: Crossword puzzle. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words- Wound-Crossword-Puzzle.pdf Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014b). Cyberbullying activity: Word find. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words- Wound-Word-Find.pdf Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014c). Cyberbullying activity: Research. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words-Wound-Research- Activity.pdf Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015a). Cyberbullying victimization rates across peer reviewed journal articles (2003-2015). Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/facts Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015b). Cyberbullying offending rates across peer reviewed journal articles (2003-2015). Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/facts Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017). Digital self-harm among adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761–766. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.012 PMID:28935385 Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(1), 28. doi:10.1186/1753-2000- 4-28 PMID:21092266 Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21(4), 722–741. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564–575. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564 PMID:17484571

88 Cyberbullying

Rose, C. A., & Tynes, B. M. (2015). Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization and mental health among US adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(3), 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.05.002 PMID:26115909 Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 Sherrow, H. (2011). The origin of bullying. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-bullying/ Shultz, E., Heilman, R., & Hart, K. J. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An exploration of bystander behavior and motivation. Cyberpsychology (Brno), 8(4), 3. doi:10.5817/ CP2014-4-3 Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/ j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x PMID:18363945 Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., ... Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: A Population-Based Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79 PMID:20603453 Van der Werf, C. (2014). The effects of bullying on academic achievement. Desarrollo y Sociedad, (74): 275–308. doi:10.13043/DYS.74.6 Willard, N. E. (2007a). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying: Addressing the harm caused by online social cruelty. Retrieved from https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/ handlers/filedownload.ashx? moduleinstanceid=3695&dataid=23989&FileName= EducatorsGuidetoCyberbullying.pdf WillardN. E. (2007b). Parent guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved from http://www.embracecivility.org/wp-content/uploadsnew/2012/10/appK.pdf Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. Durham, NH: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/ cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1053&context=ccrc

89 Cyberbullying

Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45(7), 1308–1316. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2004.00328.x PMID:15335350 Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42–S50. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004 PMID:18047944 Young-Jones, A., Fursa, S., Byrket, J. S., & Sly, J. S. (2015). Bullying affects more than feelings: The long-term implications of victimization on academic motivation in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 18(1), 185–200. doi:10.100711218-014-9287-1 Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 188–198. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.015

90 91

Chapter 5 Cybercitizens at Schools

Irene Linlin Chen University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Libi Shen University of Phoenix, USA

ABSTRACT In recent decades, cyberethics, cybersecurity, and cybersafety have been the center of interest at schools. This chapter uses a case study approach to describe the issue of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity (3Cs) as well as how problems of these three Cs are intermingled to become general cyberethics issues for the society. The chapter also promotes good cybercitizens at schools because it is of great importance for the school districts to take some measures to improve students’ knowledge and awareness of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity, to enhance the safety and security of school infrastructure, to avoid cyberbullying, to ensure students are good cybercitizens, and to help train teachers to be cyber professionals.

INTRODUCTION

Guiding students to be responsible and respectful when using the Internet is an important mission for teachers, parents, and educators. Students need to learn the appropriate way and ethical manner of using the Internet in schools and at home. “Some kinds of computer and Internet misuses include hacking, unauthorized use of data, copying and distributing information and copyrighted software, computer abuses, and cybercrime without respect for social and legal consequences” (Harncharnchai & Inplao, 2015, p.100). In other words, students need to learn the importance of being a good cybercitizen to maintain cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity in schools.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch005

Cybersecurity has been a critical issue in recent years. According to Data Breach Reports (2015), there were 690 data breaches with 176,183,204 records exposed in the categories of banking/ credit/financial, business, education, government/ military, and medical/healthcare. Among them, 53 (7.7%) breaches were educational with 759,600 records exposed (Data Breach Reports, 2015). In fact, the number of data breaches in the U.S. reached a half-year record high of 791” (Identity Theft Resource Center, 2017). The Identity Theft Resource Center (2017) predicted that the number of breaches in 2017 could reach 1,500, a 37% increase over 2016. Cyberbullying is a violation of cyberethics, and it could occur anywhere (e.g., blogs, websites, emails, chats, text messaging, and social media such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram). According to Bullying Statistics (2017), “more than half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying” (para 1). There are many types of cyberbullying; for example, sending cruel messages, spreading rumors online, posting hurtful messages on social media, stealing a person’s account to post damaging messages, sexting, circulating sexually explicit pictures, sending threating emails, and so on (Bullying Statistics, 2017). “Only one in ten teens tells a parent if they have been a cyber bully victim” (Bullying Statistics, 2017, para 2). Ncube and Dube (2016) stated that “cyberbullying might have detrimental effects on victims, such as alcohol and drug abuse, low self-esteem, high level of absenteeism, poor grades and depression and suicidal thoughts” (p.313). Additionally, Hipsky and Younes (2015) found that 72% of the faculty and staff were aware of cyberbullying without training, while 43% of them were trained at school on cyberbullying. It is of great importance to educate students at schools regarding cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity so as to avoid more threats and damages.

Cyberethics, Cybersafety, and Cybersecurity

The concepts of cybersafety, cybersecurity, and cyberethics (C3) were coined by Pruitt-Mentle (2000). She was one of the pioneers to integrate C3 into K-12 curriculum through organizations such as iKeepSafe. Cybersafety is “the ability to act in a safe and responsible manner on the Internet and other connected environments”; cybersecurity “covers physical protection (both hardware and software) of personal information and technology resources from unauthorized access gained via technological means”; cyberethics is “the discipline of using appropriate and ethical behaviors and acknowledging moral duties and obligations pertaining to online environments and digital media” (C3Matrix, 2015, p.2). The concepts of cybersafety, cybersecurity, and cyberethics are tightly integrated and ever-changing. Pusey and Sadera (2012, p.82) indicated that “cyberethics are the moral choices individuals make when using Internet-capable technologies and digital media”

92 Cybercitizens at Schools which include copyright, online etiquette, hacking, and online addictions. In their survey of 318 preservice teachers, they found that teachers did not have sufficient knowledge and ability to teach C3 topics/contents, and were not prepared to model or teach these concepts (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). In other words, although those teachers are digital natives, they do not have adequate C3 knowledge nor do they have the ability to teach their future students to keep their data or themselves safe. Cyberethics is “the philosophical study of ethics pertaining to computer networks encompassing users’ behavior, what networked computers are programmed to do, and how this affects the individuals and the society” (Mosalanejad, Dehghani, & Abdolahifard, 2014, p.205). DeWitt-Heffner (2001) raised three issues regarding ethical dilemmas in cyberspace: intellectual property, privacy/security and free speech/hate speech. She emphasized that “both students and teachers question when it is appropriate to transfer our understanding of ethical behavior from the classroom to the online environment” regardless of the particular issue under discussion (DeWitt-Heffner, 2001, p.101). Further, DeWitt-Heffner (2001) identified four major themes for ethical decision-making: (1) “the cyberethics authority recognized by students is much younger than the offline ethical authority” (p.102); (2) “students of different ages use different mental frameworks to decide online behavior” (p.103); (3) “when considering appropriate and inappropriate behavior online, some issues are clear for both teachers and students, however many others are not” (p.103); and (4) “educators can encourage ethical behavior by recognizing the type of situations that make unethical behavior attractive and challenging students to channel their technological expertise in positive directions” (p.104).

The Role of Cybercitizens

People who are using the Internet are called cybercitizens; cybercitizens are netizens. Cybercitizens should treat each other with respect, dignity, and morality while using the Internet. What should students do to be good cybercitizens? Students need to learn proper ways of using the Internet, and school districts can help with this matter. Cyberbullying and cyberethics should also be discussed between teachers and students. For example, in Littleton Public Schools in Colorado, the following events have been presented for students to decide if their behaviors are bullying, wrong, or illegal: creating a fake profile of another person online; posting a rumor about someone that is hurtful; making a threat against someone online; posting embarrassing pictures or videos of someone; cursing someone out while playing live multi-player video games; breaking up with someone publicly online; using someone else’s cell phone without their permission; “unfriending” someone on Facebook; sharing thoughts of suicide on a personal blog; copying text from an article online and using it for

93 Cybercitizens at Schools a class assignment; texting someone at 3:00 am; giving out someone’s cell phone number without their permission; copying a picture from a website to use in a presentation; questioning or outing someone’s sexual orientation online; writing an angry comment about a teacher online; making a video mocking your principal; using vulgar or sexual language online or in a text; using your phone to take pictures of someone without their permission; sending a naked picture of yourself or someone else; taking someone’s phone and sending a fake text from them to someone else; asking to go to get out of class to go to the bathroom so you can text someone; leaving someone out of an activity because they don’t have a phone to get a text; trying to solve a problem online or on text instead of in person; posting pictures of yourself or someone else doing something illegal; sleeping by your phone, checking it first thing and last thing of the day. It is apparent that students’ attitudes and environment influence their judgement in digital citizenship. As Hipsky and Younes (2015) noted, “digital citizenship in education focuses on students’ use of digital content in a digital world and preventing cyberbullying” (p.51); however, research on “teachers’ online behavior as Internet users and digital citizens, staff development based on federal- and state-security, and privacy regulatory requirements is scarce” (p.52). If teachers and staff are ignorant of security policy, privacy regulation, and students’ cyberethics issues, how can they help their students?

AVOIDING DATA BREACHES AT SCHOOLS

School districts have been the target of sophisticated cyber-attacks in recent years, but “school leaders are unprepared for the threats often faced by government and companies” (Lestch, 2015, para 1). Herold (2014, para 1) stated that “In recent months alone, however, districts and their vendors have lost laptops and flash drives containing student information, accidentally posted children’s health information and Social Security numbers online, and improperly released individual student test scores.” Forney (2015) also indicated that this country has faced myriad cyber threats from criminals (e.g., individual hackers and organized criminal groups), and these cyber-attacks have caused the compromise of personal data and potential threats to the public safety and the loss of intellectual property. The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report states that cybercrime can come in any shape or size, and each industry faces a distinctive pattern of threats (Verizon, 2017). About 81% of data breaches were hacking-related breaches leveraged by stolen or weak passwords; 75% were perpetrated by outsiders; 51% of breaches included malware and 66% of malware was installed via malicious email attachment; 73% of breaches were financially motivated (Verizon, 2017).

94 Cybercitizens at Schools

What should school authorities do in case of data breach? Several researchers have provided strategies or approaches to deal with data breaches. Bathon (2013) indicated that schools should have a data breach response policy as well as cybersecurity liability clause in their insurance policies. The Privacy Technical Assistance Center (2014) has provided best practices for protecting student privacy when using online educational services. They are (a) maintaining awareness of other relevant federal, state, tribal, or local laws; (b) being aware of which online educational services are currently being used in the school district; (c) having policies and procedures to evaluate and approve proposed online educational services; (d) using a written contract or legal agreement if possible; (e) adopting extra steps are necessary such as checking amendment provisions, printing or saving the Terms of Service, limiting authority to accept Terms of Service, and when accepting, click-wrap licenses for consumer apps; (f) being transparent with parents and students about the ways a school or district collects, shares, protects, and uses students’ data; and (g) considering parent consent maybe appropriate (Privacy Technical Assistance Center, 2014). On the other hand, the Center for Democracy and Technology (2015) emphasized the importance of updating the laws for regulating Education Technology Data Collection, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), and the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA). In 2015, some federal legislative proposals for students’ privacy have been introduced. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology (2015), the bill for the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act in April 2015 established “sensible baseline rules for K-12 websites, online services, and apps to protect the privacy and security of students’ personal information” (p.11). The bill for the Protecting Student Privacy Act in May 2015 “prohibits the use of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) for targeted advertising, mandates EdTech security policies, and limits the information schools may distribute to third parties” (Center for Democracy & Technology, 2015, p.11). The bill for the Student Privacy Protection Act in May 2015 prohibited “all third-party sharing without parental consent, including sharing with contractors or other parties under the direct control of the school” (Center for Democracy & Technology, 2015, p.12). The ways to protect students’ rights to privacy and data security include the (a) amendment of the FERPA; (b) update of current federal legislative framework; (c) the inclusion of the data deletion and minimization requirements in legislation, industry, and school policies; and (d) the inclusion of sharing limitations in legislation, industry, and school policies (Center for Democracy & Technology, 2015). Stricter regulations and laws within industry and at schools may contribute to the prevention of data breaches. Additionally, the Partnership’s Cybersecurity Task Force has released the third edition of cybersecurity guide, Cybersecurity and Business Vitality: What Every

95 Cybercitizens at Schools

Houston-Area Business Needs to Know. This guide has included the following 18 steps for leaders to protect from cybercrimes: (1) providing security awareness training, (2) encrypted data in rest and in motion, (3) using firewalls, (4) intrusion prevention services, (5) web security-restriction/monitoring/reporting, (6) data loss prevention, (7) locking down desktops, (8) using strong passwords and force changes every 60-90 days, (9) classifying data, (10) data separation based on content, (11) restrict access, (12) whitelist applications if possible, (13) wireless networks, (14) mobile device management, (15) network monitoring tools, (16) vulnerability assessment, (17) security policy, and (18) avoiding free/public cloud storage and email accounts (Luna, Harvey, & Verma, 2015, p.12-13). These steps could be taken or considered by school administrators to help avoid data breaches.

CASES ON CYBERCITIZENS

When discussing data security, most of us think of procedures such as data encryption that are more suitable for network managers, and consequently, preventing data breaches is the responsibility of IT personnel in central administration offices. However, some campus cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity incidents occur at the most unexpected moments. A number of schools in the United States are grappling with challenges of protecting information of students, parents, institute retirees, vendors, or current employees, each through a unique set of circumstances. Among the case stories, one school district discovered that it had sold, as surplus, several computers containing the company names, addresses, phone numbers, and business transactions of hundreds of district vendors. A second school institute learned that personal and family information about students at one of its middle schools was lost when a bag containing a thumb drive was stolen. Yet another school institute exposed employees’ personal and payroll data on a public Web site for a period of time. Furthermore, a company hired to print and mail benefit information to former school employees mistakenly included a list of the names, addresses, retirement benefits, and other records of nearly 500 people receiving the mailing. Each received the 25-page list of the 500 district retirees. As part of a class assignment, two students discovered a breach in the security of a school server. They reported to school officials that they were able to access a database containing social security numbers and other personal information of thousands of parents and guardians whose children attended schools in the district. Paper records containing students’ information were stolen along with a laptop from a school nurse’s car. The laptop

96 Cybercitizens at Schools contained personal information including students’ sensitive health records, and names of students and their parents. It was discovered that a web site posted names, social security numbers, and test scores of students who had taken a mandatory standardized test during last school year. The web site containing the data has been removed immediately. There is so much data to secure and so many potential vulnerabilities to those stored data. Accidental data breaches discussed above are only part of the story. Students also add to the schools’ data security concerns by involving in online gang- related behaviors, illegally downloading multimedia, or actively trying to hack into school networks, among others, not to mention that external researchers who visit campuses to study data-rich schools can bring dangers to campuses as well. In 2000, in conjunction with the Cybercitizen Partnership, Attorney General Janet Reno wrote a letter to parents asking them to instill computer ethics and responsibility in their children. A website, cybercitizenship.org, was introduced as the result of the effort to provide a learning tool for knowing responsible computer use. The website initially focused on providing support for parents, and later expanded to assist teachers and appeal to kids. Among the resources offered through the site is the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics (Computer Ethics Institute, 1992) to help reinforce acceptable online behavior. The “commandments” clarify what students shall and shall not do:

1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people. 2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work. 3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people’s computer files. 4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal. 5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness. 6. Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid (without permission). 7. Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization or proper compensation. 8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people’s intellectual output. 9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing. 10. Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your fellow humans.

Following are case examples that help to illustrate the commandments in K-12 school settings.

97 Cybercitizens at Schools

1. Thou Shalt Not Use a Computer to Harm Other People

Case Story: Online “Gamers” or Online “Gangsters”?

In one instance, at QV Middle School, Mr. Moyer, the school’s assistant principal, took the lead to investigate a new kind of student behavior problem unique to the Information Age. Apparently, a group of students in the Gifted and Talented class lately received unwanted attention from street gangers. This was caused by a virtual confrontation of the two parties in a new online computer gangster game which was designed to reflect on the physical world with some imaginative twists. As of three days ago, some QV student gamers were reported to be insulted after school by street gamers claiming to be real gangsters using foul languages and threats. While the student gamers thought that they were virtual entertainment, the street gangsters who also played the game took students’ online actions as real-life provoking threats. And as everyone can imagine, the street gangsters were not too happy when another player or rival family shot one of their guys or took one of their casinos. With the assistance of local law enforcement, Mr. Moyer looked into this massive multiplayer RPG game which was based on the stories about the legendary gangster, Don Rosa. Set in the 1960’s mafia world, the online game is about status, money and respect. Players received points by virtually doing crimes, robbing local banks, holding up cars on quiet roads, stealing cars and busting friends out of jail. Players of mafia games interacted with other members of the online community as members of families or gangs. Online gamers were very attracted to the gangster life. The Threesome game homepage challenged young online gamers with language such as, “So, think you’re up to the challenge young gangster? Join the game, everything is free and if you’re good enough, grow strong and most importantly, stay alive, we may just be looking at the next Don Rosa.” Mr. Moyer did some research and found that in the U. S., gang-based online games have met some success, particularly Mob Wars and Mafia Wars, which are playable through social networking sites. Their success can also be seen from console games such as Grand Theft Auto, Mafia, The Godfather, and Scarface. In a cruel world it helps to have allies, both for protection against enemies and shared wealth. Predicting there would be more high-tech gangster issues, Mr. Moyer suggested the school district and families to prohibit students from playing online “godfather” and “mafia” types of games. “These games encourage people to cheat, loot and kill, and glorify gangster life. They are a bad influence on youngsters,” Mr. Moyer said. He went on to say that if online games such as the one discussed in the incident at QV Middle School were not prohibited, schools were going to be filled with budding cyber criminals unaware of the consequences of their online activities.

98 Cybercitizens at Schools

Do you know of other incidents of students using computers to harm others to prove that this type of online games should be banned on campuses?

2. Thou Shalt Not Interfere With Other People’s Computer Work

Case Story: “Spray-Painted” Halloween

In one instance, the week before Halloween, students in a high school got caught for vandalizing the web content of several local stores and “spray-painted” over the online stores’ Halloween costumes and accessories. With defaced online shops, the stores suffered a big loss. Miss Brown was not surprised, because she found that many teens considered computer mischief harmless. She speculated that about half of her students didn’t consider hacking illegal. “It’s always interesting that you don’t see a connection between the two,” she said to students. “Do you think it would be okay to spray-paint the grocery store down the street? On a Web site, if you vandalize people’s content, it’s the same sort of thing. It’s somebody’s storefront.” Miss Brown tried to find examples which are more relevant to the students. For instance, she asked a student who loved to compose music how he would feel if his music was stolen and given away online. “After that, they realized that when they copied someone’s product, it was someone’s work that they had copied,” she said. Since banning the use of the Internet is not possible, how should educators together institute a formal cyberethics curriculum?

3. Thou Shalt Not Snoop Around in Other People’s Files

Case Story: The Effects of Data Breach on Special Education Labeling

In one instance, outside Lexington Square Elementary School, papers were blowing around in the wind beside a garbage container. A student, Les, seeing the computer printout papers, grabbed them and read about the files for a number of students who received special education services, including psychological evaluation data, Individualized Education Program (IEP), Response-to-Intervention (RtI), behavioral information, parent complaints, and attorneys’ letters. Soon afterwards, Les and her friends were sending private special education information through cell phones among students. A student with dyslexia, a disorder that was not immediately evident, now reported of avoidance by other students once they knew that she was “on the list.” There was a report of parents of children with high-functioning autism, or

99 Cybercitizens at Schools

Asperger’s syndrome, experiencing embarrassment. A few other students in the special education program also reported being teased, ridiculed, and bullied due to their special education labeling being known to the rest of the school. Some parents complained that knowing a child’s special education label affected teacher expectations for that child as well (Shobo, Meharie, Hammer, & Hixson, 2012). In one careless action, the school’s poor data security practices had led to the direct harm of those Special Ed students. Education officials were still trying to determine what was leaked at the school and how many students had information exposed, said a spokesman of the school district. Mr. McMahon, chief of specialized instruction for the district, said in a statement that accessing the information without permission is illegal. “We understand how important it is to safeguard student information and will conduct a top-to-bottom review of our security practices to ensure this does not happen again,” said Mr. McMahon. One positive effects of leaking the names of students who received special education services described in the case was that both students and teachers at the school pointed out the need to address issues of school culture, especially stigma and mistreatment of students with disabilities by nondisabled peers. How should procedures of handling sensitive data be instilled?

4. Thou Shalt Not Use a Computer to Steal

Case Story: District Internet Firewalls

K-12 schools have to maintain a careful balance between Internet access and protection. The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that U.S. schools have appropriate measures in place to protect students from obscene or harmful online content. Many districts install commercial applications that filter out the growing array of distracting and inappropriate content out there. It is a common practice that, at the beginning of a school year, parents and guardians indicate the levels of Web access that they would allow their students to gain by signing, digitally or by hands, the consent forms that come with students’ handbooks to put on schools’ records. Teachers are expected to check to see if what students are viewing is safe and age appropriate. Since the first MySpace page revealed too much about a student’s private life, as in the Megan Meier case back in 2006, safety-sensitive IT directors and school attorneys have set up web site filters or firewalls as virtual barriers to block out unwanted web contents. Some districts go as far as blocking search engines (e.g., Google, blogs, wikis, streaming video, Skype, Yahoo, and Gmail), not to mention other popular social media sites. Some schools blocked certain MIME types, for

100 Cybercitizens at Schools example, MP3 files for music. Strict firewalls and content filters have irritated tech- savvy educators and students. The issue of school systems controlling access to the Internet, while teachers and students complain about it, is not new. While long-standing pleas from teachers and students in Liberty Height High School to ease restrictions on Internet use in classrooms and computer labs were constantly “under reviews,” a group of tech-savvy students took matters in their own hands. In one instance, a group of self-professed computer geeks, including Angie, Gene, and Raymond, in Mr. Romero’s Computer Science IV class were frustrated by the restrictions brought about by the school firewalls. Even though the school told students that if they tried to access an educational site to help with schoolwork, they should tell Mr. Romero, and if he considered it appropriate he could unblock the site for them; the three hated it when they went to a website and found out that the school web filter blocked it. To get around the school firewalls, the trio typed in simple search using phrases such as “How to Surf Your Favorite Sites from Behind Firewalls” and “How can I access sites through my school’s firewall?” to find hundreds of tips that the school might not want them to know. The trio had also viewed a couple of tutorial videos to know how to bypass the school web. They had tried out browsing unapproved web sites by proxies that were not blocked or filtered by the district. Raymond signed up to join a mailing list to receive fresh proxies that IT department has not blocked yet. Since downloading executable was prohibited at school due to filters, Gene downloaded client software in an executable file format on a flash drive from home, saved the file to a flash drive, and ran the program at school, which connected to proxy servers and opened a default web page upon successful connection to bypass school firewalls. Instead of using proxies and client software, Angie and a few others in the class turned their iPhones and Android mobile phones into immediate mobile hotspot through “Internet tethering.” Connection of the phone or tablet with other devices could be done over Wi-Fi LAN, Bluetooth, or using a cable. The drawback of Internet tethering was that it got very expensive if the cellular plan charged by the amount of data. Some cell carriers would try to block this type of connection, and the phone IP address would be very obvious to find if district IT staff investigated into these behaviors. The trio tried out the tips and found that some hacking methods only worked with certain filter configurations, so they had to experiment with several methods to find the best one for the school’s network. What’s worse, they shared the tricks with a number of other kids. They were not aware that bypassing the school firewall to download what they came across online was an act of “stealing.” Together they downloaded lots of illegal programs, movies, and took up so much Internet bandwidth that the school servers were constantly sluggish.

101 Cybercitizens at Schools

They thought they did all of these very discreetly, not aware that the district IT staff members were watching over the breaches and could block out the proxies they used anytime.

5. Thou Shalt Not Use a Computer to Bear False Witness

Case Story: To Hack or Not to Hack

As a high school junior, Jessie felt like he could use all of the helps he could find to bump up his overall grade point average (GPA). He blamed himself for too many hours of anime watching a day. As the time for college application approaching, he was stressed out about his overall GPA. The pressure came from his parents and himself. Even though Jessie decided to study harder, but the improvement to his high school GPA could be too little, too late. Some “smart” kids who had experienced hacking bragged in an online forum that schools usually had really poor security, so it was almost guaranteed that someone with decent programming skills could hack into the systems. Jessie did a little of searching and came across Kid #1 who got the password credentials of a teacher by hanging around the office area, helping out teachers with all sorts of errands. He then had access to their computers and one day used a key logger program to collect key strokes. Once the kid had the password, he could login to change grades. Jessie also read of Kid #2 who hacked into the entire teacher system. Instead of just changing grades, for a period of time, he had access to the personal information of teachers. He was eventually caught after showing off by hacking the attendance system and sending the message “You can’t catch me.” Kid #3 didn’t change her own grades, knowing that if noticed, the school would know exactly who did it. Instead, she changed the grades of another random student, so there could be no trace, just to see if it would work. It did. Kid # 3 did it just to point out the flaw in the school’s grade server. Yet Kid #4 used a social hacking technique called “phishing” to get the password of his teacher, by duplicating the login form of the system, and sending an email to his teacher from a different email address, that instructed the teacher to log in and update his details (Karasik, 2015). Of course, for an easy target, Kid #4 chose a teacher who did not know much about computers and wouldn’t notice the domain change. Later in the year, as a result from this incident, the school replaced many keyboards from labs and lecture halls with keyboards with more security measures. However, Jessie also read about a student who hacked into the school system to exam results, thinking that he could retake the exam and score better (Chelvan, 2016). To be more specific, this student bought a USB hardware keylogger and managed to capture his two professors’ IDs and passwords, so that he could check his results before they were released. He ended up deleting the exam results for all

102 Cybercitizens at Schools students, without knowing that the system made real-time back-ups. He got caught and sentenced to two months in prison (Chelvan, 2016). After much hesitation, Jessie posted a message under a fake identity in a forum for young people like him to ask this hypothetical question: “Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades?” Jessie’s original post attracted over 60 answers to offer him various perspectives. A number of readers posted stories of hacking into school systems they had heard. One reader posted a photograph of a young man wearing an orange jail uniform standing in front of a court judge. Yet another reader provided links, all led to how teens were charged or arrested for hacking into school systems to change grade. Most readers advised him not to do it:

• You probably shouldn’t. Covering your tracks will be much more difficult than getting in, so you’ll almost certainly get in big trouble if you do (Evans, 2015). • It is a felony to hack into systems like that, and results in massive fines and jail time (Lan, 2015). • If you are wise, you don’t. You accept that the grades you received are the grades you earned. • Most likely, it cannot be done without getting caught (Swartzendruber, 2015). • Even though it is possible, I wouldn’t recommend changing your grades. People tend to take that stuff pretty seriously and it’s probably not worth the risk.

What do you think Jessie’s decision will be? To hack or not to hack?

6. Thou Shalt Not Use or Copy Software for Which You Have Not Paid

Case Story: Illegal Downloads and Cyberethics

Mr. Verma, a school technology specialist, found that although students also surfed the Web, that was much less of a problem than he had expected. He looked into the report of the school’s filtering program, and realized that for the most part, students did not visit porno places. “They’re more interested in sports, music, and game sites. We’ve found that a better protection against inappropriate Website is establishing a culture of proper use,” he said. “We deal with unauthorized downloading of games and software cases by making students aware of how technology is used,” Mr. Verma said. “Besides, if students do whatever they want on the school’s network, it uses up a ton of bandwidth and interferes with other network users.” He continued, “If they download a virus along

103 Cybercitizens at Schools with the software, they risk destroying the school’s entire network system, incurring a tremendous data and financial loss.” Even though the WWW has evolved since mid-1990s, students always have ways to find sites to download popular songs, software programs, even entire movies which are still showing in movie theaters, legally or illegally, for many reasons. Why purchase an entire CD when you only want one or two songs? Why do you want to pay for a song when you can simply get it for free with a few mouse clicks? Some students think that just because the music companies do not prevent a song from being downloaded, it is not stealing. Many students are not aware of copyright infringement as it relates to downloading multimedia. Mr. Verma liked to refer students to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) homepage for current information. Mr. Verma warned that students who download illegal online materials would all have serious consequences to pay if they ever got caught, as music piracy is a serious act against the law. He mentioned that the music industry filed thousands of lawsuits in the early to mid-2000s against people it accused of downloading music without permission and without paying for it. Almost all the cases settled for about $3,500 apiece. He always brought up the famous Tenebaum vs. United States case to educate the students. In the case, a federal jury ordered the 25-year-old graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels. A federal appeals court found Tenenbaum’s conduct was “egregious” because he illegally shared songs for years despite numerous warnings. According to another famous the court’s ruling, The Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, entertainment companies own the right to obtain an individual’s personal contact information if they have evidence that the individual is using the Internet to download music illegally. Students at Grace Mouton School, as a result of Mr. Verma’s efforts, found alternatives to music piracy out there. Listed below are just two suggestions as to where they went to download their favorite tunes legally as resources for many authorized digital music and services in today’s marketplace:

• Itunes.com, developed by Apple Inc. • Whymusicmatters.com, developed by the RIAA and the Music Biz Association.

Spotify was popular among students when pay a monthly subscription fee in exchange for music. As for videos, students knew that YouTube was the biggest site on the Web when it comes to video streaming. Downloading songs via YouTube was very easy when students converted the content by way of various converting sites into audio or video formats. However, with good awareness education, students

104 Cybercitizens at Schools knew enough that they could not download all the songs and videos on YouTube because that would be illegal. Instead, they searched for media clips with “Creative Commons” filter and then downloaded those songs to their devices by following specific restrictions. In addition, those students also looked for mashups of famous songs by certain artists if they left description of free download links on YouTube. What suggestions do you have to avoid students downloading music and games illegally?

7. Thou Shalt Not Use Other People’s Computer Resources Without Authorization

Case Story: BYOD Opens the Door for Security Risks

In a climate when budgets are being squeezed at schools, almost no organizations can afford to supply devices enough for the Digital Natives. Schools’ “Bring Your Own Device” (or BYOD) decision is where schools allow students and staff to access the school wireless network in order to use personal electronic devices for academic purposes. The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) reports: “Twenty percent of elementary respondents, 48% of secondary respondents and 46% of respondents from a K-12 district said their schools allow mobile devices to be brought into classrooms now” (SIIA 2013, p.4). Schaffhauser (2014) reported even higher BYOD rates, “BYOD primarily shows up in high school grades (84 percent), followed by middle school grades (74 percent). But even the majority of Pre-K through third grade schools also offers users the opportunity to use their personal mobile devices in schools.” With BYOD, there are all sorts of electronic devices, each with individual concerns that schools will need to cope with. Possible issues include forgotten passwords, unpermitted access, data loss and data manipulation, computer viruses, malware and so forth. BYOD also opens the door for hackers to put hands on campus networks and potential sensitive data. In one instance, the IT staff at Dickensen School District worked to ensure the appropriate protection is in place on the device itself because many of the websites favored by students are social media sites which are often targeted by malware and viruses. Recently, the district IT staff suspected that a data breach incident that happened to the district intranet took place through the devices that students brought to the campus, not through computers owned by the district. They were very sure that all district computers had built in security setting to block unauthorized access to the intranet server. In an urgent IT meeting, Mr. Hoover, the district technology director, said in a meeting with a number of campus technology specialists that students many times were more curious than they were malicious. They wanted to push the boundaries

105 Cybercitizens at Schools just to see if they could. If the district network allowed them access to the Admin server, they were surely going to get on it. “Students are not going to allow staff to put hands on their beloved mobile devices to program settings. Even if they give consent, would we have the IT manpower to program hundreds or even thousands of mobile devices anyways? We have to come up with a plan that does not involve changing the setups on their devices,” said Mr. Hoover. Without having to program students’ devices, the network needs to be intelligent enough to know who is doing what on campus premises. An IT consulting firm was hired to assist the district with containing the threats brought about by this incident of data breaches. After evaluating the situation, the IT firm suggested the district to consider the following security measures. The first suggestion was that the district’s wireless network had to be able to segment via firewall all users based upon their roles on campuses and what types of device they are using. A strengthened student log in and device registration procedure was reinforced to segment all users. There needed to be an automated device registration process for users to be able to enter in their active directory credentials and register without having to go through schools or district IT staff. Users’ identities would then be associated to individuals’ online activities that IT staff could monitor to know who was doing what. In addition, the “Role Based Access Control” was clarified. This is how the “Role Based Access Control” policy at Dickensen School District worked.

• Teacher: A teacher using a school owned computer was allowed to connect to the staff intranet servers as well as to the Internet. A teacher’s role would activate a different web content filtering policy than a student. For instance, the teacher got more liberal access to the intranet to update gradebooks, check payroll information, YouTube, and search engines. • Students: Students accessing the network with their personal devices would be granted a student BYOD role which allowed them to access the Internet with web filtering policies appropriate for them but kept them off of the staff intranet servers.

When introducing BYOD into a school, it is a good idea for schools to set up policies to clarify definitions as to what is acceptable and what is not, with regards to both usage and behavior and this applies to both teachers and students. These policies need to reflect the changes BYOD brings and it is important to ensure all campus server users are held accountable for this agreement in order to ensure data security. Only those with the necessary permissions could access categorized information. Data must also be archived in such a way that it was kept secure and the chance of it being lost, destroyed or manipulated was kept to a minimum. These

106 Cybercitizens at Schools perceived data security threats have become grief concerns for any school and can become as barriers to entry in terms of implementing BYOD. As illustrated in the above incident, while BYOD is implemented on more campuses, even more questions will arise. How can a school control a device that is not owned by the school? How are schools to ensure data safety and availability from those devices used by students? And more importantly, how is it possible for schools to manage a number of different devices over the school’s network?

8. Thou Shalt Not Appropriate Other People’s Intellectual Output

Case Story: Mr. Washington’s Headaches

Mr. Washington had just returned to his campus from an out-of-town professional development workshop on online plagiarism. The workshop participants were talking about what happened in a high school within the same district. It began in right after the Spring Break with a teacher finding that about one third of Hudson Pine High School (pseudonym) juniors had stolen sections of their psychology project, which carried 30% of the total semester grade, off the Internet. The students who committed plagiarism received zeroes and would resulted in a failing grade for the semester. But after parents brought the issue to the school board members, the teacher was ordered to raise the grades for all. As a result, the community angrily pointed fingers as they debated right and wrong, and misconducts and consequences (Wilgoren, 2002). Even though students admitted that teachers have shown them source citation since the fourth grade, they insisted that did not realize what they did was wrong. Some said they thought plagiarism was referring to using entire papers from other people, not taking phrases and paragraphs from other sources. Failing a whole semester, they said, was too harsh (Wilgoren, 2002). ‘’It’s not just psychology, we are teaching them a lot more than the subject materials,’’ a workshop participant commented. ‘’We are teaching students to be honest people, to have integrity, and to be good citizens.” ‘’Schools got rules, just like there are rules for driving,’’ he continued. ‘’We are not expecting more than what would be expected of them either at home or down the road’’ (Wilgoren, 2002). After the incident, district administrators had set up a committee to handle conflicts over grades and collecting plagiarism policies from other districts. In the workshop, participating teachers wondered if the rampant plagiarism acts among students was a symbol of the decline in American values. Back on campus, Mr. Washington had headaches of his own, because he also had to deal with plagiarism acts that students in his high school English and Language Arts (ELA) class had committed. For instance, Adam was expected to write a book

107 Cybercitizens at Schools report about the novel Crime and Punishment that his teacher has assigned. The student did want to read very thick novel and was bored with the subject. He visited websites that provided book reviews written by professionals and book reports written by other students on Crime and Punishment, and he copied from each of the different reviews and reports to create one report of his own. Becky received an assignment to write a research paper on Much Ado About Nothing in her ELA class. She had a friend who took the same ELA class three years ago, even though under a different teacher. Becky asked her older friend for a copy of his paper and used the paper to pass it off as her own. With experiences, Mr. Washington had learned to raise attention to reports and presentations that were filled with big, unfamiliar words, or words that sounded strangely similar to other students’ works (Wilgoren, 2002). He used the plagiarism- detection Web site, turnitin.com, provided by the district to help detect plagiarism. He also learned to compare a student’ previous writings against current assignments to see if the current writings were far more sophisticated than previous ones. Has Mr. Washington done enough to deter students’ plagiarism acts?

9. Thou Shalt Think About the Social Consequences of the Program You Write

Case Story: Stranger Danger

As for education, school data breaches caused by human errors can come from non- school employees as well. Eric Jones was a fourth-year doctoral student pursuing a terminal degree in education research at a local university. In order to earn an Ed. D, he needed to conduct a research study to investigate the correlation of students’ college scholarship application with family incomes by using an online parent opinion survey with 15 questions to 500 students’ families in Jackson High School in a low-income neighborhood. He realized that the school system had much to offer educational researchers; yet he was also aware that federal law required the protection the privacy of student education records, and there were procedures to follow according to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, commonly known as FERPA. As such, he followed proper protocols to conduct research in the school and his research proposal was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university. He followed human subject guidelines to protect the identities of participating parents. Participants’ consent forms were signed and collected. Survey responses were properly collected and analyzed. His research study was successfully defended and the dissertation was published in both hard copy and electronic database formats. Since federal regulations require research records

108 Cybercitizens at Schools to be retained for at least 3 years after the completion of the research (Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 1983), Mr. Jones archived the survey data on a computer server in his residence. However, not long afterwards, survey participants started to receive numerous advertisements targeting low-income families in their mailboxes, ranging from low- cost medical plans to bail bonds and other legal aids. Investigations and forensics revealed that the breach was caused by the researcher, Eric Jones, who had not successfully deactivated his old personally-owned computer server containing the archived data of participants’ protected financial information. “Because of a lack of technical safeguards, failure to deactivate the server resulted in participating parents’ financial information being wide-open on Internet search engines,” said a district IT administrator. “The district learned of the breach after receiving a complaint by a number of participating parents who found their own financial information on the Internet.” The parents identified the source of the data breach and pointed blames at Mr. Jones. They said the data breach posed threats to students and families, from identify theft to nuisance advertising and misguided profiling. There was even the potential for physical harm to students. For instance, an Arizona legislator authored a passed privacy law in response to complaints that low-income children had been subjected to unnecessary dental work by corporate-affiliated “mobile dentists” relying on easy access to school records (Herold, 2013). The parents felt that they were betrayed by a researcher who conducted the research with a promise to help the low-income population. What would you do differently if you were Eric Jones?

10. Thou Shalt Use a Computer in Ways That Show Consideration and Respect

Case Story: Educate Students to Protect Themselves From Sexting

In one instance, working with the Bueno Vista City School District, the police conducted workshops across campuses to inform students about the perils of information misuse. In the City, cyberbullying cases caused by unauthorized access to photographs and videos uploaded by youngsters on online platforms were rising. In August 2012, the word “sexting” was listed for the first time in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. “Sexting” is defined by the U.S. court system as an act of sending sexually explicit materials, including text, photo, or video, through mobile phones. Children use laptops and other electronic gadgets these days at an early age. If there is a Trojan virus in a tablet which has a webcam, hackers can get in and snap unauthorized pictures via the camera. Echoing the same, officials of the police’s

109 Cybercitizens at Schools cyber-crime department said most cases they come across are related to fake social network profiles and morphed pictures. Another threat is of revenge porn where sexually explicit content is released without consent to shame an individual. Ashley, a sophomore at Lakewood Crest High School, felt like nearly one in ten of her friends had posted or sent sexually suggestive messages. In addition, sending sexually suggestive messages was more common among boys than girls, while sending semi-nude or nude photos was more common among teen girls. Ashely also felt that teenage girls had a few reasons for why they participated in sexting: some did it as a joke, some did it to feel sexy, yet others felt the peer pressure to do it. While most who sext did so with their girlfriend or boyfriend, many sexters who had sent nude images admitted that they also sent to others. A scandal broke out last month at Ashley’s school after an anonymous tip led administrators to find more than 60 photos had been exchanged among a handful of students, who shared the photos on so-called “ghost apps” that disguised as common applications such as calculators. The students typed in a secret code and the app then revealed a hidden screen containing photos or videos. Even though the photos were exchanged on students’ personal digital devices after school, the district was very concerned. The school administrators said that there was no evidence any adults were involved with sharing of the photos. There were rumors that those students who were involved could have faced charges that would require them to register as sex offenders or face felony child pornography charges, but others said the judge also held out the possibility no one would be charged. “The mere possession of these materials does constitute an ongoing crime,” said the high school administrators. In some states, sending or receiving a sexually suggestive text or image under the age of 18 is considered child pornography and can result in criminal charges. “Children are at a vulnerable age and proper awareness needs to be provided. Schools need to address the problem,” said Dr. Southmore, the district’s assistant superintendent of information technology. “We are focusing on girls’ schools and women’s colleges as they are one of the most vulnerable groups related to such crimes,” she continued. “In those pictures, the girls were all made up to look seductive.... Parents had no clue this was going on,” she said. “They thought their kids were safe because they were in their own bedrooms. Who could hurt them when the parents were guarding the front door? But the Internet is a bigger opening than the front door.” “I wonder if a lot of the students who posted were... really cognizant that the whole world could read their blog?” said Dr. Southmore. “I don’t see why pedophiles wouldn’t use this tool, if this is where kids are,” said Dr. Dr. Southmore. Nationwide, there were cases of children being lured through other Internet services, such as chat rooms. Information security experts called for teaching students to keep themselves

110 Cybercitizens at Schools safe while using social networks to tackle incidents of cyber-bullying and revenge porn. Do you agree that parents should take the most responsibility, and not the schools, in educating their children to use computer in a considerate and respectful way?

DISCUSSION

The aforementioned case stories are just a few examples of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity in educational settings. Unfortunately, these cautionary tales are not apocrypha. Accidental data breaches are only part of the story. A number of students also actively threaten schools’ cybersecurity. The number and scope of data breaches and questionable cyber ethic practices in education settings can be alarming, and the examples are plentiful. In 2002, President Bush announced an agenda to increase federal efforts to promote online safety and urged parents to take time to teach children about staying safe online. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also called on educators to institute programs to teach cyberethics in schools (Hopper, 2015). “In a democracy in general, we can’t have the police everywhere,” said Michael Vatis, director of the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center, which guards against computer attacks by terrorists, foreign agents and teen hackers. “One of the most important ways of reducing crime is trying to teach ethics and morality to our kids. That same principle needs to apply to the cyber world” (Hopper, 2015). Firewalls are used as an expected first line of defense. With experiences, school districts can take measures to prevent more incidents by assigning IT personnel to setup stronger firewalls, follow hacking forums to pick up on all the latest methods, encourage institute-wide users to change passwords frequently, install proper scanning software programs, and run attack and penetration tests to detect vulnerable points in the network that can be easily accessed from both external and internal users. Since firewalls proved to be insufficient, numerous federal, state, and local level efforts were put in place to educate the community, modify guidelines, and update school curriculum to make the public to be more aware of proper online behaviors. School districts encourage schools and teachers to make user-awareness campaigns to make all network users to be aware of the pitfalls of security and the necessary security practices to minimize hacking risks. They also want to send out the message to potential cybercriminals that modern technology is so advanced that tools can be used to track “digital footprints” of ones’ online activities, and therefore, “Don’t even think about it!” The topics of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity need to be included in the curriculum. Integrating cybercitizen awareness into curriculum is essential and

111 Cybercitizens at Schools critical at schools. The ways to be good cybercitizens should be taught at schools. Akbulut and Cuhadar (2011) reported that a short lecture provided by teachers on cyberbullying in the class influenced their students’ reflections on cyberbullying experiences, and they felt responsible to prevent further cyberbullying instances in their personal environments. Both teachers and students need to be aware of the issues and problems that hinder students to be good cybercitizens.

CONCLUSION

Education institutes are now more than ever before possess a huge amount of personal and sensitive data about staff, students, parents, and other business partners. K-12 schools are information-rich targets for hackers. In addition to malicious or criminal attacks, there are also hazards caused by system glitches, human errors, and external researchers as seen in the various cases presented in the article. Protecting students’ data privacy and security is an active process which requires ongoing attention. This can include data such as exam results or private medical information. These days, schools across the country are being held to a rigorous standard for cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity. There is a tension between hoping the private sector will proactively develop and implement “best practices” on the one hand, and pushing for new legislation and regulations on the other. Although there is little current legal guidance, the good news is that education institutes have the opportunity to get ahead of the issue before mass litigation and regulation ensue. By being proactive and procedural, and by working together, education institute officials can mitigate their potential liability and also help to define how schools can responsibly secure data into the increasingly technologically complex future. Wizbowski (2017) suggested that we can do our parts to create a safe and secure society with the following strategies: know the available technology to protect your digital identity; consider using a personal security device when surfing online; use antivirus and antispyware software; teach family members and friends the importance of strong passwords; get involved in children’s online lives; report cybercrime; implement security to protect home and business Wi-Fi network; use parent control systems for Internet access on 3G smart phones; know the safe way such as PayPal to shop online; and never share information with websites you don’t trust. Keeping data secure, safe, and legal is everyone’s responsibility and needs to be embedded into campus culture and ways of working. Therefore, we encourage educators and IT personnel in education institutes to discuss data handling and information security. We recommend the reinforcement and implementation of laws, policies, and professional standards in educational IT.

