Month: December 2012

COPPA Update

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was originally passed in 1998 with the intent of protecting the youngest Internet users (those less than 13 years of age). The core expectation of the law is that parents should make all decisions regarding what information children covered by this legislation provide as a consequence of their access. The expectations established by this law have been updated several times in order to address the greater variety of devices children might use online and to be more specific regarding the types of information that parents should approve.

Earliest implementations restricted the sharing of such obvious personal data as name, address, and means of contacting children without approval. The most recent expectations are far more restrictive and go beyond the types of data that would have to be actively input. The newest restrictions include IP numbers and device IDs, photographs and video, and geolocation data.

So, for example, photos I collect with my phone automatically include the GPS locations where the image was taken (previous post describing this capability). If a child uploaded an image from such a phone, the child could be providing a device ID, possibly an image of another child, and a GPS location. A site encouraging the sharing of such input could be in violation of the new guidelines.

The clear target of this legislation would be those who offer web sites to those under 12. Why might companies providing content for young users want to collect data on these users? A likely reason would be the same reason companies offer the rest of us content and collect information in the process. The companies may want to target ads based on browsing histories.

In my opinion which certainly has no legal value, teachers and librarians should be aware of these expectations should they encourage students to use specific web sites for educational reasons. Are students signing up to use such sites? Have parents been involved in the process of registering their children?

Also, in my opinion, the law is still too vague at this point. Any content offered from a server may collect IP addresses as part of the standard log file. It seems unlikely this could be a concern. I would think we would also want to encourage the development of educational content for users of all ages. What would be the motivation to do so? One might charge for such content and parents would have to give permission when they sign their children up for such services. We also have accepted ad supported content. What makes Internet based content different than content offered to children via other means is the interactive nature (I would describe as active or passive) of accessing this content. Once you include IP numbers and device IDs among the data that cannot be collected, the situation becomes complicated. These data are sent automatically. It would be sad if companies simply put a 13 year old age restriction on their site to avoid any concern they might be collecting IP numbers OR if such companies went to a paid subscription model if even to cover the cost of collecting parental consent data.

Every time I find myself attempting to understanding legal issues I am frustrated by the vagueness with which such expectations are written. I understand that case law (working out the vagueness in court) is part of the process, but when I read what is written I immediately come up with scenarios that for me have not been clearly explained (e.g., the potential of every server to college IP data).

If interested in this issue, you might want to review some of the following sources:

FTC announcement

Text of law (pdf)

Corporate Counsel analysis

Loading

Research For Everyone

I spend some of my time during semester breaks catching up on the literature relevant to courses I teach. This is necessary especially in preparation for graduate courses so I can include a few primary source documents in addition to any textbook I might use.
I do not write frequently about such sources in any of my blogs. Hence, I am making an exception with this post. I follow quite a few blogs relevant to education and educational technology and I must admit that none offer much from a research perspective. Even though I know better, I violate one of the basics of information literacy. I fail to carefully consider the perspective from which sources offer their arguments. Every now and then, it is important to remember that few researchers blog and most of what I am consuming on a daily basis is speculation without connection to good science. If you follow writers who offer no connection to a research base, you are subjecting yourself to the same limiting accounts.
I have devided every few months or so I should recommend a solid study relevant to the topics I frequently address. This is a challenge of a sort. If you blog as an advocate, from time to time you should also make the effort to offer aa account of a quality primary source.
My first contribution is a brief summary of a study evaluating the benefits of narrative games. I suggest you read the primary sourcce yourself. The statistics and methodology are straight forward and the analysis easy to follow.
Adams, D., et al. (2012). Narrative Games for learning: Testing the discovery and narrative hypothees. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 235-249.
This study tests the claims made by advocates of educational games that students learn better when engaged in computer-based games that involve discovery and make use of a narrative context. The researchers contrasted conditions in which college students spent time with two well established educational games – Crystal Island and Cache 17. The researchers contrasted the game content with slide show content (the dreaded PowerPoint) consisting of text and images from the games. In other words, the key content was the same in both cases. What was different was the context within which this content was embedded. Learners performed better on retention annd transfer tasks when working with the slide show format and found this format easier to use.
It is not that this research failed to find a benefit to games. Rather, the study indicated that direct instruction was found to be of greater benefit to learners.
I don’t want you to think i am anti-game. I write elsewhere describing the type of game described in this research. I do encourage a more balanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of direct instruction.

Loading

David Jonassen

Cindy forwarded a tweet to me noting the death of Dr. David Jonassen.

Many who read our posts may not recognize this name. I met Dr. Jonassen only a couple of times as our professional lives crossed. We first met through a mutual friend at the annual meeting of ADCIS (Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems) – a technology organization that disappeared or was integrated with another organization – I don’t really know.

As often happens among academics, Dr. Jonassen influenced Cindy and my work through his writings. In the mid-1990s, I read his book Mindtools. This book proposed that students might use software applications such as word processing and spreadsheet programs not only because knowing how to use the tools was useful, but because the tools might allow students to explore academic content in powerful ways. Cindy and I used this insight in the book we were writing at nearly the same time (Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning). Jonassen and colleagues wrote a similar book more focused by my analysis than Mindtools on preservice teachers (Meaningful learning with technology) a few years later.

When Cindy and I were discussing our interactions with Dr. Jonassen, she told me a story about their first interaction. She approached Dr. Jonassen while he was standing in front of his poster at a conference poster session. For fun, she introduced herself as “your competition” and they then had the opportunity to discuss writing textbooks.

So, because David Jonassen influenced the direction of my own professional life, I thought it important I should note his passing and recognize his many accomplishments.

BTW – I would still recommend Mindtools. This book was written back in the day when university libraries still purchased books and you might be able to find a copy in your own library.

Loading