112 Cybercitizens at Schools

REFERENCES

C3Matrix. (2015). Cyber-safety, cyber-security, cyber-ethics (C3) Digital literacy skills. Retrieved from http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/docs/ecampus/2010/ digitalliteracyskills_c3matrix.pdf Akbulut, Y., & Çuhadar, C. (2011). Reflections of preservice information technology teachers regarding cyberbullying. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3), 67-76. Retrieved from http://www.tojqi.net/articles/TOJQI_2_3/TOJQI_2_3_ Article_5.pdf Bathon, J. (2013). How little data breaches cause big problems for schools. THE Journal, 40(10), 26-29. Retrieved from http://thejournal.realviewdigital.com/default. aspx?iid=88471&startpage=page0000027#folio=26 BSA. (2014). The compliance gap: BSA global software survey June 2014. Retrieved from http://globalstudy.bsa.org/2013/downloads/studies/2013GlobalSurvey_Study_ en.pdf Bullying Statistics. (2017). Cyber Bullying Statistics. Retrieved from http://www. bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html Center for Democracy & Technology. (2015). Retrieved from https://cdt.org/ files/2015/06/Student-Privacy-White-Paper-v.-9_1.pdf Chelvan, C. (2016, February 16). SMU law student jailed 2 months for accessing professors’ accounts. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia. com/news/singapore/smu-law-student-jailed-2/2519788.html Chen, I. (2012). School districts stumbled on data privacy. In I. Chen & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases on Educational Technology Integration in Urban Schools (pp. 12-15). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-492-5.ch004 Computer Ethics Institute. (1992). Ten commandments of computer ethics. Retrieved from http://computerethicsinstitute.org/publications/tencommandments.html Cost of data breach grows as does frequency of attacks. (2015, May). Ponemon Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ponemon.org/blog/cost-of-data-breach-grows- as-does-frequency-of-attacks Cybercitizen Awareness Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from Cybercitizenship.org Data Breach Reports. (2014). Identity Theft Resource Center. Retrieve fromhttp:// www.idtheftcenter.org/images/breach/DataBreachReports_2014.pdf

113 Cybercitizens at Schools

Data Breach Reports. (2015). Identity Theft Resource Center. Retrieve from http:// www.idtheftcenter.org/images/breach/DataBreachReports_2015.pdf Data Theft Resource Center. (2017). At mid-year, U.S. data breaches increase at record pace. Retrieved from http://www.idtheftcenter.org/Press-Releases/2017-mid- year-data-breach-report-press-release DeWitt-Heffner, J., & Oxenford, C. (2001). Defining the Limits: Cyber Ethics. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 470019) Evans, B. D. (2015, May 7). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it- possible-to-hack-into-a-school-system-and-change-your-grades Forney, R. (2015, November). Silent defenders: the next generation of cyber security. Media Planet USA Today, p. 2. Hannum, W. E. (2013). Data breaches: The invisible threat to our schools. Retrieved from http://shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resources/data-breaches-the-invisible-threat- to-our-schools/ Haque, A., Rahman, S., & Khatibi, A. (2010). Factors influencing consumer ethical decision making of purchasing pirated software: Structural equation modeling on Malaysian consumer. Journal of International Business Ethics, 3(1), 30–40. Harncharnchai, A., & Inplao, K. (2015). Information ethics and behaviors of upper secondary students regarding the use of computers and the Internet. Journal of Information Ethics, 24(1), 98–116. Herold, B. (2013). Legislative-advocacy group’s model bill tackles privacy of student data. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2013/12/03/14alec.h33.html Herold, B. (2014). Danger posted by student-data breaches prompts action. Education Week. Retrieve from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/22/18dataharm_ ep.h33.html Hispsky, S., & Younes, W. (2015). Beyond concern: K-12 faculty and staff’s perspectives on privacy topics and cybersafety. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 11(4), 51–66. doi:10.4018/ IJICTE.2015100104 Hopper, I. (2015, October 10). FBI Pushes for Cyber Ethics Education. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119369&page=1

114 Cybercitizens at Schools

Karasik, R. (2015, September 11). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it- possible-to-hack-into-a-school-system-and-change-your-grades Khandelwal, S. (2016). Personal data of 50 million Turkish citizens leaked online. The Hacker News. Retrieved from http://thehackernews.com/2016/04/personal- data-leaked.html Lan, D. (2015, May 27). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it- possible-to-hack-into-a-school-system-and-change-your-grades Lestch, C. (2015). Cybersecurity in K-12 education: Schools face increased risk of cyber-attacks. Retrieve from http://fedscoop.com/cybersecurity-in-k-12-education- schools-around-the-country-face-risk-of-cyber-attacks Luna, G., Harvey, B., & Verma, U. (2015). Cybersecurity and business vitality: What every Houston-area business needs to know (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http:// www.houston.org/cybersecurity/ May, J. (2012). Identity thieves target young children: What parents need to know to protect their kids. Child Identity Theft Report 2012. Retrieve from https://www. allclearid.com/themes/allclearid/docs/ChildIDTheftReport2012.pdf Mosalanejad, L., Dehghani, A., & Abdolahifard, K. (2014). The students’ experiences of ethics in online systems: A phenomenological study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(4), 205–216. doi:10.17718/tojde.02251 Ncube, L. S., & Dube, L. (2016). Cyberbullying a desecration of information ethics: Perceptions of post-high school youth in a rural community. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 313–322. doi:10.1108/ JICES-04-2016-0009 Privacy Technical Assistant Center. (2014). Protecting student privacy while using online educational services: Requirements and best practices. Retrieve from https:// tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Student-Privacy-and-Online-Educational- Services-February-2014.pdf Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46. (1983). [Bethesda, Md.]: NIH, PHS, HHS, 1983. Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2000). The C3 framework: Cyberethics, cybersafety and cybersecurity implications for the educational setting. Retrieved from http://www. slideshare.net/johnmacasio/ikeepsafe-c3-competencymatrix

115 Cybercitizens at Schools

Pusey, P., & Sadera, W. A. (2012). Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 82–88. doi:10.1080/21532974.2011.10784684 Ratnasingam, J. K., & Ponnu, C. H. (2008). The influence of consumers’ moral intensity, perceived risks and moral judgement in purchasing pirated software. Communications of the IBIMA, 1, 47–61. Schaffhauser, D. (2014, March 27). Report: Most schools delivering BYOD programs, training teachers in mobile devise usage. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/ articles/2014/03/27/report-most-schools-delivering-byod-programs-training- teachers-in-mobile-devices-usage.aspx Shobo, Y. A., Meharie, A., Hammer, P., & Hixson, N. (2012). West Virginia alternate identification and reporting program: An exploratory analysis. Charleston, WV: West. SIIA Report Shows Move toward BYOD. (2013). Electronic Education Report, 20(15), 3-4. Sims, J. E. (2012). Information security in the age of cloud computing (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3518361) Stringer, J. (2010). Protecting K-12 students’ personally identifiable information: What data is at risk and what you can do about it. SOPHOS. Retrieve from http://www. mgcwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/sophos-protecting-personally-identifiable- information-k12-wpna.pdf Swartzendruber, R. (2015, July 1). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it- possible-to-hack-into-a-school-system-and-change-your-grades Tan, B. (2002). Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated software. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 96–111. doi:10.1108/07363760210420531 Toe, C. A. (2013). An examination of the explicit costs of sensitive information security breaches (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3588090) Verizon. (2017). Data breach investigations report: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.verizonenterprise.com/verizon-insights-lab/dbir/2017/

116 Cybercitizens at Schools

Wilgorenfeb, J. (2002, February. 14). School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town’s Values. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/14/us/school-cheating- scandal-tests-a-town-s-values.html Wizbowski, R. (2017). The top ten ways to be a better cyber citizen. Retrieved from https://www.justaskgemalto.com/us/top-10-ways-be-better-cyber-citizen/

117 118

Chapter 6 Intentionally Secure: Teaching Students to Become Responsible and Ethical Users

Judith L. Lewandowski Purdue University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter focuses upon the need to intentionally incorporate the principles of digital citizenship as an integrated curriculum element. Specifically, the infusion of information security and cyberethics principles should occur at the same time and rate as the use of technology within the educational setting. Through the development of a universal curriculum set, the author provides a content list and sample strategies for making these issues a natural part of the curricular goals of these courses.

INTRODUCTION

In the past, the term “technical literacy” referred to basic computer skills and functionality that enabled an individual to work with an application or specific software package. As the use of technology in our society has evolved, it’s important that schools follow a similar pattern of adaptation. Educational environments need to become increasingly flexible, adaptable, and willing to anticipate the needs of students who will be using technology that is not yet in existence (Festa, 2007). Likewise, instructors and teachers need to also expand their skill set to reflect the changing nature of technology. In addition to the basic curricular skills that an educator must teach, they now must also be enabled to prepare their students to successfully navigate the digital world in ways that go far beyond clicking a mouse or creating a presentation. It’s a daunting task to consider, but it is critical to address.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch006

According to 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age, students need to become literate in a variety of areas. Specifically, “Digital Age Literacy” is broken down into a variety of types of skills including: Technological Literacy, Visual Literacy, and Information Literacy. These are critical skills that require students to become knowledgeable on how to use technology in an effective manner, use media to create products that advance thinking, and evaluate, locate, and synthesize information through the use of technology (NCREL, 2003). Technological literacy is defined as the ability to appropriately select and responsibly use technology (Blake, 2017). Included within this definition are the skills needed to be able to expose knowledge, decode content, employ information, apply ethical standards, and evaluate the validity of data. With the infusion of ubiquitous technology throughout education at all levels, information security skills and the principles of cyberethics are taking on ever greater importance especially in novice users of technology. When schools give young students access to advanced technology, they must also provide a clear set of guidelines to demonstrate appropriate use. As argued by Niekerk, Reid, and Thomson (2013), teaching cyber security from an early age is the best possible way of improving its awareness among the public. In order to make this happen, instructors and students need an understanding of such issues as the protection of data, programs, and information stored on disks, networks, hard drives, etc., as well as the issues of privacy, ethics, and copyright protection. By intentionally infusing the principles of digital citizenship (information security and cyberethics) into daily practice, educators at all levels can positively impact learner engagement and understanding. Based upon the recommendations of experts in the field, this chapter will provide you with a set of strategies to develop information security and cyberethics awareness within courses that teach, utilize, and advocate for technology integration.

EXPANDING TECHNICAL LITERACY: RESPONSIBLE USE AND AWARENESS

Technology access for children occurs at an earlier point and at a faster rate than ever before (Anderson, 2016). However, access to technology does not does not indicate that these young users know how to use it responsibly or how to protect themselves from online dangers (Dutt-Doner, et. al, 2006). Increasingly, young adults and adolescents are both the “victims and perpetrators of crime and abuse enabled by information technology” in the areas of academic dishonesty, copyright issues, software piracy, online threats, fraud, sexual misconduct, and the creation and distribution of malicious code (McQuade, 2007, B29).

As the use of technology expands to become a common form of communication, the reality of threats, abuse, and misuse becomes realized. In particular, students (K- 12 and higher education) often become the focus of such occurrences. Nationwide, 14.8% of students report being cyberbullied, including being bullied through e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, or texting, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) report, by the Centers for Disease Control (2013). Thirty three percent (33%) of children ages 6 through 17 indicated that they had been victims of cyberbullying and often did not tell trusted adults for fear of losing computer privilieges (McQuade, 2007). Digital citizenship is an important construct to teach students at the same time they are provided access to the tools.

Defining Digital Citizenship

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) defines digital citizenship as students “who understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology, and practice legal and ethical behavior” (Ribble, 2009, p. 14). The responsible and ethical use of technology is a key component to the National Educational Technology Standards at all levels. Educators need to understand these concepts and model them in the classroom (Moursound & Bielfieldt, 1999). In addition to modeling the behaviors, teachers should also actively encourage students to be positive, responsible citizens of cyberspace (Ribble, 2001). The benefit of learning these skills early on goes beyond the classroom. Children taught about cybersecurity throughout their k-12 school program will be able to recognize the issues as an integral part of their lives and use the knowledge gained to practice safe use of the computer and the Internet (Neikerk, Reid, &Thomson, 2013). In essence, these early lesson can positively life choices they make throughout adolescence and adulthood.

Information Security: Defining and Applying

Information Security refers to the protection of data, programs, and information stored on disks, networks, hard drives, etc. and includes the issues of privacy, ethics, and loss prevention (SANS, 2001). Information Assurance refers to the building of “safe and reliable information systems that are able to weather untoward events no matter what the cause-whether natural disaster or caused by a malicious individual” (SANS, 2001). This definition incorporates basic security elements along with issues of privacy, ethics, malicious software, authentication technologies, and computer forensics as a means to address the broad range of components that make up the information assurance. For this chapter, the term “information security” will be used for purposes of simplification. However, it is important to note the broad range of

120 Intentionally Secure topics embedded within the critical task of developing a learning environment that is focused upon information assurance.

Cyberethics: Defining and Applying

Although there are many variations of the definition of the term cyberethics, Whittier seems to provide a working definition that aligns itself well to the needs of the educational environment: “Cyberethics are the migration of ethical practices to the Internet and cyberspace” (2006, 6). Cyberethics can be delineated into three main skillsets: Information Reliability, Information Property, and Information Infrastructure (Armstrong & Warlick, 2004). Information Reliability refers to the need for users to assess the accuracy of the information. Information Property refers to the realization that information is a protected entity and requires the same amount of respect as material properties. Understanding the critical nature of Information Infrastructure underscores the importance of information to flow freely through communication channels without obstruction. This communication transference should be considered as critical (and needing of protection) as the need to protect and safeguard highways and transportation lines to maintain societal functionality. In 2008, a survey was conducted to explore the nature of Cyberethics, Cybersafety, and Cybersecurity (C3) educational awareness policies, initiatives, curriculum, and practices currently taking place in the U.S. public and private k-12 educational settings. The survey found the state of C3 Education to be incomplete (Pruitt-Mentle, 2008). The results of the analysis indicated that access to content was limited; educators did not feel comfortable with the topics, and standards for the content only marginally discuss the issue of cyberethics (2008). While defining cyberethics may be straightforward, the clarification of its applied meaning is much more challenging.

INFORMATION SECURITY AND CYBERETHICS IN THE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

School officials have a legal and ethical responsibility not only to protect the personal information of their students but also to teach them how to do it for themselves. Within their classrooms, instructors must demonstrate proper security techniques in order to protect student information as well as to serve as active role models for their students (Lewandoski, 2005). Despite the clear-cut expectations of an instructor’s responsibility to protect the sensitive information associated with normal classroom activities, many fail to

121 Intentionally Secure do so. One reason for this lack of attention to security issues in schools is the lack of information regarding security as it directly applies to the school environment (Spafford, 2001). Courses that focus upon the use and expansion technology must infuse key information security and cyberethics concepts into the curriculum. In an effort to address the importance of information security and cyberethics, these skills should be developed to blend with the general content of the course. The greatest limitation in teaching this type of information is that it changes daily. The educator must keep abreast of these changes (Pusey & Sedera, 2011).

Identification of New Curricular Components

The course highlighted in this section is a required component of all School of Education undergraduate degrees. The students are typically in their second year of study and have taken a very small number of education courses prior to this one. The prior content of the course focused upon the use of technology as a teaching tool. By embedding this Universal Curriculum Set to the content, the goal was to better prepare the pre-service educators for both their professional skill set and their ability to teach this content to their K-12 students. As the pre-service educators develop a basic understanding of the responsible and ethical use of technology, the notion is that they will model this behavior in their classroom and pass it along to their students as well. The following paragraphs will provide a brief description as to how the Universal Curriculum Set was integrated into course practice. While these activities were designed specifically for pre-service education students, the strategies and approaches could easily be transferred across disciplines.

Basic Security Concerns

I begin the semester by assisting the students in developing a rationale and awareness for information security on the first day of class. Through the use of cooperative learning activities, I lead the students to explore and discover the importance of information security as it relates to the field of education. As early as 1998, the National Center for Education Statistics in conjunction with the National Cooperative Education Statistics System and the National Forum on Education Statistics released a publication entitled, “Safeguarding Your Technology.” This publication identified five specific reasons that security issues are a critical component to the structure of today’s educational institutions (Szuba, 1998). This foundational document serves as the main content source for the students’ initial awareness. A summary of these reasons follows (as described by Lewandoski, 2005).

122 Intentionally Secure

Organizational Reputation and Resources

Maintaining an effective security protocol is critical in order to sustain a credible reputation and protect an organization’s resources. When a school system is not secure, the impact can negatively affect the viewpoint of parents, community leaders, and legislative officials. This negativity can, in turn, affect the overall wellbeing of a school system.

Confidential School Records

Educators have a responsibility to maintain the protection of confidential student information. Parents and students trust the educational system to protect these records. In addition, the federal government has established legislation to hold school systems and officials accountable if this information is not properly maintained. Every teacher should be aware of the necessary precautions to protect this sensitive information from disclosure and to protect themselves from a potential lawsuit.

Protecting Personal Work Files

Most teachers have an abundance of self-generated materials that are stored electronically. If these materials were lost, deleted, or deleted by someone else, it would take a considerable amount of time to recreate the lessons for future use in the classroom. In addition, in the hands of the wrong person, these materials may lose their integrity and damage the assessment process of a course. One of the most recent trends of evaluation has to do with the concept of “Alternative Assessment”. Many educators are very excited about the possibility of evaluating students in a non-traditional manner. Although this new method of assessment is exciting, the logistical concerns of storage and access are overwhelming. Many schools are looking to technology to assist in this matter. As a result, school systems will need to thoroughly scrutinize the level of security surrounding the storage of these personal student records.

Protecting Students While Working Online

As lesson plans become increasingly influenced by the use of technology, it is important for teachers to understand the basic steps involved in protecting themselves and their students while in an online environment. The Internet offers many wonderful resources and supplements to the educational arena, but it also contains sites that are inappropriate for the K-12 environment. In order to fully use these resources, teachers must be aware of the potential dangers and pitfalls of using the Internet.

123 Intentionally Secure

By explaining the relevance of these issues at the onset of the course, I am able to maintain a dialogue throughout the semester on related topics. It also provides me with the foundation to build awareness as opposed to fear.

Restricting Physical Access

As an opening activity for a class discussion, the students are asked to conduct an immediate risk assessment for physical access on the classroom that houses our course. They are asked to consider the overall security of the room, the items brought to class by students, the resources stored within the network, on the cloud, and potential for unauthorized access. After a discussion of the risks at both the institutional and individual level, the students are divided into groups to brainstorm the types of data that K-12 teachers need to protect on a daily basis. Once a class set of data is collected, the groups were then asked to identify strategies that could be used in a traditional classroom setting to keep unauthorized access to a minimum. This entire activity set is quite fast-paced; in total, the class time used is approximately 25-30 minutes.

Password Creation and Use

Early in the semester, the students must register for an online assessment application that is required of all School of Education students (Lewandoski, 2005). The students are able to select their own username, password, and account preferences. This provides me with a solid opportunity to discuss and apply the basic components of creating and using secure passwords and selecting a professionally appropriate username. After a brief discussion of the protocol, the students are divided into groups and asked to develop a password for a fictional person according to a prescribed set of requirements (use of variance, minimum 8 characters, etc.). Each group works to develop a “pass-phrase” that is significant to the interests and experiences of the fictional person. The examples are presented to the class and critiqued for accuracy. Following this activity and discussion, the students then go online and register their account, which provides them with a direct opportunity to apply the skills they have just practiced.

Data Back-Ups

The students are responsible for maintaining a back-up of all course materials (Lewandoski, 2005). I typically share several “horror stories” highlighting the dangers of what can happen to students who do not regularly back up their data. During the second week of class, the students are provided with an opportunity to

124 Intentionally Secure practice the specific steps involved with backing up their data to a cloud space, USB flash drive, and to their assigned network space. By walking through these steps in a “safe” manner, the students have a chance to determine which back-up procedure will work best for their needs. As the course proceeds, the students are periodically required to demonstrate that they have their projects stored in at least two locations. This “pop quiz” strategy requires very little time from the instructor and helps to underscore the importance of regular back-ups to the students.

Virus Protection and Security Patch Basics

These two categories are approached simultaneously (Lewandoski, 2005). Using a web-based scavenger hunt (which is updated each semester), the students investigate the different types of malicious code that have permeated networks and the steps involved in safeguarding systems. The scavenger hunt includes references to software that is available to students via the university; likewise, freeware and examination copies are also featured. This emphasis upon low-cost resources helps to underscore the availability of protection for all users. Students have a chance to work with programs such as ZoneAlarm, Ad-Aware, and Norton Anti-Virus (especially definition updates) so that they build the confidence needed to apply these procedures to their home (and future school) systems. Additionally, time is also spent on the steps involved in determining the legitimacy of “threats” that are passed via email or message boards and resources for troubleshooting malicious code if it has embedded itself into the system. The students are provided with an opportunity to walk through the steps of checking for and installing necessary security patches. While this may seem trivial, it is often simple enough to encourage routine checks on home systems. A discussion of the need for patches and the purpose they serve is also embedded within this activity.

E-Mail Protocol

While most students are very comfortable texting, they seem to have some difficulty in making the transition to a more professionalized communication style via email. This becomes exponentially important as they reach out to schools and potential employers. Early in the semester, the students work through a brief tutorial that demonstrates the basic netiquette and security concerns involved with using email. As a follow-up activity, the students partner up and explore an assigned protocol to share with the class. These brief presentations (2-3 minutes) provide an opportunity for students to discover and share new tools and methodologies that are current and

125 Intentionally Secure applicable. Throughout the semester, I model proper netiquette in my communication with the students. Likewise, I immediately provide feedback for student emails that do not follow the guidelines discussed in class.

Monitoring Digital Presence

This activity begins with a google search of the student’s name looking for images, email addresses, social media connections, and published work. The task is centered around the premise that future employers will more than likely do a background check / internet search of all potential hires. A discussion of high-level search tools, ramifications for posting unprofessional content, and strategies for protecting their digital footprint follows. Using recent news stories that highlight problematic social media posts, I divide the class into pairs to investigate and report out each story. Each team is required to identify the cause of the problem and a potential solution that could have prevented the issue entirely. Typically, in this conversation, students have personal (or local) stories to share.

Respect the Intellectual Property of Others

Each semester, the students read several articles relating to copyright issues (relevant particularly to teachers) and participate in a class discussion involving several case studies for analysis that focus upon situations in which a variety of privacy violations have occurred. Following this, the students are required to demonstrate their understanding of copyright interpretation while designing their website project for class. All resources must be used with explicit permission; this requires students to actively seek out permission from authors/artist/creators or analyze the posted copyright statements (Lewandoski, 2005).

Consider the Ramification of Technology Use Upon Others

Through the use of a group project, a formal analysis of the “Ten Commandments of CyberEthics” is completed in class (Barquin, 1992). This foundational article remains a steadfast indicator of appropriate use. Using a short case-study, the students are asked to determine the potential negative impact that could occur where different types of technology infrastructures were tampered with or rendered useless. For example, what are the potential negative outcomes that could arise if a school’s network suddenly malfunctioned? What risks could be faced if the school’s phone line was cut? What might occur if a teacher unknowingly introduces a virus to the school network?

126 Intentionally Secure

Respect Privacy

The students completed a web-based scavenger hunt that focused upon the laws governing the protection of student data such as the Family Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Following this knowledge acquisition task, the students work collaboratively to outline a listing of practices that teachers should implement to demonstrate “due diligence” of protection to the meet their professional and legal requirements.

OVERALL IMPACT

While the steps and activities highlighted in this article may seem slight, their impact seems to be quite strong. The activities have opened the door for future discussions and seem to have created an overall sense of information security awareness within the students. The course, like most at the college level, did not have much room for additional curricula; the activities as I’ve designed them seem to be “small” enough to add to each session without sacrificing other course content (Lewandoski, 2005). As advocated by Jacobsen and Smith, the principles of information security and cyberethics must become a clear curricular component and not just a special topic requiring minimal attention (1998). The practice of modeling appropriate behavior also goes beyond the classroom walls. According to McQuade (2007), colleges and universities should take the following actions to promote the growth of information security and cyberethics:

1. Colleges should create models of best computer-use policies and share resources with the K-12 environment. 2. The curricula of courses (across disciplines) that integrate technology should be modified to incorporate the ethical and responsible use of technology. 3. Continuing education courses should be offered to K-12 schools and community organizations that focus specifically upon Internet safety, information security, and cyber ethics.

As instructors and universities make a commitment to expand the skill set involved with the technical literacy, a greater understanding and application of these concepts will be garnered across the academic environment and throughout the community. The intentional infusion of this content and modeling of behavior has the potential to be far more impactful than a yearly focus or random spotlight on being a good

127 Intentionally Secure digital citizen. The result, optimistically, will be a more informed user population and a more secure environment to explore the creative potential of technology in all fields. In essence, these concepts can help to promote a commitment to a positive digital citizenship.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. (2016). Parents, teens, and digital monitoring. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital- monitoring/ Armstrong, S., & Warlick, D. (2004). The new literacy. Technology and Learning, 25(2). Barquin, R. (1992). In Pursuit of a ‘Ten Commandments’ for Computer Ethics. Computer Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://www.brook.edu/its/cei/cei_hp.htm Baum, J. (2005). Cyberethics: The new frontier. TechTrends, 49(6), 54–78. doi:10.1007/BF02763731 Bell, M. (2002). Cyberethics in the schools: What is going on? Book Report, 21(1), 33–36. Bitter, G., & Pierson, M. (2002). Using technology in the classroom (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Broughton, D. (2005). Keeping kids safe in cyberspace: Pediatricians should talk to patients, parents about Internet dangers. AAP News: The Official Magazine of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 11-12. Retrieved from http://aapnews. aappublications.org/content/26/8/11.short Bustard, J. (2017). Improving Student Engagement in the Study of Professional Ethics: Concepts and an Example in Cyber Security. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.100711948-017-9904-4 PMID:28401507 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Surveillance Summaries United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(No. SS-2), 1–32. Crystal, J. (2007). The three T’s of Cyberethics. Guidance Channel Ezine. Retrieved from http://www.guidancechannel.com/default.aspx?index=558 Dark, M., & Poftak, A. (2004). How to perform a security audit. Technology and Learning, 24(7).

128 Intentionally Secure

Dutt-Doner, K., Allen, S., & Corcoran, D. (2006). Transforming student learning by preparing the next generation of teachers for Type II Technology Integration. Computers in Schools, 22(3-4), 63–75. doi:10.1300/J025v22n03_06 Festa, G. (2007). The classroom of tomorrow: Here today! Technology and Learning, 27(6). Forcier, R., & Descy, D. (2002). The computer as an educational tool (2nd ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall. Fryer, W. (2003). A beginner’s guide to school security. Technology and Learning, 24(2). Gerber, R. (2001). Prepared remarks: SANS Institute’s Release of the Top 20 Most Critical Internet Vulnerabilities. Retrieved from http://www.sans.org/top20.htm Jacobsen, F., & Smith, G. (1998). Teaching virtue in a virtual world: Internet ethics for students. School Library Journal, 44, 100–103. Kroll, J. A. (2015). The cyber conundrum: Why the current policy for national cyber defense leaves us open to attack. The American Prospect, (2), 9. Lewandowski, J. O. (2005). Creating a culture of technical caution: addressing the issues of security, privacy protection and the ethical use of technology. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, 184-187. 10.1145/1099435.1099476 McQuade, S. III. (2007). We must educate young people about cybercrime before they start college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B29–B31. Moursound, D., & Bielfeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in the Digital Age? Miliken Exchange on Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154 Niekerk, J., Reid, R., & Thomson, K. (2013). Cyber Safety for School Children - A Case Study in the Nelson Mandela Metropolis. Retrieved from http://dl.ifip.org/db/ conf/ifip11-8/ifip11-8-2013/NiekerkTR13.pdf NIPC. (2001). Seven simple security tips for small businesses and home computer users. Retrieved from http://www.infragard.net/library/seven_tips.htm Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2008, October). 2008 National Cyberethics, Cybersafety, Cybersecurity Baseline Study. Retrieved from http://www.edtechpolicy.org/cyberk12/ Documents/C3Awareness/NationalC3BaselineSur vey_Extract_sept_2010.pdf

129 Intentionally Secure

Pusey, P., & Sadera, W. (2011). Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 1–7. doi:10.1080/21532974.2011.10784684 Ribble, M. (2009, January 1). Passport to digital citizenship. Learning and Leading with Technology, 14–17. SANS Institute. (2001). The twenty most critical Internet security vulnerabilities. Retrieved from http://www.sans.org/top20.htm Seiberling, C. (2005). CyberSecurity: A survival guide. Technology and Learning, 25(7). Snyder, M. (2005). Pirates of the classroom. Instructor, 114(6), 18–19. Spafford, E. (2001). Cyber security. Proceedings of the FDCH Congressional Testimony 10/10/2001. Steele, G., & Elb, B. (2004). Invigorate technology training districtwide. Education Digest, 69(8), 44–47. Stoneburner, G., Goguen, A., & Feringa, A. (2002). Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30/sp800-30.pdf Svetcov, E. (2005). Security: Step by step. Technology and Learning, 25(8). Szuba, T. (1998). Safeguarding your technology. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov White, V. (1994). Ethical implications of privacy in E-Mail. Proceedings of Technical Conference on Telecommunications R&D. Whittier, D. (2006). Cyberethics in the Googling age. Journal of Education, 187(2), 1–86. doi:10.1177/002205740718700202 Wolfsberg, J. (2006). Student safety from cyberbullies, in chat rooms and in instant messaging. Education Digest, 72(2), 33–37.

130 131

Chapter 7 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics: Collaborative Reflection Between School Librarians and Education Technology Learners

Lesley Farmer California State University – Long Beach, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter explains how case studies can be used successfully in higher education to provide an authentic, interactive way to teach ethical behavior through critical analysis and decision making while addressing ethical standards and theories. The creation and choice of case studies is key for optimum learning, and can reflect both the instructor’s and learners’ knowledge base. The process for using this approach is explained, and examples are provided. As a result of such practice, learners support each other as they come to a deeper, co-constructed understanding of ethical behavior, and they make more links between coursework and professional lives. The instructor reviews the students’ work to determine the degree of understanding and internalization of ethical concepts/applications, and to identify areas that need further instruction.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch007

INTRODUCTION

As professionals, librarians are expected to behave ethically. Learning what ethical issues are encountered in school librarianship, and knowing how to address them, constitutes a core knowledge set. Case studies provide a grounded theory means to investigate authentic situations in order to ascertain ethical ways to deal with them.

Ethics in Librarianship

The library profession encounters ethical issues daily: providing accurate information, observing intellectual property rights, dealing with privacy issues, maintaining confidential relationship with clientele. With expanding technology comes expanded ethical dilemmas too, especially with the increase use of social media. As Ferguson, Thornley and Gibb (2016) pointed out, technology does not change ethical principles, but digital environments in the workplace do. While ethics has played a role in librarianship for a long time, the first comprehensive study was done in 1998 by Robert Hauptman, who founded The Journal of Information Ethics in 1992. Another library ethics pioneer is Rafael Capurro, who directs the International Center for Information Ethics. The American Library Association began talking about an ethical code in the early twentieth century, with the first code being adopted in 1938. Their core operational definition of ethics posits an “essential set of core values which define, inform, and guide our professional practice” (ALA, 2004). This Code of Ethics, which was most recently revised in 2008, provides a framework to guide ethical decision-making. It includes statements about excellence in service, intellectual property and freedom, collegiality, conflict of interest, and professional growth. In a more recent mapping of library and information science ethical principles and values, Koehler (2015) included the same elements as ALA but also explicitly added access and client rights. In framing information ethics for 21st century librarians, Fallis (2007) asserted that codes of ethics were not sufficient. Explicit education is needed, tied to ethical theories, so that librarians will do the right thing for the right reason. Fallis also stated that librarians need to both model and teach their clientele ethical behavior, especially in light of technology-based information use. In response, the Information Ethics Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Association of Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) developed a position statement on information ethics in library and information science education, which was approved by ALISE in 2008, and approved a more general ethics guidelines statement in 2010. Building on the premises of the UNESCO University Declaration of Human Rights, the association asserted that it is their responsibility to discuss information ethics critically. They further stated that information ethics should

132 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics inform teaching, research, scholarship, and service, particularly as they instructed pre-service librarians. Focusing on library and information science curriculum, the position statement asserts that students should be able to: (a) identify professional ethical conflicts, (b) reflect ethically, (c) link ethical theories and concepts to daily practice, and (d) internalize a sense of ethical responsibility. While the SIG encourages offering a separate course in professional ethics, a strong case may be made that ethical considerations be integrated – and explicitly addressed throughout the curriculum. In this manner, students realize that each function within librarianship involves ethical decision-making. Toni Samek (2010) asserted that teaching ethics offers opportunities to explore ethical questions about relationships in society among people, information, recorded knowledge, and the cultural record” (p. 2). With the advent of the Internet, ethical questions abound. In their 2017 national school library standards, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) includes ethical engagement as one of their six shared foundations; their key commitment is to demonstrate safe, legal and ethical creating and sharing knowledge products. In K-12 school settings, which serves as loco parentis, the legal and ethical responsibilities of the school librarian (SL) surpass the comparable work of librarians in other settings. Dealing with minors adds another layer of legal issues, and implies an additional need to model ethical behavior so children will experience and integrate such values. For instance, SLs need to make sure that students do not access pornographic websites. For that reason, school libraries need to provide telecommunications filters if they wish to accept federal funding. On a more proactive level, SLs try to teach students how to be socially responsible in terms of information literacy. As school librarians increasingly deal with educational technology, they also consider the codes of ethics in affiliated fields of educational technology. Focusing on academic communities, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) developed their code of professional ethics in 2007; its ethical principles specify commitment to the individual, to society, and to the profession. The International Society for Technology for Educators (ISTE) tends to have a broader educational base. Its 2017 standards for educators includes one standard that focuses on the role of citizen: to model and teach responsible digital citizenship.

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS OF ETHICAL JUDGMENT AND STUDY

Professional ethical behavior focuses on individuals and organizational behavior, as much as it does on the specific issue at hand. Policies created by the SL’s school or

133 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics district reflect the ethical values of decision-makers, be it in response to plagiarism or facility use. Because the library program should support the organization, SLs need to support the associated policies. Library profession policies and ethical codes also exist, some of which concern matters that might be encountered at school, such as access to information and selection policies. When the policies of those two entities conflict or when no policy exists relative to a problematic situation – or when confronted with an ethical situation that is foreign to their experience -- SLs may have to decide for themselves how to act ethically. Dyson, Crawford, Frey and Dystra (2013) developed an integrated model of moral judgment that converges theories about cognition, emotions, and social interaction. While moral issues differ slightly from ethics in that morality deals with evaluating actions relative to a culture’s set of virtues, the underlying concepts of values is common to both. These associated theories are parsed for further discussion.

Cognitive Learning Theory

Certainly, to make an informed ethical decision requires knowledge of the issue and its contributing factors. Cognitive learning theory emphasizes anchored instruction, active learning, and opportunities for students to make connections with prior information through the use of relevant examples, such as case study (Yilmas, 2011). Ethical judgment is developed through the active construction of ethical mental models. It should be noted that ethical questions are often difficult to answer because of their complexity and context; they may be considered ill- structured knowledge domains. Cognitive flexibility enables the librarian to adapt their ethical knowledge to novel situations. Yin (2014) asserted that case study is an ideal method to develop such cognitive flexibility. Zeng and Blasi (2010) tested multi-storyline case studies to facilitate cognitive flexibility, and found that these case studies piqued student interest and increased their learning. Moreover, the case studies helped refine students’ ability to address professional ethical problems. Personal construct theory applies draws upon cognitive factors as well, and incorporates aspects of constructivist philosophy (Kurz, Batarelo, & Middleton, 2009). Basically, each person makes sense of his world by describing and relating elements into constructs. These constructs are organized into mental schema or systems of thoughts. Neisser (2014) asserted that these schema then go on to direct exploration of new information, which can then modify the original schema. In practice, as students write about their own ethical situations as narrative case studies, and then analyze them critically, they can identify patterns and distinctions that can help them develop and refine robust construct criteria for their ethical decision making.

134 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Narrative Inquiry

This process of using narrative to study experience as story is called “narrative inquiry,” and has become a popular way to assess contextualized learning. Personal narrative also provides a means for self-assessment, which contributes to the body of evidence demonstrating professional competence. Clandinin (2016) identified three aspects of narrative inquiry: temporality, sociality, and place. Narrative is situated within a particular time and place. Sociality describes how the person is constrained by and reacts to the social condition. The underlying premise is that social context influences what occurs, so inquiry may be validly pursued in natural settings. The temporal aspect of narrative can also be used to look at the self over time, so that the narrator’s self-identity can be seen to develop as constructed through a series of narratives. Narrative inquiry thus situates ethical dilemmas in social contexts, and can be used to not only tell an ethical story, but also create new stories that posit more ethical identifies and action. Coffey and Street (2008) noted that exposure to a social world does not necessarily lead a person to identify with that world; that happens only after “structural and personal threads of identification overlap” (p. 454). This issue can be addressed through narrative inquiry. Yukawa (2006) asserted that narrative analysis “accommodates both individual and group learning and provides a means to ascertain the roles of affect and relationship building” (2005). This process is strengthened as individuals compare their reflective constructs, drawing valid inferences across contexts and generate knowledge (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 2013). Interactive and collaborative discussion leads to co-construction of knowledge where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; no one person could have created the ultimate insight or solution. “Each participant takes up another’s contribution and does something further with it” (Suthers, 2005, p. 667). Arnseth and Ludvigen (2006) suggest that “social interaction with artifacts in an organized setting becomes the site where these processes are made available for study” (p. 171). The interaction between the intellectual discourse and the external setting relative to case studies lead to authentic meaning and the source for relevant action. Each student brings his or her own experiences and values to library courses. As all students are exposed to new information, they make their implicit knowledge explicit. In sharing and reviewing their peers’ reflections, they combine and refine the explicit knowledge, and then internalize it in order to improve their ethical values and ensuring behaviors. Indeed, Yi (2006) asserted that in online learning environments, “sharing one’s own experience is the most effective way people use when sharing their tacit knowledge with others” (670). This process leads to ethical norms, which is a central conceit of ethical codes.

135 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Social Cognitive Theory

As implied above, narrative inquiry gains power when shared. Thus it is seen that social interaction is of paramount importance in ethical judgment, particularly since ethics is contextualized within the framework of librarianship in this discussion. Ethical decision making draws upon situation cognition theory, which posits that knowledge is situated and processes involved enculturation (Jenlick, 2013). The leading expert on social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura (2011) investigated how people model their own behavior on those behaviors observed in other people as a way to facilitate change through adopting new competences and creating emotional proclivities. His study led to his developing the principle of triadic reciprocality, which examines causal relations between personal behavior and events with environmental factors. Bandura stated that self-efficacy beliefs helped individuals plan and optimize personal change. Bandura asserted that people self-organize and self-regulate; they are producers as well as products of their environment. The social aspect of the theory refers to the social origin of thought and action, and the cognitive aspect of the theory reflects how the mind impacts affect and action. Furthermore, Bandura asserted that interdependent collective agency can develop models to promote certain values. These aspects again affirm an integrated model of moral and ethical judgment.

Bloom’s Affective Domain and the Development of Ethical Practice

As librarianship educators aim to help pre-service SLs develop ethical stances and practice their craft ethically, they need to attend to the affective nature of value acceptance along with the cognitive and social aspects (Simpson, 2003). Bloom’s 1973 affective domain taxonomy can serve as a critical lens to examine how pre- service school librarians (SL) become ethically competent, and informs the integrated nature of ethical judgment posited above. Bloom’s taxonomy of the affective domain posits five stages:

• Receiving: Getting and holding one’s attention relative to professional ethical issues. • Responding: Active participation and satisfaction in learning about professional ethics. • Valuing: Commitment to the underlying value of professional ethics.

136 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

• Organization: Integration of possibly conflicting values to support professional ethics. • Value Complex: Pervasive and consistent incorporation of professional ethics.

Typically, each stage needs to be addressed before the next stage can occur. To establish a professional ethical baseline, instructors can have students identify how they act ethically presently, and what they wanted to accomplish that could be facilitated through professional ethics. By valuing the present level of professional ethical comfort and willingness to risk change and learn, instructors help pre-service SLs feel more relaxed and open to developing a professional ethic. Students should also feel that they can control their learning focus and pacing. At the initial stages of awareness and receiving, instructors can present case studies that demonstrate the benefits of ethical decision-making. At this point, instructors can work with pre-service SLs to identify issues in site ethics, particularly in terms of student behavior and impact. Perhaps clearer communication with parents is needed. Maybe students have a hard time understanding an ethical concept – or SLs do not how to teach it to students. How might ethics provide a solution? By sharing a simple case study focusing on a challenged book and showing a grievance procedure along with a selection policy and challenge form, instructors can provide a non-threatening tool that pre-service SLs can use immediately to address an ethical issue. This focus on processes can help pre-service SLs advance to the next stage in Bloom’s affective domain: responding. Because pre-service SLs are motivated to engage in activities that reduce plagiarism to improve student learning, they can use an associated case study to brainstorm ways to teach ways respect intellectual property. For instance, SLs may mention using organizational resources such as graphic organizers and Cornell note-taking. They also appreciate articles written by other SLs who learned how to leverage a learning tool to help students avoid plagiarism. By this point, pre-service SLs begin to value professional ethics (Bloom’s third stage within the affective domain), and seek ways to incorporate professional ethics in their library program. To insure that SLs control their application of ethics, instructors can have pre-service SLs share their own case studies, which may be based on real- life experiences or created to test hypothetical situations. Using telecommunications, they can easily share their case studies with their course colleagues. It should be noted that most pre-service SLs start with ethical case studies that help in their own practice; afterwards, they feel more relaxed about using ethics as a learning tool

137 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics with their students. They also value developing a concrete product as a means to demonstrate authentic results. Throughout the process, the emphasis should be on close transfer of learning, not generic ethical practice but issue-specific applications. Of course, instructors have to show that they have dealt with ethnical issues in order to gain credibility with their pre-service SLs. These efforts lead to the next stage in Bloom’s taxonomy: organization. It also signals readiness for collaboration. Case studies can address program-wide ethical review and interventions. Typical projects might include technology selection policies, donation policies, plagiarism-proof learning activities design, and research handbooks, all of which foster consistent teaching and assessment. Particularly if pre-service SLs work in the same school district, such collaborative effort facilitates the top stage in Bloom’s taxonomy: value complex. Case studies may investigate initiatives to develop an ethics curriculum or create a district policies and procedures manual that would weave in professional ethics. Pre-service SLs might seek outside consulting and funding to sustain their efforts, demonstrating their long-term commitment to professional ethics.

USING CASE STUDIES TO STUDY ETHICS

A case study is basically a story or narrative that illustrates a phenomenon or concept. McLellan (2004) stipulated that case studies need to be real, based on careful research and study, and facilitate multiple perspectives. She also asserted that ideal case studies should have compelling plots, characters and dialogue that engage students. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) defined case studies in terms of the following elements:

• Boundedness: The critical elements are self-contained within the situation; • Particularity: The focus is specific and consists of a unique combination of elements; • Descriptiveness: The study provides a thick dataset of grounded reality; • Heuristics: The study lends itself to reveal “rules” or reasons.

Merriam further categorized case studies according to function or intent:

• Description: They provide basic information about a topic that has not been well researched; this type of case study often focuses on innovative practices; • Interpretation: Information is analyzed to generalize a situation or to develop a conceptual framework;

138 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

• Evaluation: The underlying issues can be deduced by applying existing theory to the grounded experience.

For the purposes of explaining ethics within the field of school librarianship, a case study sets up a situation that presents an ethical dilemma or conflict of values, which the student needs to resolve. Focusing on the cultural aspects of information ethics, Fleischmann, Robbins, and Wallace (2009) asserted that case studies helped students learn the importance of values, perspectives, diversity, and pluralism. As mentioned in relationship to theoretical considerations of ethical judgment and study, case studies constitute an important aspect of library education as they provide a reality check for theories and concepts taught in the classroom; they provide contextualized situations that can bridge abstract theory and daily practice (Bridges, 1992; Mostert & Sudzine, 1996). Case studies offer an authentic way to teach critical analysis and decision-making because they reveal nuanced factors in complex dynamic situations and they stimulate productive discussion incorporating multiple perspectives (Ellis, 2014; Ferguson, Thornley & Gibb, 2016). Students are likely to engage in case studies because they are concrete and typically include some affective elements. They may be approached intuitively, and so can engage the novice learner in a personal construct model to make meaning (Gerring, 2016; Kurz, Batarelo, & Middleton, 2009; Neisser, 2014). Noe (2015) noted that case- based teaching not only reinforces course concepts, but the in-depth discussion leads to higher levels of reflective critical thinking. In a similar field, ninety percent of journalism educators use real-life case studies to teach ethics, and consider this method the most effective instructional method because the stories are engaging and show actual consequences, which stimulate critical thinking. Library educator Hannabuss (1996) asserted:

Case studies can incorporate elements of research, as students work on legal, organizational or political issues which require more factual evidence, concentrate key ideas into achievable learning tasks and objectives for students or groups of students, and enable students to develop skills in presenting not just information but reasoned arguments too (30).

Summing up the advantages of incorporating case studies online, Watson and Sutton (2012) stated that their use embodies the American Association of Higher Education’s seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996): encouraging student-faculty contact, facilitating reciprocal learning, providing timely feedback, emphasizing time on task, using active learning, communicating high expectations, and respecting learning differences.

139 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

The researchers also found that students preferred asynchronous learning, favoring discussion board and virtual teamwork. Case studies provide positive experiences for student learning, but this methodology also has limitations. Indeed, some academians consider case studies non-rigorous, non-systematic, and non-scientific (Gerring, 2016). For example, while case studies provide rich data sets, those data are usually context-dependent for accurate interpretation; over-generalization of the solutions can lead to misleading perceptions. In a different vein, since analysis usually requires insightful writing, assessment might evaluate writing expertise more than content analysis. Moreover, if students lack academic knowledge or professional experience, they are less likely to interpret the data accurately (Mostert & Sudzine, 1996). Yin (2014) noted that real-world cases reflect authentic complexity, and so that a thematic cluster of cases need to be deconstructed along overlapping dimensions, and then reconnected across cases to form flexible knowledge. Other common practical problems need to be addressed when using case studies. For example, optimal discussion occurs with groups of twelve to fifteen members, so large classes need to be subdivided; online discussion groups should be even smaller in number in order to keep track of discussion threads. Case study discussion can be very time-consuming, particularly if deep analysis is to be gained. Participation may be uneven, so the instructor or facilitator needs to make sure that everyone contributes to the discussion (Mostert & Sudzine, 1996). As noted in the 2017 ISTE standards, digital citizenship is one aspect of ethical practice. This topic offers a concrete example of one way to use case studies to examine ethical issues. The following four-step process shows how to guide learning (Farmer, 2015).

1. Awareness: What are stakeholders’ information needs and behaviors? How do librarians and other educators deal with their digital life? 2. Engagement: What laws impact information creation, dissemination, access and use? What rights and responsibilities do stakeholders have? At this point, case studies can showcase issues that arise, such as fake news, information leaks, and intellectual property abuse. What are the consequence of unethical digital behavior? What alternative actions could have been taken? Learners can also share current news that illustrate real actions and consequences. 3. Manipulating Information: At this point, learners can develop their own case studies to research. As they self-identify unethical digital behaviors and impact, learners take ownership of their knowledge and gain ethical skills. 4. Application: How does one model digital citizenship professionally and daily life? Learners can apply their new knowledge to resolve ethical issues in their practice, and train their constituents.

140 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Choosing and Creating Case Studies

Faculty effort to identify or create appropriate case studies can be time-intensive, particularly since case studies are usually incorporated after concepts are introduced; faculty choose a case study to exemplify the concept (Bridges, 1992). In using case studies for teaching professional ethical behavior, instructors should select the most effective ones, based on the intended outcome and taking into account the prior experiences of pre-service SLs. As with any other potential resource selection in support of teaching and learning, instructors need to develop and apply appropriate criteria: (a) includes ethical elements, (b) includes context for making ethical decisions, (c) poses an ethical conflict, (d) offers multiple perspectives or interpretations (Gerring, 2016). Yin (2014) noted the importance of using theory as a basis for choosing case studies in terms of research design, defining the critical issues, addressing rival theories, and legitimately generalizing to other cases. Pearson, Albon and Hubball (2015) identified four types of research-based case studies:

• Instrumental: Which contribute to the general understanding of a phenomenon; • Collective: Compare two or more representative cases; • Exploratory: Which serves as a pilot to inform more generalizable research; • Explanatory: Which sheds light on causal factor that lead to a certain action.

The authors also noted several criteria, across case study types, to consider when choosing case studies.

• The methodology needs to be rigorous, incorporating multiple data sources, and providing in-depth description of the issue and population. • Research participants must be treated ethically. • The data and findings must be credible and generalizable.

Instructors may locate suitable ethics-based case studies from the professional literature, ask their professional peers for applicable true stories, create their own case studies, or ask pre-service SLs to tell their stories. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. Probably the most valid action is to locate “vetted” case studies in the literature; these may exhibit real-life situations or may be artificially constructed to make a point about ethics. It should be noted that the quantity and quality of published appropriate case studies vary according to the specific ethical dilemma under investigation. In that respect, an excellent source for case studies is the news media (Walther, 2016); these stories show the complexities of information and its

141 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics use in real contexts, unlike “gamed” situations with easy answers. On the other hand, it may be difficult to tease out all the facts and motivations behind the action that could impact decision-making. Therefore, instructors may want to construct their own scenarios in order to insure that the points they want to make will be covered in the scenario. In the process of creating a scenario, however, instructors need to make sure that the situation is based on facts and is credible. In that respect, social media, including shared digital video websites, have greatly expanded the pool of potentially compelling real case studies; in some cases, the content narrative itself raises ethical issues, and other documents might be education-generated unvetted case studies that are available publicly. Getting real-life stories from peers can provide authentic factors, but may jeopardize confidentiality; instructors should ask for a written version of the story – and obtain written permission to share it (Mostert & Sudzine, 1996). As students increasingly videotape their own practices, obtaining written permissions from all recognizable individuals becomes even more problematic. Alternatively, students could animate their case study, using avatars for the parties involved, and creating approximate dialogue. Typically, instructors would provide case studies at the beginning of a library preparation program and individual course, but by the end of the time frame, instructors might want to have student locate or create their own case studies as a way to apply prior knowledge and demonstrate authentic performance. To involve students from the start, instructors might consider asking students to describe an ethically critical event that they experienced, stating its significance and detailing their response to the issue. This narrative can be analyzed in terms of the aforementioned criteria for possible modification into a formal case study. Even deciding which personal narrative to share reflects students’ decision making processes. One of the benefits of student-chosen case studies is a sense of ownership. Pre- service SLs are more likely to choose a case study that has personal meaning for them, be it an issue that that have confronted or an issue that they want to explore in a safe learning environment. The choice of case study can also constitute an opportunity for assessment because instructors can determine if the case study is relevant to the topic at hand. As with instructors, pre-service SLs have to deal with authenticity and ethical considerations of sharing when locating or creating case studies. Usually, information shared within a class for instruction and research is not held to the same legal standard as public information, but students should model ethical behaviors even in this selection and sharing process. It should also be acknowledged that having students locate or share their own stories or case studies provides an authentic link between classroom practice and real-life applications. Some pre-service SLs serve as library staff, and others work in

142 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics school setting with easy access to library programs. Other pre-service SLs may intern at libraries or volunteer in a service learning capacity. The American Association of Higher Education (1997) defined service learning as: a method under which students learn and develop through thoughtfully organized service that: is conducted in and meets the needs of a community and is coordinated with an institution of higher education, and with the community; helps foster civic responsibility; is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students enrolled; and includes structured time for students to reflect on the service experience.

Service learning is especially useful in distant and remote library education because it motivates students and facilitates a community of practice (Mellon & Kester, 2004; Yontz & De La Pena McCook, 2003).

Reflection Using Case Studies

A key factor in using case studies is critical reflection. While providing a relevant case study constitutes a necessary condition for learning, student response constitutes the act of learning itself. Dewey (1933) defined reflection as the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends (9). He asserted that, while thinking was natural, active reflection was a learned skill. Boud, Koeugh, and Walker (2013) pointed out that reflection also includes affective activities in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations. Wilson (2008) further contended that reflection should begin with uncertainty or doubt, with the idea that critical analysis will shed light on the problem and help result it. Ethics, too, demands conscious learning, so the partnership of reflection and ethics constitutes a sound combination. Valli (1997) positives four types of reflection:

• Reflecting in/on Action: Thinking about one’s own performance in context of a setting or situation; • Deliberative: Thinking about a range of librarianship concerns (e.g., students, curriculum, organization, strategies); • Personalistic: Thinking about personal growth and relationships; • Critical: Social, moral, and political dimensions of librarianship.

143 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

All of these modes contribute to a better understanding of ethics because students should address both cognitive and affective domains in ethical attitude and behavior. Nevertheless, students need to transcend the personal to see the broader theory and implications so they can make ethical decisions about currently unknown situations. Additionally, they need to provide credible evidence to support their stances, and thus build their knowledge base as well as draw upon affective perspectives. In developing an extensive set of case studies in library and information science ethics, Buchanan and Henderson (2009) outlined steps in ethical decision making that can guide instruction.

1. Define the situation, noting personal biases. 2. Consult professional codes to assess the situation. 3. Identify the stakeholders, and the implications of the situation for them. 4. Determine the preconditions and variables of the situation. 5. Explore perspectives of the issues. 6. Evaluate the situation through analysis and interpretations. 7. Determine the parameters of possible actions/inactions, noting the intent of those decisions. 8. Evaluate alternatives to the situation, considering the consequences. 9. Decide on a reasonable, responsible course of action. 10. Consider the cumulative effect of decisions.

In teaching information ethics, Carbo (2008) used a similar model to help students determine the underlying logic in case studies: identifying purpose, key ethical questions, assumptions, stakeholder perspectives, information needed to address the issue, principles and concepts to guide thinking, options and conclusions, and implications. To help students benefit from case studies, instructors should structure the learning experience. Here are some valid approaches.

• Have students develop decision-making flowcharts, identifying and tracing the consequences of alternative solutions. • Have students use a problem-solving model: identify the problem, identify the underlying ethical issues, identify the stakeholders, identify alternative solutions and their possible conflicts, decide on a solution, evaluate its effectiveness. • Identify an ethical premise. Have students locate a case study or identify a real-life situation that illustrates the conflict. They identify the underlying reasons for the conflict and their impact, choose a solution, and trace its ethical ramifications.

144 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Instructors also need to follow up after students reflect upon a case study. According to Wilson (2008), timely and specific feedback is a necessary component of reflection because it provides a reality check on students’ perceptions, and helps instructors see what additional information and interventions are needed to insure student learning and application. Reflections are evaluated in terms of: 1) demonstrated knowledge of ethical principles; 2) ability to apply ethics appropriately to specific settings. During a course, the reflective process itself should improve, due to added content and feedback. As students self-monitor their reflections and applications of knowledge, they can increase their understanding, improve their responses, and act more ethically. Co-reflection increases both the intellectual and the affective integration of ethical behavior. Yukawa (2006) pointed out that “a core element appears to be living experience within a shared world, and a core recognition is the opacity of interior life and social life, which presents obvious barriers to the attainment of intersubjective understanding” (207). At the minimum, whereby students individually create or react to a case study in a shared learning space (e.g., open discussion board), intersubjective understanding and co-constructed knowledge tacitly occurs. By introducing active peer reflection, instructors enable students to share understanding and perceptions explicitly so that relationships can increase. In effect, instructors triangulate grounded feedback to provide more valid assessment. Students also appreciate peer observations because it offers an opportunity to connect with others, fostering a sense of belonging and facilitating a sustainable social and professional network. By couching reflection in an online environment, distance constraints are virtually eliminated so students can continue their professional relationships wherever they go. Hanrahan and Isaacs (2013) noted the impact of peer-assessment training. While untrained peers found the process motivating and productive, they felt some discomfort and had implementation problems. When instructors provide clear detailed standards (which are available for librarians), and offer opportunities for practicing peer assessment, or at least exemplars, students feel more self-confident. In examining students non-posting behavior, Kui (2013) found that a more valid assessment than mere counting of responses was the frequency and length of time that students spent on the course site. Even those students who posted a smaller percent of the time that they spent online with the course were more willing to engage in learning activities if they had a sense of autonomy. Nonetheless, when students received replies from their peers, they were more motivated to post work – and comments – themselves; they were also more likely to co-construct knowledge. Similar to Kui’s research, Yu and Wu (2013) found that students who received positive, higher-quality feedback gained more self-confidence and performed better.

145 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

ETHICS AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

One of the benefits of case study is that the core elements – content and analysis – are space- and time-neutral. Students may engage in examination and discussion both face-to-face and remotely, in real time or asynchronously. Indeed, case studies can bring distance learners together, offering a common text for multiple interpretations. Lavagnino, Bowker, Heidorn, & Basi (2001) detailed the incorporation of social informatics in a distance library education program, asserting that case studies underlined the importance of storytelling to learning and simulated real-life processes. Distance education also provides more equitable discourse in that English language learners, low-verbal learners, and more contemplative learners can respond to the case study “prompt” after they have had time to comprehend and reflect on the underlying issues (Tait & Mills, 1999). Thomas and Brown (2011) suggested a new culture of learning in which new media forms make peer learning easier. Building on that assumption, Nichols (2012) asserted that the self-organization of social media optimizes dynamic and constructivist learning. Course learning systems and even collective web sites such as Nings provide one-stop learning spaces where students can explore and share with public or private audiences (Casey, 2013). In incorporating student-produced video case studies in online education, Johnson (2013) found that the medium helped bridge concepts and concrete reality, contextualizing issues in authentic settings. The format also enables students to access the material at their convenience as well as pause and repeat scenes as needed. Especially because the video case studies were created by classmates and drew upon their own experiences, students felt less isolated. Students also reported learning in new ways. Researching online discursive activity focused on case studies, the author (2004, 2004a) noted the following benefits related to the affective domain: (a) increased frequency and quality of out-of-class, student-to-student dialogue (e.g., collaboration on assignments and projects; peer review of work, etc.) via email, online ‘chat’ and discussion group facilities; (b) increased opportunity for faculty- student communication through individual and group email; (c) ability of instructors to evaluate efficiently the quality of student work by means of online quizzes and exams and to monitor student effort and engagement in the subject matter on a more frequent and regular basis through using online discussion groups; (d) mutual reinforcement of out-of-class and in-class student interaction and (e) increased student confidence in their ability to apply concepts.

146 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

EXAMPLES OF ETHICS-BASED CASE STUDIES

The California State University Long Beach (CSULB) School Librarian program prepares SL candidates to work in K-12 school library settings. Throughout the program, these pre-service SLs incorporate service learning and case studies to “flesh out” theory and contextualize it within their daily practice. Ethics-base case studies, provided by both instructors and classmates, facilitate co-created constructivist learning, and meld the experiences of workplace and distance education. Because the new state standards for school librarian programs emphasized more technology, in 2012 the SL program merged with the existing educational technology (ETEC) master’s degree program, resulting in a Master’s Degree in Education, Option in Educational Technology and Media along with the SL credential program. As a result, candidates can pursue the credential alone, and with three more courses also earn the master’s degree, or they can focus strictly on the master’s degree without the SL specialization. Six courses were required of all candidates: both the ETEC and SL tracks. For the credential, SL candidates take three other courses specific to their field. Because the preponderance of the programs overlap, so too do the interactions of the two tracks of candidates. Therefore, ethical practices – and use of case studies by the instructor researcher – also overlap. Four approaches to the CSULB ETEC/SL programs’ use of case studies to teach ethics are discussed below. The first three examples have been detailed in an earlier publication (Farmer, 2004; Farmer, 2014), so are briefly summarized here. The fourth example reflects the new merged program, and reveals the possible impact of the interaction of the two candidate populations. It also details the methodology of analyzing students’ case study efforts, which informs future instruction.

Courses

ELIB 520

The course ELIB 520 Information Literacy and Reference Services provides opportunities for candidates to design learning activities that meld information literacy and ethics. This project was done after candidates had read case studies about youth-serving librarians and student information-seeking behaviors in various library settings according to pre-determined topics. One of the main ethical concepts is the assurance that all students will have equitable access to information resources and services. Candidates developed a case study about an at-risk population (e.g., unwed mothers, English language learners, reluctant readers), identified barriers to information, discussed the basis and implication in inequity, and offered library based-solutions; peers responded by suggesting another solution based on a reading.

147 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

ELIB 550

The Library Media Center Management course (ELIB 550) requires pre-service SLs to analyze critical incidents they face, either as classroom teachers or as beginning SLs, incorporating ethical issues. Each candidate posts his/her event on the online course management discussion forum, and must reply online to a peer’s case study with the intent of providing another solution or give another insight. The instructor performed a content analysis of these incidents in order to predict likely ethical issues; as a result, she expanded discussion about communicating with administrators, and increased the use of case studies (Farmer, 2004). The learning activities were assessed in terms of analysis of the population, ethical solutions, and quality of response. As the class examined what they learned from the critical event narratives shared in ELIB 550, they identified the needs for effective communication as the most important factor. Second in importance was principal support. Third in rank was collaboration; classroom teachers were particularly struck with the impact of collaboration. Other factors noted by individuals included critical observation, planning, training, and positive attitude.

ELIB 570

The Library Media Technologies course (ELIB 570) requires pre-service SLs to assess a school library in terms of its technology resources and use (according to the state’s technology planning guide), and to develop a technology plan for its effective incorporation. In the process, they examine ethical issues that arise in technology incorporation, such as software piracy, filtering, privacy, and copyright infringement. Each candidate poses an ethical scenario, posting it online, and a peer solves the issue using relevant documentation. The candidate-created case studies usually reflect issues that candidates encounter in their professional lives – or address problems that they fear they will have to address in their new role as a librarian, such as acceptable use policies and ethical issues related to mobile devices. Thus, case studies provide a means to expand pre-service SLs’ encounter with unethical situations – and their ramifications in a safe environment. In this manner, they can design preventative measures such as having enforceable policies to forestall potential ethical disasters.

ETEC 510

The course ETEC 510 Foundations of Educational Technology and Media includes units on ethical issues, professional codes of ethics, and policies. Because both graduate pre-service school librarians and educational technology majors take this

148 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics required course, the instructor research was able to compare these two populations and their interaction. First, the class as a whole analyzed an assigned ethical case study, then they discussed several posed ethical case studies in small groups, followed by a whole class debriefing. These activities helped students to identify the elements of a case study, and practice steps in analyzing a case study. As homework, each candidate created a case study, and responded to a peer’s case study, following these directions, adapted from the ethics decision-making process outlined by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (2009): (a) summarize the situation and problem; (b) identify possible contributing factors (c) consider options (e.g. which produces the most good and least home, which best respects the rights of all stakeholders, which treats people equitably, which best serves the community as a whole, which leads me to be a better person?) and (d) cite and apply a professional code of ethics, and the week’s readings as appropriate, recommend an ethical course of action. The researcher coded and analyzed the candidates’ work along several dimensions. The class consisted of 29 candidates: 26 females and 3 males, 15 Caucasian females, one female and one male Black, 6 female and 1 male Latino, 5 female Asians. Ages ranged from the early twenties to the mid-fifties. Fourteen followed the educational technology (ETEC) track and fifteen (14 females and 1 male) followed the school librarian (SL) track. Three of ETEC candidates worked as higher education staff, and the rest were K-12 teachers. Three of the SL candidates served as K-12 school librarians, and the rest were K-12 teachers.

Findings

Reason for Creating and Responding to a Case Study

Almost all candidates had experienced the ethical situation directly or at their site; two female educational technology candidates created an archetypal case study, and four female educational technology candidates responded out of general interest in the situation.

Choice of Case Study to Respond to

Candidates in the two tracks had a surprisingly even pattern in terms response to candidates in the same or opposite track. Candidates reported that they chose the case based on interest of the topic, with one female in each track choosing a case in order to get feedback about their comments. The choices were distributed as shown in Table 1.

149 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Table 1. Case study creator and responder

ETEC RESPONDER SL RESPONDER NO RESPONSE ETEC CREATOR 8 5 1 SL CREATOR 7 5 3

Technology Addressed

Four female ETEC candidates and four SL candidates did not mention technology in their case studies; because technology issues were not required, some candidates looked at the broader issue of professionalism rather than using a technology lens. The rest of the candidates addressed a wide variety of technologies with little overlap, except as follows: one each ETEC and SL focused on social media in general, one ETEC and three SLs focused on Facebook. ETEC technologies included CAD, email, Twitter, learning management system, online tutorial, web page development, video, webinar, and technology vendors (two candidates). SL technologies included audiobooks, iPads, apps, online survey, monitoring program, network server, Internet (two candidates). No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the types of technology.

Situations

Situations were usually cast from the perspective of a teacher. The situations clustered into these categories: inequitable or inappropriate access to physical and digital resources, instructionally-related problems, accepting gifts of technology, negative speech, stealing, deception, failure to comply with policy. Teachers were usually painted as well-meaning, but not following policy (typically through lack of knowledge). Parents were viewed as protective of their children. Administrators were viewed neutrally – or as the person who should take action. No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the situations addressed.

Ethical Issues

Candidates identified the following ethical issues: equitable and appropriate access to technology, problematic professional relationships, deception, individual privacy, intellectual property, intellectual freedom, non-compliance with policy. No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the ethical issues addressed.

150 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Consequences

Consequences ranged from personal embarrassment to legal action, possibly in terms of firing or criminal arrest. The damage to personal, site, and district integrity and reputation was often mentioned. Another frequent consequence was inequity (including discrimination). Other consequences noted were negative impact on student learning and achievement, unhealthy/ jeopardized work environment. No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the consequences mentioned.

Factors

As mentioned before, in many cases, the reason for the controversial actions stemmed from well-meaning intentions, such as helping students access information or find a work-around to address existing inequity. Lack of funding was another common factor that led to inappropriate actions as work-arounds to equity problems (e.g., no site license for digital resources). Students’ at-risk situations and parental concerns were sometimes the heart of the matter. Another cluster of factors that served as an excuse for unethical action was bureaucratic delays, complications and lack of enforcement. On the other hand, the fact that policy existed was a frequent factor that led to recommendations for ethical options. Lack of awareness and lack communication were linked factors. Sometimes the perceived need for an immediate “fix” led to ethical problems. Crossing professional boundaries and abuse of power were also factors that caused ethical conflicts. Some candidates explicitly identified different stakeholders, and listed factors pertaining to each group. No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the factors mentioned.

Code of Ethics

Several codes of ethics, mainly of professional associations, were mentioned. Because the course textbook and one of the required readings used the AECT code of ethics as their basis, Table 2’s list of codes cited by the students is not surprising.

Options

Almost all of the case studies were unambiguous in terms of the options to consider and recommend. Twenty of the 29 case studies stated that policy existed and should be followed. For the rest of the cases, the onus was usually on the teacher to use discretion and transparency to avoid misunderstanding. Almost all cases usually requiring discussion with administrators. No significant differences existed between candidate tracks relative to the options to take.

151 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Table 2. Codes of Ethics in Rank Order

CODE OF ETHICS ETEC TRACK SL TRACK Association for Educational Communications and Technology 5 4 Association for American Educators 4 2 National Education Association 2 2 District 1 3 International Society for Technology in Education 1 1 California Teachers Association 3 American Library Association 1 Associations of School Boards 1 National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education 1

Readings

Several candidates cited course readings: ten mentioned, their textbook (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018), seven cited Aragon et al. (2014), four TLs listed Lester and Keohler (2007), and three mentioned Lin (2007). Three ETEC candidates mentioned Zeiger’s undated newspaper article, two refereed to federal government documents (FERPA and Article 508), two noted Stanford’s fair use website, and one cited Lehavot’s 2009 article about graduate candidates’ online lives. The candidates’ case studies revealed several trends. Candidates may have opted for clear cases than more ambiguous or contentious issues, so these cases did not seem to push the envelope of technology-related ethics. Nevertheless, the case studies did address important issues; for instance, case studies about access pointed out the continuing issue of the Digital Divide, and education’s ethical responsibility to mitigate that divide. The apparent lack of funding also triggered ethical predicaments and subsequent faulty action. The studies showed how ethical issues emerged when accessing and using technology tools and the Internet (especially social media), and they noted that in most cases existing policies could address those issues. This finding was a pleasant surprise since technology-specific policy often lags behind practice; however, several policies were broad enough to cover technology situation, such as receiving gifts or providing equitable access to learning resources. Candidates were also quick to point out that policy in itself is insufficient; honest and thoughtful communication among stakeholders is imperative: the flesh of policy bones. Assuming good will was also an underlying principle from which to act. It was interesting to see that SL students tended to cite more codes of ethics, including more district-based ones; this finding might reflect that the SL students tended to have longer professional careers than their ETEC counterparts, so knew

152 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics more about educational governance, including union factors. Most students limited their justifications to those codes and to class readings, which was not surprising. However, it was disappointing that only two students cited federal legislation, and that three cited the same newspaper article (indicating probable collaboration). On a positive note, though, it was heartening that the two tracks of students interacted equally well with their peers in the same and opposite tracks, and that their perceptions, analyses, and ethical values did not significantly differ.

IMPACT OF REPRESENTATIVE CASE STUDIES

These case study approaches to professional ethics incorporation into school library programs through pre-service instruction reflects integrated model of moral judgment of Dyson, Crawford, Frey and Dystra (2013). Particularly as candidates assess their peer’s narratives, they co-construct criteria for ethical practice. Across the board, in analyzing case studies, candidates remarked that they were able to operationalize readings about ethics theories and codes into concrete practical situations. In terms of the process itself – reflecting on critical management events, for instance – candidates thought that the activity was useful and enlightening. They were able to see how the coursework applied to their settings, and how problems they encountered could have been solved more easily once they learned management skills and knew more resources (both material and human) to draw upon. In each course case study assignment, candidates particularly liked reading peers’ reflections because: 1) they found that others had similar problems so did not feel isolated or “strange,” and 2) they were given good tips that they could use if a similar problem arose for them. The students’ comments reflected several other theories about ethical judgment. Cognitive learning theory was apparent as students needed to respond to a peer’s ethical case study, a novel situation for them which required them to use cognitive flexibility. Furthermore, as asserted Zeng and Blasi (2010), the case studies piqued students’ interests, especially as they could choose which case study to respond to; the main basis for student choice was their own curiosity or professional need. Personal construct theory undergirded the ETEC 510 activity in that students made meaning of their professional practice by describing the ethical dilemma in terms of the pre-defined constructs. Students operationalized professional codes of ethics to solve their self-defined ethical issue. Narrative inquiry formed the construct of the case study assignments. Particularly for ELIB 550, students had to tell about their own real experience dealing with a professional ethical dilemma, couching them in terms of a specific time and place; they also addressed the constraints they had to consider when dealing with the situation (e.g., policies, organizational structure,

153 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics group norms). Students validated their peers’ stories, and posited alternative stories to optimize ethical judgments and resultant consequences. Social cognitive theory served as a foundation for these case study assignments in that students created the scenarios knowing that peers would respond to them. The case studies also enabled students to model their behavior based on reading their peers’ experiences and advice (Bandura, 2011). The case studies also concretized Bandura’s principle of examining causal relations between personal behavior and events in their professional environment. On the part of the instructor, analysis of the students’ ethics-situated case studies work also tied to relevant theories. Cognitive learning theory was evident as the instructor anchored the ethical case study assignment by providing sample case studies for students to analyze, and discussing their responses in class, before students created their own scenarios. The student-created case studies demonstrated active learning, and the prompts for developing and responding to the case study gave students opportunities reference prior course readings (Yilmas, 2011). Personal construct theory was applied as the instructor structured the ethical assignments to facilitate students’ use of pre-defined constructs (e.g., technology plan parameters, stakeholders, bases for decisions). Narrative inquiry formed the framework for the design all of the ethical case study assignments. This framework not only helped students to concretize ethical principles, but also enabled them to self-assess their own practices, especially for the ELIB 550 assignment. Particularly when students created a scenario that they thought might happen to them as a new professional (e.g., ETEC 510), they learned how to apply their prior learning to the situation and they received further advice from their peers; this process helped them develop their professional self-identity (Chandinin, 2016). Social cognitive theory was a key element for the ethical case studies in that students responded to each other’s scenarios. The fact that the case studies were shared online also facilitated the development of collective agency to promote ethical values (Bandura, 2011).The instructor was especially pleased that the class was respectful of each person’s real or potential handling of the situation, even when the actual outcome was negative. Addressing the affective domain specifically, these case study approaches mirror the complexity of changing and maturing attitudes as posited in Bloom’s Affective Domain. Researching online reflective activity focused on case studies, the author (2004, 2004a) noted the following benefits related to the affective domain:

• Increased frequency and quality of out-of-class, student-to-student dialogue (e.g., collaboration on assignments and projects; peer review of work, etc.) via email, online ‘chat’ and discussion group facilities; • Increased opportunity for faculty-student communication through individual and group telecommunications;

154 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

• Ability of instructors to evaluate efficiently the quality of student work by monitoring student effort and engagement in the ethics subject matter on a more frequent and regular through the use of online discussion groups; • Student-based interventions and additional course material to address misunderstandings; • Mutual reinforcement of out-of-class and in-class student interaction; • Increased student confidence in their ability to apply ethical concepts.

As a result of analyzing case study reflections in light of relevant theories, the instructor modified ethics-based case studies activities to provide information that pre-service ETEC and SL candidates need to apply in their professional careers, such as practices to insure privacy and confidentiality. Gaps in learning were addressed by modifying the reading lists to better reflect current ethical theories and issues, such as social media. It is important to note that each specific case study approach differed in terms of topics to focus and ways to respond. Yet all were effective in teaching learners applicable ethical principles. Such variations serve as a positive sign that instructors could shape case study incorporation in several ways to meet the course learning outcomes and the students’ needs.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The use of case studies provides a rich venue for future research. Particularly with increased digital communication, the sources of case studies about ethical dilemmas and the opportunities for discussing them have expanded exponentially. A beginning list of issues that warrant further study follows.

• How does complexity of ethical dilemmas in case studies impact decision- making? To what extent does the complexity of the case study impact the ease with which decisions are made? To what extent can ethical case studies be parsed by contributing factors? To what degree does one factor impact another; is this impact a sequential event, or does the holistic issue drive the decision-making? • What other analysis methods might students use in examining case studies, such as discourse analysis? • How do demographics impact ethical decision-making as seen in case studies – and the discussion of those case studies? For example, what influence do age, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, health status, locale have on ethical decisions?

155 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

• How does the format of delivery of ethical case studies impact decision- making? How would discussion and decision-making differ if the case study were re-enacted on video – or captured “live” on video? Do imagery/visual features – both realistic and animated -- impact how students respond to case studies? • How does the format of discussion of ethical case studies impact decision- making? Do face-to-face learners respond differently from distance learners? What impact does individual vs. collaborative discussion of ethical case studies have on decision-making? • How does the setting of the ethical case study impact decision-making (i.e., public library vs. academic library; school computer lab vs. workplace)? What differences in decision-making occur when learners are examining case studies in a novel setting (e.g., pre-service school librarians studying a case study about an ethical dilemma in a special library) vs. studying a case study in their intended work setting? • How does subject matter or specific issue, such as digital citizenship, impact or reframe ethical study or consideration? • What instructional practices in the use of case studies effectively scaffold learners from one level of ethical decision-making to the next (e.g., choice of case study, critical thinking components, type of discussion, group discussion arrangement, etc.)? • How do learner-generated case studies compare to learner-consumed case studies in terms of quality, engagement and learning? How would collaboratively constructed case studies impact learning?

In short, the research agenda even for such a specific approach to ethical decision- making and instruction can occupy several individuals for a lifetime.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored the intersection of information ethics, educational theories, school librarian preparation, case study, technology, and student collaborative assessment. While technology per se does not change ethical principles (Ferguson, Thornley & Gibb, 2016), it has impacted information ethic study and practice on several levels: in terms of the issues that arise, the increasing instructional role that school librarians play in helping youth understand and comply with ethical practice, in the delivery of school librarian educational preparation, in the increasingly diverse formats of case studies, in student selection and development of ethics-based case studies, in student interaction, and in collaborative construction of ethical principles.

156 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Education that incorporates technology-based ethics case studies has been seen to operationalize several learning theories: cognitive flexibility, constructivism, personal constructs, narrative inquiry, situated cognition, social cognition, and affective learning. All of these theories can be placed under an integrated model of moral judgments that converges cognition, emotions, and social interaction. Case study provides several ways for students to engage in ethical thinking: by comprehending and analyzing single case studies, creating schema across given clusters of thematic studies, critically locating and selecting illustrative case studies, and generating their own case studies. Technology tools greatly expand the ways that they can engage with the studies and their peers in all of these processes, from threaded online discussions and wikis to podcasts and collaboratively created case studies situated in virtual worlds. As students seek authentic learning experiences, and realize the complexities of providing information services in a digital society, they – and their teachers – can leverage the potential relevance and impact of case studies on several levels.

REFERENCES

American Association for Higher Education. (1997). Series on service-learning in the disciplines. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. American Association of School Librarians. (2017). National school library standards. Chicago: American Library Association. American Library Association. (2004). Core values task force II final report. Chicago: American Library Association. American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www. ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics Aragon, A., Kaminski, K., Anderson, S. K., & Isaacs, N. (2014). Social networking: Boundaries and limits part 1: Ethics. TechTrends, 58(2), 25–31. doi:10.100711528- 014-0734-9 Arnseth, H., & Ludvigen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional context: Systematic versus dialogic research in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–183. doi:10.100711412-006-8874-3 Association for American Educators. (1994). Code of ethics for educators. Mission Viejo, CA: Association for American Educators.

157 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2007). Professional code of ethics. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Association of Library and Information Science Educators. (2008). Position statement on information ethics in LIS education. Chicago: Association of Library and Information Science Educators. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51 Association of Library and Information Science Educators. (2010). Ethical guidelines for library and information science educators. Chicago: Association of Library and Information Science Educators. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Bridges, E. (1992). Problem-based learning: Background and rationale. In E. M. Bridges (Ed.), Problem-based learning for administrators. Eugene, OR: ERIC. Buchanan, E., & Henderson, K. (2009). Case studies in library and information science ethics. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Capurro, R. (2000). Ethical challenges of the information society in the 21st century. The International Information & Library Review, 32(3-4), 257–276. doi:10.1006/ iilr.2000.0137 Carbo, T. (2008). Ethics Education for Information Professionals. Journal of Library Administration, 47(3-4), 5–25. doi:10.1080/01930820802186324 Casey, G. (2013). Social media in the classroom: A simple yet complex hybrid environment for students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(1), 5–24. Chichering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–7. Clandinin, D. (2006). Engaging in narrative inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge. Coffey, S., & Street, B. (2008). Narrative and identity in the “Language Learning Project.”. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 452–464. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2008.00757.x

158 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: D. C. Heath and Company. Dyson, L., Crawford, P., Frey, S., & Dystra, S. (2013). Making a moral decision. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 629–642). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Ellis, L. (2014). Beyond a common approach: Teaching students the ethical practice of reference. The Reference Librarian, 55(3), 212–223. doi:10.1080/02763877.20 14.911009 Fallis, D. (2007). Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25(1), 23–36. doi:10.1108/07378830710735830 Farmer, L. (2004). Narrative inquiry as assessment tool: A case study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(4), 340–355. doi:10.2307/40323878 Farmer, L. (2004a). Foundations of information: A course case study in metacognition. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 180–188. doi:10.2307/40323885 Farmer, L. (2014). Using authentic case studies to teach ethics collaboratively to school librarians in distance education. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 3(1), 1–20. doi:10.4018/ijcee.2014010101 Farmer, L. (2015). Teaching ethics to teens via school library reference services. Paper presented at the International Federation of Library Associations World Congress Library and Information Congress, Cape Town, South Africa. Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). Beyond codes of ethics: How library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 543–556. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.012 Fleishchmann, K., Robbins, R., & Wallace, W. (2009). Designing educational cases for intercultural information ethics: The importance of diversity, perspectives, values, and pluralism. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(1), 4–14. Gerring, J. (2016). Case study research: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hannabuss, S. (1996). Teaching library and information ethics. Library Management, 17(2), 24–35. doi:10.1108/01435129610108243

159 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Hanrahan, S., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776 Hauptman, R. (1988). Ethical challenges in librarianship. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). Standards for educators. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Jenlick, P. (2013). Situated cognition theory. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 185–198). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Johnson, B. (2013). User movies as a means of incorporating the knowledge and experience of users in web-based professional education. Social Work Education, 32(4), 468–483. doi:10.1080/02615479.2012.689277 Koehler, W. (2015). Ethics and values in librarianship: A history. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay. Kui, X. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x Kurz, T., Batarelo, I., & Middleton, J. (2009). Examining elementary preservice teachers’ perspectives concerning curriculum themes for video case integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 461–485. doi:10.100711423-009-9110-4 Lavagnino, M., Bowker, G., Heidorn, P., & Basi, M. (1998). Incorporating social informatics into the curriculum for library and information science professionals. Libri. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 48(1), 13–25. Leeland, A. (2011). Case-based reasoning: Processes, suitability and applications. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Lehavot, K. (2009). “MySpace” or yours? The ethical dilemma of graduate students’ personal lives on the Internet. Ethics & Behavior, 19(2), 129–141. doi:10.1080/10508420902772728

160 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Lester, J., & Koehler, W. (2007). Fundamentals of information sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-Schuman. Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437. doi:10.100711423-006-9029-y Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2009). Making an ethical decision. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University. McLellan, H. (2004). The case for case-based teaching in online classes. Educational Technology, 44(4), 14–18. Mellon, C., & Kester, D. (2004). Online library education papers: Implications for rural students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 210–220. doi:10.2307/40323888 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666- 7409-7.ch007 Mostert, M., & Sudzine, M. (1996). Undergraduate case method teaching: Pedagogical assumptions vs. the real world. Paper presented by the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO. National Education Association. (2018). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Neosser, U. (2014). Cognitive psychology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Nichols, A. (2012). Blogging across the curriculum: An action research project. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(2), 165–174. Noe, J. (2015). Case studies and pervasive instruction. RSR. Reference Services Review, 43(4), 706–721. doi:10.1108/RSR-04-2015-0023 Pearson, M., Albon, S., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and ethical considerations for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), article 12. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1084596 Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

161 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Samek, T. (2010). Teaching information ethics in higher education: A crash course in academic labour. International Review of Information Ethics, 14, 4–9. Simpson, C. (Ed.). (2003). Ethics in school librarianship: A reader. Worthington, OH: Linworth. Suthers, D. (2005, January). Collaborative knowledge building through shared representations. Proceedings 38th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.151 Tait, A., & Mills, R. (1999). The convergence of distance and conventional education: Patterns of flexibility for the individual learner. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203260234 Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Charleston, NC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Valli, E. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88. doi:10.120715327930pje7201_4 Walther, J. (2016). Teaching ethical dilemmas in LIS coursework. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 29(3), 180–190. doi:10.1108/BL-05-2016-0020 Watson, S., & Sutton, J. (2012). An examination of the effectiveness of case method teaching online: Does the technology matter? Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 802–821. doi:10.1177/1052562912445281 Wilson, J. (2008). Smart thinking: Developing reflection and metacognition. Wolverhampton, UK: Curriculum Press. Yakuwa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228. doi:10.100711412-006-8994-9 YI, J. (2006). Externalization of tacit knowledge in online environments. Information Journal on E-Learning., 5(4), 663–674. Yilmak, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204–212. doi:10.1080/00098655 .2011.568989

162 Learner-Developed Case Studies on Ethics

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yontz, E., & De La Pena McCook, K. (2003). Service-learning and LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 44(Winter), 55–68. Yu, F., & Wu, C. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332–341. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228. doi:10.100711412-006-8994-9 Zeiger, S. (n.d.). Professional Code of Ethics for Teachers. Chron. Retrieved from http://work.chron.com/professional-code-ethics-teachers-4132.html Zeng, R., & Blasi, L. (2010). Learning through web-based multistoryline case studies: A design-based research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3), 175–182.

163 164

Chapter 8 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice: Considering the Ethical Implications of Disparities

Alicia Marie Godoy University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Rebecca Pfeffer University of Houston – Downtown, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter provides an overview of the findings from a study of students at a four- year university who were surveyed about their experiences learning in both online and face-to-face modalities. While some students reported perceived equitableness between their experiences in online and face-to-face classes, there were some findings that demonstrated the need for further inquiry. Of note, the majority (61%) of students indicated that they learned more or much more in face-to-face classes than online. Students in online classes were also much less likely to make use of faculty office hours or, in some cases, to even have contact with their professors at all. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the ethical issues corresponding to the disparity between online and traditional learning modalities.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch008

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

INTRODUCTION

The use of digital technologies in higher education has increased rapidly over the last decade, and this trend is likely to continue (Haas & Senjo, 2004). Indeed, the number of online education programs is growing at a rate faster than traditional campus-based programs (Cole, Shelley & Swartz, 2014). As of 2013, 6.7 million students in higher education had taken at least one course online. This equates to almost one-third (32%) of students of higher education in the United States (Allen & Seaman, 2013). There are many perceived benefits of online education from the perspective of students (Li & Irby, 2008), faculty (Haas & Senjo, 2004), and university administrators (Sitren & Smith, 2017). For students, particularly those who balance school with other responsibilities such as full-time jobs and childcare, the flexibility of online course offerings can be beneficial (Stack, 2013). Prior research indicates that many faculty members have positive perceptions of the use of new technologies in teaching and believe that they can enhance course pedagogy and even include student populations who have historically been neglected in traditional classroom- based learning. University administrators have expressed that the potential income generation from online courses is important, particularly during periods with limited or even lowered budgets for higher education (Sitren & Smith, 2017). Within the discipline of criminal justice, the increase in the use of online learning systems, allowing for distance education, represents one of the most significant changes in the history of criminal justice pedagogy (Sitren & Smith, 2017). Yet research findings about the effectiveness of online education compared to traditional face-to-face learning environments are mixed. The study described in this chapter explored student perceptions of the differences between online and face-to-face learning environments, focusing on both how much students learn in each modality and also their level of interaction with both peers and professors. The findings have important implications for future online pedagogy. In this chapter, we consider the ethical implications of the disparities between experiences learning online versus face-to-face.

BACKGROUND

The Development and Function of Online Learning

The first courses offered completely online began in 1981 with noncredit “mini- courses” in an executive training program provided by the Western Behavior Sciences Institute (Harasim, 2000). The instructors who taught these classes reported that

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 165 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice their strategies for teaching these particular courses involved a great deal of trial and error, and admittedly quite a bit of error. They quickly discovered that what worked in the traditional classroom did not work in an online environment. This process of trial and error would lead them to online teaching techniques such as discussion boards, which are still used in online learning today. As the power of the World Wide Web has grown, so has the significance of online learning in higher education. As of 2013, approximately one-third of college students now take at least one course online and 90% of colleges utilized online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Even as overall higher education enrollments decline, distance education enrollments continue to grow (Allen et al., 2016). The opportunity to participate remotely in distance learning widens the net so that more people can participate in higher education (Nelson, 1998), including those for whom the commute to campus is inconvenient or even not feasible as a result of transportation concerns, geographic restraints, professional or family commitments, or physical disabilities (Mayzer & DeJong, 2003). There are two basic arguments in the debate for and against online learning. On one hand, some argue that online and distance learning is not only as effective as face-to-face learning but it has enabled education to become more flexible, and able to reach people who may not have been able to obtain that same education otherwise. Additionally, it is also cost-effective in a time when many state-funded schools are facing budget cuts. Conversely, some have argued that the increase in online learning represents a ‘McDonaldization’ of the learning process, in which standardized, generic courses which rely heavily on multiple-choice exams, are replacing distinctive classes taught by specialized faculty (Carroll, 2013; Driscoll et al., 2012; Logan, Augustyniak & Rees, 2002; Urtel, 2008). There is very little agreement in the literature about the effectiveness of online teaching modalities as compared to traditional, face-to-face classroom teaching. While some research highlights some of the benefits of online teaching to students, faculty, and university communities more generally, it is not yet known whether these benefits outweigh some of the challenges of online learning (Sitren & Smith, 2017; Beck, 2010; Driscoll et al., 2012; Logan, Augustyniak & Rees, 2002; Schutte, 1996; Urtel, 2008).

Distance Learning in the Field of Criminal Justice: Benefits and Challenges

Criminal justice agencies are increasingly instituting at least minimal education requirements for new hires. Additionally, for those already employed within the field of criminal justice, there are often financial and promotional incentives for attaining an undergraduate or graduate degree. While a requirement to obtain either a two- or four-year degree is still relatively uncommon among state and local law enforcement

166 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice agencies, agencies at the federal level typically require a four-year degree for initial hire (Hilal, Densley & Zhao, 2013). Despite the fact that research on the value of higher education in policing is mixed (White, 2008), research by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) finds that many applicants for entry-level jobs in policing have taken at least some college classes and a significant number have obtained a bachelor’s degree. For those who are interested in careers in criminal justice or who are already employed in the field but are considering attaining a degree for promotion or pay raise benefits, online degree programs are an attractive option. One of the first studies to compare online and face-to-face learning was published in 1996. In this study, 40 students at California State University, Northridge were enrolled in the same course but randomly assigned to be in the online or face-to-face version (Schutte, 1996). Schutte hypothesized that the lack of face-to-face interaction with professors would result in significantly lower test scores for the students assigned to the online class. However, contrary to his hypothesis, he found that the online students scored an average of 20 points higher on the 100-point midterm and final exams (Schutte, 1996). This study also demonstrated that students who were enrolled in the online version of the class were more likely to indicate communicating with their fellow students, by asking questions and forming study groups. Schutte theorized that this may have contributed to their aggregate test scores being higher. Another study, conducted in 2010 by Beck, examined the differences of online and face-to-face learning, in which she compared two groups of students at a small Midwestern university. Beck (2010) compared the outcomes of students enrolled in face-to-face and online sections of the university’s Introduction to Criminal Justice course. Like Schutte (1996), Beck (2010) found that online students had higher grade point averages and test scores than their counterparts in face-to-face course sections. Several other studies have compared student outcomes in online versus face-to-face settings and have found no significant differences in terms of student satisfaction or student performance (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002; Hicks, 2014; Mayzer & Dejong, 2003). Although these two studies shared similar findings, there are not consistent findings that students perform better in online courses. For every piece of research there is in support of the legitimacy of online education, there is another piece of research that claims to prove the contrary. For example, a study conducted by Driscoll et al. (2012) sought to measure and compare student performance and satisfaction in both online and face-to-face formats of a dual-listed anthropology/sociology course at a large university in North Carolina over multiple terms. They found that there was no statistically significant difference in student satisfaction when comparing online and face-to-face courses. However, there were differences in student performance, specifically students who were taking the online course had significantly lower test

167 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice scores than those in the face-to-face class. This finding is opposite to those in the Schutte (1996) and Beck (2010) studies. Similarly, a 2008 study conducted by Urtel examined student performance in online and face-to-face environments. Urtel’s (2008) study yielded statistically significant results that pointed to some potentially major flaws in online education. The students in the face-to-face courses and online courses had substantial differences in overall academic performance with average grade point averages of 2.28 and 3.23 respectively. Additionally, Urtel’s study showed significantly higher class withdrawal rates in the online course than in the face-to-face course, a problem with online learning that has been observed by other researchers as well (Beck, 2010). A similar study, conducted by Logan and colleagues (2002), involved the observation of two sections of a course offered in both online and face-to-face formats. The research team attempted to control for as many factors as possible, teaching both classes over the same eight weeks and making the readings and assignments identical for both class formats. While the graded assignments for the first half of the class were nearly identical for both class formats, the face-to-face participants had significantly higher grades on the final and subsequently for their final grade in the class than their online counterparts. This study also examined the types of and how questions were asked by students in online versus face-to-face classes. This yielded some interesting results. “Questions posed by the web class seemed longer, more detailed, and to some extent more comprehensive, whereas questions from the on-site class are short, specific and seemingly more spontaneous” (Logan, Augustyniak, & Rees, 2002, p. 37). These researchers posited that because students in the online course did not get the chance to ask spontaneous questions in an online format, their questions were more researched that those students in the face-to-face format. While the research described above has focused on student perceptions and student performance, there is also a body of literature that examines instructor perceptions and performance in online versus traditional classroom modalities (Jones, 2001; Humphries, 2010; Hurst, 2015; Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007). Instructors dissatisfied with online teaching describe the following factors as problematic: a lack of face-to- face interaction with their students, a lack of professional fulfillment, dissatisfaction with higher class drop rates, and a fear that online education will not be taken as seriously when students are searching for employment opportunities (Beck, 2010; Harrison et al., 2017). An especially poignant challenge for online criminal justice professors is the discussion of sensitive topics in an online format rather than a face- to-face one. Sitren and Smith (2017) note two possible obstacles to appropriate and safe online discussion: the potential participation of previous victims of crime and online bullying. They note that it is important for professors to link to resources for victims when discussing sensitive issues and to encourage students to reach

168 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice out if they do not feel comfortable. Secondly, they note the “Facebook” effect in which students feel an anonymity sitting behind their computer and therefore may bully other in discussion boards in online class whereas they would not have such an opportunity in a face-to-face course. However, there is also evidence that when executed carefully, an online modality can be a fine place to study sensitive topics. A study by Cares, Hirschel, and Williams (2014) observed students taking an online victimization course and found the online medium to be beneficial for a class focused on sensitive topics. The professor of this course was, “better able to model appropriate language and behavior when presenting information, set guidelines for appropriate discussion, alert students to the potential for material that could trigger issue… and place support for self-care of vulnerable students” (Sitren & Smith, 2017, p. 355). The research described above comes from studies spanning more than two decades, during which technology has advanced immensely. Additionally, this research involves varied student subjects at very different universities, ranging in size, competitiveness, geographical setting, and student demographics. It is likely that the effectiveness of online education varies depending on student demographics and institutional culture and norms. While in aggregate these findings are important to adding to our body of knowledge about the way that online education compares to face-to-face education, it is an ethical imperative that we not wrongly generalize findings. At the same time, it is important to learn about experiences of specific student populations, particularly those who are underrepresented in higher education.

THE PRESENT STUDY

The current study focuses on the perceptions of students at a medium-sized, public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Southern United States. As of the fall 2016 semester, across the university, 16.1% of students took courses exclusively online, while an additional 23.6% of students took a combination of face-to-face and online classes. While the criminal justice department of focus in this study has adjunct lecturers who teach courses both online and face-to-face, the majority of courses are taught by tenure/tenure-track faculty or full-time lecturers. Further, the majority of the department’s faculty teach in a combination of online, face-to-face and hybrid modalities. The overarching question guiding this study is: from the perspective of students, how does learning in an online environment compare to face-to-face learning in one academic department? More specifically, this study sought to answer the following research questions: (a) How do perceptions of course difficulty differ for online and

169 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice face-to-face learning environments? (b) How do perceptions of quality of contact with instructors differ for online and face-to-face learning environments? and (c) How do perceptions of academic performance differ for online and face-to-face learning environments?

METHODS

Participants

The findings discussed in this chapter are part of a larger project that collected information from both faculty and students in one academic department at a university in an attempt to compare student and faculty experiences with both online and face-to-face learning modalities. In the fall of 2017, surveys were distributed to a purposive sample of students enrolled in a selection of both online and face-to- face undergraduate criminal justice courses. Paper surveys were distributed to four face-to-face classes. A digital version of the survey was generated to accommodate participants recruited through online classes. Professors of five online classes recruited additional student participants by distributing the survey through Blackboard Learn, the online learning platform that this university utilizes for online classes. A total of 90 student surveys were collected: 17 from students recruited through online courses and 73 from students recruited through face-to-face courses. Student participants ranged from freshman to seniors with an average grade point average of 3.07, though GPAs ranged from 1.08-4.0. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample under study.

Measures

In addition to basic student demographic information, the survey instrument used in this study also measured student perceptions of differences between online and face-to-face learning modalities. The majority of the survey questions were multiple choice, mostly utilizing five point Likert scale response sets ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. These were supplemented by a few open-ended questions which allowed for students to explain their answers. Specifically, survey questions addressed perceptions of workload differences, access to the professors of their courses, utilization of office hours, course difficulty, amount learned, collaboration with fellow students in the course, ease of discussing sensitive topics, and general fulfillment from the course.

170 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Table 1. Student demographics

n % Gender

Male 33 37% Female 57 63% Class Year

Freshman 3 3% Sophomore 16 18% Junior 33 37% Senior 38 42% Primary Modality of Courses

Exclusively face-to-face 13 14% Predominantly face-to-face 43 48% Both online and face-to-face 18 20% Predominantly online 9 10% Exclusively online 7 8% Mean SD GPA 3.07 .47

Procedures

A member of the research team contacted all full-time faculty members in the target criminal justice department and asked for permission to administer the survey in their courses, either online or in-person. When a faculty member was able to accommodate a member of the research team in a face-to-face class, a recruitment script was utilized that described the study and the voluntary nature of participation. Those students willing to participate were then given a consent form to sign. After these were collected, the surveys were distributed. This order of procedure was to ensure the anonymity of participants. For online classes, a recruitment letter was distributed to the online course roster by course instructors that contained a link to an online version of the survey. Before students could access the survey, they were asked to read the consent form. They indicated their consent to participate by clicking a link from the consent form that brought them to the survey. All procedures were authorized by the Institutional Review Board of the university from which the student sample was drawn.

171 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

FINDINGS

Perceptions of Course Quality

While 40% of students reported the level of coursework being about the same for both online and face-to-face classes, 38% reported there being more or much more coursework in online courses versus 22% who believed there was a more work in face-to-face courses. Despite reporting doing more work in online courses, 61% of students reported that they learn more or much more in face-to-face classes. When it came to how much time students felt they spent on coursework for classes in different modalities, responses were very split. About a third of respondents (n=31, 35%) reported devoting about the same amount of time to coursework in online and face-to-face classes, while another third (n=28, 31%) of students reported spending more or much more time on coursework for face-to-face classes, and a final third (n=30, 34%) spent more time on their online course work. While in the aggregate this data tell us very little, it is interesting that when broken down into distinct categories, 7 students indicated that they spent “much more” time on coursework in online courses, compared to just one student who felt they spent “much more time” on face-to-face coursework. Conversely, more students find that they do much more work for face-to-face courses than online courses. Some explanations for the disparities between amount of time and amount of work required for learning in the different modalities can be extrapolated from the qualitative data gathered from the open-ended survey questions. Many of the comments about the amount of work required explained that both modalities required

Figure 1. Student perceptions of amount of coursework and amount of time spent on online and face-to-face coursework

172 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice a good amount of work. One student who takes her classes exclusively online said, “to get good grades you have to work hard no matter how you are taking the course” (sophomore, female). However, examining responses from those who felt that one modality required more work than the other provided a bit more context. One student, who predominantly takes face-to-face classes but has some experience with online education, explained that when taking online courses, she feels she needs to teach herself the material, which can be time consuming. “In online classes there is usually much more studying involved, which takes up a lot more time than a face-to-face course. Online courses require a bit of self-teaching so more reading, writing, and researching is required” (junior, female). Besides having to self-teach, a common explanation among students who believed online courses required more work was the time management necessary to do well in these classes. One student explained that, “I forget about my online classes and leave things until the last minute” (senior, female), while another student said, “I procrastinate more often taking online classes and forget due dates because there are no reminders” (sophomore, female). Students also acknowledged that it can be harder to focus on course content in online courses. One student explained that online courses “require more time management and overcoming more distractions” (senior, female). Students also mentioned that the types of assignments in online and face-to-face classes can be very different and play a role in the amount of perceived time and effort the courses required. Respondents noted in online classes, submitting coursework constituted student participation in the course, whereas in face-to-face classes, the mere act of being present in class constituted participation. Moreover, one student explained that coursework in online settings was a means to demonstrate that they had actually learned the course content. “Because there is no class participation, there is more class work required to ensure that a student has retained the information” (senior, female). Conversely, one student noted that there is often less work involved in face-to-face classes because in his experience, face-to-face course grades relied more heavily on a few exams than a series of weekly or bi-weekly assignments throughout the semester (junior, male).

Perceptions of Faculty Interaction and Quality of Courses

Participants were asked to rate the availability of their professors in both online and face-to-face classes. Overwhelmingly, students reported that contact with professors was better (38%) or much better (31%) in face-to-face courses. Less than one-quarter (23%) of students thought professor availability was the same in both face-to-face and online courses, 3% believed that professor availability was better in online settings, and 5% believed that it was much better online.

173 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Figure 2. Student perceptions of availability of faculty in online and face-to-face courses

It is clear that a glaring area for improvement for faculty is to increase their perceived availability to students taking online courses. A question, then, is what it means to be available to students in online settings. Some insight into what contact with faculty might look like is available in the qualitative data collected from an open-ended question which requested that students provide additional information about their responses to the measure of faculty contact. A prevalent theme among responses was that students value the personal connection that comes from face-to- face interactions with professors. One student explained that, “face-to-face you have an easier connection with the professor versus sending emails and never really seeing them” (senior, male). For some online students, faculty contact is not expected. As one participant reported, “I don’t usually contact a professor in an online class. In a face-to-face class there is regular interaction” (junior, male). Several students noted that they appreciated the immediacy of contact with faculty in face-to-face settings, saying that, “you’re able to get rapid responses in class to questions” (junior, female) or, “if I have a question I can ask them right there and then” (senior, female). Other benefits of interactions with face-to-face instructors included that you can get advice (junior, male), build professional contacts for future job applications (female, junior), discuss difficulties with assignments (junior, male) and building rapport (female, junior). These benefits are also evident in what students identified as lacking in online courses. One student felt that, “online professors don’t know you so they are likely to see you as just a nameless face” (sophomore, male). Yet, it is interesting to note that for some students, digital communication with professors was preferred to in-person contact. One student believed that email was

174 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice actually the most efficient way to contact her professor. “I received faster responses from online professors versus having to wait for the teacher’s office hours for face-to-face classes” (sophomore, female). Others felt that it was easier to contact professors digitally because it was more personal than approaching them after class. As one student explained,

It is more personal when you communicate with your professor via e-mail. They are solely focused on your questions or concerns rather than when you are in a class filled with people. When you are in class with a bunch of different people, some are more vocal than others and therefore some students who are quieter may not get the same amount of attention (senior, female).

Another measure of faculty interactions was how often students utilized faculty office hours. Unsurprisingly, students in online courses were much more likely to report never utilizing office hours (48%) than in face-to-face courses (26%). Conversely, students reported being much more likely to utilize faculty office hours in their face-to-face classes. An additional measure we utilized to understand student perceptions of course quality was the level of challenge associated with online and face-to-face classes. While about a third of study participants (32.2%) indicated that they were equally

Figure 3. Student utilization of faculty office hours in online and face-to-face courses

175 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice challenged in both modalities, 28.9% reported that they felt more challenged in traditional face-to-face classes and 38.9% felt more challenged in online courses. A final measure that helps us understand student perceptions of course quality involved student feelings of fulfillment in online and face-to-face class settings. Students reported significantly more fulfillment in face-to-face classes than online classes. Like our findings above, about one-third (30%) of student respondents reported feeling equally fulfilled in online and face-to-face classes, only 12.3% felt more fulfilled in online classes and 57.7% felt more fulfilled in face-to-face classes. Once again, a qualitative analysis of an open-ended question correlated with this measure provides more insight into how students define fulfillment. Overwhelmingly, students indicated that they learned more in face-to-face classes, but they also reported that they enjoyed the relationships with professors more in face-to-face settings. The benefits of interpersonal contact in face-to-face classes was not limited to just contact with professors; students also discussed the benefits of having their classmates physically in the same room. As one student said, “if you don’t understand something [online], it’s not like you can just turn to your classmate and ask. You have to send an email and hope someone replies” (junior, female). Less common, but equally important, was student feedback about the use of technology for online courses. Some found the technology requirements inherent in online courses to be a challenge. As one student said, “I’m not a techy person” (senior, female). Such a challenge could be a barrier to performing successfully in the course.

Figure 4. Student fulfillment in online and face-to-face courses

176 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Perceptions of Academic Performance

We utilized two measures of perceptions of academic performance: collaboration with peers, and grades. While one-third of students (33.3%) felt that they collaborated with peers in both online and face-to-face classes, those who did not fall in the middle were much more likely to feel that they collaborated more with peers in face-to-face classes (53.3%) than in online classes (13.3%). Finally, we asked students about their grades in both modalities. Overwhelmingly, students reported that their grades were about the same in both online and face-to- face courses (67%), but 27% of students said their grades were lower or much lower in online courses and just 6% said their grades were lower in face-to-face courses.

DISCUSSION

Ethical Issues

The movement to digitize higher education is moving faster than our understanding of how well this form of teaching and learning works and how it compares to traditional classroom learning. While there is ample academic inquiry into this topic at present, it is also true that even as we are assessing current technology, new technologies are being introduced and implemented in learning institutions. With the speed at which technology changes and is adopted for use in higher education, there is an ethical imperative to gather data about each of these forms of instruction so that decisions about the adoption of technology can be based on sound empirical evidence. Results from this study indicate that, at least among the population sampled for this study, online courses engage students less and involve less meaningful interaction with peers and professors. To give an example, in a face-to-face class, instructors can monitor, guide, and facilitate meaningful, course-specific dialogue among students. This real-time monitoring of discussions is not feasible in traditional online forums where students are able to post at their convenience. This asynchronous communication (such as the use of discussion board assignments) is common in online teaching across universities (Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006). An ethical issue, then, is whether educators have any moral imperative to ensure that not only is the quality of online instruction on par with that of traditional classroom teaching but also whether that instruction has the same impact on students’ ability to think critically and engage in meaningful dialogue with peers. Put differently, if online education results in information retention without the opportunity to think about and discuss that information, what does that mean for the quality of education they are receiving?

177 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

It has been firmly established that traditional didactic teaching methods in which an instructor gives a lecture that delivers information to learners through passive learning result in less knowledge retention than active learning techniques (Wolff, et al., 2015). This evidence provides instructors of students of all levels, not just in higher education, incentive to engage in active learning practices within the classroom even if just to supplement the traditional lecture. Unfortunately, as the students in this study pointed out, much online learning involves, at its heart, students self-teaching. There seems to be significant room for improvement in strategies for active learning in online courses, and for documenting what works and what doesn’t. Indeed, the question of whether instruction is equitable in online and face-to- face classes may have been at the heart of our finding that the majority of students sampled reported that they learned more in face-to-face classes than those taken online. What is our moral obligation to ensure equality across teaching modalities? Is that imperative outweighed by the benefits of online instruction that have been highlighted above, such as the ability to reach populations of students who might not otherwise be able to access institutions of higher learning? These questions, while challenging, are not insurmountable. Below, we provide a set of recommendations to begin to address them.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our research indicates a gap between students and faculty in online course settings when compared to traditional classroom settings. There is an emerging body of research that recognizes some promising practices that can address this challenge, including the use of social media, providing virtual office hours (set times when a professor is accessible through instant messenger or video chat), and participating in live online discussions with students (Harrison et al., 2017; Humphries, 2010). We recommend that instructors who teach online be current in these best practices. We also recommend that universities that offer courses in different modalities have a self-assessment available for students to determine which settings will best help them learn. For instance, several students in our sample noted that their own time management skills interfered with their ability to excel in their online classes. Students might also be asked about their technical competency and ability to navigate an online learning system. Additional questions might focus on learning style and the importance of interpersonal contact for learning. All of these measures might help students self-select into courses in the modality that works to their strengths. A third recommendation is that universities set minimum standards for online courses to ensure that the quality is on par with the face-to-face classes offered. To

178 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice that end, universities might also offer training in creating high-quality online course shells and about current best practices about online instruction. Finally, we recommend that, as a field, we continue to gather evidence and share information about best practices. Current identifiable gaps in the literature include research on how to engage different types of learners in an online setting, whether it is feasible to supplement online instruction with experiential learning, and, most basically, what the gaps are between online and traditional teaching. As previously mentioned, these gaps may differ for different populations of students. Therefore, we recommend that research in this area clearly describe the sample populations.

LIMITATIONS

This study was not without its limitations, the most significant of which was the small sample size. Perhaps telling, despite purposive sampling of students enrolled in online courses, the response rate of students from online courses was very low, resulting in those students representing just 17% of this study population. Therefore, the opinions of those who take classes online may be underrepresented. Additionally, in hindsight we realize that we missed the opportunity to gather some critical demographic data about students, including their age, gender or technological capabilities. In retrospect, we realize that these are variables that may have provided more insight about the study population and may have been of use to our colleagues at other universities. In addition to missing demographic information, a measure of academic integrity in online versus face-to-face settings was not included. Because this is an ethical issue of heightened concern relevant to this topic (Miller & Young- Jones, 2012), it should be examined in future studies on this topic.

REFERENCES

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1602_3

179 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Beck, V. (2010). Comparing online and face-to-face teaching and learning. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 21(3), 95–108. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Occupational Outlook Handbook: Protective Service. Retrieved on December 20, 2017 from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective- Service/Police-and-detectives.htm#tab-4 Cares, A. C., Hirschel, D., & Williams, L. M. (2014). Teaching about victimization in an online environment: Translating in-person empathy and support to the internet. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(4), 405–420. doi:10.1080/10511253.2 014.965407 Carroll, N. (2013). E-learning: The McDonaldization of education. European Journal of Higher Education., 3(4), 342–356. doi:10.1080/21568235.2013.833405 Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 111–131. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1748 Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624 Haas, S. M., & Senjo, S. R. (2004). Perceptions of effectiveness and the actual use of technology-based methods of instruction: A study of California criminal justice and crime-related faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2), 263–285. doi:10.1080/10511250400085981 Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41–61. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4 Harrison, R., Hutt, I., Thomas-Varcoe, C., Motteram, G., Else, K., Rawlings, B., & Gemmell, I. (2017). A cross-sectional study to describe academics’ confidence, attitudes, and experience of online distance learning in Higher Education. Journal of Educators Online, 14(2), 74–82. doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.3 Hicks, W. L. (2014). Pedagogy in the twenty-first century: An analysis of accelerated courses in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(1), 69–83. doi:10.1080/10511253.2013.853091 Hilal, S., Densley, J., & Zhao, R. (2013). Cops in college: Police officers’ perceptions on formal education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(4), 461–477. doi: 10.1080/10511253.2013.791332

180 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Humphries, S. (2010). Five challenges for new online teachers. Journal of Technology Integration, 2(1), 15–24. Hurst, B. (2015). Making the move to online teaching: One reluctant professor’s informal self-study. TechTrends, 59(6), 35–40. doi:10.100711528-015-0902-6 Jones, I. M. (2011). Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in the online classroom through building a learning community. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 28(1), 67–116. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1722.2010.01085.x Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–458. Logan, E., Augustyniak, R., & Rees, A. (2002). Distance education as different education: A student-centered investigation of distance learning experience. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(1), 32–42. doi:10.2307/40323985 Mayzer, R., & Dejong, C. (2003). Student satisfaction with distance education in a criminal justice graduate course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(1), 37–52. doi:10.1080/10511250300085641 Miller, A., & Young-Jones, A. D. (2012). Academic Integrity: Online Classes Compared to Face-to-Face Classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3), 138–145. Nelson, S. D. (1998). Distance learning and criminal justice education: Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9(2), 333–342. doi:10.1080/10511259800084371 Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual Teaching in Higher Education: The New Intellectual Superhighway or Just Another Traffic Jam? Retrieved on November 11, 2017 from http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-1/Pdfs/Schutte-VirtualTeachinginHigherEd.pdf Sitren, A. H., & Smith, H. P. (2017). Teaching criminal justice online: Current status and important considerations. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(3), 352–367. doi:10.1080/10511253.2016.1254267 Stacey, E. & Weisenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. International Journal of e-Learning and Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40. Stack, S. (2013). Does discussion promote learning outcomes? Analysis of an online criminology class: Research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(3), 374–385. doi:10.1080/10511253.2012.758752

181 Student Perceptions of Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice

Tallent-M, K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093 Urtel, M. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 322–330. White, M. (2008). Identifying good cops early: Predicting recruit performance in the academy. Police Quarterly, 11(1), 27–49. doi:10.1177/1098611107309625 Wolff, M., Wagner, M. J., Poznanski, S., Schiller, J., & Santen, S. (2015). Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48(1), 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.09.010 PMID:25440868

182 183

Chapter 9 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students and Ethical Issues in a University Cloud Classroom System Zhi Liu Hao Zhang Central China Normal University, Central China Normal University, China China

Hai Liu Sannyuya Liu Central China Normal University, Central China Normal University, China China

ABSTRACT In a private learning environment, each learner’s interactions with course contents are treasured clues for educators to understand the individual and collective learning process. To provide educators with evidence-based insights, this chapter intends to adopt sequential analysis method to unfold learning behavioral differences among different groups of students (grade, subject, and registration type) in a university cloud classroom system. Experimental results indicate that sophomores undertake more learning tasks than other grades. There are significant differences in task-related and self-monitoring behaviors between liberal arts and science learners. Registered learners have higher participation levels than non-registered ones. Meanwhile, a user study aiming to analyze students’ learning feelings indicates that a fraction of students have dishonest behaviors for achieving a good online performance. Finally, this study discusses behavioral ethical issues emerged in cloud classroom, which deserve the attention of educators for regulating and optimizing the online learning process of students.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch009

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing advancement of information and communication technologies, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms began to emerge and draw much popularity beginning in 2012 (Pappano, 2012). Hereafter a large number of learners spontaneously participated in these platforms, in which rich behavioral data have been continuously generated. It should be noted that these data are simultaneously produced along with learning processes of students. In this sense, these learner- generated data could offer a great deal of opportunities for researchers and instructors to investigate students’ learning traits and regularities. In March 2012, the U.S. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy launched the “Big Data Research and Development Initiative,” which aims to harness big data technologies to improve security, science, education and economic development. One crucial goal of this project is to transform teaching and learning with scientific discovery and innovation in educational data. With the popularity of online education, an increasing amount of behavioral data are emerging in online contexts. Considerable interest in effectively using these data to intervene, predict and improve learner performance has drawn unprecedented attention in the field of educational technology (Ferguson, 2012; Siemens & Long, 2011). At present, online education is developing towards a localized and regional tendency. Especially, as for a university or college, administrators and instructors hope to effectively combine MOOC resources with classroom teaching to optimize the organization and process of teaching in formal education. Some educators attempt to transform MOOCs into the restricted learning environment to serve on- campus students. To this end, Fox (2013) proposed the idea of Small Private Online Course (SPOC), which considers the engagement with MOOCs as a supplement to classroom teaching. In this mode, instructors can sufficiently establish various interactive learning activities and students can conduct self-regulated learning under a feasible instructional scaffolding. Compared with the MOOC mode, the SPOC only allows for a limited number of enrollments aiming at a certain group of learners, and it can effectively improve retention and academic success of learners in online learning (Zhang et al., 2015). Additionally, rather than purely duplicating the classroom teaching into online environments, universities prefer to utilize the SPOC mode to establish diverse learning contexts and improve the level of educational informationization. Simultaneously, they also could master data sources of students to facilitate further analyses/diagnoses on teaching-learning processes for the purpose of promotion on teaching quality in universities (Combéfis, Bibal, & Van Roy, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015; Guo, 2014).

184 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

BACKGROUND

Learning Behavioral Analytics in MOOCs

Learning analytics has gained unprecedented popularity as millions of learners worldwide participate in large-scale learning systems (Yousef et al., 2015). The Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) defined that “learning analytics is the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs,” (LAK 2011, 2010). Currently, learning analytics focuses mainly on the exploration of behavioral regularities in learning systems. Some prior research has focused on students’ behavioral patterns in MOOCs. For example, Anderson et al. (2014) developed a conceptual framework for understanding how learners engaged in MOOCs and examined the different behavioral patterns between high- and low-achieving students. This study implied that students with high grades watched more videos than those with lower grades. Moreover, students with different levels of grades behaved differently in assignments and forum participations. Kizilcec et al. (2013) presented a classification method that identified a small number of longitudinal engagement trajectories in MOOCs. First, they made a rough description of each student’s individual engagement in a course. For each assessment period, all participants were labeled either “on track” (conducted the assessment on time), “behind” (turned into the assessment late), “auditing” (did not conduct the assessment but engaged in watching a video or completing a quiz), or “out” (did not participate in the course at all). Then they visualized labels sequence to show movement if students moved from one assignment period to next. In these studies, learners are classified based on their patterns of interaction with video lectures and assessments, which is also the primary feature of most MOOCs to date. Halawa et al. (2014) presented a dropout predictor that used student activity features to predict which students were at risk high of dropout. These students usually skipped videos and assignments, rarely accessed to in the platform for over two consecutive weeks, and achieved a student’s average quiz score below 50 points. Wen & Rose (2014) proposed a novel method to characterize types of sessions in MOOCs by mining the habitual behaviors of students within individual sessions. They modeled learning sessions as a distribution of activities and activity sequences with a topical N-gram model. Except for single-point behaviors, behavior transitions of learners in learning systems, which indicate consecutive learning patterns, have also attracted much attention in the community of learning analytics. Lag sequential analysis, as a widely adopted approach in behavioral science, has been utilized by educational

185 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students researchers. It is mainly used to analyze temporal behaviors based on interactive stream data collected through online logs (Pohl, Wallner, & Kriglstein, 2016). In the field of education, particularly, this approach could be used to examine if the transition relationship between any two behaviors is statistically significant as well as find significant sequential patterns in different learning groups (Hou, 2012; Chen, 2014; Hou, 2015; Loh, Sheng, & Li, 2015). So far, most of these studies focus on the behavioral analyses within game-based learning and collaborative learning activities to explore inquired-based behaviors (Hou, 2012), flow experience (Hou, 2015; Sun et al., 2017) and collaborative knowledge construction patterns (Yang et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2014) in various situational learning.

A UNIVERSITY SPOC LEARNING SYSTEM: CLOUD CLASSROOM

As MOOCs gained popularity, many colleges began to establish their own learning platforms to reform the mode of teaching and learning (Zhang et al., 2015; Combéfis, Bibal, & Van Roy, 2014; Piccioni, Estler & Meyer, 2014). Cloud Classroom is an online course system based on the concept of SPOC (Fox, 2013). To promote the in-depth integration between information technologies and education, it was designed and developed by a research and development team at National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning in the Central China Normal University (CCNU) (Nercel, 2017). This system exclusively serves the on-campus undergraduate and graduate students as a primary online teaching tool for the blended learning in CCNU. By June 2017, there were 52,420 courses and corresponding learning resources opened in this system. Learners could make use of it to create personal learning space and collaborate with peers. Teachers could conduct online teaching with various forms of resources. For administrators, this system could support their management of teaching affairs and resources. It currently contains five main modules for students to learn online, including “resources,” “announcements,” “homework,” “members,” and “statistics.” Students can access course resources (e.g., slides, videos, papers), submit homework, and check announcements in the system. Additionally, every action for a learner in Cloud Classroom could be safely captured and stored in distributed databases. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the site interface when accessing this system as a learner. These five functional modules in this system are introduced as follows:

• Resources: This module contains most of the learning resources of a course in Cloud Classroom. Students enter the resource module immediately after logging in an online course. They can view the unit, courseware and activities in this module.

186 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Figure 1. Overview of Cloud Classroom System: (a) main user interface for a course; (b) an example of learning activities including lecture slides and video clips

• Announcements: Student can check course requirements, guidance, or objectives published by teachers in the announcement module. • Homework: Student can view all the information about the released homework, and check the homework score and feedback. They can also submit homework and view submitted status. • Members: The member module displays all members of the course in a list, including teachers, teaching assistants, students and visitors. Each member can check if others are online by using the member module.

187 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

• Statistics: The statistics module displays the students’ activity levels in each learning unit and effective durations over teaching weeks. At the end of semester, partial teachers may take the activity level as an index when assessing usual scores of students.

In Cloud Classroom, learners could conveniently enter the resources module after they log into an online course. At the same time, the list of units is presented on the left of the screen. When students learn in the resources module, they must follow a certain order according to the design of the system. Specifically, they should click a unit first and then the courseware of this unit appears on the right of the screen. After that, students can view the activities of each courseware. Besides that, each courseware may contain one or more activities, and every activity has one to three types of learning materials, such as slides, papers and videos.

Learning Behavioral Analytics in SPOCs

A SPOC platform, despite generally allowing only limited enrollment, is also a large- scale learning environment when serving all on-campus students in a university. The massive action sessions generated in SPOC resource modules contain abundant collective sequential patterns and motivational information. Therefore, there would be a great value for investigating potential behavioral patterns in SPOCs by the sequential analysis approach. Currently, there has been some studies focusing on sequential behaviors in university SPOCs. For instance, Liu, Cheng, Liu, & Sun (2017) proposed a two-step lag sequential analysis method to uncover behavioral characteristics of different grades of undergraduates, which revealed that sophomores have a higher participation level, and seniors were most inactive among the whole undergraduate student body in a university SPOC system. Cheng et al. (2017) examined temporal behavioral patterns in SPOCs, and found that interactions among peers were mainly associated with the accesses of assignments and self-performance. These could offer valuable insights for a university’s instructors, administrators to unfold learning performance of students. However, studies exploring students’ behavioral patterns within university SPOCs are still limited. In this study, we will take a university Cloud Classroom system as the experimental context, which is a typical SPOC system designed for the blended learning of on-campus undergraduate students. Based on the study of Liu et al. (2017), we conduct an extended investigation including identifying behavioral patterns of students with different grade groups, subject backgrounds and registration types in a Cloud Classroom system. Subsequently, a use study is conducted to get an understanding about students’ learning feelings and motivations

188 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students within SPOCs. In addition, the ethical issues that emerge from Cloud Classroom will be discussed to provide an extended insight about potential barriers affecting learning effects in SPOCs.

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS

The study on learning behavioral patterns is a critical branch in learning analytics. To make sense of the learning data and examine differences among different groups of learners in Cloud Classroom, this study contributes to learning analytics by analyzing the frequency and distribution of various behavior categories (e.g., logging in/logging out courses, viewing courseware, engaging in learning activities and checking announcements, etc.) and demonstrating the results of sequential analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997; Jeong, 2003, 2005; Jeong & Davidson-Shivers, 2006; Hou, 2010). This behavior analysis method can help us visualize behavioral correlations within sequences. This method has been utilized in many studies on digital learning (Hou, 2011; Hou, Sung & Chang, 2009; Sung, Hou, Liu & Chang, 2010; Kapur, 2011; Ozturk, 2014; Chang, Chang, Hou, Sung, Chao & Lee, 2014). Thus, this study collects the massive clickstream data demonstrated by the students learning in Cloud Classroom and codes these behavior categories. The questions addressed in this study are as follows:

1. What are the differences in the frequency and patterns of learning behavioral sequences among four grades of students? 2. What are the differences in the patterns of learning behavioral sequences between the liberal arts and science students? 3. What are the differences in the learning behavioral patterns between registered and non-registered students?

METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS

Participants

In this research, there are 12,517 participants in total. These participants are undergraduates of a university in China. Among all the students, there are 3,997 freshmen, 4,329 sophomores, 4,021 juniors and 170 seniors. Their subjects include language, literature, philosophy, science and engineering, management, finance,

189 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students among others. We construct an initial dataset consisting of operations demonstrated by these participants during 8 weeks from March 2015 to April 2015 in 2,642 courses (one student may take more than one courses; every course contains 22 students on average) for follow-up analyses. The experiments in this chapter are divided into three parts each with different subsamples.

1. The first experiment aims at exploring behavioral differences among four grades of undergraduates. To this end, the whole initial dataset including 12,517 participants will be used for this experiment. 2. The second experiment aims at exploring behavioral differences between liberal arts and science students. For ensuring credibility of results, we select two degree courses with the highest activity levels in Cloud Classroom in 2015, which were Psychology Foundation and Inorganic Chemistry. It is worth noting that the Psychology Foundation course only involves the basic theories and concepts, rather than experimental analyses, thus learners in this course have only a background of liberal arts. Therefore, there are 90 liberal arts learners and 331 science learners respectively participating in these two courses. 3. The third experiment aims at exploring behavioral differences between non- registered and registered students. In this respect, we still select the two typical courses used in the second experiment. Within the data, there are 381 registered learners and 40 non-registered learners, respectively.

Data Analysis and Coding Scheme

To ensure the convenience, completeness, and consistency of analyses in this study, experts were invited to ensure the validity of coding (Hou, 2012). In this study, the coding scheme of behavior records formulated by experts is adopted. Each behavioral action in Cloud Classroom is regarded as an activity flow, and is recorded by xAPI (Experience API) specification (TIN CAN API, 2012). The Experience API is a recording standard enabling statements of experience to be delivered to and stored securely in a Learning Record Store (LRS) specified by Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, U.S. Department of Defense (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2013). These statements of experience are typically learning experiences, but the API can address statements of any kind of experience. The Experience API is dependent on Activity Providers to create and track in these learning experiences (GitHub, 2013). In Cloud Classroom, each click generates one message record, and simultaneously the system records the student ID, timestamp, location ID and other information is recorded in the database. Finally, the online learning behavior coding scheme (as shown in Table 1) begin to take shape.

190 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Table 1. The coding scheme of students’ learning behaviors in Cloud Classroom

Code Behaviors Description CS Entering courses To log in the main interface of a course. LU Entering learning units To enter a learning unit corresponding a chapter within a course. To open and view courseware of a learning unit in the resource CW Accessing courseware module. To engage in learning activates and interact with learning contents Engaging in learning LA within a courseware in the resource module such as watching lecture activities videos, slides or auxiliary papers. To view the course announcements for understanding requirements ANC Viewing announcements of teaching in a chapter. Viewing/submitting To enter the homework module to view homework requirements, HW homework assigned tests, quizzes or materials to be read after a class. To access member list to view other members and their online status MB Finding members in the same course. Checking statistical To check self-performance on learning durations or activity levels in STS results each module or whole course.

Sequential Analysis Method

Sequential analysis was proposed by Sackett (1978) to examine the occurrence probability of another behavior and its statistical significance after one person conducting a certain behavior. In educational measurement, the lag sequential analysis is widely adopted to investigate the temporal data in learning process. By this method, the high-probability behavioral sequences and order relationship between different behaviors could be automatically identified. The basic procedure of this method is as follows:

1. Construct the matrix of transition frequency among all behaviors for all learning groups. 2. Calculate the adjusted residuals matrix (i.e., Z-value table) (Allison & Liker, 1982) by Equation (1), and identify if the tendency of transition from one behavior to another one significantly exceeds expected value. In a one-tailed test, according to Bakeman & Gottman (1997), a behavioral sequence with a Z-score greater than 1.96 could be considered to be statistically significant at the level of 0.05.

xij − Eij zi = (1) EPij ()1− i () 1 − Pj

191 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

x x x x ∑ ij ∑ ij ∑ ij ∑ ij i j j Where E = , p = i , p = . ij x i x j x ∑∑ ij ∑∑ ij ∑∑ ij i j i j i j

3. Characterize the results of sequential analysis to visualize significant transition sequences with the transition probability diagram, and explain the differences among different groups of behavioral transition diagrams.

Sequential analysis not only can be used to analyze explicit behaviors, but also can be used to analyze implicit interactive behaviors among learners through the behavioral coding. In this sense, sequential analysis can help educators explore potential learning consecutive patterns of learners during a certain period. By an in-depth insight into sequential behavioral patterns, instructors may intervene learning process of at-risk students at an appropriate time and establish targeted learning activities.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

From March 2015 to April 2016, 2,814,211 behavioral records are generated from the entire population of 12,517 learners. Among them, freshmen had 900,352 behavioral actions, sophomores had 1,254,769 behavioral actions, juniors had 643,415 behavioral actions and seniors had 15,675 behavioral actions. It seems that sophomores performed more manipulations in this system on average, i.e., 289.85 times per learner. Figure 2 exhibits the distribution of average behavioral frequency of each grade group during one day. We can observe that the active time ranges are different at most times for different grade groups. Freshmen have a relatively apparent rise on the operational frequency at time points such as 12:00, 18:00 and 20:00. They usually reach a highest activity level at the noon of daytime. After that, their activity level will drop sharply until 20:00. Intriguingly, freshmen seem to have more manipulations than other three grades of students between 18:00 and 20:00, indicating that they spend more energy to engage with this system in the two time points. Relatively, sophomores keep a higher activity level at most time except the interval of 18:00-20:00. Compared with the former two groups, juniors generally keep a relatively smooth activity level after 8:00 in the morning, and reach a peak of manipulations only at 20:00 in the evening. As for seniors, they seem to rarely

192 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Figure 2. Variation tendency on behavioral frequencies of different grades of students averagely during one day

engage in this system since they tend to be inactive at most time except 21:00 when they have 36 manipulations averagely in each day. Figure 3 (a) and (b) respectively describe the distribution of behaviors and the distribution of students on different grades in the learning system. It can be observed that sophomores manipulate more frequently than the other three grade groups. It is natural to speculate that the sophomores are the largest group using Cloud Classroom in this university. As a result of quantitative content analysis, Figure 4 describes the percentage of each kind of behaviors for different grades of students. It can be shown that these students mostly like to view courseware (23.27%), followed by learning activity

Figure 3. Distribution of students and behaviors on different grade groups

193 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Figure 4. Distribution of eight kind of behaviors on four grade groups

(20.06%). The third and fourth most visited modules are learning unit (18.11%) and course (14.38%). The first four modules are all about looking for and viewing learning contents, and account for 76% of all the behaviors. Apart from learning contents, students care about homework most (10.43%). Therefore, it can be found that students are willing to spend more time and efforts on acquiring knowledge, rather than with the goal of completing homework.

BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES AMONG EACH GRADES OF STUDENTS

Probability of Behavioral Transition

To address the first question, we calculate the Z-value table and probability matrix of behavioral transitions. The visualization result of behavior transition in each grade group is shown in Figure 5 (a) to (d), which respectively denotes the corresponding result of freshmen to seniors. Here the thickness of connection lines between two behavioral nodes represents transition probability between the two behaviors. To sum up the results above, it can be concluded that all students tend to perform similarly in most sequences. The primary common behavioral sequence is ANC→HW which is significant for all four grades of students. This seems to demonstrate that Cloud Classroom, as a SPOC learning mode, is a task-driven online course system

194 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Table 2. Top three Behavioral sequences for each grade group with high transition probabilities

Grade Behavioral sequence Probability CW→CW 0.64 Freshman ANC→HW 0.50 CW→LA 0.42 LA→CW 0.60 Sophomore ANC→HW 0.46 HW→CW 0.41 ANC→HW 0.62 Junior CS→HW 0.56 LA→CW 0.54 LA→CW 0.62 Senior ANC→HW 0.51 LU→LU 0.43

with clear learning objectives. Viewing courseware, engaging in activities and viewing/submitting homework is the most frequent manipulation in Cloud Classroom. However, there are still some differences among the four grades. With regard to the freshmen, sophomores and seniors, their behavioral transitions (the transition probability of LA→CW exceeds 0.6) from engaging in learning activities and entering courseware appear more frequently than juniors (the transition probability of LA→CW is equal to 0.54). As for the juniors, the behavioral transitions (the transition probability of LA→CW reaches 0.56) from entering a course interface to viewing/submitting homework tend to be more active than other three grade groups (their transition probabilities of LA→CW are all lower than 0.35).

Difference Analysis of Behavioral Sequence for Each Grade Group

To visually display the behavioral characteristics of each grade group, we mark the most unique significant behavioral sequences of each grade and whole group in the behavioral transition matrix with different colors. As shown in Figure 6, the rows represent the starting behaviors, and the columns represent the subsequent behaviors. The Z-score indicates how many standard deviations an element is away from the mean. We can observe that many sequences in which HW, MB and STS are starting behaviors are significant for all students. It seems that, for most students, the initial manipulations are reasonable including beginning to access learning units,

195 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Figure 5. Diagrams of the behavioral transitions on four grade groups: (a) freshmen, (b) sophomores, (c) juniors, (d) seniors

checking announcements, viewing/submitting homework and checking statistics on self-performance after entering a course. This indicates that, if designed reasonably, a learner could smoothly engage in Cloud Classroom system. For freshmen, the characteristic statistically significant behavioral sequences are “ANC→CS,” and “ANC→ANC” and “CS→MB.” In that sense, it could be found that in general, freshmen focus on the announcements. They hope to be aware of the course announcements in time, and they are used to studying in the system according to teachers’ requirements. Moreover, they often check members in the same class after logging in a course, which implies that they are interested in their classmates. For sophomores, the characteristic statistically significant behavioral sequences are “LA→CS,” “ANC→CS” and “ANC→STS.” It could be seen that before sophomores exit from a course, their last behavior is learning activities

196 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students or checking announcements. They often examine the learning time after viewing announcements. This indicates that sophomores may need to complete many online courses and care much about their own learning state. When looking at the row 4 and column 2, it could be seen that the statistically significant behavioral sequence for juniors is “LA→LU.” That is to say that juniors often enter into a new learning unit after conducting some learning activities, indicating that juniors may spend much time looking for course resources or they often access several different units at a time. For seniors, the only significant behavioral sequences are “CS→CS” and “ANC→ANC,” indicating the frequent behaviors in log-in/log-outs and repeated viewing announcements.

Analyses of Key Behavioral Sequences of Each Grade Group

According to the visualization result, we can observe the distributions of significant behavioral sequences of each grade group. In order to compare the most key behavioral sequences for each grade group in terms of z-value, the top three significant behavioral sequences with high Z-values in each grade group are exhibited in Table 3 in descending order. For freshmen, the most significant behavioral sequence is “LA→CS,” followed by “CS→LA.” Their key behaviors are viewing courseware and engaging in activities.

Figure 6. Visualization of key learning behaviors for every grade group

197 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Table 3. Most significant three behavioral sequences with high Z-values on every grade group

Grade Group Behavioral Sequence Z-Value LA→CS 423.31 Freshman CS→LA 311.40 ANC→HW 377.20 LA→CS 474.49 Sophomore ANC→HW 325.00 CS→LA 306.47 CS→HW 369.80 Junior HW→CS 350.04 LA→CS 333.66 LA→CS 56.96 Senior CS→HW 40.49 ANC→HW 38.13

They focus on the resources such as videos and slides, etc. The third statistically significant behavioral sequence is “ANC→HW.” It is worth noting that freshmen have a highest Z-value on the sequential behavior of “ANC→HW” among the four grade groups, indicating that freshmen tend to learn in a conventional way. Like freshmen, sophomores also spend much time to view courseware and participate in activities. The sequence of “LA→CS,” as the most significant behavioral sequence for sophomores, has a higher Z-value than the other grade groups. This seems to indicate that sophomores tend to promptly enter other courses after completing learning activities. Juniors behave differently. For instance, “CS→HW” ranks first, followed by “HW→CS” and then “LA→CS.” They seem to have a significant task-oriented behavioral pattern. They also often go straight into the homework module after opening a course interface, and frequently move into the homework module after viewing announcements. Compared with other three grade groups, it seems that the behavioral sequences of seniors have lower Z-values, indicating a low activity level on them. They tend to return in a timely manner to the main interface of course after engaging with learning activities, and may first notice the requirements of homework after entering a course. They also often view/submit homework after entering a course or viewing announcements.

198 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCE STUDENTS

To address the second question, we explore the behavioral patterns of students with different subjects. This section carries out a sequential analysis on learning behaviors of students majoring in Psychology Foundation and Inorganic Chemistry, indicating liberal arts and sciences students, respectively. The results are shown in Table 4, in which each row represents an initial behavior, and each column represents one behavior following the initial behavior. The Z-values greater than 1.96 have been marked in bold. The results show that learning behavioral patterns of liberal arts students are similar to that of science students except two sequences (CS→ANC, CW→LU) in which liberal arts students tend to be more significant than science students. Due to the nested nature of navigation modules in Cloud Classroom, it is a deterministic event for a behavioral transition from a resource module to opening courseware that each students needs to pass. Therefore, the three sequences of CS→LU, LU→CW and CW→LA are all significant for the two groups. The behavior transition from CS

Table 4. Comparative results of sequential behaviors of liberal arts and science students

Z Subject types CS LU CW LA ANC HW MB STS Liberal arts -4.53 4.51 -37.60 -41.39 3.79 61.19 -0.44 42.90 CS Science -3.92 29.55 -41.25 -41.23 1.64 60.94 -8.62 19.42 Liberal arts -12.72 25.24 55.18 -27.27 -13.50 -27.19 -11.51 -17.74 LU Science -11.93 29.14 40.67 -24.85 -11.65 -21.84 -12.01 -12.59 Liberal arts -3.95 8.44 -30.35 60.17 -15.46 -23.84 -12.47 -11.78 CW Science -6.32 -16.97 -14.89 68.96 -14.14 -27.20 -12.88 -1.89 Liberal arts -16.42 -42.34 53.71 49.92 -18.58 -35.08 -14.04 -26.35 LA Science -16.38 -35.83 56.66 35.88 -16.73 -29.72 -14.26 -21.82 Liberal arts -1.90 -4.38 -16.76 -19.56 1.12 47.96 6.78 0.44 ANC Science -3.99 -3.17 -15.30 -17.40 0.10 41.66 10.59 0.05 Liberal arts 48.07 -1.46 -26.34 -30.87 49.69 -11.27 31.14 19.07 HW Science 50.77 -10.19 -25.46 -26.42 47.60 -12.54 39.14 7.23 Liberal arts 0.20 -8.13 -13.12 -14.99 6.48 20.53 -3.15 27.48 MB Science -1.71 -8.77 -13.95 -14.86 6.79 16.25 -4.59 36.94 Liberal arts 6.21 21.41 -20.58 -25.34 10.88 19.32 24.25 -8.01 STS Science 7.65 16.20 -12.27 -19.28 7.06 2.48 27.60 -6.69

199 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students to any behavior in {ANC, HW, STS} is significant except CS→MB and CS→CS. It can be observed that there are quite limited behaviors turning to MB. The mutual behavior transitions among STS, ANC and HW are all significant, the high-order behaviors and task-driven behaviors of liberal arts students tend to be similar to those of science students. In order to clearly describe the characteristics within behavioral transitions, we visualize the behavioral sequences with apparent differences between the two groups, and further summarize the above eight behaviors into five categories according to the inherent attributes of behaviors, i.e., navigation (CS, LU), resources-related (CW, LA), task-related (ANC, HW), self-monitoring (STS) and social behavior (MB). As shown in Figure 7, the results show that liberal arts students tend to be more active in the behavior transitions of CS→ANC, CW→LU. The liberal arts students might need to learn more contents by switching among different learning units while the science students might go straight into learning contents with a more specific learning motivation. This could be demonstrated by the fact that, for science students, the sequence of CW→LA (Z=68.96) is more statistically significant than that of liberal arts students (Z=60.17).

BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGISTERED AND NON-REGISTERED STUDENTS

In Cloud Classroom, registered students are generally required to participate in online learning as they selected the compulsory subjects with credit requirements.

Figure 7. Comparative diagram of behavior transitions between liberal arts and science students

200 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Non-registered students do not have the pressure of course credits so they may more freely engage with this system with their own learning preferences. Intuitively, the learning system may have a more significant attractiveness for registered students since they need to complete online tasks (e.g., watching lecture videos, submitting homework) arranged by instructors. The third question aims to address whether registered students would perform more actively than non-registered ones or not. First we draw the box diagrams about times of manipulations in eight behaviors for the two groups. From Figure 8, we can observe that non-registered students engage with Cloud Classroom to some extent, but their participation levels are significantly lower than registered students. The two groups are compared with the eight learning behaviors by independent sample t-test, the results show that there are significant differences in most of behaviors except for ANC. The participation level of non-registered students is relatively lower due to a lack of pressure on learning tasks. This indicates that they only concerned about the notices of the course instead of learning contents. We could call this type of the learning process as “only viewing, not learning,” which is different to findings in MOOCs (Anderson et al., 2014) indicating the bystanders watch materials but do not submit homework. This reason may be that the materials in SPOCs have not sufficiently drawn the interest of external non-registered students. If designed more reasonably and open in interactive contexts, both registered and non-registered students would be interested in learning contents within this system.

Figure 8. Box diagrams of clicks of registered students (RS) and non-registered students (NRS)

201 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Furthermore, a sequential analysis is conducted on operational behaviors of the two groups. The results are shown in Table 5. Which indicate that registered students perform more significantly than the non-registered students in about half of behavioral sequences. In regard to resources, registered students are apparently reinforced by the sequence of LA→LA (Z=35.88), while non-registered students seem to have a lower immersion. Meanwhile, registered students often return to the resource module (STS→LU) after viewing the statistics of self-performance. Additionally, they tend to return to the homework module (STS→HW) after checking the statistical results. Although non-registered students are also concerned about their own learning performance, but after that they do not continue to enter a learning unit. Relatively, registered students exhibit more significant performance-driven and task-driven behavioral patterns.

Table 5. Comparative results of sequential behaviors of registered students (RS) and non-registered students (NRS)

Z Type CS LU CW LA ANC HW MB STS NRS 0.33 5.29 -8.05 -6.81 0.50 11.88 -0.97 1.99 CS RS -3.92 29.55 -41.25 -41.23 1.64 60.94 -8.62 19.42 NRS -2.85 5.86 4.83 -3.15 -0.94 -4.28 -2.07 -3.22 LU RS -11.93 29.14 40.67 -24.85 -11.65 -21.84 -12.01 -12.59 NRS -2.33 -0.13 -3.22 14.34 -3.87 -5.61 -3.16 -2.66 CW RS -6.32 -16.97 -14.89 68.96 -14.14 -27.20 -12.88 -1.89 NRS -2.83 -7.11 15.29 0.71 -3.56 -5.18 -2.65 -3.23 LA RS -16.38 -35.83 56.66 35.88 -16.73 -29.72 -14.26 -21.82 NRS -0.42 -1.16 -3.83 -3.58 -0.72 11.99 0.91 -0.42 ANC RS -3.99 -3.17 -15.30 -17.40 0.10 41.66 10.59 0.05 NRS 10.61 -3.77 -5.46 -4.65 9.29 -3.11 10.96 2.10 HW RS 50.77 -10.19 -25.46 -26.42 47.60 -12.54 39.14 7.23 NRS -0.46 -2.50 -3.58 -2.96 1.64 1.29 -1.07 15.47 MB RS -1.71 -8.77 -13.95 -14.86 6.79 16.25 -4.59 36.94 NRS 1.99 1.38 -2.06 -1.70 3.08 -1.01 2.87 -1.32 STS RS 7.65 16.20 -12.27 -19.28 7.06 2.48 27.60 -6.69

202 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

DISCUSSION

Based on the above analyses, this study has achieved an understanding of students’ learning behaviors in Cloud Classroom. The corresponding discussions are conducted in terms of grade level, subject and registration types. Regarding four grade levels, freshmen have not been familiar with online learning manners in the system since they still tend to use conventional learning manner (view/ submit homework after checking announcements by instructors). This also signifies that, most of them access online courses with requirements of the teachers since who usually require students to visit some specific modules like courseware and learning activity in a regular manner. Sophomores seem to have the most learning tasks since they have to learn sufficient degree courses in the system. From juniors’ behavior characteristics, they usually directly access homework after opening a course unit. It seems that they have understood the curriculum requirements, learning methods and operations, etc. For seniors, submitting homework may be a main task for them to engage with Cloud Classroom. The time range of data is just across the last semester of seniors in the university. Unlike the findings in early e-learning systems (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008; Daymont & Blau, 2008), indicating a relatively high participation level on high grade of students, seniors may use Cloud Classroom less actively than before, which causes they have the lowest participation rate among all grades, nearly below 5% of each of other three grade groups. Regarding different subject types, compared with science students, liberal arts students have paid more attention to this learning requirements. The activity level seems to be a potential driving force for them to continuously learn in Cloud Classroom. Within all significant behaviors, liberal arts students have higher transition probability than science students in the sequences of STS→HW and CS→STS. Relatively, liberal arts students seem to attach more importance to online durations and homework. For liberal arts students, their first manipulation is generally to understand learning requirements after entering the system. For science students, they have a higher Z-score in the sequence of CS→LU than liberal arts students. Through checking designs of these two courses, we find that Inorganic Chemistry sets more learning chapters than Psychology Foundation. Thus, science students have a more significant sequence in entering learning units after entering the system. Regarding different registration types, the repeated manipulations on learning activities imply that registered students have a higher participation level than non- registered students. While non-registered individuals may still stay in the stage of initial exploration since they seem to be inactive in learning activities, registered students tend to have a stronger sense of self-monitoring. Therefore, to improve self-performance may be also a critical incentive for them. For non-registered

203 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students students, despite a lack of pressure on learning tasks, they also show a certain attention to the announcements and homework. Registered students display a higher learning motivation that they could timely check announcements and homework after observing peers. This reflects that peer pressure has a potential effect on them, and the learning states of other companions have a strong supervisory influence for them. Nevertheless, compared with peer pressure, self-performance may be more likely to drive them to access learning resources, as shown from the result that the Z-value (Z=16.20) of the sequence of STS→LU is higher than -8.77 in the sequence of MB→LU. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of Cho & Heron (2015) and Butler & Winne (1995), which revealed that self-monitoring learning strategies are conductive to upgrade students’ intrinsic motivations and accomplish expected learning goals. Moreover, to deeply explore students’ learning behavioral patterns and to verify the reliability of results, we conducted a post-hoc survey for those learners who engaged in the system. There were 384 undergraduate students participating in the survey in total (112 freshmen, 133 sophomores, 114 juniors and 25 seniors). The questionnaire was designed to investigate students’ learning feelings and system operational proficiency. As the aforementioned results indicate, the most significant three behavioral sequences are ANC→HW, CS→HW and LA→CS for the entire investigated population. Hence it is natural to infer that, in order to complete homework, students would engage in learning activities to understand learning materials for meeting the requirements of knowledge skills reflected within homework. With this assumption, we analyze the results of user study. In general, 63.16% students think checking and submitting homework is the most important behavior in Cloud Classroom. Only 27.75% students regard viewing videos and learning materials as their common behavioral operation. It can be speculated that most students may not have a strong desire to study in the system. Freshmen are not enough skilled in operating the system and but have a positive learning attitude. For sophomores, it can be found that they have to handle many learning tasks. They often learn more than one unit once. 30.3% of sophomores consider that the most primary two behaviors are watching videos and viewing lecture slides. 78.79% of sophomores are required to complete more than two online courses at a semester. For juniors, it can be speculated that they are familiar with operational manners in the system. 85.71% of them think that they are able to easily seek out the required learning units. Besides, 28.57% of juniors think learning performance in the system is not helpful to final scores. Arguably, compared with the other grade groups, seniors have less tasks since over 75% of them only need to take one course in the last semester.

204 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Ethical Issues in Online Learning Behaviors

To explore the real learning motivations of students, through an oral survey, we interviewed 50 learners who were randomly selected from overall sample (N=384) in the user study mentioned above. We find that 24% of participants’ motivations to engage with Cloud Classroom mainly stem from the requirements of instructors instead of intrinsic learning needs. They think that a potential driving force to use the system is to meet learning objectives (including homework, engagement in online course learning) formulated by instructors. Twelve percent of participants believed that to gain a better online performance (e.g., online durations, activity levels), they tend to pretend to access and learn different course materials by frequently clicking at short intervals. That is to say, the promotion in self-performance is a critical driving force keeping them learning continuously in Cloud Classroom. Although the proportion of learners gaming the system is not quite high, this phenomenon still deserves our attention and thoughts on the reason why dishonest behaviors may occur in the learning system. From the analytical results of behavioral differences, we could get an insight into explicit learning behaviors among different groups of students. However, information distortions may occur which can affect the accuracy of learning analytics and identification of learning patterns. For instance, a long learning duration or a high manipulative frequency does not necessarily result from the high immersion and intrinsic motivation in learning process. And these seemingly active manipulations may be unrelated with knowledge acquisitions. Cloud Classroom provides an opportunity for learners to conduct self-regulated learning in a personal space, but it may be difficult for instructors to observe and regulate learning process of them. Especially in a course which mainly depends on the SPOC mode, it would be unclear what was going on with some learners if they cannot obtain an acceptable learning achievement at the end of semester. According to the aforementioned user study, as a potential obstacle hindering development of SPOCs, the cheating behaviors have emerged from Cloud Classroom. The ethical issue mainly results from the fact that there is a lack of effective monitoring and management during individual learning in SPOCs. Compared with learning process, instructors may pay more attention to learning outcomes of learners including usual online learning performance. In this way, if a learner lacks self-discipline or intrinsic learning motivation, he/she would be likely to cheat on online learning activities to gain a longer duration or higher activity level (e.g., only casual clicking but not active learning). Nevertheless, this type of dishonest off-task behaviors would not help to improve a learner’s knowledge skills. This is similar to the off-task behaviors of “gaming the system” explored by Baker et al. (2004), who illustrated that some learners may

205 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students take advantage of loopholes in an intelligent tutoring system to gain correct answers and advancing. In Cloud Classroom, the learners conducting cheating behaviors are obviously not engaged in attempting to utilize this system to actively learn. But it is unclear what the effects of cheating behaviors on learning are. As Carroll (1964)’s Time-On-Task assumption involving classroom learning explained, the duration a learner engages with learning materials indicates opportunities this learner owns to learn. Hence, if a learner conducts a greater deal of off-task behaviors (cheating on click behaviors), he/she will concentrate less on the actual learning task. Watson & Sottile (2010) also claimed that Internet technologies provide more opportunities for current learners to be academically dishonest, especially in accomplishing assignments. Actually in a SPOC context, it is not easy to be dishonest in submitting assignments like homework, quizzes and other online tests. The reason is two-fold. The first is that SPOCs generally offer closed and limited enrollment (e.g., only students engage in the same campus course) so that instructors are familiar with learners in a course and enable to easily check assignment of each learner. Second, unlike in MOOCs, all learners use real identities to register for a course, so there is a closer relationship among learners. Thus the mutual copying of assignments could make involved learners bear a high-cost of punishment. Unlike the unethical behaviors in submitting assignments by copying others’ work (Palazzo et al., 2010, Alexandron et al., 2016), the individual cheating behavior of earning a high activity level does not harm or benefit other course peers. However, between the two types of unethical behaviors, there is also a common ground, which is a lack of monitoring in online learning process. Arnold (2016) had demonstrated that, for online tests, a non-regulated circumstance is more conductive to cheating than regulated circumstance. Although Guo (2017) claimed that SPOC may make up the inadequacies of insufficient monitoring in MOOC in comparisons between MOOC and SPOC modes, many SPOCs still lack monitoring and instructing since instructors can only upload courseware, check assignments and observe explicit learning performance in these SPOC systems. This implies that a monitoring strategy may be needed for improving the evaluation mode of learning performance in a SPOC. For instance, an automatic identification algorithm could be designed for real-time checking during learners’ unethical manipulations in Cloud Classroom. If the individual learning behaviors would be identified as casual clicks for prolonging online durations, then a real-time feedback could be transmitted to instructors to conduct targeted teaching interventions. Another strategy is that learners could be required to submit learning feedback for reporting their learning contents and feelings in a certain intervals of manipulations, which could also enhance learners’ interactions with instructors to prevent them from off-task manipulations and attrition in online learning. In addition, one of the most critical solutions is to build the ethical criteria of online learning in a SPOC. Learners need to be informed

206 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students with these related behavioral ethics, which aim to reinforcing learners’ sense of self-discipline regarding their learning performance in Cloud Classroom system.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we utilize sequential analysis to understand the learning behavioral patterns of students in different grade levels, subjects, and registration types in Cloud Classroom, as well as analyze the differences among different learning groups and potential reasons behind diverse behavioral characteristics. The extensive experiments are conducted on a real-life dataset to respectively address three research questions in this work. The conclusions are summarized as following three aspects: With regard to behavioral differences among four grades of students, the conclusions can be summarized as follows: (1) Freshmen have shown an active attitude towards online courses and are willing to follow the normal operational procedure. They demonstrate a positive learning attitude in Cloud Classroom despite a lack of operational skills. One possible reason is that freshmen have not been accustomed to the online learning mode. (2) Sophomores present similar learning behavioral sequences as freshmen and seniors. They frequently switch into another course after completing a series of learning activities. In addition, they might have a higher workload (more than two courses) than other grade groups, thus they have to spend more time online time to participate in learning activities in different courses. (3) Juniors often switch between courses and homework modules after engaging in learning activities. Hence they tend to present an apparent task-oriented learning pattern. (4) Compared with the other three grade groups, seniors can accurately find the desired learning units, and over 95% of them think that they are skilled at operating this learning platform. In comparison between liberal arts and science students, there exists four aspects of behavioral differences. First, after entering the course, liberal arts students are more likely to check their own online performance about learning durations and activity levels. It indicates that, compared with science students, liberal arts students tend to have a stronger sense of self-monitoring. To improve the online performance may be a critical motivation for them to continuously engage in Cloud Classroom. Second, liberal arts students may pay more attention to the announcements delivered by teachers after entering the course, on which science students perform insignificantly. This reason may be that the teachers may frequently require liberal arts students to notice the announcements while science students are less required for this. Third, liberal arts students tend to switch among different learning units, indicating that they may have more units to learn at the same time. Finally, science students tend

207 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students to more active than liberal arts students in the behavioral transition of STS→HW, indicating a higher sense of completing learning tasks. As for the comparison between registered and non-registered students, we can conclude that: (1) registered students tend to be more active within most learning modules but there is not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of viewing announcements. Although the non-registered group may view course announcements, but hereafter do not actively engage in learning activities. They are more likely to act as bystanders in this system. (2) Registered students tend to attach more importance to self-performance than non-registered students. This may be result from the pressure of course credit requiring a good online performance. (3) Although non-registered students have not the pressure of course credit, they also show some significant behavioral sequences like CS→LU, LU→CW and ANC→HW. This indicates that, in fact, they also spend energy to explore learning materials to some extent. We assume that, if designed more interactively for all learning groups, e.g., supplementing interactive functions in the member module, the system may attract more external learners to explore rich course resources. These results are expected to help teachers and administrators track collective learning patterns so that they could adapt teaching strategies to different groups in Cloud Classroom. Nevertheless, there are some limitations in our study. For example, it is still inconclusive for students’ real preference and motivation behind learning behaviors, i.e., whether high-frequency learning behaviors or high activity levels could indicate a high immersion or a good experience in a learning system. Moreover, it is worth noting that the cheating learning behaviors may occur within learners’ manipulations in the system when online learning performance would be considered as an assessment factor. Frequent click behaviors with the purpose of promoting own statistical profiles may be detrimental to academic advancement of learners and effects of applying this system in blended learning. Simultaneously, the distorted data would also inevitably affect the reliability of learning analytical results. Therefore, targeted monitoring strategies and ethical criteria in SPOCs need to be established to regulate and optimize online learning process of on-campus students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Research Funds from National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 61702207, L1724007, 61505064], MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences [grant number 16YJC880052], China Scholarship Council [grant number 201706775022], National Social Science Fund Project of China [grant number 14BGL131], Ministry of Education-China Mobile [grant number MCM20160401].

208 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

REFERENCES

Advanced Distributed Learning. (2013). xAPI-Spec. Retrieved from https://github. com/adlnet/xAPI-Spec/blob/1.0.0/xAPI.md Alexandron, G., Lee, S., Chen, Z., & Pritchard, D. E. (2016). Detecting Cheaters in MOOCs Using Item Response Theory and Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Personalization Approaches in Learning Environments (PALE 2016). Aachen: CEUR. Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 393–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393 Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014, April). Engaging with massive online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 687-698). New York: ACM Press. Arnold, I. J. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.001 Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (Eds.). (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511527685 Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Wagner, A. Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students game the system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 383-390). New York, NY: ACM Press. 10.1145/985692.985741 Carroll, J. (1964). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training, research, and education (pp. 87–136). New York, NY: Wiley. Chang, K. E., Chang, C. T., Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., Chao, H. L., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education, 71, 185–197. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.022 Chen, Z. H. (2014). Exploring students’ behaviors in a competition-driven educational game. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 68–74. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.021

209 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Cheng, Liu, Z., Sun, J., Liu, S., & Yang, Z. (2017). Unfolding online learning behavioral patterns and their temporal changes of college students in SPOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 176–188. doi:10.1080/10494820.2016 .1276082 Cho, M., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of learning strategies in students’ learning experiences in a self- paced online mathematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80–99. doi:10.1080 /01587919.2015.1019963 Combéfis, S., Bibal, A., & Van Roy, P. (2014). Recasting a Traditional Course into a MOOC by Means of a SPOC. In Proceedings of the European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit (pp. 205-208). Academic Press. Daymont, T., & Blau, G. (2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(3), 275–294. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 304–317. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051816 Fox, A. (2013). From MOOCs to SPOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38–40. doi:10.1145/2535918 Guo, W. (2014). From SPOC to MPOC--The Effective Practice of Peking University Online Teacher Training. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT 2014) (pp. 258-264). IEEE. 10.1109/EITT.2014.48 Guo, P. (2017). MOOC and SPOC, which one is better? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5961–5967. Halawa, S., Greene, D., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. eLearning Papers, 37, 7−16. Retrieved from http://www. moocsandco.com/sites/default/files/elearning%2037.pdf#page=7 Hou, H. T. (2010). Exploring the Behavioral Patterns in Project-Based Learning with Online Discussion: Quantitative Content Analysis and Progressive Sequential Analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(3), 52–60.

210 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Hou, H. T. (2011). A case study of online instructional collaborative discussion activities for problem-solving using situated scenarios: An examination of content and behavior cluster analysis. Computers & Education, 56(3), 712–719. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2010.10.013 Hou, H. T. (2012). Exploring the behavioral patterns of learners in an educational massively multiple online role-playing game (MMORPG). Computers & Education, 58(4), 1225–1233. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.015 Hou, H. T. (2015). Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners’ flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 424–435. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.010 Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem- solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2008.07.006 Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1701_3 Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message–response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383. doi:10.1080/01587910500291470 Jeong, A. C., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568. doi:10.100711423-006-0636-4 Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56. doi:10.100711412-011-9109-9 Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013, April). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170-179). New York, NY: ACM Press. 10.1145/2460296.2460330

211 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

LAK. (2011). Home Page of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge 2011. Retrieved from https://tekri.athabascau.ca/analytics/ Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Exploring college students’ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 51–56. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.001 Liu, S., Hu, Z., Peng, X., Liu, Z., Cheng, H. N., & Sun, J. (2017). Mining Learning Behavioral Patterns of Students by Sequence Analysis in Cloud Classroom. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 15(1), 15–27. doi:10.4018/ IJDET.2017010102 Liu, Z., Cheng, H. N., Liu, S., & Sun, J. (2017). Discovering the Two-Step Lag Behavioral Patterns of Learners in the College SPOC Platform. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(1), 1–13. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2017010101 Loh, C. S., Sheng, Y., & Li, I. H. (2015). Predicting expert–novice performance as serious games analytics with objective-oriented and navigational action sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.053 Nercel. (2017). Cloud Classroom v3.0. Retrieved from http://moocapp.starc.com. cn/application/mooc/ Ozturk, H. T., Deryakulu, D., Ozcinar, H., & Atal, D. (2014, April). Advancing learning analytics in online learning environments through the method of sequential analysis. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS) (pp. 512-516). Marrakech: IEEE Press. 10.1109/ICMCS.2014.6911238 Palazzo, D. J., Lee, Y. J., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Pritchard, D. E. (2010). Patterns, correlates, and reduction of homework copying. Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010104 Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/master-plan/documents/the-year-of-the- mooc.pdf Piccioni, M., Estler, C., & Meyer, B. (2014). SPOC-supported introduction to programming. Academic Press. doi:10.1145/2591708.2591759

212 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Pohl, M., Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2016). Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96, 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.006 Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109 Sackett, G. P. (1978). Observing Behavior: Data Collection and Analysis Methods. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30. Sun, J. C. Y., Kuo, C. Y., Hou, H. T., & Yu-Yan, L. (2017). Exploring learners’ sequential behavioral patterns, flow experience, and learning performance in an anti- phishing educational game. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 45. Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., Liu, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem-solving strategy for museum learning: A sequential learning behavioral pattern analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x Tin Can API. (2012). What is the Tin Can API? Retrieved from http://tincanapi. com/overview/ Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2008). Cheating in the Digital Age: Do students cheat more in on-line courses? In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 798-803). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Wen, M., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Identifying latent study habits by mining learner behavior patterns in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1983-1986). New York: ACM Press. 10.1145/2661829.2662033 Yang, X., Song, S., Zhao, X., & Yu, S. (2017). Understanding user behavioral patterns in open knowledge communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–11. doi:1 0.1080/10494820.2017.1303518

213 Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2015). A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 69–93. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2032 Zhang, M., Zhu, J., Zou, Y., Yan, H., Hao, D., & Liu, C. (2015). Educational evaluation in the PKU SPOC course data structures and algorithms. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale (pp. 237-240). New York: ACM Press. 10.1145/2724660.2728666

214 215

Chapter 10 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

Howard A. Doughty Seneca College, Canada

ABSTRACT Cybernetics is the science of communications and control. It has been applied to everything from household thermostats to non-verbal communication. Ethics is the study of beliefs about right and wrong thought and behavior. The synthetic subfield of cyberethics deals with the application of ethics to the technologies and practices of cybernetics. This chapter will explore a definition of cybernetics that goes beyond its association with computers, information networks, and the rights, roles, and responsibilities of people involved in information technology. This more adventuresome approach will embrace broader themes in education and offer insights into the “box” outside of which we are relentlessly being told to think.

INTRODUCTION

The conventional method of writing about applied ethics and, in this case, ethics as applied to the relatively new domain of cyberethics is first to set out a brief definition of ethics, to discuss some common ethical theories, and then to examine the particular field to which ethics are to be applied. A general description of the field―very often a profession, institution, industry, social service or technological innovation―and the special ethical problems which it both raises and faces are then laid out. The narrative typically goes on to explain in some detail the pertinent

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch010

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning issues about which ethical arguments are made and to offer conditional solutions to salient problems or dilemmas. So, business ethics may focus on questions of integrity in advertising, industrial health and safety, fiduciary responsibilities, and so on. Similarly, legal ethics might involve obligations to uphold judicial integrity, maintain client confidentiality, and exercise due diligence while acting on a client’s behalf. Likewise, research ethics could include the need to obtain informed consent from human subjects, report results honestly, and avoid plagiarism. Like business, legal and research ethics, cyberethics involves the philosophical study and the practical application of normative standards to a specific kind of human project. The implicit assumption is that there are generalizable if not necessarily universal principles of right and wrong which can and should guide the attitudes and actions of practitioners in identifiable areas of human endeavor. Often, the codification of an inventory of aspirational or enforceable ethical standards is seen as heralding the successful completion of an inquiry. To say that there may be different ethical rules for kindergarten teachers, electricians and secret agents is, of course, not an invitation to excessive or unlimited cultural relativism and the subsequent logical risk of nihilism. The idea is not so much that ethical rules vary depending on whether one is a banker-or an Emergency Room nurse such that what is acceptable for one is unacceptable for the other; rather, it is that certain ethical precepts may have particular bearing and make greater or lesser demands upon different people in different circumstances. There are, of course, sometimes contradictions and consequent controversies. In principle, we may agree that telling a lie is unethical unless exigent circumstances dictate otherwise and then we can debate endlessly the question of whether certain specific circumstances were of sufficient import to allow the honesty rule to be bent, broken or jettisoned. For example, when questioning an accused criminal, it is generally acceptable (at least under the law) for police officers to lie to a suspect in order to extract a confession, whereas in commercial sales, it is generally unethical and potentially criminal to lie to a customer about the roadworthiness of a used automobile or the safety hazards of a child’s toy. It’s complicated. One way or another, however, ethical standards are derived, however vaguely, imprecisely and inconsistently from larger social conversations about morality, legality, cultural norms and, often, theological determinations of good and evil, as well as about the various ways to tell the differences among them. What is right or wrong, on whose authority and what criteria should be applied to come to a legitimate decision on such matters are all involved in ethical deliberations. While it is true, incidentally, that conceptual distinctions are sometimes drawn among values (general social norms), morals (mainly substantive judgements such

216 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning as “thou shalt not kill”) and ethics (often procedural rules such as the right to a fair trial”), these important semantic distinctions will be provisionally set aside for purposes of expediency.

CONVENTIONS OF CYBERETHICS

In the case of cyberethics, attention is normally drawn to such particulars as: computer hacking and spreading malware; personal rights to privacy and intellectual property; equality of access and the “digital divide;” net neutrality and freedom of information; licit and illicit gambling, prostitution, human and drug trafficking; online extortion, stalking and bullying; industrial espionage and terrorism; and any number of other issues from deploying duplicitous data on dating websites to “revenge porn,” or from anonymously posting disrespectful and demeaning opinions on social media to intentionally degrading political discourse by “trolling” venues for sharing news and opinions. Most of these or their analogs are, of course, already concerns in low- tech society, but they take on added significance and meaning when projected from what passes for the “real” world into the high-tech multiple platforms of cyberspace (Dudley, Braman, & Vincenti, 2012). For the purposes of this chapter, however, these distressing if all too familiar issues will be held at a distance. It is meant to be less a catalog of unethical actions and discussions about how bad behavior may be prevented or punished, and more a consideration of the appropriate “fit” between pedagogy and technology. Accordingly, we must explore not only what lies behind the theory and practice of cybernetics as a mode of communication, data storage and retrieval, but also how to understand larger questions of circuitry and systems theory that bind ethical systems to one another and cybernetics to other fields. Above all, we will inquire into how cybernetics relates to learning theory and technologically mediated learning practices. With regard to the fundamentally humane project of education, cybernetics has enormous possibilities for increasing the efficiency of human learning and problem solving, but it has limitations as well. These limitations, to be fair, may be temporary or transitory, but they may also be endemic to what is known as the “human condition.” They involve such curious concepts as consciousness and conscience, imagination and intentionality. Inevitably, attention will focus on that most popular of contemporary controversies, artificial intelligence. At issue are concerns about dehumanization as a consequence of both the inherent nature of the technologies most often associated with cybernetics and the kind of social relations of production, reproduction and dissemination of knowledge that are intrinsic to the political

217 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning economy of technologically mediated learning. Criticisms of distance learning will not, however, be passionate appeals about technological alienation in the modern school and its electronic extensions, but will reside in a deeper understanding of what communication and education are or ought to be about. Cybernetics, cyberspace and cyberethics are, of course, words of recent vintage. Despite their inventors’ conscious etymological decision to extract and refine them from the ancient Greek kubermetes (the steersman of a ship) and, by a slight Latin twist, also from guberno (to steer or to govern), the term is enough of a neologism to have entered our vocabulary within this writer’s lifetime. Much of what imitates serious discussion in these domains is of immediate, practical utility when dealing with e-commerce, document submission, social media photo-sharing, and downloading scholarly articles-on such topics as “Cyberethics.” While there are real ethical issues involved in such practices, they are of a lower order than should be contemplated if the original concept of cybernetics is to be considered. Gregory Bateson (1972, p. 476) made this claim: “cybernetics is the biggest bite out of the fruit of the tree of knowledge that mankind has taken in the last 2000 years.” Plainly, the question of ethics and cybernetics involves more than simply adapting such principles as honesty, integrity and the protection of privacy to a complex technology that amounts mainly to an apparently addictive global system of electronically connected typewriters and telephones. Of course, despite the esoteric hyperbole associated with the mysterious mechanisms of cryptology and the clear and present dangers of identity theft, cybernetics is not alone in taking seriously the insight that no man or any other thing is an island unto itself. Connectivity has been a popular notion in Western society. It is a theme that has been embraced, perhaps more deeply and for much longer, in Eastern culture, and it betokens the belief that life may be better and people more ethical when they do not unduly disturb the delicate balance of nature. In human studies, the ideas of “holism,” “systems,” and other concepts that facilitate “macroanalysis” in the social sciences can be found both long before and coextensively with cybernetics. Especially in the twentieth century and with no necessary idea of an ultimate destiny, heroic efforts were made in sociology to develop general analytical models of interactivity for all types of social systems (Easton, 1953; 1965; Gunnell, 2013; Kariel, 1968, 1972; Parsons, 1951; Parsons & Shils, 1951). As political theorist John Gunnell (2013) argued, the concept of “system” was the single most important theoretical concept in political science and, perhaps, in the whole of the social sciences in the twentieth century. Such developments have informed and been informed by and within the larger context of cybernetic reasoning.

218 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

False Problems: A “Real-Life” Example

Ever since Frankenstein, much anxiety has arisen among people for whom science and technology pose an “existential” threat for humanity. This angst is evident today among people for whom cybernetics and associated innovations are regarded as a menace to our species. This fear may have been exaggerated by a good deal of loose talk about the “posthuman condition” that has been encouraged by an array of speculators including superannuated futurists and overly imaginative science fiction writers, among others.- One instructive example of unnecessary unease occurred on American television in February, 2011. “The Price Is Right” may well be, as it advertises itself, “America’s Favorite Game Show,” but it falls far behind its CBS Network companion, “Jeopardy,” in terms of the cognitive skills needed to win prizes. It was therefore the more intellectually advanced “Jeopardy” program that presented perhaps the most widely noticed machine/mortal match since “Deep Fritz” defeated human World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik in 2006. On “Jeopardy,” an IBM computer known affectionately as “HAL” defeated two human opponents in a game of information retrieval that provided a dramatic moment in North American popular culture (Markoff, 2011). Though it may not have equalled the deflationary effects on humanity’s self-image resulting from Copernicus’ heliocentrism, Darwin’s evolution and Freud’s celebration of the subconscious mind, HAL’s (or, more accurately HAL’s programmers’) tricky outsmarting of its human rivals in an exercise in “trivial pursuit” did puncture a few humanistic balloons. It need not have done so. The prevailing misinterpretation was and remains that HAL had displayed greater “intelligence” than the clever organisms it faced in a rule-based contest of information retrieval. This, of course, was nonsense. Intelligence, whatever it might be taken to mean, is generally understood to be something more than an automated filing system. On that basis, electronic data diving is obviously more efficient and economical than reliance on human memory. In fact, put in competition with mortal beings, it might surprise some that the computer failed to win every time. The surprise, of course, is muted by the fact that some of the questions required just “facts” and it was there that the computer shone; however, other questions demanded some measure of interpretation or judgment and it was there that humanity prevailed. With this in mind, it would be no chore for question designers to create a test in which the computer would dominate and, in the alternative, it would be equally easy to construct a quiz in which human beings’ higher order skills (e.g. aesthetic sensitivity) would allow them to win every game. The “man/machine” controversy has been with us at least since the promulgation of the Turing test (1950) in which computer pioneer Alan Turing came up with a

219 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning way to identify the precise point at which computers and people would demonstrate mental equality. In order to do so, Turing had to successfully tackle truly difficult philosophical issues including the nature of mind, consciousness, self-awareness, purpose, intentionality and all those related qualities which humanists have traditionally ascribed to our species. These questions are now being investigated by neuroscientists among others, but they remain essentially contested at least partly because of an inability to achieve consensus on basic definitions. These qualities function, moreover, both as descriptors and as difference markers that appear to set us categorically aside not only from inanimate objects, but also (to admittedly different degrees) from other animals. Instead of confronting them, Turing avoided them by presenting the following “operational definition” of intelligence: A machine, he argued, could be said to possess intelligence if it could behave (i.e., perform externally detectable actions) in a manner that is indistinguishable from the behavior of a human being as observed by a third (human) party. So, if a machine and a human were placed out of the sight of an observer and were able to carry on a normal conversation in such a way that the observer could not identify which was which, then the machine would pass the test and could be declared “intelligent.” The Turing test, of course, misses the major point of what it is to be a human being as opposed to being able to mimic the behavior of a human being. That difference was nicely explained fifty years ago by philosopher Hubert Dreyfus (1967) and there has yet to be a fully successful rejoinder to Dreyfus’ main point (made before and since by generations of phenomenologists) that it is humanity’s “organicity” that defines not only what it is to be human, but also what it is to have human intelligence and not merely present a passable mimicking/mocking simulacrum of same. Intelligence, that is to say, must be experienced. Only by adopting a different and paradoxically non-human-centered view of intelligence, can computers or any other machinery be described as intelligent. Suitably, it was one Gregory Bateson (1979), a co-founder of cybernetics, who provided a way to explain how “smart” phones, automatic automobile transmissions, human individuals, human organizations, herds of caribou, redwood forests, small tidal pools and telephone roaming devices can all demonstrate qualities of mind― though plainly at different levels of “learning.” He also showed how not all of these (things that respond to difference) can truthfully be called intelligent. Bateson, incidentally, once provided an improvement on the Turing test that included the crucial quality of reflexivity. He imagined asking a computer whether it reckoned that it would ever think like a human being. The machine would pass the test, Bateson (1979, p. 22) admitted, if it replied: “That reminds me of a story.” To date, no machine has succeeded―if for no other reason than those machines have no meaningful self-concept or concept of “success,” “failure” or their markers

220 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning in “pride” and “shame.” There may be an algorithm that can detect qualities programmed to count as ethical or unethical as matters of definition, but to date no one has managed to work out a way for a machine to feel.

Bateson: Levels of Learning and Cybernetic Explanation

Bateson took the approach and the insight that he had helped develop and used them in an immense array of projects that encompassed what we now call interdisciplinarity on a large scale. For Bateson, the first real step to an understanding of intelligence and learning comes from a cybernetic perspective that requires an elementary application of Bertrand Russell’s theory of logical types. That rule acknowledges differences not merely in quantity or in quality, but in kind. There may not be an immediately discernible order to the universe, but there is orderliness to the frames within with the known universe of, in Jung’s terms, creatura living things and pleroma (inanimate objects) can be explored. Intelligence may be ascribed only to the former and the key to understanding it is to recognize the structure of the frames. Bateson’s unorthodox definition of mind held that it was imminent in any aggregation of parts whose interactions were triggered not by material force, but by immaterial differences. Mental processes require complex chains of determination, not simple stimulus-response sequences. Bateson’s formulation is not inconsistent with contemporary neuroscience as it discerns development from rudimentary sensory- perceptual mental experience (anoesis) to autonoetic consciousness. The emergence of knowledge-based, episodic, self-aware and self-reflective “mind-body” states are consistent with Bateson’s learning theory. They provide a complementary empirical/ material basis for a theory of learning that applies to the phenomena which we call thought, evolution, ecology, life, learning, and the like occur only in systems that satisfy [his] criteria of mind (Bateson, 1979, p. 92; Bale, 1995). Explicitly with regard to learning, Bateson posited a five-level hierarchy which progressed from zero-learning (i.e. an anoetic stimulus-response sequence of which no memory is retained to guide further action, even in repetition) to higher levels, of which only the first two are commonly witnessed in teaching and learning. Learning 1 is familiar as the most common sort of learning in, for example, schools, colleges and universities. It involves the acquisition of new skills and commonly includes what are fashionably called cognitive, affective and behavioral learning objectives, which is to say identifiable changes in knowledge, attitude/emotion and demonstrable skills―the capstone and transition to the next level being “learning to learn.” Learning 1 enables one to pass a test. Learning 2 takes the learner above the mere accumulation of new data, adaptations and proficiencies and enters the domain of contextualization and overarching pattern recognition.

221 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

Learning 2 provides insight into what the test is really all about. At this point, “politics” comes into play. As one commentator (Bredo, 1989, p. 37) succinctly put it, Learning 2 involves “teaching and learning about the metarules of context. It shows and requires the understanding that “no task instruction can be done in a socially neutral way.” Grasping how the epistemological and ideological aspects of learning are embedded in social relations is something that must be learned both theoretically and experientially. Learning 3, which is rarely and seemingly almost inexpressibly achieved (notions of mystical states of mind seem relevant here), and Learning 4, about which Bateson had next to nothing to say other than it “probably does not occur in any adult living organism on this earth” (Bateson, 1972, p. 293), need not detain us. The distinction between the first two levels above zero is adequate to the main questions to be asked here. One extension of Bateson’s conceptualization is especially important. His learning theory was intimately tied to his critique of positivism and Western civilization’s commitment to explanation as “cause-and-effect” (Bateson, 1972). A favored example was the motion of billiard balls. Given sufficient information about the location, direction, angle and force of impact, plus the condition of the felt on the table top and any unevenness on its surface, it is possible to predict precisely where any ball will end up after having collided with another. Cybernetic explanation does not deny the logic of positive explanation; it merely sees it as partial and ultimately trivial. Even successful positivistic explanations exist within larger contexts and those contexts or ecologies are much more effectively understood as systemic and intersystemic dynamics in which activities are better understood by mapping the restraints on actions rather than by identifying the discrete forces that produce them. Unfortunately, the main task of our species as expressed in the founding documents of the Abrahamic religions is to “go forth and multiply” and to exercise “dominion” over the Earth. That allegedly divine (or retroactively justificatory) admonition, Bateson believed, was indicative of a human project that has had increasingly toxic effects on the biosphere or, as it is now somewhat narcissistically labeled, the “anthroposphere.” A context in which the domination and exploitation of nature provides the rationale for the Zeitgeist cannot be omitted when attempts to understand and correct specific problems arise. Technical solutions to ecological problems (e.g. recycling waste, banning aerosol cans or switching to electric vehicles) are merely disconnected technological interventions that may be clever enough to cure specific diseases, but do nothing to understand health and tend to the whole body. While the extraordinary achievements of modern medicine should not be overlooked, medical science, along with economics and criminology, are seen as lacking wisdom, [which is] knowledge of the larger interactive system. “What worries me,” Bateson concluded, is that our cumulative solutions to previous problems involve

222 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

“machinery, transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth [that are now] empowered to upset the balance of the body, of society, and of the biological world around us.” Education is no different. Students have masses of information at their finger tips, but may not have the critical insight to select wisely. Spell-check can detect errors, but students lack the ability to write an error- free essay. This is not to say that we ought to return to chalk and slate or steel-nibbed pens and inkwells. If, however, there is an overall ethical message in cybernetics, the call for humility and restraint must surely be it. From Gregory Bateson, therefore, it is possible to take away the message that a satisfactory understanding of education can best be developed only in a holistic theory of learning in which comprehending “the pattern that connects” the items of learning to one another and to their often multiple, overlapping contexts is essential to ethical belief and behavior. Part of this comprehension requires an assessment of the methodologies and technologies of teaching and learning, a matter in which the mechanics of much modern education and especially of technologically mediated online education will be shown to be wanting.

Habermas: Knowledge and Human Interests

A second important approach to an integrated, systemic theory of education can be found in the work of the German social theorist, Jürgen Habermas (1971, 1984, 1987). If Bateson has contributed notably to the development cybernetic explanation, systems thinking and wisdom, Habermas has added an element that elaborates the notion of conscious human purpose that outlines how conventional methods of acquiring and disseminating knowledge have, embedded within them, particular human purposes and human values based on Bateson’s chief nemesis, the desire to control. Habermas is also critical of our society and its ethics and, albeit from a different intellectual tradition, provides a way to encounter and somewhat to redeem our errors. In Knowledge and Human Interests (1971), Habermas postulates three deep- seated categories of human interests and identified three categories of reason and knowledge with which they corresponded. Two of them are familiar enough. Technical interest in the control of nature is represented by science (i.e. empirical-analytical knowledge). Practical interest in understanding other people is represented by social science and the humanities (i.e. historical-hermeneutic knowledge). What Habermas adds, however, is our emancipatory interest in freeing ourselves not merely from domination by nature and society, but from our own misconceived relations with ourselves, our species, nature and the cosmos. Habermas is the leading figure of the second generation of critical theorists, widely known as the “Frankfurt School.” Habermas has carried on issues in his

223 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning early work, such as alienation, but has reached out to other traditions including communications to build a body of work that explores an immaterial understanding that is not wholly incompatible with Bateson’s cybernetic/ecological approach. Emancipation, in Habermas’ scheme, could be understood not just as freedom from want and oppression, but as freedom from the compulsion to dominate. It is represented in Habermas’ epistemology and pedagogy by critical, reflective and reflexive knowledge. Each human interest may seem valid on its face. Who doesn’t want to put an end to poverty and disease? Who doesn’t want to encourage freedom and democracy? And each is potentially enhanced by the others. Technical and practical interests, however, can have odious consequences. Technical knowledge helps exploit the biological and physical environments and can, when pursued without humility, lead to the monstrous notion of the “conquest of nature” and the rapacious application of that Biblical injunction to exercise “dominion.” It can release an unfettered desire for change for its own sake. It can allow us to labor under the illusion that, as General Electric Theater host and then future United States President Ronald Reagan told the CBS television network’s audience every Sunday night from 1954 to 1962, at GE “progress is our most important product.” Technical knowledge’s implications, in the obvious absence of an appreciation of ecology, are already evident in air, water and soil pollution and in imminent, catastrophic climate change. Insofar as colleges and universities uncritically adopt corporate technical curricula, technologically mediated teaching methods, and student evaluation protocols emphasizing instrumental reasoning and mastery of an inventory of measurable learning objectives, they are complicit in reinforcing potentially sociocidal practices and suppressing reasoned dissent. Though innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship may be supported, critical investigation and interrogation of educational contexts are not well received. Specific “things” can be subjected to endless change and alleged improvement, but there is little support for the idea that contexts could be otherwise. Problems associated with practical knowledge leading to the capacity to control other human beings also have negative implications in everything from passive manipulation and the manufacture of consent (Herman & Chomsky, 2008) through political propaganda and commercial advertising to authoritarianism. Some combination of coercive tyranny, deadening ideology and induced apathy, subservience or endless distraction can combine with previously unimagined techniques of electronic domestic surveillance and the militarization of foreign policy and domestic law enforcement to produce the antithesis of Enlightenment values of prosperity, health, freedom and wisdom. Insofar as colleges and universities adopt pedagogies that reinforce repressive social practices and model undemocratic and inequitable relationships among administration, faculty and students, they collude

224 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning in building the widely diagnosed democratic deficit which makes it impossible to address the problems of starvation, disease and war. It is, therefore, the emancipatory interest in human liberty that is vital to the well-being promised by the Enlightenment, but with a significant difference. Ethically, it entails embracing the Kantian categorical imperative to treat others as ends in themselves, defend our own freedom from oppression, and guard against the ruthless, mindless selfishness that irrevocably degrades the quality of all life. Practically, it requires a revisiting and the literal, as well as symbolic, deconstruction of the hyper-humanism that not only placed us and our species at the center of our personal lifeworlds and elevated our own status in the foundational beliefs about the proper meaning of natural and human history, but also inflated our self-importance to the point where satisfying our immediate wants has detracted from and possibly destroyed our capacity to satisfy our ultimate needs. In the current circumstances the most desperate need we have is to nullify “desperation,” acknowledge the pathology of domination, bring our ideas and actions into a state of equilibrium and seek the homeostasis that has eluded us since our impact on nature became visible, audible and malodorous as expressed in William Blake’s poetic recoil from the “dark satanic mills” of early industrial capitalism and is now evident in our global condition of chronic if not acute, disrepair. We are arguably the victims of our own success; so, in seeking liberty, we must take care not to strive for the liberty to pursue happiness (Jeffersonian code for “property”) through great Faustian projects of development, but through managed decline (Kunstler, 2005).

The Fallacy of Value-Free Education

From their different perspectives, Bateson and Habermas make it clear that carefully honed illusions about objectivity in the creation and dissemination of knowledge and value-free or, better, value-stripped technology are false. Each witnesses the distortions of ideology and each sets out a prescription for redemption. An actionable form of their complementary therapeutic insights that go beyond ceaseless criticism is difficult to imagine. What, after all, is the cure for an assault on complexity and inter-relatedness if every concrete program for reform and restitution all but automatically calls for yet another assault? One method is to reconsider the remark: “think globally, act locally.” Too often this recommendation has been a thin cover for quietism; however, it also connects to the proposition that massive changes in the patterns of change can most effectively be built from the bottom up. The alternative, after all, is the substitution of revolution Indeed, recovering wisdom in the context of ambition and action gone feverish, frenetic and frenzied amid the noise of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1942, pp. 82-83) is an impossibility. This is because any imposition of corrective change

225 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning from the top down inevitably takes the form of precisely the sort of direction and domination that created the difficulties in the first place. Corrective (cybernetic) action, in the alternative, does not mean turning politics into religion and then finding that, as Camus (1955) once warned us, it is nothing but the Inquisition. It means not replicating the category errors of domination that are at the root of our troubles. In limiting or, rather, in declining to overextend and thereby deform the effort to restore sanity, it is also necessary to understand the limits of positivistic science and the possibilities that emerge when we set aside another inhibitor of understanding― the so-called fact/value dichotomy. One of present-day pedagogy’s most disturbing claims is that it can foster “critical thinking” while simultaneously purging the classroom of what it calls bias or, more grandly, ideology (Doughty, 2006a; Paul & Elder, 2006). The ideologies it wishes to purge, of course, are those that are skeptical of contemporary social relations including the relations among administrators, faculty and students in schools, colleges and universities. All reasonable and many unreasonable efforts are made to ensure that “personal” political opinions are parked at the classroom door and that what happens in classes and, even more thoroughly, in online, blended, flipped or other educational scenarios is defined by rigorous standards of objectivity. Objective reality, of course, is defined by whichever authorities happen to be deciding curriculum at the time. This tactic is bound not only to reinforce the status quo, but to do so ever more effectively by donning the mantle of the unprejudiced pursuit of truth. The context for education, however, gives the presumption of methodological innocence. Ever since Weber rather hypocritically set the standard for “value-free” social science (Behnegar, 2003, pp. 65-137), we have endured an epistemological straightjacket that has not only misrepresented our vocation as intellectuals (Chomsky, 1967), but has profoundly misdirected our work as educators. One of the most injurious consequences of the myth of methodological neutrality is the notion that not only science, but also technology is properly to be regarded as value-free.

The Fallacy of Value-Free Technology

Motion picture actor and gun enthusiast Charlton Heston may not have actually uttered the words himself, but he famously endorsed the slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” on behalf of the National Rifle Association and a popular but mistaken reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Henigan, 2016). Like Weber’s often inconsistent attempt to represent social science as ideologically naïve (Weber, 1949), the prevailing belief among technological elites and the general public is that tools are neither moral nor immoral. It all depends, we are told, on the intentions and consequences of their use.

226 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

So, a rifle might be used for “good” by an Indigenous hunter seeking to provide food for his family, whereas it might be used for “evil” by an assassin seeking to eliminate a popular president: same gun and same bullets, but different moral judgments. A satisfying retort was once given by Abraham Maslow (1966), an industrial psychologist-turned-humanistic guru who observed that, “if the only tool you have is a hammer,” it is tempting “to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Somewhat more forcefully, it can be said that a hammer has values built into its design and manufacture: it embeds a value; its task is to hit things. So, we can debate the ethics of hitting one thing versus another, but it is disingenuous to claim that the hammer is innocent; hitting is what it is for. Likewise, cooking utensils, ball gowns, paint brushes, whips, padlocks, lottery tickets, napalm and computers are created for a purpose. So also, computer networks for use in online learning are designed not only to educate, but to teach certain things to certain people in certain ways and to produce certain results which are not the same as parallel processes in face-to-face meetings in “real time.” What remains is to apply the concepts of communication and control and of knowledge and human interests to actual situations and circumstances. One way to do this would be to work within the accepted paradigm for organizational analysis and to determine whether distance education is empirically superior or inferior to other educational methods. Although the data are sparse, it is possible to subject whatever information is available to public scrutiny and to investigate the relative success for failure of non-traditional modes of learning in the form of a series of “cost-benefit analyses.” Among the obvious variables would be student attrition rates and examination scores, financial expenditures and savings on administrative costs, faculty salaries and productivity (e.g. number of grades awarded per hour of work), and employment and starting salaries for graduates. We could even measure subjective student and teacher satisfaction when working within each mode. Such key performance indicators would certainly facilitate a businesslike assessment of the relative merits of one approach over the other. There is, however, something missing―ethically speaking. Ironically, one of the most compelling pieces of writing on the topic comes from the apparent fountainhead of the fact/value dichotomy, Max Weber. Although a primal advocate for the social sciences adopting the scientific method, the forecast that he delivered over a century ago for what we now call “late capitalism” (and all the rationality and technology appertaining thereto) was incredibly stark. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber pretty much summed up the next century: “The modern economic order [and its accompanying technology] would,” he declared, “determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism” (Weber, 1958, p. 181). The moral passion that informs his “value- free” assessment is unmistakeable.

227 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

Throughout, it is technology that is driving the change in our social context and sets the frame for whatever ethical discourse we can muster. Perhaps the foremost philosopher of technology in the twentieth century was Martin Heidegger (1974), who critically put the matter at the center of his later philosophy. From a contemporary perspective, however, social theorist Arthur Kroker chooses to dissent. “Heidegger was wrong,” he said.

Technology is not something restless, dynamic and ever expanding, but just the opposite. The will to technology equals the will to virtuality. And the will to virtuality is about the recline of western civilization: a great shutting down of experience, with a veneer if technological dynamism over an inner reality of inertia, exhaustion and disappearances. (Kroker, 1993, p. 7).

Technology as Simulacra

Customer satisfaction questionnaires, attrition rates, standardized assessments of student achievement and budget sheets can tell us much about what happens in education, but it cannot measure the qualitative difference and the categorical distinctions between derivative education and critical education. It has no language to deal with the difference in the educational experience of students in a tutorial, a seminar and even the much-criticized lecture versus the isolated experience of students in online or other distance education courses responding to invitations to chat rooms and discussion groups, filling out multiple-choice and short-answer tests, and awaiting an email response from an instructor or a trained technician. Machinery cannot be imaginative. It can, we are assured, be creative by linking data in different ways, but always according to a programmed template. The “experience” of a mechanized teacher cannot be other than a simulacrum of a teacher-student exchange. A machine or any other manufactured contrivance can function very well as a prosthesis. Were I to remove my glasses, I would no longer be able to see the pixels pop up on my screen. But the glasses are not my eyes. At most, as Marshall McLuhan (1964) announced to great fanfare over half a century ago, communications media are “extensions of man.” They allow us to see farther into deep space and deeper into subatomic particle collisions. They allow us to calculate faster, to retrieve data quicker and to measure sound waves more exactly than we can with our neurosystems. But the result is the intellectual equivalent of a speed-up on a factory production line; what comes out at the end is the same. The context conundrum is even more daunting than it appears. Arthur Kroker and Marilouise Kroker have provided a shattering glimpse into what happens when machinery substitutes for flesh and spilled blood. They offered a poignant juxtaposition

228 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning of events that are barely coincidental as data, but deeply entwined in the story of our turn-of-the-millennium social context by linking the launch of Windows 95 to the fall of Srebrenica. The casualties of war were the “final settlement of human flesh in the last days of the twentieth century: the bitter division of the world into virtual flesh and surplus flesh” (Kroker & Kroker, 1996, p. 36).

Technology, Education, and Democracy

In the 1960s, Grant (1966) spoke to the “moral responsibility of the citizen” and the necessity to take into account the kind of country in which one lives. He was not optimistic. “The United States,” he said, “is a world empire, the largest to date,” and “democratic citizenship is not a notion that is compatible with technological empires.” He also expressed concern about “the role that the universities play in the imperial technological system.” He affirmed that “justice is good and that injustice is evil, and that it is required of human beings to know the difference between the two.” He unconditionally praised the nobility of people who protested against poverty, racism and war. Nonetheless, he cautioned that “moral fervor is too precious a commodity not to be put in the service of reality … In this ferocious era,” he concluded, “our first obligation is to be free, and by free I mean knowing the truth about what is …” (Grant, 1966, pp. 125-127). As most things do in retrospect, the world of 1965 looks relatively benign. It was certainly less complicated and it was especially different in terms of education. Higher education was just transitioning from an “elite” privilege to a splendid democratic experiment in “mass” democracy, but it has not yet embraced “universal” access to postsecondary learning. Moreover, the current fixation on education as a monetized investment in which the cost of tuition and books is balanced against projected future earnings to calculate the value of higher learning. The main focus on each campus was not to provide a positive experience for its students, or who some may now consider customers. Some sense of the primacy of scholarship and the values of an intellectual meritocracy were in evidence in undergraduate programs. No one (or no one openly) demanded that higher learning be run like a business. Some feel this has changed in the past fifty years (Noble, 1999). The degradation of education may not be measureable in terms of the undermining of on-campus, face-to-face, bricks-and-mortar academic life. There is, however, enough prima facie evidence to suggest that there has been a calculated and fully scripted, professionally orchestrated and brilliantly choreographed attempt to fit colleges and universities into the ideological framework of the dominant ideology of neoliberalism. The relentless support of distance education, experiential learning and non-traditional work roles are important factors in the development of the twenty-first century postsecondary

229 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning business model. They connect the means of production and reproduction of knowledge with the social relations of the increasingly fragmented academic community to reveal a nefarious pattern making today’s higher education more similar to business than not. The political economy of late capitalism, the ideology of neoliberalism, the revised social function of higher education, the corporate culture on campus, and the immense investment in computer hardware and software, technologized classrooms, the initial popularity of mass open online courses, the enthusiasm for distance education, the radical reorganization of academic labor and the transfer and concentration of curricular, pedagogical and internal academic decision-making authority in the ballooning and increasingly authoritarian managerial structures of higher education could all be said to be examples of Bateson’s Russian dolls. Debating policies and procedures on a case-by-case basis ignores the structural transformation of campus life. The ecology of education and the permeation of learning with machines, instrumental technique, a studied indifference to traditional academic values and general malaise in too many parts of the system of higher education call out for a reassessment of the influences and interests that shape higher education and provide the boundaries and limits of the means and methods that define the modes of production and reproduction of practical and critical knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Returning to Bateson, we find an escalation of Learning 1 most eloquently rendered in the enthusiasm for quantification, accountability and centralized management―all in accordance with such methods as the ever-changing, but always the same taxonomy originally marketed by Benjamin Bloom (Bloom, 1956; Doughty, 2006b). Missing is any kind of serious attempt to address the issues Bateson raised or the principles of learning for survival in an ethically stultified world. What might recently have been called a paradigm shift, but is now more like an almost metaphysical shake- up is in order. Rehearsing Habermas, we find a singular lack of interest in the kind of critical theory that would allow for insight into the foundational purposes and priorities in our educational facilities as they purport to prepare people to engage the world in a transformative manner and thus to redeem what we can. Instead, we have allowed and even encouraged the much-discussed simplification of higher learning, but have not been willing to take the discussion out of the corporate frame. So, we indulge in what I have called the pedagogy of the Rubik’s cube; that is, the redefinition of “problem solving” from an attempt to resolve seemingly intractable and potentially

230 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning catastrophic hazards by seeing them in their historical, political, economic and cultural context rather than being presented with tasks which require little or no thought at all, and in which the only real test is how quickly we can reach a predetermined end. We give extensive attention to “thinking outside the box.” It seems we should instead be devoting our energies toward an understanding of the box, attending to its contents, rethinking its location on the shelf and wondering whether there is even a need for a box in the first place. One of Henry A. Giroux’s frequently used comments concerns the educational project. Education, he tells his audiences, is both an ethical and a political project (Giroux, 2014, 2017). It is ethical in that it tries to assist students to distinguish what it right from what is wrong. It is political in that it tries to assist students in determining how best to enhance what is good and to inhibit what is evil. Promoting such a project may be the only ethical thing left to do.

REFERENCES

Bale, L. (1995). Gregory Bateson, cybernetics, and the social/behavioral sciences. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 3(1), 27–45. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York, NY: Dutton. Behneger, N. (2003). Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the scientific study of politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. Bredo, E. (1989). Bateson’s hierarchical theory of learning and communication. Educational Theory, 39(1), 27–38. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1989.00027.x Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York, NY: Vintage. Chomsky, N. (1967). A special supplement: The responsibility of intellectuals. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/ articles/1967/02/23/a-special- supplement-the-responsibility-of-intelle/ Doughty, H. A. (2006a). The limits of critical thinking. The Innovation Journal, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.innovation.cc/book-reviews/doughty11essay.pdf Doughty, H. A. (2006b). Blooming idiots: Educational objective, learning taxonomies and the pedagogy of Benjamin Bloom. The College Quarterly, 9(4). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2006-vol09-num04-fall/doughty.html

231 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

Dreyfus, H. L. (1967). Why computers must have bodies in order to be intelligent. The Review of Metaphysics, 21(1), 16–32. Dudley, A., Braman, J., & Vincenti, G. (2011). Investigating cyber law and cyber ethics: Issues, impacts and practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York, NY: Knopf. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: Wiley. Giroux, H. A. (2014). The violence of organized forgetting: Thinking beyond America’s disimagination machine. San Francisco: City Lights. Giroux, H. A. (2017). The public in peril: Trump and the menace of American authoritarianism. New York, NY: Routledge. Grant, G. (1966). Protest and technology. In C. Hanly (Ed.), Revolution and response: Selections from the Toronto International Teach- (p. 126). Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Gunnell, J. G. (2013). The reconstitution of political theory: David Easton, behavioralism, and the long road to system. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49(2), 190–210. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21593 PMID:23423865 Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system. Boston: Beacon. Heidegger, M. (1974). The question concerning technology. New York: Harper & Row. Henigan, D. A. (2016). “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and other myths about guns, and gun control. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2008). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. London, UK: Bodley Head. Kariel, H. S. (1968). Open systems: Arenas for political action. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Kariel, H. S. (1972). Saving appearances: The re-establishment of political science. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

232 Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Enhanced Learning

Kroker, A. (1993). Spasm: Virtual reality, android music and electric flesh. Victoria, Canada: New World Perspectives/CTheory. Kroker A. & Kroker, M. (1996). Hacking the future: Stories for the flesh-eating 90s. Victoria, Canada: New World Perspectives/CTheory. Kunstler, J. H. (2005). The long emergency: Surviving the converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Grove/Atlantic. Markoff, J. (2011, February 16). Computer wins on ‘Jeopardy!’: Trivial, it’s not. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy- watson.html?pagewanted=all Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York, NY: Harper & Row. McLuhan, H. M. (1964). Understanding media: Extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Noble, D. (1999). Digital diploma mills. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674863507 Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking. Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London, UK: Routledge. (Original publication 1942) Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 236(236), 433–460. doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 Weber, M. (1949). Max Weber and the methodology of social sciences (E. Shils & H. Finch, Eds.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original publication 1904)

233 234

Chapter 11 Digital Privacy Across Borders: Canadian and American Perspectives

Lorayne P. Robertson University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

Heather Leatham University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

James Robertson University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

Bill Muirhead University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

ABSTRACT This chapter examines digital privacy and key terminology associated with the protection of online personal information across two countries and through an education lens. The authors raise awareness of the identified risks for students as their online presence grows. The authors highlight some of the potential consequences of a lack of awareness of the risks associated with sharing information online. They outline the obligations of multiple parties (from the vendor to the end user) when students use online apps, including the teachers and parents who want to protect students’ digital privacy. Employing policy analysis and a comparative approach, they examine federal, national, and local legislation, as well as curriculum responses to this issue in the USA and Canada. When the authors compare federal policy responses from these two countries, they find that they differ in instructive ways. The chapter concludes with a focus on risk abatement, including solutions and recommendations.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch011

INTRODUCTION

Privacy is important to many people who want to guard their personal information closely, but the ease of access to online tools that require a user’s personal information makes it increasingly difficult to be a private person in the 21st century. Most people would say that they want the right to protect their privacy, meaning that they want to have the right to control whether or not other people have access to information about their lives. Personal privacy, where people can feel certain that they are not being observed or disturbed by other people, is no longer a given in the digital age. Wherever there are people, there may be video surveillance recording their activities, a global positioning system (GPS) capturing their locations, and devices tracking their conversations through email and phones (Goodman, 2015). Many new device applications carry with them digital aspects that erode both solitude and privacy. Some examples include vehicles and devices that have GPS trackers, wearable technology that tracks fitness data and activities, and the Internet of Things (IoT), including home appliances, which track and exchange personal data regarding the lives we live. While people are on mobile devices constantly communicating with each other, online services are tracking user activities and may be co-mingling data for purposes of behavioural advertising (Stoddart, 2011). Most technology users know they need to offer some information in order to communicate, but they may not understand how the vendors could be compromising their privacy. In other words, there are “costs” to being connected, and one of them is privacy. This chapter focuses specifically on the right to privacy and the protection of privacy for children and adolescents. When it comes to youth, the protection of personal information assumes a higher importance because there are greater risks to their safety and security and they cannot give informed consent because of their age (Berson & Berson, 2006). The authors review current information regarding the sharing of students’ personal information online and find that both individuals and organizations may be unknowingly complicit in providing third party access to student information. Conversely, both individuals and organizations can take steps to increase student privacy. The authors identify new tools as well as the awareness needed to make informed judgments regarding how to participate safely in an interconnected, online world. This chapter also examines policy responses designed to control access to the personal information of vulnerable populations, comparing some of the American policy responses with those originating in Canada. The chapter concludes with some recommendations for risk abatement for both individuals and organizations interested in protecting students’ digital privacy.

BACKGROUND

In earlier times, teachers and parents cautioned children not to share personal information with a stranger or any person they had just met (usually in person and in real time). There was an expectation that information (about children’s lives and their activities) was disclosed only to those with close ties to them, such as their families or caregivers, and only in supervised settings. Names, addresses, and pictures that might identify a child, known as personally identifiable information or PII, were captured on paper files in the school office or the doctor’s office and often there were no mechanisms to connect these discrete paper files from one organization to the next. Use of technology in that era was also simpler; there were expectations that children used technology only under adult supervision, for example using a telephone that was centrally located in the home. In other words, personal information about students was more protected, both through adult supervision and a lack of access. The safeguarding of privacy was also simpler in previous times such as when privacy and security were managed by curtains in houses and locks on doors and fences. In the present era, however, it is becoming much more difficult to protect personal information because the lock it to maintain security metaphor has been challenged in multiple overt and subtle ways. The likelihood of losing control of access to anyone’s PII on the internet has expanded exponentially, and this has significantly increased the level of potential risk to children and adolescents (Berson & Berson, 2006; O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). In addition, the North American expectation of privacy has changed in significant ways; people have become more accustomed to others knowing about their day-to-day activities. Some of the reasons for this can be linked to new technologies, new behaviours, and consumerism. While it is a given that people in general are sharing more about themselves online, these new online activities have implications for children’s digital privacy. Steinberg (2016) points out that these new personal and social habits shape children’s online identities “long before these young people open their first email” (p.839). She explains that sharenting, which is a term that describes how parents share the details about the lives of their children online, has had little attention in legal analysis, and the rights of children and parents may be at odds. Well-intentioned parents may be posting without thinking about how these postings might affect their children later in life due to the reach and longevity of the Internet (Steinberg, 2016). Studies in the US indicate that parents manage Facebook privacy settings by restricting postings of their children’s images and birthdays to their friends setting, but the average number of reported friends is 150 people, which means that parents

236 Digital Privacy Across Borders are sharing information to relatively large groups even if their Facebook privacy setting is not public (Minkus, Liu & Ross, 2015). According to Steinberg, however, while parents guard children’s privacy by controlling the publication of children’s images by outside organizations, parents’ decisions around posting online are also a source of potential harm that has not been addressed. Children have no option to control the initiation of a digital footprint that may not be erasable (Steinberg, 2016). Privacy is about access and control over who has access to someone else’s personal information. Gülsoy (2015) describes digital privacy as “the right to privacy of users of digital media” (p.338). There is, however, much more to the definition of digital privacy when you unpack the privacy aspect. For example, there is an expectation of privacy unless a person has granted access to their information to another person or organization. Individuals want the right to decide if they will provide or withhold consent for access to this information and they may want to limit that access. For this reason, if a person or an organization is collecting information about people, they need to say how they plan to use the information (purpose) and how long they will keep the information (Stoddart, 2011). While it may have been easier to control access to information in pre-digital times, this does not tell the full story or explain the complexities associated with digital privacy in the present era. There are trade- offs, or paradoxes, apparent in the information-sharing systems of the digital era. Most of these trade-offs have to do with convenience. While it is considered good practice to take steps to control access to digital information using controls such as passwords, another common practice is for people to allow access to their personal information when they agree to the terms of use for free online applications. So there are very real contradictions between a user’s expressed desire to protect their personal information and their online practices. Other reality shifts have created new privacy imperatives. The protection of students’ private information in North America is a concern because students spend more of their personal time on social media and digital apps at a time when schools and classrooms are also moving toward online applications. A recent Canadian study finds that there has been a major shift in online activity for adolescents in the past decade, and online access among those surveyed was virtually universal at 99% (Steeves, 2014). These two categories of activity blur the lines between personal and educational spaces. Recent advances in cloud-based storage, internet connectivity, and the widespread availability of new applications for educational purposes complicate solutions for the protection of students’ private information. A recent news article from British Columbia, Canada highlights some of the issues that can emerge. According to Telford (2017), parents were asked to give permission for their pre-teens to use the Google Education App while in school, knowing that the information collected would include PII such as the student’s name, the school name, and the grade level of the student. The parents were informed that

237 Digital Privacy Across Borders the information would be stored in servers outside of Canada and would be subject to US law enforcement, including the USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. Congress, 2001). One parent expressed concerns about the use of online technology for students in schools and discussed how there were no alternatives for parents other than giving permission or declining to give permission for their son or daughter to participate in essential and valuable classroom activities (Telford, 2017). The reality is that adolescents in North America are online constantly, in and out of school, whether they’re accessing the internet from their phones for socializing purposes or searching for information online (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011; Steeves, 2014). Welcome to the complexity of online learning in education!

CONTEXT

Canadians and Americans are engaged on the Internet, and are possibly some of the most engaged globally (Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), 2017) with an internet penetration rate that varies at around 88% (internetlivestats.com). The mobile phone is the digital tool of choice for instant messaging (86%), gaming (80%), and social media (69%) which are the favoured online activities of younger Canadians (CIRA, 2017). Similarly, in the US, the number of pre-teens and teens online has experienced a dramatic increase, with one recent poll reporting that American students log into social media on average more than 10 times a day (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). This increase in time spent online has implications for digital privacy and the protection of students’ PII. According to the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner to Canada’s parliament, the majority of Canadians feel that they are losing control of their personal information due to their online activity (Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), 2017a). Therefore, whether students’ online participation occurs during school hours or outside of school hours, there are risks to their privacy (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011; Leatham & Robertson, 2017) in addition to the risks posed due to the archival nature of information posted on social media and in the data storage settings of any apps being used. The lack of policies for the protection of students’ digital privacy is an example of an innovation-policy gap, which has been defined by Davis (2014), in international terms, as the point at which the speed of progress of technology creates a gap between the innovators and policymakers. He finds that there is a critical need to build collaborative spaces in order to discuss questions of data ethics and protocols. However, digital privacy is bound to the architecture of its associated technology. In that sense, a policy might be outdated as soon as a new technology emerges. Another complication is due to the disappearance of borders; people who are online can cross multiple borders, leading to jurisdictional questions, and this makes policy

238 Digital Privacy Across Borders solutions more challenging (Davis, 2014). Another gap that has been identified in the search for solutions is the discrepancy between some parents’ online technical skills and knowledge when compared to the online knowledge and skills of their children (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). To summarize the context, the changing digital habits of North Americans, including youth, require new approaches to digital supervision (Berson & Berson, 2006; Madden et al., 2013; O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011; Palfrey, Gasser & Boyd, 2010; Steeves, 2014). The protection of students’ PII has implications for schools and school district policies and practices (Leatham & Robertson, 2017). In Canada, the official position is that the solutions to digital privacy issues need to combine both legislation (e.g., national and provincial) as well as education for the end users (OPC, 2017a). Legislative policies and education provided by parents or delivered through the curriculum should work together in their approaches, although this intention may not always succeed. For example, creating firewalls and filters at the school district level to prevent access to new educational apps could be counterproductive if the goal is to build empowered, critical, and digitally-literate 21st century learners (and not deter the early technology innovators). Due to two factors: the advent of educational apps, and the increased student online presence out-of- school, it is likely that policy updates at many levels will be required. This includes national policies to control how vendors can use personal information; provincial and state legislation to direct school and vendor operations in different regions; and local school district policies such as acceptable use policies (for example, contracts for students who bring their own devices (BYOD) to school) that parents and students need to sign to indicate awareness of school rules. In addition, students, teachers, and parents will need to become more aware of the responsibilities, affordances, and risks associated with digital participation. They will need both the tools and the awareness to make informed judgements about participation in an interconnected, online world.

Digital Privacy

Canada’s former privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has been credited with saying that, “Privacy begins with the individual” (Berkow, 2011). Little has been written, however, about how individuals learn that they have a right to privacy and the steps they can take to protect it. Research is not definitive regarding who has the major responsibility for teaching internet safety and supervising online participation for children at vulnerable ages. MediaSmarts, a Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to media literacy education, surveyed more than 5,000 Canadian students in grades 4 through 11, finding that many of the students (41%) report that they learn about privacy settings from their parents, while a smaller percentage (15%) report

239 Digital Privacy Across Borders that they learn about privacy settings from their teachers. In the MediaSmarts report, students state that their teachers are more likely to help them search for information online and deal with cyberbullying than teach them about digital privacy (Steeves, 2014). This is reflected in the results of a recent study from Ontario, Canada finding that teachers lack general knowledge about policies on the protection of student privacy (Leatham, 2017). In the US context, one American Academy of Pediatrics report on the impact of social media prescribes the roles of doctors, parents, and youth in the protection of PII but not the schools (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). These findings highlight the importance of educating everyone, not only the end users (the students), but also educating parents, caregivers, and teachers about the protection of student information and privacy, until students can make independent and informed decisions about their own privacy protection. This issue of “who is responsible” for supervising access to data used to be simpler. When PII was filed in different physical locations that were not connected to each other, the rules governing its collection and how long the information could be retained were addressed at the level of the organizations that collected the data. There are several changes which transpired with the advent of the internet: a) data are interconnected, searchable, and more easily accessible; b) with the more interactive nature of the web beginning with Web 2.0, children and adolescents are actively (and possibly unknowingly) contributing to the collections of online information; and c) the students’ level of awareness of digital privacy and risks is currently unknown. If the premise is that people have a right to privacy unless they have waived that right, then until students are old enough to give informed consent, their rights should be protected. Solutions to this issue, however, are not that easily determined. Due to their constant online presence, young people are unknowingly increasing their own risks. O’Keeffe and Clarke-Pearson (2011) report that adolescents essentially pose risks to themselves and to each other when they overshare information online or post incorrect information about themselves and others. Given that they lack awareness of privacy issues, they will post inappropriate material online about themselves and each other without understanding that what they have posted cannot be taken down. This has implications for their future job prospects, and future academic careers. Their lack of awareness may also make them a target for fraud, identity theft, or other serious criminal offences (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). This leads to the question of ‘consent’. Most users have seen at least one terms of use agreement - the kind that you click through in order to get to an online app. This issue of consent needs to be addressed presently for adults and youth alike because of the lack of transparency and the level of complication in these vendor consent agreements (OPC, 2017a). There are other factors complicating the matter: the seeming anonymity of the internet somehow encourages the public documentation of many aspects of children’s lives by their parents and caregivers

240 Digital Privacy Across Borders on sites such as Facebook and creates a “desensitization to the loss of control over their personal information” (Berson & Berson, 2006, p.137). A present reality is that future employers will be able to scan through decades of an applicant’s life by researching them online. The information found is generally based on what the applicant’s parents have contributed while documenting many personal aspects of their lives online, followed by the applicant’s own postings throughout their life. This open sharing needs to be balanced by a consideration that, where information is so readily available, it can be used for ulterior motives and commercial purposes (Goodman, 2015). According to Stoddart (2011), approximately half of Canadians are aware that their online activities are being tracked. Once Canadians are made aware of these practices, they find them to be intrusive (Stoddart, 2011). But, not every user is aware of the tracking of their information. Larger forces are at play to capture big data in surreptitious ways. The subsequent sale of their browsing histories to third parties is a practice known as behaviour tracking. According to Goodman, online apps that appear to be free are making a profit from selling the information that they collect (2015). Many people do not realize that the collection of personal information and the sale of that information to third parties - when users are unaware of this tracking - is a large criminal industry that affects one in five US and EU citizens through identity theft and the stealing of billions of dollars through medical and tax fraud (Goodman, 2015). Illegally collected personal information is a valuable asset to criminals committing fraud. A recent Equifax digital breach of security has identified the vulnerability of everyone’s digital footprint (Federal Trade Commission, 2017). The breach made available the personal information of millions of people globally. Scott (2013) finds that online behavioural advertising is a concern across borders, leaving the question open regarding which country will write the rules in an era when personal data crosses the globe in seconds. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in the US, companies who profile or track individuals to target them through advertising, using a practice called list brokerage, have developed criteria to cross-reference information to classify individuals into fifteen main categories (such as families who live in the country, working town people, etc.) and then subcategories. The list brokers link to individual identities through data such as date of birth, health information, telephone number, utilities usage, and memberships. They aggregate information also from online and offline purchases, loyalty cards, financial and property records, phone records, credit records, magazine subscriptions, and public records. This profiling of customers is called personalization. EPIC reports that these lists or profiles are quite affordable to advertisers with some companies charging sixty-five dollars for a thousand names (EPIC, n.d.).

241 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Indications are that young people do care about privacy and want to protect their information as reported by Steeves (2014) in Canada at MediaSmarts, and Palfrey et al. (2010) at Harvard Law School. Also in the US, Berson and Berson (2006) report that young people do not realize that their online contributions collectively create a digital dossier about themselves that consists of their preferences and their information. Added to that, children and adolescents often serve unwittingly as information brokers to provide data about their friends. Even adults do not realize that these digital dossiers are public domain documents that can be provided or sold to third parties without necessarily alerting the end users (Berson & Berson, 2006). Another important consideration is that data disclosed online are “often persistent, searchable, and hard to delete” a concept which has been called digital permanence (Palfrey et al. 2010, p. 11). When teens and pre-teens are learning self-regulation and decision-making, they are susceptible to peer pressure and advertising. As online users, they create a digital footprint on each site they visit, which is an online record of web activity including their personal information and preferences. This digital footprint can put children and adolescents at risk because it connects elements of the information that identify them or their PII. Youth users also need to understand that, even though they’re managing their privacy settings on Facebook, they have no control over how their friends manage their privacy settings; the implications of this can affect their life chances when something is shared inadvertently or without their permission (Marwick & Boyd, 2014). The extent to which North American youth are aware of the strategies used to gain information from them online and also their level of awareness that their online digital wanderings are being tracked and sold is not known. According to a Pew Internet survey (Madden et al., 2013) American teens are increasingly more likely to share information online and they are increasingly sharing information that identifies themselves. The median teen user of Facebook has 300 friends and 79 followers on Twitter. The Facebook profiles most often have private settings (60%) or partially private (friends of friends), while most teens have public Twitter accounts. Almost all (91%) post photos of themselves and 92% post their real name to the profile that they use the most often. Most of them (82%) post their birth date, and 71% post their school name and the city or town where they live. Some teens even enable the inclusion of their location information as they are posting (Madden et al., 2013). What is surprising and perhaps concerning is that, in Canadian studies, almost one in three students in Grades 4-6 (10-12 years old) have a Facebook account, despite the age 13 requirement set by Facebook for participation (Steeves, 2014). Early research findings indicate that educational interventions can help. A recent study in Singapore finds that students are generally unaware of their privacy risks, but those who are aware disclose less PII on Facebook (Liu, Ang & Lwin, 2013).

242 Digital Privacy Across Borders

However in North America, there is a dearth of information on student awareness of issues of digital privacy, and a lack of research on targeted interventions to empower students to protect their PII. Based on the recent calls to protect digital privacy and students’ PII, significant and compelling research questions emerge, including: What legislation exists in the US and Canada to guide the protection of privacy in general and specifically, the privacy of students as they venture out into digital territory? What policies, guidelines, and best practices exist in either country to guide the work of schools, parents, and teachers? What are the essential online safety skills that students and teachers need to acquire before they take a digital leap into places unknown, and how can they acquire these digital safety skills? What, if anything, can be learned by comparing the Canadian and American approaches to digital privacy? These are some of the topics addressed in the next section.

Risk Abatement Legislation

In this section, the authors compare the different legislative and policy approaches that have been taken in the US and in Canada with respect to the protection of students’ digital privacy. Policy analysis is an important research tool because it helps to frame studies about policy in instructive ways and allows for the identification of gaps. Fowler (2004) states that policy analysis (including monitoring and evaluation) is essential to the improvement of public education-related policy. Additionally, Ball (1994) argues that it is essential to consider not only the official texts of policies but also to examine the discourse of those who are creating and influencing policy. The authors examine some American and Canadian policy texts, which do not necessarily represent a definitive list, but an illustrative list, in order to compare the approaches taken in both countries. The US has laws that relate to the sharing of student PII in education. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 1998 (COPPA) (Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 1998) designates the age of 13 as the minimum age to have an online profile (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). While COPPA initially was seen to deter predatory online practices targeting young internet users, more recent research indicates that many underage users report that they are using social media sites. This has stirred debate regarding the efficacy of the age restriction policies (Boyd, Hargittai, Schultz & Palfrey, 2011). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no parallel national Canadian legislation designed specifically to protect children and adolescents with respect to online privacy using age restrictions. Another US example is the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (2000) which was created to prevent children from seeing harmful or obscene content

243 Digital Privacy Across Borders over the internet. As of July 2012, American schools who receive CIPA funding are required to educate minors about what is appropriate online behaviour and responses to cyberbullying, which includes information about interactions in social networking sites and in chat rooms (California Department of Education, 2017). The Department of Education (US) Office of Educational Technology, from which CIPA is administered, provides information on how to protect student privacy by offering both requirements and best practices (Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), 2014). A third US example is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974) which falls under the US Department of Education’s control and addresses students’ educational records. It was written pre-internet and includes the protection of parents’ information as well as students’ information. FERPA regulates the disclosure of student information for the purposes of large scale testing to improve instruction. The metadata from these tests can be used if the PII is stripped (PTAC, 2014). Also, on the US Department of Education website, information about the protection of student privacy is provided for specific users such as parents or educators on a site entitled, Protecting Student Privacy (US Department of Education, 2016). Added to the legislation regarding students’ PII, California was one of the first state legislatures to address the issue of list brokerage. It passed a bill that allows persons in California to ask businesses where they have sold their personal information for direct marketing purposes (EPIC, n.d.). In Canada, policies have been directed more broadly at, for example, industries and municipalities. The primary legislation protecting individuals’ privacy rights online is not a single policy, but different pieces of umbrella legislation. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (2016) establishes privacy law for private-sector organizations in Canada. Significantly, PIPEDA promotes eight key principles for fair information practices in Canada. According to the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI, 2013), these are:

• Notice: Users should be informed when information is collected, for what purpose, how long it will be used, and how it will be shared. • Choice: Users should have a choice about whether or not they share their information. • Access: Users should be able to check and confirm their information on request. • Security: The users’ information should be protected from unauthorized access. • Scope: Only the required information can be collected.

244 Digital Privacy Across Borders

• Purpose: The purpose for collecting the information should be disclosed. • Limitations: There should be a time limit on how long the information will be held. • Accountability: Organizations should ensure that their privacy policies are followed.

Education in Canada is under the purview of the individual provinces and territories as is the protection of privacy information. In Ontario, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) has been in effect since 1988 and was revised to include hospitals in 2012, but it does not govern schools. Schools fall under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) (1991) which applies to every municipality in Ontario, including district school boards. It provides the right of access to records and to a person’s own information. It also requires municipalities to protect personal information by specifying how information may be collected, used, retained, and disposed. MFIPPA has not been updated in the digital realm. The Canadian Privacy Commissioner has repeatedly stated that Canadian privacy laws are falling behind and need to catch up to U.S. and EU legislation (Stoddart, 2011). In a national report (OPC, 2017a), the privacy commissioner finds that, without improving how privacy is protected online, Canadians could have insufficient trust to enable the digital economy to grow. This could compromise the ability of Canadians to benefit from innovations. The solutions, in the view of the OPC, fall into two categories: 1) an increase in the accountability of organizations through policy compliance, and 2) a focus on educating the end users of technology. Some of these recommendations include:

• That organizations should be held accountable for more transparency in their privacy practices through legislation; • That there should be a shift in focus toward educating the individual user; • That guidelines on how to de-identify personal information in order to become more privacy-protective should be provided to end users; • That children should be taught about privacy at a young age; and • That privacy should be incorporated into the school curriculum (OPC, 2017a).

This national report on privacy raises attention about the need to consider multiple types of risk abatement for children, adolescents, and teachers who pursue online learning (OPC, 2017a). One of the means of risk abatement is through curriculum or curriculum policies. Another key means of addressing privacy issues is through broad educational approaches such as digital citizenship. These approaches are reviewed, in general terms, in the next section.

245 Digital Privacy Across Borders

EDUCATION AND EMPOWERMENT

Canadian Curriculum Approaches

In Canada, there have been calls recently for more targeted digital citizenship approaches. One submission to Digital Canada 150 calls for privacy education to be introduced into the secondary school curriculum in all provinces (Warfield, 2010) but this may be too late to address digital privacy in light of data showing that students are online and creating digital footprints at much earlier grades. While it might be assumed that digital citizenship and the protection of PII is a significant issue for all schools to address, a review of the approaches to digital citizenship across Canada reveals a broken curriculum policy context of approaches. According to Hoechsmann and DeWaard (2015), approaches to teaching digital citizenship in Canada vary. The BC curriculum has a framework for digital literacy that is used also by the Yukon. Alberta has a framework for student learning which includes the ethically-responsible use of technology. Saskatchewan uses the term digital fluency, not citizenship. Manitoba has a model for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) across the curriculum that includes ethical and responsible use. Quebec students are supposed to use ICT with critical judgement. The Maritime Provinces discuss technological literacy. The Northwest Territories and Nunavut promote the ethical use of ICT with a technology in education framework that does not mention digital citizenship (Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015). Outside of the curriculum, in 2012, the Alberta government published a Digital Citizenship Policy Development Guide for schools and administrators to help them understand digital citizenship and facilitate the development of local, school authority-based policies (Government of Alberta, 2012). In 2017, the Alberta Privacy Commissioner, in conjunction with the Alberta Teachers’ Association, hosted two seminars that included the topic of digital privacy in the classroom. Elsewhere, in New Brunswick, they started piloting a grade 11 program with CyberNB and Blue Spurs where students use a kit from Blue Spurs which contains eight lessons (including the Internet of Things (IoT) and cyber security) (Burgos, 2017). The largest Canadian province, Ontario, has a scattered approach across curriculum policies where one curriculum mentions cyberbullying and another defines digital privacy but overall the curriculum policies are silent on digital citizenship. Instead, what is promoted within Ontario are digital citizenship modules on the Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee (OSAPAC, 2015) website for both elementary and secondary schools. Its School Leader Learning Series helps school administrators engage in discussions about the role of digital learning in the classroom. The Ontario Privacy Commissioner (2011) has published three specific

246 Digital Privacy Across Borders guides for education: for Grades 5, 10, and 11/12 entitled What Students need to Know on the topic of privacy and the internet (OPC, 2011). The federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Canada provides web links that can be used by teachers of specific grades (without ties to any specific curriculum), which their office promotes as resources for privacy education. These link to the individual provincial privacy commissioners’ sites, which may or may not be education-specific. The most well-known national digital citizenship resource is from MediaSmarts, which has guides for teachers, parents, and school resource officers to help students navigate the online world safely. Their digital literacy framework is called Use, Understand and Create (MediaSmarts, 2016). In 2017, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) created a privacy booklet, called the Peer Privacy Protectors Guidebook, in conjunction with a national student advisory panel, which made the topic of privacy understandable to teenagers. For example, they reworded the Instagram privacy policy to make it comprehensible (CCLA, 2017).

American Curriculum Approaches

The American approach to digital citizenship in curriculum is equally multi-faceted. Gardner (2013) is not alone in calling for a national curriculum on digital citizenship. A recent survey of 500 educational professionals across multiple jurisdictions in the US estimated that approximately half of the teachers and administrators in their districts were aware of, and teaching about digital citizenship, but that some teachers have yet to accept technology which is holding back the development of digital citizenship curriculum (Hollandsworth, Dowdy & Donovan, 2011). Because many schools have not fully embraced technology, approaches range from no supervision of students’ online participation, to very strict firewalls and not allowing students to use their mobile devices in school. Instead, the approach needs to be a combination of policy supports and strategies to engage communities in supporting students and empowering students to make good choices about digital citizenship. Hollandsworth et al., advocate that everyone needs to be on board to bring digital citizenship standards into the US curriculum policies. They recommend more teacher awareness of online affordances and risks, and a concerted effort to provide a coherent digital citizenship curriculum, starting in the early years. They raise the concern that, without a national set of standards for digital citizenship, private providers of curriculum may attempt to meet the gap in curriculum policies (Hollandsworth et al., 2011). Also within the US, companies such as Common Sense Education have created their own digital citizenship curriculum. This stand-alone curriculum is mapped to the American English Language Arts Common Core Standards, American Association of School Librarians (AASL), and the International Society for Technology in

247 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Education (ISTE) standards (Common Sense Education, 2017). In 2017, Google joined the digital citizenship advocacy in creating a game-based learning platform called Be Internet Awesome to complement their teacher curriculum. Educators complete a five-unit interactive program in order to be able to download a Digital Citizenship and Safety curriculum to use in classrooms (Hadid, 2017). According to Davis and James (2013), multiple educational curricula were developed in the US to promote responsible, safe, and ethical online behaviours. Examples include commercial products such as the i-SAFE’s Internet Safety and public programs such as Web Wise Kids (http://www.webwisekids.org/). They also report that, in some jurisdictions, the use of these types of curriculum supports are mandated as components of educational programs. In order to qualify for educational technology funds from the federal government, schools must take steps to educate children about appropriate online behaviour (Davis & James, 2013). According to Willard (2012) the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act added a provision to CIPA that schools should educate minors about how to interact with others on social media. The concern with some of the commercially-available programs, however, was that they might promote fear without providing age-appropriate information (Willard, 2012). California, a state which appears at the forefront of digital citizenship and student online protection, participated in a Digital Citizenship Week per the recommendation of the California Education Technology Blueprint (2014-2017) entitled: Empowering Learning (California Department of Education, 2017). The second recommendation states that the Department of Education needs to “ensure student safety by outlining policies and best practices to prevent cyberbullying and protect student data” (p.12). They promote the use of the aforementioned curriculum as a means of satisfying CIPA as well as the Blueprint recommendations. In general, the American approach appears to be multi-pronged on many fronts. This is supported by Hollandsworth et al. (2011) who argue that digital citizenship will need to be taught through multiple means and through multiple years of schooling in order to tackle the challenges and reap the rewards of online learning.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While a review of approaches across every state and province is outside the purview of this chapter, there are some conclusions that can be drawn from this broad policy analysis. In both Canada and the US, there is overarching legislation aimed at protecting students’ digital privacy. The legislation in the US is more targeted and has recently been updated to reflect the protection of youth’s digital privacy. In Canada, the federal legislation that regulates industries (PIPEDA) has recently

248 Digital Privacy Across Borders been updated but there is no similar national initiative for schools. Additionally, the federal privacy commissioner provides support for educating children and adolescents with respect to good privacy practices (OPC, 2017b). With respect to curriculum development, while individual state or provincial educational departments do make mention of digital citizenship, there appears to be a lack of a cohesive, coherent, and common national strategy for teaching students about the benefits and consequences of online participation. The reason for this may be the recent emergence of international guidelines for educators and students. These guidelines focus on overarching principles, and the guidelines themselves are designed to cross borders.

Personal Data Protection: Some Guidelines for Schools

In 2016, an international conference for the Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners created a set of guidelines for students in schools, the Personal Data Protection Competency Framework for School Students. They did not present this as a policy but as a competency framework intended to help educators teach about digital privacy (International Working Group on Digital Education (IWG), 2016). They created this framework with the understanding that the focus is to teach students to be “responsible, ethical and civic minded” in the digital age (IWG, p.3). The framework is legislation agnostic in the sense that it is designed to work with the laws for data protection in each country. The framework has nine guiding principles and each is described with its own list of knowledge and skills. The goal is to create a common base of knowledge and skills on digital privacy in education and disseminate this information in order to protect personal privacy and personal information in education. The first principle is personal data. Students should understand that personal data is any data that identifies an individual. Students should learn how to discern which information is particularly sensitive, something which can vary from country to country. They also need to know how their online presence can be traced back using technical data and metadata. The second principle is the understanding that privacy is a human right that should be protected, and how their actions can affect their own privacy and the privacy of others. The third principle is an understanding of the digital environment’s technical aspects and how digital space is structured. This includes an understanding of the risks associated with the digital space and what is meant by digital security. Students should also learn how to ensure the security of their digital environment. The fourth principle is to learn about the key players in the digital environment, and how systems are used for commercial purposes to offer free services to establish personal user profiles. Student users need to know what data

249 Digital Privacy Across Borders are collected and stored while online. The fifth principle is the understanding that there are some key rules which are important for data protection, such as people’s rights to be informed about who is collecting their personal information, for what purpose, and how long data will be stored. End users also need to know how to work with data protection authorities (IWG, 2016). The sixth principle is one that deals with many of the issues that have been raised in this chapter. Under this principle, students should be taught that it is necessary to control the use of personal information. Students should learn how to investigate the nature of the space where they are sharing information and monitor the content and information about them that exists online. Also, students should be taught to participate online in ways that respect other people, including not sharing others’ information without their consent. The seventh principle is about encouraging students to seek the consent of parents to access online services and to monitor the information about them located online. The eighth principle focuses on students’ rights to use technology to protect and secure their data. Examples include managing their settings and refusing geolocation, for example. The final (ninth) principle is one of digital citizenship which includes learning to assess the reliability and credibility of information, and identifying inappropriate or illegal content (IWG, 2016). This international framework addresses both issues of education and empowerment for youth. It takes into consideration research that youth do care about their privacy (e.g., Palfrey et al., 2010) and that they need to work together with concerned adults such as their parents and teachers to build their skills in a digital era. In a similar vein, privacy regulators have also established a Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) comprised of 60 privacy regulators in 39 jurisdictions. They, too, have identified that participation in school on certain types of software, digital learning resources and teaching platforms that are internet-based may be putting students at risk. They caution that educators should minimize the identifiability of students who are participating online, be aware of the terms of service, and seek parental permission (GPEN, 2017).

Cyber Hygiene: Some General Guidelines for Parents

The problems with accidentally or intentionally sharing PII, media, and information online have been reviewed earlier in this chapter. Because PII can be shared accidentally or intentionally, there are some key messages and strategies that should be communicated to the students, parents, and the teachers to help protect students’ PII and help them to be safer online. Parents are key. They have the most opportunity to protect, influence, and educate children. They are also role models, so it is important for them to model the same

250 Digital Privacy Across Borders type of online behaviour and decision-making they want from their children. Parents need to be aware of their own digital footprints, including the level to which their digital footprints can affect their children’s digital footprints. Parents can help by being more aware of how much of their child’s information they are sharing on their own social media accounts and by setting boundaries to minimize risks for their children (Steinberg, 2016). To do this, they need to configure their privacy settings to ensure that strangers cannot see their children’s pictures. They need to advise their friends and family not to repost any images on their own (and possibly less secure) social media profiles. Parents should avoid posting or tagging images using their child’s name, birthday, and year of birth, or any other elements of PII. Parents can discern the level to which their online presence or that of their children is publicly available if they search for themselves or their children from a computer outside the home, or ask a friend or family member to investigate their online presence. There are paid services that will do this as well; many of those services will also offer to assist with deleting online data and PII. Software filtering is another option that allows parents to filter software by inclusion, by exclusion, or by content analysis. Websites can be filtered as well for which lists are allowed and which are restricted. These technical controls can be implemented but should not be used in isolation. Education, dialogue, and awareness, combined with these technical tools, are more likely to be effective (Palfrey et al., 2010). It is important for parents to tell children that the controls are for their safety and not because they are not trusted. More parent education and dialogue should occur around family, child, and parent social media accounts and by helping to increase parental understandings surrounding the age restrictions designed to protect children. There is still debate over the appropriate age to possess social media accounts and share online. Given the role that parents have as child protectors, much more discussion and awareness needs to happen so that parents manage online access for these vulnerable populations. The answer is not always to restrict access, however, as there are other possibilities. One alternative to restriction is activism. The Government of Canada encourages parents to talk with their children about the risks of being online, sharing PII, and being critical of the information found online (Government of Canada, 2017). Perhaps even more importantly, children and adolescents need to be aware about privacy and the Internet. Parents should discuss the importance and function of privacy settings, location services, password sharing, online predators, online scams, liking, and friending. It is important for parents to talk with young people about being critical consumers of their media. In general, education is better than blocking access, so that children are able to understand the issues, risk, and the importance of protecting

251 Digital Privacy Across Borders their privacy. Parents can support this process by keeping the dialogue open with their children and encouraging them to ask questions and report content they have seen that might be offensive or hurtful. One of the dialogues that can be opened between parents and children is to encourage them to come to adults with questions or for permission to download an app. When children show parents an app that they would like to use, parents and children can then read the privacy agreement together. This will help everyone understand how the app will be using their personal information or sharing it with outside parties. It is important for parents to check for statements in the privacy policy that discuss sharing data with outside parties when they close the account or delete the app. Parents (or any end users) should look for any information about whether or not their data can be sold and whether the new owner of the information has to comply with the privacy agreement. Also, parents should be aware that there are privacy settings for both the app and for the mobile device itself. Most smartphones allow the user to modify the privileges of the apps on their phone. End users need to confirm and check these privacy and app privilege settings regularly.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The intent of this chapter was not to provide a definitive or exhaustive list of the issues of digital privacy or the ways that digital privacy for students can be protected. The intent of the chapter was to raise awareness of the issues of digital privacy and review some of the helpful policies and practices that can help to protect students’ privacy. The review of policies from different jurisdictions reveals a multiplicity of approaches to inform new policy development. More awareness surrounding how children and adolescents may be at risk and how the adults in their lives can become better informed about practices to protect them when they are online is needed. An example of one of these protective practices includes careful attention to the terms of use agreements associated with online applications. In general, there are multiple ways to minimize the identifiability of students and the collection of their PII in online applications in schools, such as the creation of pseudonyms through teacher-managed lists. Parents need to be able to provide informed consent that includes an awareness of the risks and rewards associated with online participation in learning. What has emerged from many sources is the need to provide timely advice to students based on their internet usage, to empower them to take control of access to their information, and to teach them how to protect their own information and the information of others.

252 Digital Privacy Across Borders

REFERENCES

Ball, S. (1994). What is Policy? Text, trajectories and toolboxes. In S. Ball (Ed.), Education Reform (pp. 14–27). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Berkow, J. (2011). Canadians careless with private data, privacy watchdog warns. Financial Post. Retrieved from http://business.financialpost.com/ technology/canadians-not-cautious-enough-with-digital-communications-privacy- commissioner-says Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2006). Children and their digital dossiers: Lessons in privacy rights in the digital age. The International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 135–147. Boyd, d., Hargittai, E., Schultz, J., & Palfrey, J. (2011). Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’. First Monday, 16(11). Retrieved from http://journals. uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3850/3075 Burgos, M. (2017). ‘Cutting-edge technology’ to be implemented in school curriculums. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.cbc. ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cybersecurity-blue-kit-1.4201962 California Department of Education, Educational Technology Initiative. (2014). Empowering learning. A blueprint for California Education technology 2014–2017. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/yr14bp0418.pdf California Department of Education. (2017). Digital citizenship week. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/et/dc/dcwk2017.asp Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). (2017). Peer privacy protectors guidebook. Retrieved from https://ccla.org/peer-privacy-protectors-guidebook/ Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). (2017). Retrieved from https://cira. ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/internet-use-canada Centre for International Governance (CIGI). (2013). Big data, big responsibilities: Recommendations to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on Canadian privacy rights in a digital age. Retrieved from https://www.cigionline.org/publications/big- data-big-responsibilities-recommendations-office-privacy-commissioner-canadian Common Sense Education. (2017). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from https://www. commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship

253 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Davis, K. (2014). Bridging the innovation-policy gap. SAIS Review (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies), 34(1), 87–92. Davis, K., & James, C. (2013). Tweens’ conceptions of privacy online: Implications for educators. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 4–25. doi:10.1080/17439 884.2012.658404 Electronic Profiling Information Center (EPIC). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://epic. org/privacy/profiling/ Federal Communications Commission. (2000). Children’s Internet Protection Act. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection- act Federal Trade Commission. (1998). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking- regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule Federal Trade Commission. (2015). Complying with COPPA: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions Federal Trade Commission. (2017). The Equifax data breach: What to do. Retrieved from https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-do FERPA. (1974). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-380, title V,Sec 513, Aug. 21, 1974,88 Stat. 571. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html Fowler, F. (2004). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders: An Introduction. Pearson. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). (1990). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31 Gardner, J. (2013). Why America’s kids need a national Digital Citizenship curriculum. Venture Beat. Retrieved from https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/08/why-americas- kids-need-a-national-digital-citizenship-curriculum/ Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN). (2017). GPEN Sweep 2017: User controls over personal information. Retrieved from https://www.privacyenforcement. net/sites/default/files/2017%20GPEN%20Sweep%20-%20International%20Report. pdf

254 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable and what we can do about it. Anchor. Government of Alberta. (2012). Digital Citizenship Policy Development Guide. Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460103517 Government of Canada. (2017). Children online: Keeping your child safe online. Retrieved from https://www.getcybersafe.gc.ca/cnt/prtct-yrslf/prtctn-fml/chld-sf- en.aspx Gülsoy, T. Y. (2015). Advertising ethics in the social media age. In Handbook of Research on Effective Advertising Strategies in the Social Media Age (pp. 321–338). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8125-5.ch018 Hadid, G. (2017). Bringing digital citizenship into the school curriculum [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.blog.google/topics/education/bringing-digital- citizenship-school-curriculum/ Hoechsmann, M., & DeWaard, H. (2015). Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the Canadian education landscape: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from http:// mediasmarts.ca/teacher-resources/digital-literacy-framework/mapping-digital- literacy-policy-practice-canadian-education-landscape Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47. doi:10.100711528-011-0510-z International Working Group on Digital Education (IWG). (2016). Personal data protection competency framework for school students. International Conference of Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners. Retrieved from https://icdppc.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/02/International-Competency-Framework-for-school- students-on-data-protection-and-privacy.pdf Internetlivestats.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/ internet-users/canada/ Leatham, H. (2017). Digital privacy in the classroom: An analysis of the intent and realization of Ontario policy in context (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https:// ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/xmlui/handle/10155/816 Leatham, H., & Robertson, L. (2017). Student digital privacy in classrooms: Teachers in the cross-currents of technology imperatives. International Journal for Digital Society, 8(3). Retrieved from http://infonomics-society.org/ijds/

255 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Liu, C., Ang, R. P., & Lwin, M. O. (2013). Cognitive, personality, and social factors associated with adolescents’ online personal information disclosure. Journal of Adolescence, 36(4), 629–638. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.016 PMID:23849657 Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, 21, 2-86. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. doi:10.1177/1461444814543995 MediaSmarts. (2016). Use, Understand & create: A digital literacy framework for Canadian schools. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/ pdfs/digital-literacy-framework.pdf Minkus, T., Liu, K., & Ross, K. W. (May, 2015). Children seen but not heard: When parents compromise children’s online privacy. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 776-786). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. 10.1145/2736277.2741124 Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). (1991). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56 O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. doi:10.1542/ peds.2011-0054 PMID:21444588 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2017b). External educational resources and information. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the- opc/what-we-do/awareness-campaigns-and-events/privacy-education-for-kids/fs-fi/ yth_res/ Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). (2017a). Real fears, real solutions: A plan for restoring confidence in Canada’s privacy regime. 2016-17 Annual Report to Parliament on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/ media/4586/opc-ar-2016-2017_eng-final.pdf Ontario Privacy Commissioner (OPC). (2011). What students need to know. Retrieved from https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/up-flyer_w.pdf

256 Digital Privacy Across Borders

Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee. (2015). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.osapac.ca/dc/ Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee (OSAPAC). (2017). School leader learning series. Retrieved from https://www.osapac.ca/school-leader- learning-series/ Palfrey, J. G., Gasser, U., & boyd, d. (2010). Response to FCC notice of inquiry 09- 94: Empowering parents and protecting children in an evolving media landscape. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1559208 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). (2016). Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/ the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/ Scott, E. M. (2013). Protecting consumer data while allowing the web to develop self-sustaining architecture: Is a trans-Atlantic browser-based opt-in for behavioral tracking the right solution. Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. LJ, 26, 285. Steeves, V. (2014). Young Canadians in a wired world. Phase III: Life online. Ottawa, Canada: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/ pdfs/publication-report/full/YCWWIII_Life_Online_FullReport.pdf Steinberg, S. B. (2016). Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media. Emory Law Journal, 66, 839. Stoddart, J. (2011). Privacy in the era of social networking: Legal obligations of social media sites. Saskatchewan Law Review, 74, 263. Telford, H. (2017). Parents ask schools to sign away children’s privacy rights. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion- public-schools-ask-parents-to-sign-away-childrens-privacy-rights U.S. Congress. (2001). (USA PATRIOT ACT) United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-56,115 Stats. 272 (2001). Retrieved from https://www. congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/03162 U.S. Department of Education, Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2014). Protecting Student Privacy while using online educational services: Model terms of service. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Student- Privacy-and-Online-Educational-Services-February-2014.pdf

257 Digital Privacy Across Borders

U.S. Department of Education, Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2016). Protecting Student Privacy while using online educational services: Model terms of service. Retrieved from https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Learning. Washington, DC: United States Government. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/ netp/learning/ Warfield, A. (2010). A pragmatic approach to encouraging ICT innovation in Canada. Consultation paper. Retrieved from https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/ eng/00466.html Willard, M. (2012). Protecting children in the 21st century. District Administration, 34(3), 86–87.

258 259

Compilation of References

Advanced Distributed Learning. (2013). xAPI-Spec. Retrieved from https://github.com/adlnet/ xAPI-Spec/blob/1.0.0/xAPI.md

Aftab, P. (2007). Parry Aftab’s guide for schools. Retrieved from http://www.stopcyberbullying. org/educators/guide for schools.html

Akbulut, Y., & Çuhadar, C. (2011). Reflections of preservice information technology teachers regarding cyberbullying. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3), 67-76. Retrieved from http://www.tojqi.net/articles/TOJQI_2_3/TOJQI_2_3_Article_5.pdf

Alexandron, G., Lee, S., Chen, Z., & Pritchard, D. E. (2016). Detecting Cheaters in MOOCs Using Item Response Theory and Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Personalization Approaches in Learning Environments (PALE 2016). Aachen: CEUR.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen, E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3

Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 393–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393

American Association for Higher Education. (1997). Series on service-learning in the disciplines. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

American Association of School Librarians. (2017). National school library standards. Chicago: American Library Association.

American Library Association. (2004). Core values task force II final report. Chicago: American Library Association. Compilation of References

American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/ codeofethics/codeethics

Anderson, M. (2016). Parents, teens, and digital monitoring. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/

Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014, April). Engaging with massive online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 687-698). New York: ACM Press.

Aragon, A., Kaminski, K., Anderson, S. K., & Isaacs, N. (2014). Social networking: Boundaries and limits part 1: Ethics. TechTrends, 58(2), 25–31. doi:10.100711528-014-0734-9

Armstrong, S., & Warlick, D. (2004). The new literacy. Technology and Learning, 25(2).

Arnold, I. J. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.001

Arnseth, H., & Ludvigen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional context: Systematic versus dialogic research in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–183. doi:10.100711412-006-8874-3

Association for American Educators. (1994). Code of ethics for educators. Mission Viejo, CA: Association for American Educators.

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2007). Professional code of ethics. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Association of Library and Information Science Educators. (2008). Position statement on information ethics in LIS education. Chicago: Association of Library and Information Science Educators. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51

Association of Library and Information Science Educators. (2010). Ethical guidelines for library and information science educators. Chicago: Association of Library and Information Science Educators. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31

Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A., & Simmons, A. M. (2013). Deliberating Controversial Public Issues As Part of Civic Education 1. Social Studies, 104(3), 105–114. doi:10.1080/00377996.2012.691571

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (Eds.). (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527685

260 Compilation of References

Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Wagner, A. Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students game the system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 383-390). New York, NY: ACM Press. 10.1145/985692.985741

Bale, L. (1995). Gregory Bateson, cybernetics, and the social/behavioral sciences. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 3(1), 27–45.

Ball, S. (1994). What is Policy? Text, trajectories and toolboxes. In S. Ball (Ed.), Education Reform (pp. 14–27). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Banks, C. (2017). Criminal Justice Ethics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Barquin, R. (1992). In Pursuit of a ‘Ten Commandments’ for Computer Ethics. Computer Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://www.brook.edu/its/cei/cei_hp.htm

Bastiaensens, S., Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development, 25(1), 193–211. doi:10.1111ode.12134

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York, NY: Dutton.

Bathon, J. (2013). How little data breaches cause big problems for schools. THE Journal, 40(10), 26-29. Retrieved from http://thejournal.realviewdigital.com/default.aspx?iid=88471&startpage =page0000027#folio=26

Baum, J. (2005). Cyberethics: The new frontier. TechTrends, 49(6), 54–78. doi:10.1007/ BF02763731

Beck, V. (2010). Comparing online and face-to-face teaching and learning. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 21(3), 95–108.

Befiore, P., Auld, R., & Lee, D. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education: Equal access and a pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 855–863. doi:10.1002/pits.20116

Behneger, N. (2003). Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the scientific study of politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bell, M. (2002). Cyberethics in the schools: What is going on? Book Report, 21(1), 33–36.

261 Compilation of References

Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105–120. doi:10.1080/13621020902731116

Berkow, J. (2011). Canadians careless with private data, privacy watchdog warns. Financial Post. Retrieved from http://business.financialpost.com/technology/canadians-not-cautious-enough- with-digital-communications-privacy-commissioner-says

Bernard, S. (2011, August 8). Crossing the digital divide: Bridges and barriers to digital inclusion. Edutopia. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-divide-technology- access-inclusion

Bersin, J. (2014, August 28). The Red Hot Market for Learning Management Systems. Forbes. Retrieved November 3, 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/08/28/the-red- hot-market-for-learning-technology-platforms/#38f4e76047bb

Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2006). Children and their digital dossiers: Lessons in privacy rights in the digital age. The International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 135–147.

Billington, J. H. (2010). Librarian of Congress announces DMCA Section 1201 rules for exemptions regarding circumvention of access-control technologies. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/ item/prn-10-169/

Bitter, G., & Pierson, M. (2002). Using technology in the classroom (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00064-4

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2013). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. doi:10.1111/bjet.12089

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Boyd, d., Hargittai, E., Schultz, J., & Palfrey, J. (2011). Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’. First Monday, 16(11). Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/ view/3850/3075

262 Compilation of References

Bredo, E. (1989). Bateson’s hierarchical theory of learning and communication. Educational Theory, 39(1), 27–38. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1989.00027.x

Brey, P. (2006). Social and ethical dimensions of computer-mediated education. Journal of Information. Communication & Ethics in Society, 2(2), 91–102. doi:10.1108/14779960680000284

Brey, P. (2009). Computer ethics. In J. Berg-Olsen, S. Pedersen, & V. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Technology (pp. 406–411). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444310795. ch70

Bridges, E. (1992). Problem-based learning: Background and rationale. In E. M. Bridges (Ed.), Problem-based learning for administrators. Eugene, OR: ERIC.

BroadbandNow. (2018). Internet coverage in Hawaii. Retrieved from https://broadbandnow. com/Hawaii

Broughton, D. (2005). Keeping kids safe in cyberspace: Pediatricians should talk to patients, parents about Internet dangers. AAP News: The Official Magazine of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 11-12. Retrieved from http://aapnews.aappublications.org/content/26/8/11.short

Brown, S. A. (2012). Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003

BSA. (2014). The compliance gap: BSA global software survey June 2014. Retrieved from http:// globalstudy.bsa.org/2013/downloads/studies/2013GlobalSurvey_Study_en.pdf

Buchanan, E., & Henderson, K. (2009). Case studies in library and information science ethics. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Buelga, S., Martínez–Ferrer, B., & Cava, M. (2017). Full length article: Differences in family climate and family communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bully–victims in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 164–173. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.017

Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/ vol8/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm

Bullying Statistics. (2017). Cyber Bullying Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bullyingstatistics. org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Occupational Outlook Handbook: Protective Service. Retrieved on December 20, 2017 from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective-Service/Police-and-detectives. htm#tab-4

Burgos, M. (2017). ‘Cutting-edge technology’ to be implemented in school curriculums. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ cybersecurity-blue-kit-1.4201962

263 Compilation of References

Bustard, J. (2017). Improving Student Engagement in the Study of Professional Ethics: Concepts and an Example in Cyber Security. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.100711948-017- 9904-4 PMID:28401507

C3Matrix. (2015). Cyber-safety, cyber-security, cyber-ethics (C3) Digital literacy skills. Retrieved from http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/docs/ecampus/2010/digitalliteracyskills_c3matrix.pdf

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Academic Press.

California Department of Education, Educational Technology Initiative. (2014). Empowering learning. A blueprint for California Education technology 2014–2017. Retrieved from https:// www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/yr14bp0418.pdf

California Department of Education. (2017). Digital citizenship week. Retrieved from https:// www.cde.ca.gov/ls/et/dc/dcwk2017.asp

Campbell, E. (2000). Professional ethics in teaching: Towards the development of a code of practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203–221.

Campbell, E. (2008). The ethics of teaching as a moral profession. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00414.x

Campbell, M. A., Slee, P. T., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2013). Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health. School Psychology International, 34(6), 613–629. doi:10.1177/0143034313479698

Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P. T., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’ perceptions of bullying: Traditional and cyber and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 389–401. doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704316

Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York, NY: Vintage.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). (2017). Peer privacy protectors guidebook. Retrieved from https://ccla.org/peer-privacy-protectors-guidebook/

Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). (2017). Retrieved from https://cira.ca/factbook/ domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/internet-use-canada

Capurro, R. (2000). Ethical challenges of the information society in the 21st century. The International Information & Library Review, 32(3-4), 257–276. doi:10.1006/iilr.2000.0137

Carbo, T. (2008). Ethics Education for Information Professionals. Journal of Library Administration, 47(3-4), 5–25. doi:10.1080/01930820802186324

Cares, A. C., Hirschel, D., & Williams, L. M. (2014). Teaching about victimization in an online environment: Translating in-person empathy and support to the internet. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(4), 405–420. doi:10.1080/10511253.2014.965407

264 Compilation of References

Carnevale, D. (2000). Assessing the quality of online courses remains a challenge, educators agree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(24), A59. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle. com/article/Assessing-the-Quality-of/21862

Carroll, J. (1964). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training, research, and education (pp. 87–136). New York, NY: Wiley.

Carroll, N. (2013). E-learning: The McDonaldization of education. European Journal of Higher Education., 3(4), 342–356. doi:10.1080/21568235.2013.833405

Casey, G. (2013). Social media in the classroom: A simple yet complex hybrid environment for students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(1), 5–24.

Cash, J. J. Jr. (1985). Internationalized systems: An information society opportunity or threat? The Information Society, 3(3), 199–228. doi:10.1080/01972243.1985.9960001

Center for Democracy & Technology. (2015). Retrieved from https://cdt.org/files/2015/06/ Student-Privacy-White-Paper-v.-9_1.pdf

Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Surveillance Summaries United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(No. SS-2), 1–32.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm

Centre for International Governance (CIGI). (2013). Big data, big responsibilities: Recommendations to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on Canadian privacy rights in a digital age. Retrieved from https://www.cigionline.org/publications/big-data-big-responsibilities-recommendations- office-privacy-commissioner-canadian

Chang, K. E., Chang, C. T., Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., Chao, H. L., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education, 71, 185–197. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2013.09.022

Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1–F10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x PMID:21499511

265 Compilation of References

Chelvan, C. (2016, February 16). SMU law student jailed 2 months for accessing professors’ accounts. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ smu-law-student-jailed-2/2519788.html

Chen, I. (2012). School districts stumbled on data privacy. In I. Chen & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases on Educational Technology Integration in Urban Schools (pp. 12-15). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-492-5.ch004

Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008

Chen, Z. H. (2014). Exploring students’ behaviors in a competition-driven educational game. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 68–74. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.021

Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015

Chichering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–7.

Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic Methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203–211.

Childnet International. (2014). Let’s Fight It Together: What We Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://www.childnet.com/resources/lets-fight-it-together

Childnet International. (2016). Gone Too Far. Retrieved from http://www.childnet.com/resources/ pshetoolkit/cyberbullying/gone-too-far

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (2001). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Interaction, 8(4), 35–54. doi:10.1145/379537.379550

Cho, M., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of learning strategies in students’ learning experiences in a self-paced online mathematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80–99. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019963

Chomsky, N. (1967). A special supplement: The responsibility of intellectuals. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1967/02/23/a-special- supplement-the-responsibility-of-intelle/

266 Compilation of References

Clandinin, D. (2006). Engaging in narrative inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. doi:10.1002/9781118255971

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. doi:10.3102/00346543053004445

Coffey, S., & Street, B. (2008). Narrative and identity in the “Language Learning Project.”. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 452–464. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00757.x

Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 111–131. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1748

Combéfis, S., Bibal, A., & Van Roy, P. (2014). Recasting a Traditional Course into a MOOC by Means of a SPOC. In Proceedings of the European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit (pp. 205- 208). Academic Press.

Common Sense Education. (2015). Scope and Sequence: Common Sense K-12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/scope-and-sequence

Common Sense Education. (2017). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense. org/education/digital-citizenship

Computer Ethics Institute. (1992). Ten commandments of computer ethics. Retrieved from http:// computerethicsinstitute.org/publications/tencommandments.html

Computer Ethics Institute. (1996). The ten commandments of computer ethics. Computer Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cpsr.org/dox/cei.html

Conger, S., & Loch, K. D. (1995). Ethics and computer use. Communications of the ACM, 38(12), 30–32. doi:10.1145/219663.219676

Cost of data breach grows as does frequency of attacks. (2015, May). Ponemon Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ponemon.org/blog/cost-of-data-breach-grows-as-does-frequency-of-attacks

Crone, E. A., & Van Der Molen, M. W. (2007). Development of decision making in school- aged children and adolescents: Evidence from heart rate and skin conductance analysis. Child Development, 78(4), 1288–1301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01066.x PMID:17650139

Crystal, J. (2007). The three T’s of Cyberethics. Guidance Channel Ezine. Retrieved from http:// www.guidancechannel.com/default.aspx?index=558

Curran, M. B., & Ribble, M. (2017). P–20 Model of Digital Citizenship. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017(153), 35–46. doi:10.1002/yd.20228 PMID:28199061

Cybercitizen Awareness Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from Cybercitizenship.org

267 Compilation of References

Dark, M., & Poftak, A. (2004). How to perform a security audit. Technology and Learning, 24(7).

Data Breach Reports. (2014). Identity Theft Resource Center. Retrieve fromhttp://www. idtheftcenter.org/images/breach/DataBreachReports_2014.pdf

Data Breach Reports. (2015). Identity Theft Resource Center. Retrieve from http://www. idtheftcenter.org/images/breach/DataBreachReports_2015.pdf

Data Theft Resource Center. (2017). At mid-year, U.S. data breaches increase at record pace. Retrieved from http://www.idtheftcenter.org/Press-Releases/2017-mid-year-data-breach-report- press-release

Davis, K. (2014). Bridging the innovation-policy gap. SAIS Review (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies), 34(1), 87–92.

Davis, K., & James, C. (2013). Tweens’ conceptions of privacy online: Implications for educators. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 4–25. doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.658404

Daymont, T., & Blau, G. (2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(3), 275–294.

DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217–223. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0008 PMID:18422417

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: D. C. Heath and Company.

DeWitt-Heffner, J., & Oxenford, C. (2001). Defining the Limits: Cyber Ethics. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 470019)

Diamanduros, T., & Downs, E. (2015). Creating a safe school environment: How to prevent cyberbullying at your School. In School Library Management (7th ed.). Academic Press.

Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. J. (2008). The role of school psychologists in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 693–704. doi:10.1002/pits.20335

Didden, R., Scholte, R. H., Korzilius, H., de Moor, J. M., Vermeulen, A., O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 146–151. doi:10.1080/17518420902971356 PMID:19466622

Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. The Journal of Psychology, 217, 182–188. doi:10.1027/ 0044-3409.217.4.182

Dotterer, G., Hedges, A., & Parker, H. (2016). Fostering digital citizenship in the classroom. Education Digest, 82(3), 58.

268 Compilation of References

Doughty, H. A. (2006a). The limits of critical thinking. The Innovation Journal, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.innovation.cc/book-reviews/doughty11essay.pdf

Doughty, H. A. (2006b). Blooming idiots: Educational objective, learning taxonomies and the pedagogy of Benjamin Bloom. The College Quarterly, 9(4). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly. ca/2006-vol09-num04-fall/doughty.html

Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001

Dreyfus, H. (1999). Anonymity versus commitment: The dangers of education on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 15–21. doi:10.1023/A:1010010325208

Dreyfus, H. L. (1967). Why computers must have bodies in order to be intelligent. The Review of Metaphysics, 21(1), 16–32.

Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. London, UK: Routledge.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624

Dudley, A., Braman, J., & Vincenti, G. (2011). Investigating cyber law and cyber ethics: Issues, impacts and practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–135.

Dyson, L., Crawford, P., Frey, S., & Dystra, S. (2013). Making a moral decision. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 629–642). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York, NY: Knopf.

Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Electronic Profiling Information Center (EPIC). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://epic.org/privacy/ profiling/

Ellis, L. (2014). Beyond a common approach: Teaching students the ethical practice of reference. The Reference Librarian, 55(3), 212–223. doi:10.1080/02763877.2014.911009

Englander, E. (2012). Digital self-harm: Frequency, type, motivations, and outcomes. Retrieved from http://webhost.bridgew.edu/marc/DIGITAL%20SELF%20HARM%20report.pdf

269 Compilation of References

Evans, B. D. (2015, May 7). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it-possible-to-hack-into-a- school-system-and-change-your-grades

Fallis, D. (2007). Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25(1), 23–36. doi:10.1108/07378830710735830

Fan, W., & Dempsey, A. G. (2017). The mediating role of school motivation in linking student victimization and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 32(2), 162–175. doi:10.1177/0829573516655228

Farmer, L. (2015). Teaching ethics to teens via school library reference services. Paper presented at the International Federation of Library Associations World Congress Library and Information Congress, Cape Town, South Africa.

Farmer, L. (2004). Narrative inquiry as assessment tool: A case study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(4), 340–355. doi:10.2307/40323878

Farmer, L. (2004a). Foundations of information: A course case study in metacognition. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 180–188. doi:10.2307/40323885

Farmer, L. (2014). Using authentic case studies to teach ethics collaboratively to school librarians in distance education. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 3(1), 1–20. doi:10.4018/ ijcee.2014010101

Federal Communications Commission. (2000). Children’s Internet Protection Act. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act

Federal Trade Commission. (1998). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/ childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

Federal Trade Commission. (2015). Complying with COPPA: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa- frequently-asked-questions

Federal Trade Commission. (2017). The Equifax data breach: What to do. Retrieved from https:// www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-do

Feinberg, T. (2003). Bullying prevention and intervention. Principal Leadership Magazine, 4(1), 10–14.

Feinberg, T., & Robey. (2008). Cyberbullying. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 10–14.

Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 304–317. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051816

270 Compilation of References

Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). Beyond codes of ethics: How library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 543–556. doi:10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2016.02.012

FERPA. (1974). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-380, title V,Sec 513, Aug. 21, 1974,88 Stat. 571. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ ferpa/index.html

Festa, G. (2007). The classroom of tomorrow: Here today! Technology and Learning, 27(6).

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED442039.pdf

Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130. doi:10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418

Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. G. (2012). Examining elementary social studies marginalization: A multilevel model. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40–68. doi:10.1177/0895904812453998

Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & VanFossen, P. (2014). An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 7–35. doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35

Fleishchmann, K., Robbins, R., & Wallace, W. (2009). Designing educational cases for intercultural information ethics: The importance of diversity, perspectives, values, and pluralism. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(1), 4–14.

Fletcher, A., Fitzgerald-Yau, N., Jones, R., Allen, E., Viner, R. M., & Bonell, C. (2014). Brief report: Cyberbullying perpetration and its associations with socio-demographics, aggressive behaviour at school, and mental health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1393–1398. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.10.005 PMID:25448835

Flowers, B. F., & Rakes, G. C. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the Internet in selected K–12 schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 351–365. do i:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782285

Forcier, R., & Descy, D. (2002). The computer as an educational tool (2nd ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.

Forney, R. (2015, November). Silent defenders: the next generation of cyber security. Media Planet USA Today, p. 2.

Fowler, F. (2004). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders: An Introduction. Pearson.

271 Compilation of References

Fox, A. (2013). From MOOCs to SPOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38–40. doi:10.1145/2535918

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). (1990). Retrieved from https:// www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31

Fryer, W. (2003). A beginner’s guide to school security. Technology and Learning, 24(2).

Gamboa, L., Rodriguez, M., & Garcia, A. (2013).Differences in motivations and academic achievement. Lecturas De Economia, (78), 9-44.

Gardner, J. (2013). Why America’s kids need a national Digital Citizenship curriculum. Venture Beat. Retrieved from https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/08/why-americas-kids-need-a-national- digital-citizenship-curriculum/

George Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital Learning Environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds.), Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (pp. 242–260). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118736494.ch14

Gerber, R. (2001). Prepared remarks: SANS Institute’s Release of the Top 20 Most Critical Internet Vulnerabilities. Retrieved from http://www.sans.org/top20.htm

Gerring, J. (2016). Case study research: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gianesini, G., & Brighi, A. (2015). Cyberbullying in the era of digital relationships: The unique role of resilience and emotion regulation on adolescents’ adjustment. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 19, 1–46. doi:10.1108/S1537-466120150000019001

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cell phones, smartphones and social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Giroux, H. A. (2014). The violence of organized forgetting: Thinking beyond America’s disimagination machine. San Francisco: City Lights.

Giroux, H. A. (2017). The public in peril: Trump and the menace of American authoritarianism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 159, 1026–1031. PMID:16275791

Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN). (2017). GPEN Sweep 2017: User controls over personal information. Retrieved from https://www.privacyenforcement.net/sites/default/ files/2017%20GPEN%20Sweep%20-%20International%20Report.pdf

272 Compilation of References

Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J. Y. (2011). The impact of cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1282–1286. doi:10.100710995-010-0672-x PMID:20824318

Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable and what we can do about it. Anchor.

Gorzig, A., & Frumkin, L. (2013). Cyberbullying experiences on-the-go: When social media can become distressing. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(1), 1.

Government of Alberta. (2012). Digital Citizenship Policy Development Guide. Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460103517

Government of Canada. (2017). Children online: Keeping your child safe online. Retrieved from https://www.getcybersafe.gc.ca/cnt/prtct-yrslf/prtctn-fml/chld-sf-en.aspx

Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 136–144. doi:1 0.1080/00405841.2016.1148988

Grant, G. (1966). Protest and technology. In C. Hanly (Ed.), Revolution and response: Selections from the Toronto International Teach- (p. 126). Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2017). Social media update. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/

Gregoire, L. (2013, September). Cyberbullying. The Walrus. Retrieved from: https://thewalrus. ca/cyberbullying/

Gülsoy, T. Y. (2015). Advertising ethics in the social media age. In Handbook of Research on Effective Advertising Strategies in the Social Media Age (pp. 321–338). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8125-5.ch018

Gunnell, J. G. (2013). The reconstitution of political theory: David Easton, behavioralism, and the long road to system. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49(2), 190–210. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21593 PMID:23423865

Guo, P. (2017). MOOC and SPOC, which one is better? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5961–5967.

Guo, W. (2014). From SPOC to MPOC--The Effective Practice of Peking University Online Teacher Training. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT 2014) (pp. 258-264). IEEE. 10.1109/EITT.2014.48

273 Compilation of References

Haas, S. M., & Senjo, S. R. (2004). Perceptions of effectiveness and the actual use of technology- based methods of instruction: A study of California criminal justice and crime-related faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2), 263–285. doi:10.1080/10511250400085981

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system. Boston: Beacon.

Hadid, G. (2017). Bringing digital citizenship into the school curriculum [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.blog.google/topics/education/bringing-digital-citizenship-school-curriculum/

Halawa, S., Greene, D., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. eLearning Papers, 37, 7−16. Retrieved from http://www.moocsandco.com/ sites/default/files/elearning%2037.pdf#page=7

Hampton, K. N., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence.”. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/

Hannabuss, S. (1996). Teaching library and information ethics. Library Management, 17(2), 24–35. doi:10.1108/01435129610108243

Hannum, W. E. (2013). Data breaches: The invisible threat to our schools. Retrieved from http:// shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resources/data-breaches-the-invisible-threat-to-our-schools/

Hanrahan, S., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776

Haque, A., Rahman, S., & Khatibi, A. (2010). Factors influencing consumer ethical decision making of purchasing pirated software: Structural equation modeling on Malaysian consumer. Journal of International Business Ethics, 3(1), 30–40.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41–61. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4

Harncharnchai, A., & Inplao, K. (2015). Information ethics and behaviors of upper secondary students regarding the use of computers and the Internet. Journal of Information Ethics, 24(1), 98–116.

Harrison, R., Hutt, I., Thomas-Varcoe, C., Motteram, G., Else, K., Rawlings, B., & Gemmell, I. (2017). A cross-sectional study to describe academics’ confidence, attitudes, and experience of online distance learning in Higher Education. Journal of Educators Online, 14(2), 74–82. doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.3

274 Compilation of References

Harshman, E., Gilsinan, J., Fisher, J., & Yeager, F. (2005). Professional ethics in a virtual world: The impact of the Internet on traditional notions of professionalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 227–236. doi:10.100710551-005-1417-4

Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812

Hauptman, R. (1988). Ethical challenges in librarianship. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Hawaii Department of Education. (2017). Future ready learning. Retrieved from http://www. hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/Future-Ready/Pages/default. aspx

Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the role of social studies curricula. Social Studies, 103(2), 67–72. doi:10.1080/00377996.2011.592165

Heidegger, M. (1974). The question concerning technology. New York: Harper & Row.

Henigan, D. A. (2016). “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and other myths about guns, and gun control. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2015.09.005

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2008). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. London, UK: Bodley Head.

Herold, B. (2013). Legislative-advocacy group’s model bill tackles privacy of student data. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/12/03/14alec.h33.html

Herold, B. (2014). Danger posted by student-data breaches prompts action. Education Week. Retrieve from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/22/18dataharm_ep.h33.html

Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H. (1997). Ethical implications of technological advances on business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 160–170. doi:10.1177/002194369703400203

Hicks, W. L. (2014). Pedagogy in the twenty-first century: An analysis of accelerated courses in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(1), 69–83. doi:10.1080/105112 53.2013.853091

Hilal, S., Densley, J., & Zhao, R. (2013). Cops in college: Police officers’ perceptions on formal education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(4), 461–477. doi:10.1080/10511253.20 13.791332

Himma, K., & Tavani, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470281819

275 Compilation of References

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012a). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (Corwin Press).

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012b). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 539–543. doi:.(2012).70644810.1080/17405629

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013a). Cyberbullying prevention: Questions parents should ask their children about technology. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https:// cyberbullying.org/Questions-Parents-Should-Ask.pdf

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from: https://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying- Identification-Prevention-Response.pdf

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015a). Digital citizenship activities: Ten ideas to encourage appropriate technology use among students. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/Digital-Citizenship-Activities-Educators.pdf

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015b). Cyberbullying and case law: Implications for school policy and practice. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/ cyberbullying-legal-issue.pdf

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015c). Developing a positive school climate: Top ten tips to prevent bullying and cyberbullying. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/School-Climate- Top-Ten-Tips-To-Prevent-Cyberbullying.pdf

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2009). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133 PMID:20658375

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hispsky, S., & Younes, W. (2015). Beyond concern: K-12 faculty and staff’s perspectives on privacy topics and cybersafety. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 11(4), 51–66. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2015100104

Hoechsmann, M., & DeWaard, H. (2015). Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the Canadian education landscape: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/ teacher-resources/digital-literacy-framework/mapping-digital-literacy-policy-practice-canadian- education-landscape

276 Compilation of References

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. E. (Eds.). (2001). The Digital Divide. Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hollandsworth, R., Donovan, J., & Welch, M. (2017). Digital citizenship: You can’t go home again. TechTrends, 1–7.

Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47. doi:10.100711528-011-0510-z

Hopper, I. (2015, October 10). FBI Pushes for Cyber Ethics Education. Retrieved from http:// abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119369&page=1

Hou, H. T. (2010). Exploring the Behavioral Patterns in Project-Based Learning with Online Discussion: Quantitative Content Analysis and Progressive Sequential Analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(3), 52–60.

Hou, H. T. (2012). Exploring the behavioral patterns of learners in an educational massively multiple online role-playing game (MMORPG). Computers & Education, 58(4), 1225–1233. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.015

Hou, H. T. (2015). Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners’ flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 424–435. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2015.02.010

Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem-solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.006

Hrastinski, S., & Aghaee, N. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 451–464. doi:10.100710639-011-9169-5

Humphries, S. (2010). Five challenges for new online teachers. Journal of Technology Integration, 2(1), 15–24.

Hurka, T. (2005). Proportionality in the Morality of War. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(1), 34–66. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00024.x

Hurst, B. (2015). Making the move to online teaching: One reluctant professor’s informal self- study. TechTrends, 59(6), 35–40. doi:10.100711528-015-0902-6

277 Compilation of References

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). National education technology standards and performance indicators for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). National education technology standards and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/ for-educators

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). Standards for educators. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

International Working Group on Digital Education (IWG). (2016). Personal data protection competency framework for school students. International Conference of Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners. Retrieved from https://icdppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ International-Competency-Framework-for-school-students-on-data-protection-and-privacy.pdf

Internet World Stats. (2017). Internet world stats usage and population statistics. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/unitedstates.htm#HI

Internetlivestats.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/ canada/

Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., ... Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

Jacobsen, F., & Smith, G. (1998). Teaching virtue in a virtual world: Internet ethics for students. School Library Journal, 44, 100–103.

Jacobs, J. E., & Klaczynski, P. A. (2002). The development of judgment and decision making during childhood and adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 145–149. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00188

Jacobson, G., Riesch, S. K., Temkin, B. M., Kedrowski, K. M., & Kluba, N. (2011). Students feeling unsafe in school: Fifth graders’ experiences. The Journal of School Nursing : The Official Publication of the National Association of School Nurses, 27(2), 149–159. doi:10.1177/1059840510386612 PMID:20956581

Jenlick, P. (2013). Situated cognition theory. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 185–198). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

278 Compilation of References

Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message–response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383. doi:10.1080/01587910500291470

Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3

Jeong, A. C., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568. doi:10.100711423-006-0636-4

Johnson, B. (2013). User movies as a means of incorporating the knowledge and experience of users in web-based professional education. Social Work Education, 32(4), 468–483. doi:10.10 80/02615479.2012.689277

Johnson, D. (1985). Computer Ethics (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (1995). Computers, Ethics, and Social Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, J. A. (2014). The ethics of big data in higher education. International Review of Information Ethics, 21, 3–10.

Jones, I. M. (2011). Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in the online classroom through building a learning community. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 28(1), 67–116. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1722.2010.01085.x

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2010.00387.x

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. The Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x PMID:18786042

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Youth online activity and exposure to diverse perspectives. New Media & Society, 14(3), 492-512.

Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35. doi:10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646

Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56. doi:10.100711412-011-9109-9

279 Compilation of References

Kariel, H. S. (1968). Open systems: Arenas for political action. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Kariel, H. S. (1972). Saving appearances: The re-establishment of political science. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

Khandelwal, S. (2016). Personal data of 50 million Turkish citizens leaked online. The Hacker News. Retrieved from http://thehackernews.com/2016/04/personal-data-leaked.html

Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013, April). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170-179). New York, NY: ACM Press. 10.1145/2460296.2460330

Kleiman, G. M. (2004). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools: Five years later. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 4(2), 248–253.

Kochel, K. P., Ladd, G. W., Bagwell, C. L., & Yabko, B. A. (2015). Bully/victim profiles’ differential risk for worsening peer acceptance: The role of friendship. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2015.05.002 PMID:26309346

Koehler, W. (2015). Ethics and values in librarianship: A history. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Koo, H. (2007). A timeline of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 107–116. doi:10.1007/BF03025837

Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13–S20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018 PMID:23790195

Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 505–519. doi:10.1177/0143034312445244

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay.

Kroker A. & Kroker, M. (1996). Hacking the future: Stories for the flesh-eating 90s. Victoria, Canada: New World Perspectives/CTheory.

Kroker, A. (1993). Spasm: Virtual reality, android music and electric flesh. Victoria, Canada: New World Perspectives/CTheory.

280 Compilation of References

Kroll, J. A. (2015). The cyber conundrum: Why the current policy for national cyber defense leaves us open to attack. The American Prospect, (2), 9.

Krutka, D., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why social studies educators use Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 16(1), 38–59.

Kui, X. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x

Kunstler, J. H. (2005). The long emergency: Surviving the converging catastrophes of the twenty- first century. New York, NY: Grove/Atlantic.

Kurz, T., Batarelo, I., & Middleton, J. (2009). Examining elementary preservice teachers’ perspectives concerning curriculum themes for video case integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 461–485. doi:10.100711423-009-9110-4

LAK. (2011). Home Page of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge 2011. Retrieved from https://tekri.athabascau.ca/analytics/

Lam, J., Yau, J. & Cheung, S. K. (2010). A review of mobile learning in the mobile age. Hybrid Learning, 306 –315.

Lan, D. (2015, May 27). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it-possible-to-hack-into-a-school- system-and-change-your-grades

Lankes, R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New approaches to credibility tools. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 101–122). Cambridge, MA: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning.

Lavagnino, M., Bowker, G., Heidorn, P., & Basi, M. (1998). Incorporating social informatics into the curriculum for library and information science professionals. Libri. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 48(1), 13–25.

Lawrence, N., & O’Brien, J. (2011). Using online collaborative tools to foster middle school students’ “public voices”: Payoffs, perils and possibilities. In Cases on Educational Technology Integration in Urban Schools (pp. 97-126). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Lawrence, N., & O’Brien, J. (2016). An Ongoing Journey to Foster Urban Students’ Online “Public Voices”. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 4(1), 32–45. doi:10.4018/ IJCEE.2016010103

Leatham, H. (2017). Digital privacy in the classroom: An analysis of the intent and realization of Ontario policy in context (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/xmlui/ handle/10155/816

281 Compilation of References

Leatham, H., & Robertson, L. (2017). Student digital privacy in classrooms: Teachers in the cross- currents of technology imperatives. International Journal for Digital Society, 8(3). Retrieved from http://infonomics-society.org/ijds/

Leeland, A. (2011). Case-based reasoning: Processes, suitability and applications. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Lehavot, K. (2009). “MySpace” or yours? The ethical dilemma of graduate students’ personal lives on the Internet. Ethics & Behavior, 19(2), 129–141. doi:10.1080/10508420902772728

Lestch, C. (2015). Cybersecurity in K-12 education: Schools face increased risk of cyber-attacks. Retrieve from http://fedscoop.com/cybersecurity-in-k-12-education-schools-around-the-country- face-risk-of-cyber-attacks

Lester, J., & Koehler, W. (2007). Fundamentals of information sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.

Levine, P. (2008). A Public voice for youth: The audience problem in digital media and civic education. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 119–138). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lewandowski, J. O. (2005). Creating a culture of technical caution: addressing the issues of security, privacy protection and the ethical use of technology. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, 184-187. 10.1145/1099435.1099476

Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Dikkers, A. G. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 29(2), 1–11.

Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–458.

Lim, W. Y., Tan, C. M., Nizam, M., Zhou, W., & Tan, S. M. (2016). Toward Digital Citizenship in Primary Schools: Leveraging on our enhanced cyberwellness framework. In Future learning in primary schools (pp. 97–107). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-579-2_7

Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437. doi:10.100711423-006-9029-y

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313.

Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Exploring college students’ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 51–56. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2014.05.001

282 Compilation of References

Liu, S., Hu, Z., Peng, X., Liu, Z., Cheng, H. N., & Sun, J. (2017). Mining Learning Behavioral Patterns of Students by Sequence Analysis in Cloud Classroom. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 15(1), 15–27. doi:10.4018/IJDET.2017010102

Liu, Z., Cheng, H. N., Liu, S., & Sun, J. (2017). Discovering the Two-Step Lag Behavioral Patterns of Learners in the College SPOC Platform. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(1), 1–13. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2017010101

Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577938

Loane, S. (2001, December). Distance education and accreditation. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/distance.htm

Logan, E., Augustyniak, R., & Rees, A. (2002). Distance education as different education: A student-centered investigation of distance learning experience. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(1), 32–42. doi:10.2307/40323985

Loh, C. S., Sheng, Y., & Li, I. H. (2015). Predicting expert–novice performance as serious games analytics with objective-oriented and navigational action sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.053

Lumpkin, A. (2008). Teachers as role models: Teaching character and moral virtues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(2), 45–50. doi:10.1080/07303084.2008.10598134

Luna, G., Harvey, B., & Verma, U. (2015). Cybersecurity and business vitality: What every Houston- area business needs to know (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.houston.org/cybersecurity/

Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: What, for whom and by whom? In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, CSCL (Vol. 3, pp. 167–198). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7921-4_7

Luppicini, R. (2014). Evolving Issues Surrounding Technoethics and Society in the Digital Age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6122-6

Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327–336. doi:10.1353/pla.2003.0039

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, 21, 2-86. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/

Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Communications, 49(4), 41–46.

283 Compilation of References

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2009). Making an ethical decision. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University.

Mark, L., Nguyen, T. T. T., & Palma Elmore, M. (2014). Internet safety programs and resources for educators, parents, and students in Hawaiʻi. Pacific Educational Research Journal, 15, 9–34.

Markoff, J. (2011, February 16). Computer wins on ‘Jeopardy!’: Trivial, it’s not. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy- watson. html?pagewanted=all

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. doi:10.1177/1461444814543995

Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

May, J. (2012). Identity thieves target young children: What parents need to know to protect their kids. Child Identity Theft Report 2012. Retrieve from https://www.allclearid.com/themes/ allclearid/docs/ChildIDTheftReport2012.pdf

Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mayzer, R., & Dejong, C. (2003). Student satisfaction with distance education in a criminal justice graduate course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(1), 37–52. doi:10.1080/10511250300085641

Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008

McLellan, H. (2004). The case for case-based teaching in online classes. Educational Technology, 44(4), 14–18.

McLuhan, H. M. (1964). Understanding media: Extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McQuade, S. III. (2007). We must educate young people about cybercrime before they start college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B29–B31.

MediaSmarts. (2016). Use, Understand & create: A digital literacy framework for Canadian schools. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/pdfs/digital-literacy-framework.pdf

Mellon, C., & Kester, D. (2004). Online library education papers: Implications for rural students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 210–220. doi:10.2307/40323888

Menesini, E. (2012). Cyberbullying: The right value of the phenomenon. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 544–552. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.706449

284 Compilation of References

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7409-7.ch007

Miller, A., & Young-Jones, A. D. (2012). Academic Integrity: Online Classes Compared to Face-to-Face Classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3), 138–145.

Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of Mobile Learning (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge.

Minkus, T., Liu, K., & Ross, K. W. (May, 2015). Children seen but not heard: When parents compromise children’s online privacy. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 776-786). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. 10.1145/2736277.2741124

Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12(4), 314–324. doi:10.1177/1077559507305996 PMID:17954938

Moor, J. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x

Mosalanejad, L., Dehghani, A., & Abdolahifard, K. (2014). The students’ experiences of ethics in online systems: A phenomenological study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(4), 205–216. doi:10.17718/tojde.02251

Mostert, M., & Sudzine, M. (1996). Undergraduate case method teaching: Pedagogical assumptions vs. the real world. Paper presented by the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO.

Moursound, D., & Bielfeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in the Digital Age? Miliken Exchange on Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/publications/ publications.taf?page=154

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). (1991). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017). Online learning. Retrieved from http://www. ncsl.org/research/education/online-learning-as-graduation-requirement.aspx

National Education Association. (2018). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Ncube, L. S., & Dube, L. (2016). Cyberbullying a desecration of information ethics: Perceptions of post-high school youth in a rural community. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 313–322. doi:10.1108/JICES-04-2016-0009

285 Compilation of References

Nelson, S. D. (1998). Distance learning and criminal justice education: Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9(2), 333–342. doi:10.1080/10511259800084371

Neosser, U. (2014). Cognitive psychology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Nercel. (2017). Cloud Classroom v3.0. Retrieved from http://moocapp.starc.com.cn/application/ mooc/

New York State Education Department. (2015). K-8 Social Studies Framework. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-k-12-social-studies-framework

New York State Education Department. (2015). New York State K-12 Social Studies Field Guide. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-k-12-social-studies-field-guide

Nguyen, T. T. T. (2011a). The Voices of the Youth (Nā Leo o nā ‘Opio): Our Safety Online. Honolulu, HI: Curriculum Research & Development Group.

Nguyen, T. T. T. (2011b). School faculty perspectives about Internet-safety youth behavior online. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2011 (pp. 181–188). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.

Nichols, A. (2012). Blogging across the curriculum: An action research project. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(2), 165–174.

Niekerk, J., Reid, R., & Thomson, K. (2013). Cyber Safety for School Children - A Case Study in the Nelson Mandela Metropolis. Retrieved from http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ifip11-8/ifip11-8- 2013/NiekerkTR13.pdf

NIPC. (2001). Seven simple security tips for small businesses and home computer users. Retrieved from http://www.infragard.net/library/seven_tips.htm

Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: The impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 5, 143. doi:10.2147/AHMT.S36456 PMID:25177157

Nnaji, J. (2012). Ethical issues in technology-mediated education. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 2(2), 44–51. doi:10.4018/ijcee.2012040105

Noble, D. (1999). Digital diploma mills. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumboltz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(02), 129–142. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129

Noe, J. (2015). Case studies and pervasive instruction. RSR. Reference Services Review, 43(4), 706–721. doi:10.1108/RSR-04-2015-0023

286 Compilation of References

O’Brien, J., Ellsworth, T. M., Barker, T. W., Lawrence, N., Green, K., & Bechard, B. (2014). Online synchronous discussions, middle school students and mock UN Security Council. Digital Social Studies, 197.

O’Brien, J., Bechard, B., Fulbright, T., Green, K., & Lawrence, N. (2012). Online interstate student diplomats discuss what justifies war: “We don’t want people to die, but we don’t want to lose our oil.” Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1), 99. doi:10.5539/jel.v1n1p99

O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054 PMID:21444588

O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from http://www.oreilly. com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). (2017a). Real fears, real solutions: A plan for restoring confidence in Canada’s privacy regime. 2016-17 Annual Report to Parliament on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/4586/opc-ar-2016-2017_eng-final.pdf

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2017b). External educational resources and information. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/awareness- campaigns-and-events/privacy-education-for-kids/fs-fi/yth_res/

Ohler, J. (2011). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1), 25–27.

Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development, 48(4), 1301–1313. doi:10.2307/1128488 PMID:608360

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x PMID:7806605

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2017). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 PMID:29279213

Ontario Privacy Commissioner (OPC). (2011). What students need to know. Retrieved from https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/up-flyer_w.pdf

Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee (OSAPAC). (2017). School leader learning series. Retrieved from https://www.osapac.ca/school-leader-learning-series/

Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee. (2015). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.osapac.ca/dc/

287 Compilation of References

Ozturk, H. T., Deryakulu, D., Ozcinar, H., & Atal, D. (2014, April). Advancing learning analytics in online learning environments through the method of sequential analysis. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS) (pp. 512-516). Marrakech: IEEE Press. 10.1109/ICMCS.2014.6911238

Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research & Practice, 3(1), 24–40.

Pace, J. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32–60. doi:10.1080/00933104 .2011.10473446

Palazzo, D. J., Lee, Y. J., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Pritchard, D. E. (2010). Patterns, correlates, and reduction of homework copying. Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010104

Palfrey, J. G., Gasser, U., & boyd, d. (2010). Response to FCC notice of inquiry 09-94: Empowering parents and protecting children in an evolving media landscape. Retrieved from https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1559208

Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/master-plan/documents/the-year-of-the-mooc.pdf

Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The Digital Revolution and Higher Education: College Presidents, Public Differ on Value of Online Learning. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674863507

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014a). Cyberbullying activity: Crossword puzzle. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words-Wound-Crossword-Puzzle.pdf

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014b). Cyberbullying activity: Word find. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words-Wound-Word-Find.pdf

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2014c). Cyberbullying activity: Research. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Words-Wound-Research-Activity.pdf

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015a). Cyberbullying victimization rates across peer reviewed journal articles (2003-2015). Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying. org/facts

288 Compilation of References

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015b). Cyberbullying offending rates across peer reviewed journal articles (2003-2015). Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/ facts

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017). Digital self-harm among adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761–766. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.012 PMID:28935385

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Pearson, M., Albon, S., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and ethical considerations for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), article 12. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1084596

Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(1), 28. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-4-28 PMID:21092266

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). (2016). Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information- protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/

Pew Research Center. (2017). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

Piccioni, M., Estler, C., & Meyer, B. (2014). SPOC-supported introduction to programming. Academic Press. doi:10.1145/2591708.2591759

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007

Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education. New York: Vintage Books.

Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21(4), 722–741. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x

Privacy Technical Assistant Center. (2014). Protecting student privacy while using online educational services: Requirements and best practices. Retrieve from https://tech.ed.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/Student-Privacy-and-Online-Educational-Services-February-2014.pdf

Prosser, B. T., & Ward, A. (2000). Kierkegaard and the internet: Existential reflections on education and community. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(3), 167–180. doi:10.1023/A:1010005605872

289 Compilation of References

Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46. (1983). [Bethesda, Md.]: NIH, PHS, HHS, 1983.

Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2000). The C3 framework: Cyberethics, cybersafety and cybersecurity implications for the educational setting. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/johnmacasio/ ikeepsafe-c3-competencymatrix

Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2008, October). 2008 National Cyberethics, Cybersafety, Cybersecurity Baseline Study. Retrieved from http://www.edtechpolicy.org/cyberk12/Documents/C3Awareness/ NationalC3BaselineSur vey_Extract_sept_2010.pdf

Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http:// hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (2017). The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/29/ the-future-of-free-speech- trolls-anonymity-and- fake-news-online/

Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564–575. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564 PMID:17484571

Ratnasingam, J. K., & Ponnu, C. H. (2008). The influence of consumers’ moral intensity, perceived risks and moral judgement in purchasing pirated software. Communications of the IBIMA, 1, 47–61.

Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Ribble, M. (2009, January 1). Passport to digital citizenship. Learning and Leading with Technology, 14–17.

Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.

Ribble, M. (2012). Digital citizenship for educational change. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 148–151. doi:10.1080/00228958.2012.734015

Rice, M., & Carter, R. Jr. (2016). Online teacher work to support self-regulation of learning in students with disabilities at a fully online state virtual school. Online Learning, 20(4). doi:10.24059/ olj.v20i4.1054

290 Compilation of References

Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.

Riddell, R. (2015, November 9). What does the future hold for K-12 ed tech? EducationDive. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from https://www.educationdive.com/news/what-does-the-future- hold-for-k-12-ed-tech/408804/

Rigstad, M. (2007). Jus Ad Bellum after 9/11: A state of the art report. The IPT Beacon, 3, 1–20.

Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109. doi:10.3200/ JOEB.84.2.101-109

Rodersiler, L. (2017). Local social media policies governing teachers’ professionally oriented participation online: A content analysis. TechTrends, 61(3), 293–300. doi:10.100711528-016- 0139-z

Rosenberg, A. (2010). Applying the “contextual integrity” model of privacy to personal blogs in the blogosphere. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 38–47.

Rosenberg, R. S. (2001). Controlling access to the internet: The role of filtering. Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 35–54. doi:10.1023/A:1011431908368

Roth, J., Linver, M., Hofferth, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What happens during the school day?: Time diaries from a national sample of elementary school teachers. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 317–343. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00242

Sackett, G. P. (1978). Observing Behavior: Data Collection and Analysis Methods. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

Samek, T. (2010). Teaching information ethics in higher education: A crash course in academic labour. International Review of Information Ethics, 14, 4–9.

SANS Institute. (2001). The twenty most critical Internet security vulnerabilities. Retrieved from http://www.sans.org/top20.htm

Schaffhauser, D. (2014, March 27). Report: Most schools delivering BYOD programs, training teachers in mobile devise usage. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/03/27/ report-most-schools-delivering-byod-programs-training-teachers-in-mobile-devices-usage.aspx

Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London, UK: Routledge. (Original publication 1942)

291 Compilation of References

Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual Teaching in Higher Education: The New Intellectual Superhighway or Just Another Traffic Jam? Retrieved on November 11, 2017 from http://media.sabda.org/ alkitab-1/Pdfs/Schutte-VirtualTeachinginHigherEd.pdf

Scott, E. M. (2013). Protecting consumer data while allowing the web to develop self-sustaining architecture: Is a trans-Atlantic browser-based opt-in for behavioral tracking the right solution. Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. LJ, 26, 285.

Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social Media for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.

Seiberling, C. (2005). CyberSecurity: A survival guide. Technology and Learning, 25(7).

Sherrow, H. (2011). The origin of bullying. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://blogs. scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-bullying/

Shobo, Y. A., Meharie, A., Hammer, P., & Hixson, N. (2012). West Virginia alternate identification and reporting program: An exploratory analysis. Charleston, WV: West.

Shultz, E., Heilman, R., & Hart, K. J. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An exploration of bystander behavior and motivation. Cyberpsychology (Brno), 8(4), 3. doi:10.5817/CP2014-4-3

Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30.

SIIA Report Shows Move toward BYOD. (2013). Electronic Education Report, 20(15), 3-4.

Simpson, C. (Ed.). (2003). Ethics in school librarianship: A reader. Worthington, OH: Linworth.

Sims, J. E. (2012). Information security in the age of cloud computing (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3518361)

Sitren, A. H., & Smith, H. P. (2017). Teaching criminal justice online: Current status and important considerations. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(3), 352–367. doi:10.1080 /10511253.2016.1254267

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x PMID:18363945

Snyder, M. (2005). Pirates of the classroom. Instructor, 114(6), 18–19.

Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., ... Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: A Population-Based Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79 PMID:20603453

292 Compilation of References

Spafford, E. (2001). Cyber security. Proceedings of the FDCH Congressional Testimony 10/10/2001.

Stacey, E. & Weisenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. International Journal of e-Learning and Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.

Stack, S. (2013). Does discussion promote learning outcomes? Analysis of an online criminology class: Research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(3), 374–385. doi:10.1080/105 11253.2012.758752

Steele, G., & Elb, B. (2004). Invigorate technology training districtwide. Education Digest, 69(8), 44–47.

Steeves, V. (2014). Young Canadians in a wired world. Phase III: Life online. Ottawa, Canada: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/pdfs/publication- report/full/YCWWIII_Life_Online_FullReport.pdf

Steinberg, S. B. (2016). Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media. Emory Law Journal, 66, 839.

Stoddart, J. (2011). Privacy in the era of social networking: Legal obligations of social media sites. Saskatchewan Law Review, 74, 263.

Stoneburner, G., Goguen, A., & Feringa, A. (2002). Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved from http://csrc. nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30/sp800-30.pdf

Stringer, J. (2010). Protecting K-12 students’ personally identifiable information: What data is at risk and what you can do about it. SOPHOS. Retrieve from http://www.mgcwallace.com/wp- content/uploads/sophos-protecting-personally-identifiable-information-k12-wpna.pdf

Sultana, M. (2014). Ethics in teaching profession. Asian Business Consortium Journal of Advanced Research, 3, 44–50.

Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., Liu, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem- solving strategy for museum learning: A sequential learning behavioral pattern analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x

Sun, J. C. Y., Kuo, C. Y., Hou, H. T., & Yu-Yan, L. (2017). Exploring learners’ sequential behavioral patterns, flow experience, and learning performance in an anti-phishing educational game. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 45.

Suprenant, T. T. (1987). Problems and trends in international information and communication policies. Information Processing & Management, 23(1), 47–64. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(87)90039- 2

Suthers, D. (2005, January). Collaborative knowledge building through shared representations. Proceedings 38th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences. 10.1109/ HICSS.2005.151

293 Compilation of References

Svetcov, E. (2005). Security: Step by step. Technology and Learning, 25(8).

Swartzendruber, R. (2015, July 1). Hackers: Is it possible to hack into a school system and change your grades? Message posted to https://www.quora.com/Hackers-Is-it-possible-to-hack-into-a- school-system-and-change-your-grades

Szuba, T. (1998). Safeguarding your technology. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

Tailor-Made Reports. (2017). Learning Management Systems (LMS) Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, Growth, and Forecast 2017 – 2025. Retrieved November 2, 2017 from https://www.tmrresearch.com/learning-management-systems-market

Tait, A., & Mills, R. (1999). The convergence of distance and conventional education: Patterns of flexibility for the individual learner. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203260234

Tan, B. (2002). Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated software. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 96–111. doi:10.1108/07363760210420531

Tavani, H. (2007). Ethics and Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Taylor, J., & Steele, R. (2014). Impact and evolution of technology in college unions. New Directions for Student Services, 145(145), 57–68. doi:10.1002s.20080

Telford, H. (2017). Parents ask schools to sign away children’s privacy rights. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-public-schools-ask-parents-to- sign-away-childrens-privacy-rights

The New York Times. (2012). Tyler Clementi. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/ person/tyler-clementi

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2009). Why virtual worlds can matter. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 37–49. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0008

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Charleston, NC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Tin Can API. (2012). What is the Tin Can API? Retrieved from http://tincanapi.com/overview/

Toe, C. A. (2013). An examination of the explicit costs of sensitive information security breaches (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3588090)

294 Compilation of References

Tripathy, B. K., Seetha, H., & Murty, M. N. (2018). Uncertainty-based clustering algorithms for large data sets. In B. K. Tripathy, H. Seetha, & M. N. Murty (Eds.), Modern Technologies for Big Data Classification and Clustering (pp. 1–33). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2805-0.ch001

Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 236(236), 433–460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433

U.S. Congress. (2001). (USA PATRIOT ACT) United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-56,115 Stats. 272 (2001). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/03162

U.S. Copyright Office. (1998). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Learning. Washington, DC: United States Government. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/learning/

U.S. Department of Education, Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2014). Protecting Student Privacy while using online educational services: Model terms of service. Retrieved from https:// tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Student-Privacy-and-Online-Educational-Services- February-2014.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Parents’ guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act: Rights regarding children’s education records. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/parents.html

Urtel, M. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 322–330.

Valli, E. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88. doi:10.120715327930pje7201_4

Van der Werf, C. (2014). The effects of bullying on academic achievement. Desarrollo y Sociedad, (74): 275–308. doi:10.13043/DYS.74.6 van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58. doi:10.1177/0163443708098245

VanFossen, P. J. (2005). ‘Reading and math take so much of the time. . .’: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376–403. doi:10.1080/00933104.2005.10473287

295 Compilation of References

Verizon. (2017). Data breach investigations report: Executive summary. Retrieved from http:// www.verizonenterprise.com/verizon-insights-lab/dbir/2017/

Virgo, P. (1983). Political aspects of information technology. Information Age, 5(4), 170–172.

Vogler, K. E., Lintner, T., Lipscomb, G. B., Knopf, H., Heafner, T. L., & Rock, T. C. (2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31(2), 20–34.

Walther, J. (2016). Teaching ethical dilemmas in LIS coursework. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 29(3), 180–190. doi:10.1108/BL-05-2016-0020

Walzer, M. (2004). Arguing About War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Warfield, A. (2010). A pragmatic approach to encouraging ICT innovation in Canada. Consultation paper. Retrieved from https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/00466.html

Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2008). Cheating in the Digital Age: Do students cheat more in on-line courses? In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 798-803). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Watson, S., & Sutton, J. (2012). An examination of the effectiveness of case method teaching online: Does the technology matter? Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 802–821. doi:10.1177/1052562912445281

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original publication 1904)

Weber, M. (1949). Max Weber and the methodology of social sciences (E. Shils & H. Finch, Eds.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Wells, C. (2013). Two eras of civic information and the evolving relationship between civil society organizations and young citizens. New Media & Society, 16(4), 615–636. doi:10.1177/1461444813487962

Wen, M., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Identifying latent study habits by mining learner behavior patterns in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1983-1986). New York: ACM Press. 10.1145/2661829.2662033

White, V. (1994). Ethical implications of privacy in E-Mail. Proceedings of Technical Conference on Telecommunications R&D.

White, M. (2008). Identifying good cops early: Predicting recruit performance in the academy. Police Quarterly, 11(1), 27–49. doi:10.1177/1098611107309625

296 Compilation of References

Whittier, D. (2006). Cyberethics in the Googling age. Journal of Education, 187(2), 1–86. doi:10.1177/002205740718700202

Wilgorenfeb, J. (2002, February. 14). School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town’s Values. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/14/us/school-cheating-scandal-tests-a-town-s-values.html

Willard, N. E. (2007a). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying: Addressing the harm caused by online social cruelty. Retrieved from https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload. ashx?moduleinstanceid=3695&dataid=23989&FileName=EducatorsGuidetoCyberbullying.pdf

Willard, M. (2012). Protecting children in the 21st century. District Administration, 34(3), 86–87.

WillardN. E. (2007b). Parent guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved from http:// www.embracecivility.org/wp-content/uploadsnew/2012/10/appK.pdf

Williams, R. E., & Caldwell, D. (2006). Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4), 309–320. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00256.x

Wilson, A. (1987). The information rich and information poor. Aslib Proceedings, 39(1), 1–6. doi:10.1108/eb051034

Wilson, J. (2008). Smart thinking: Developing reflection and metacognition. Wolverhampton, UK: Curriculum Press.

Wizbowski, R. (2017). The top ten ways to be a better cyber citizen. Retrieved from https://www. justaskgemalto.com/us/top-10-ways-be-better-cyber-citizen/

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. Durham, NH: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ccrc

Wolff, M., Wagner, M. J., Poznanski, S., Schiller, J., & Santen, S. (2015). Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48(1), 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.09.010 PMID:25440868

Wolfsberg, J. (2006). Student safety from cyberbullies, in chat rooms and in instant messaging. Education Digest, 72(2), 33–37.

Yakuwa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228. doi:10.100711412-006-8994-9

Yang, X., Song, S., Zhao, X., & Yu, S. (2017). Understanding user behavioral patterns in open knowledge communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–11. doi:10.1080/10494820.20 17.1303518

297 Compilation of References

Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42–S50. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004 PMID:18047944

YI, J. (2006). Externalization of tacit knowledge in online environments. Information Journal on E-Learning., 5(4), 663–674.

Yilmak, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204–212. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.568989

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yontz, E., & De La Pena McCook, K. (2003). Service-learning and LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 44(Winter), 55–68.

Young, J. R. (2010, March 28). High-Tech cheating abounds and professors bear some blame. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(29), A1–A14. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle. com/article/High-Tech-Cheating-on-Homework/64857

Young-Jones, A., Fursa, S., Byrket, J. S., & Sly, J. S. (2015). Bullying affects more than feelings: The long-term implications of victimization on academic motivation in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 18(1), 185–200. doi:10.100711218-014-9287-1

Yu, F., & Wu, C. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332–341.

Zeiger, S. (n.d.). Professional Code of Ethics for Teachers. Chron. Retrieved from http://work. chron.com/professional-code-ethics-teachers-4132.html

Zeng, R., & Blasi, L. (2010). Learning through web-based multistoryline case studies: A design- based research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3), 175–182.

Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181–196. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2011.07.016

298 Compilation of References

Zhang, M., Zhu, J., Zou, Y., Yan, H., Hao, D., & Liu, C. (2015). Educational evaluation in the PKU SPOC course data structures and algorithms. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale (pp. 237-240). New York: ACM Press. 10.1145/2724660.2728666

Zimmerman, B. (2012). Ethics for non-computer majors in a digital world. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 27(6), 90–98.

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 188–198. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.015

299 300

About the Contributors

Ashley G Blackburn is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the Univer- sity of Houston – Downtown. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice (2000), Master of Arts in Criminal Justice and Criminology (2002), and Ph.D. in Criminal Justice (2006) from Sam Houston State University. Dr. Blackburn has been teaching ethics-related courses in the area of criminal justice for more than a decade. Her recent work has focused on sexual victimization in jails and prisons, the female inmate experience, and representations of women in the media. Dr. Blackburn has published in such journals as Prison Journal, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Journal of Criminal Justice, Women and Criminal Justice, and Deviant Behavior. She has also co-authored texts on victims’ rights and research methods and co-edited a text entitled, Prisons: Today and Tomorrow.

Irene Linlin Chen, Ed.D., is a Professor of Educational Technology at the Uni- versity of Houston – Downtown. In addition to teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in educational technology, Chen also served as the technology coordinator for the Department of Urban Education.

Rebecca Pfeffer is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Houston – Downtown. Her research focuses generally on the victimization of vulnerable populations, including victims with special needs and victims of human trafficking. Her current research focuses on public policies addressing prostitution, both in terms of the buying and selling of sex, and specifically investigates effective law enforcement response to the problem of prostitution. With a background in both criminology and education, she is also interested in how different pedagogies in criminal justice classrooms may impact the educational experience and the career trajectories of students. Dr. Pfeffer received her Ph.D. in Criminology and Justice Policy from Northeastern University, her M.S. in Teaching from Pace University, and her M.S. in Criminology from the University of Pennsylvania.

* * * About the Contributors

Brian Bechard teaches seventh grade World Geography and Kansas History at Mission Trail Middle School in Olathe, KS. He is a member of the NCSS Technol- ogy community (@techncss).

Terry Diamanduros is currently a Professor of School Psychology at Georgia Southern University and served as the school psychology program director from 2006-2011. She graduated from the School Psychology Ph.D. program at New York University. Her research interests include cyberbullying, childhood trauma, child and adolescent mental health, the influence of technology on child development, and the role of the school psychologist in online learning. She has published in national and international journals including Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Forum, Trainers’ Forum: Journal of Trainers of School Psychologists, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, and the National Youth-At-Risk Journal. She is on the Editorial Board for the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Journal of Online Learning Research, and the Journal of e-Learning. She is an active member of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the Georgia Association of School Psycholo- gists (GASP). She served as the NASP delegate for Georgia from 2011-2014 and served on the GASP Executive Board for 2010 - 2014.

Howard A. Doughty has published extensively in critical education and the theory and practice of democracy. He is Book Review Editor of The College Quarterly and The Innovation Journal. His two most recent books are “Discourse and Community” and “Culture and Difference,” both edited with Marino Tuzi and published by Guer- nica Editions in Toronto. Professor Doughty has taught at Seneca College for the past 48 years, as well as in the College of International Studies and the MA program in Diplomacy and Military Studies at Hawai’i Pacific University in Honolulu. In 1967 he was named one of Canada’s “thought leaders” by the Parliament of Canada on the occasion of the country’s sesquicentennial. A union official for most of the past four decades, he is currently a Shop Steward in OPSEU Local 560 at Seneca.

Elizabeth Downs is a Professor of Instructional Technology at Georgia Southern University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida. Her research interests include cyberbullying, technology integration in instruction, online learning, and e-portfolios.

Lesley Farmer, Professor at California State University (CSU) Long Beach, coordinates the Librarianship program. She also manages the CSU ICT Literacy Project. She earned her M.S. in Library Science at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and received her doctorate in Adult Education from Temple University.

301 About the Contributors

Dr. Farmer chairs the IFLA’s School Libraries Section, and is a Fulbright scholar. A frequent presenter and writer for the profession, she won American Library Associa- tion’s Phi Beta Mu Award for library education, the AASL Distinguished Services Award, and the International Association of School Librarianship Commendation Award. Dr. Farmer’s research interests include digital citizenship, information literacy, collaboration, assessment and data analysis. Her most recent books are Library Improvement through Data Analytics (ALA, 2016) and Managing the Successful School Library (ALA, 2017).

Ed Finney teaches middle and high school Social Studies at Maple Hill High School in Schodack, New York. He is the Co-chair of the NYSCSS Tech Committee and member of the National Council for the Social Studies Technology Community’s Leadership team. He can be reached at Twitter @MHMSFinney.

Kimberly Gilman is a 7th and 8th grade Social Studies teacher at Hocker Grove Middle School in the Shawnee Mission school district in Kansas. She is part of the National Council for the Social Studies Technology Community’s leadership team.

Alicia Godoy is a recent graduate from the University of Houston – Downtown, where she received her Masters of Science in Criminal Justice. Before attending UHD, Alicia received her Bachelors of Science in Criminal Justice from Texas A&M Corpus Christi.

Nick Lawrence is an Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Instruction at the East Bronx Academy for the Future. He has taught middle school Social Studies, Remedial Writing and German language courses. He plans weekly professional development for subject area and grade level team leaders spanning seven grade levels. He earned his BSE and MSE degrees from the University of Kansas and has worked with several nonprofit organizations and university faculty on the use of digital media. He has published in The Social Studies and The Journal of Education and Learning and has presented his work at national and international conferences.

Heather Leatham has worked in education for over 15 years as both a secondary school classroom teacher and a digital literacy resource teacher. She holds degrees from the University of Ottawa, the University of Western Ontario and York University. She has an M.A. in Education and Digital Technologies from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her thesis research examined digital privacy policy in a school district. Her research interests are in digital privacy and technology use in the classroom.

302 About the Contributors

Judith Lewandowski is a Clinical Associate Professor of Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University. Her areas of interest relate to the practical application of learning design principles including: the promotion of student engagement, the infusion of motivation theory, cultivating service learning projects, and innovative approaches to professional development.

Hai Liu received his M.S. degree in Applied Mathematics from Huazhong Uni- versity of Science and Technology (HUST), and his Ph.D. in Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence from HUST. He is a Lecturer and Director at the National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central China Normal University. He is also a “Hong Kong Scholars Program” visiting scholar appointed by the Society of Hong Kong Scholars and the China National Postdoctoral Council under the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong. He has authored more than 40 research papers and is the holder of three patents. His current research interests include learning behavior analysis, big data processing and digital learning environments.

Zhi Liu is a Research Associate in the National Engineering Research Center for E-learning (http://nercel.ccnu.edu.cn/) and National Engineering Laboratory for Educational Big Data at Central China Normal University. He is currently a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Computer Science at Humboldt University of Berlin. As the principal investigator, he has been funded for research projects from the Natural Science Foundation of China “Research on Key Technolo- gies of Learners Interests Mining based on Behavior-Sentiment-Topic Joint Mod- eling in Multi-Context Online Learning” (Grant number: 61702207), Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education in China “Interactive Discourse Behaviors and Their Impact Mechanism on Learning Effects in Col- lege MOOC Environment” (Grant number: 16YJC880052) and China Scholarship Council (Grant number: 201706775022). He has six years of experience working on learning analytics and has deep expertise in areas including sentiment analysis, text mining and machine learning.

William Muirhead is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) in Oshawa, ON. As the founding Associate Provost, Dr. Muirhead recently completed 13 years as an academic administrator. As an active researcher Dr. Muirhead has conducted research into aspects of online education, learning technology infrastructure development, multimedia development and its effect on learning, computing practices by students and students with disabilities as well as digital literacy in health related fields. Dr.

303 About the Contributors

Muirhead is the recipient of numerous awards including those from the Govern- ment of Alberta for Exceptional Service and Knowledge Management, Canadian Association for Distance Education (CADE) establishing Partnerships, Association for Media in Education (AMTEC), Industry Canada for Public Leadership and from UOIT for Excellence in Leading Teams.

Thanh Trúc Nguyễn is a faculty specialist in learning technologies at the Cur- riculum Research & Development Group in the College of Education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. She conducts research in leveraging learning technologies for maximum influence and the World Wide Web’s impact on teaching and learning. She has two primary areas of research specialty: online learning communities for teachers and Internet safety issues for schools and families. She grounds her work in organizational change theory, inquiry science, communities of practice, TPACK, and most recently improvement science. She is fascinated by Clark and Kozma’s debates on the “media effects” in learning.

John Nnaji is a research fellow at the Department of Philosophy, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain, where he also obtained his Ph.D in Philosophy. His research interests are the history and philosophy of science, educational technology and Technoethics.

Joe O’Brien is an Associate Professor in Middle/Secondary Social Studies Education at the University of Kansas. He earned an EdD degree at the University of Virginia, was on the faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University and taught Social Studies in grades 7-12. His research interests include the instructional use of social media and history teachers’ use of primary sources.

James Robertson is a graduate student in the Faculty of Education at the Uni- versity of Ontario Institute of Technology. He is completing a thesis on the study of digital technologies in law enforcement. Professor Robertson is an IT systems administrator for a campus security service in Canada and a former sworn peace officer. He is also a part-time college and university professor, and a teaching assistant for graduate courses in digital technology.

Lorayne Robertson is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Ontario, Canada. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in digital pedagogies, leadership, and policy. She specializes in online course design, program design, and quality assurance. Other research interests include investigations of the student experience and instructor role in polysynchronous online environments with a particular focus on digital technolo-

304 About the Contributors gies and assistive technologies at the point of instruction in applied settings such as schools, colleges, and higher education. Lorayne is a former school principal, school district superintendent, and education officer for the Ministry of Education, Ontario.

Libi Shen has a Ph.D. in Instruction and Learning from University of Pittsburgh, PA. She started her college teaching career in 1989, and joined University of Phoenix as an online faculty in 2010. Libi is a contributing author for the following IGI Global books: (1) Educational, Behavioral, Psychological Considerations in Niche Online Communities; (2) Cases on Critical and Qualitative Perspectives in Online Higher Education; (3) Online Tutor 2.0: Methodologies and Case Studies for Successful Learning; (4) Emerging Priorities and Trends in Distance Education: Communica- tion, Pedagogy, and Technology; (5) Identification, Evaluation, and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts; (6) Cybersecurity Breaches and Issues Surrounding Online Threat Protection; (7) Handbook of Research on Human Factors in Contem- porary Workforce Development, and (8) Psychological, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Internet Addiction. Her research interests include curriculum design, distance education, online learning, cybersecurity, and instructional technology.

Hao Zhang is a Lecturer of National Engineering Research Center for the E- Learning and National Engineering Laboratory for Educational Big Data at Central China Normal University. He received his Masters degree and Ph.D. in Computer Science and Technology from Wuhan University in 2011 and 2014 respectively. Then, he joined the National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning in 2015. His research interests include education data mining, learning behavior analysis based on machine learning and Deep Learning, multimedia resources recommendation, privacy of big data, and security of cloud computing based on virtualization. He published more than 20 academic articles in the past decade. He has received top awards for Scientific and Technological Progress of Hubei Province.

305 306

Index

A digital communication 6, 22, 29-30, 34, 155, 174 academic integrity 5, 16, 179 digital copyright 22, 26, 34 Arthur Kroker 228 Digital Divide 10-11, 27, 39, 152, 217 Artificial intelligence 217 Digital footprint 126, 237, 241-242 Digital Literacy 22, 30-31, 34, 39, 44, B 246-247 Digital Millennium Copyright Act of Behavioral Differences 183, 194, 199-200, 1998 39 205, 207 Digital privacy 95, 234-240, 243, 246, Behavioral Ethics 207 248-249, 252 Behavioral Transition 194-195, 199, 208 Digital Safety 243 DMCA 26 C E case study 91, 134, 137-143, 145-149, 153-157 educational technology 33, 120, 133, 147- Cheating Behavior 206 149, 184, 244, 248 Cloud Classroom 183, 186-190, 193-196, e-learning 3-4, 6, 11, 13-14, 16, 186, 203 199-201, 203-208 Empathy 22, 30, 34, 39, 66, 77, 83 criminal justice 164-171 Ethics 12, 15, 22-23, 31-34, 52, 93, 97, 111, Cyber ethics 22 119-120, 131-134, 136-139, 141, 143- Cyberbullying 23-24, 29, 57, 65-83, 91-94, 149, 151-153, 156-157, 207, 215-218, 109, 112, 120, 240, 244, 246, 248 223, 227, 238 Cyberbully-Victim 74 Cyberethics 91-94, 96, 99, 103, 111-112, F 118-119, 121-122, 126-127, 215-218 Cybersafety 91-92, 96, 111-112, 121 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Cybersecurity 91-92, 95-96, 111-112, 27, 39, 95, 108, 244 120-121 G D Gregory Bateson 218, 220, 223 Digital Citizenship 22, 28-29, 31, 34, 39, 79-80, 94, 118-120, 128, 133, 140, 245-250 Index I R information ethics 132, 139, 144, 156 reflection 2, 76, 131, 143, 145 information security 110, 112, 118-122, 127 Risk abatement 234-235, 243, 245 Internet use 22-24, 26, 32, 78, 101 S J school librarians 81, 131, 133, 136, 148- Jürgen Habermas 223 149, 156, 247 Sequential Analysis 183, 185, 188-189, K 191-192, 199, 202, 207 Sharenting 236 K-12 Schools 22, 65, 100, 112 social media 8-9, 16-17, 22-23, 29-34, 42- 45, 52, 55-58, 60, 66, 74, 92, 100, 105, L 126, 132, 142, 146, 150, 152, 155, 178, 217-218, 237-238, 240, 243, 248, 251 Learning Analytics 185, 189, 205 student access 22, 27-28, 34 Learning Behavior 190 Student Privacy 22, 27, 30, 34, 39, 95, 235, 240, 244 M Systems theory 217 modalities 164, 166, 168-170, 172, 176-178 T O Technoethics 12 Terms of use 237, 240, 252 Online education 3-4, 12, 146, 165, 167- 169, 173, 177, 184, 223 U P universal curriculum set 118, 122 pedagogy 22, 45, 51, 165, 217, 224, 226, 230 peer assessment 145 W web 2.0 2, 7-9, 13, 16, 240

307