Andy Carvin’s posts offering an international perspective on the digital divide always makes me feel hopeful and guilty at the same time. Internet-based technologies are spreading and connecting us all, but we take the ease and relative low cost of our own opportunities for granted. The perspective of what you can do from where and the related costs is worth a look.
A student in one of my classes brought a copyright resource to class and I thought I should pass the resource on. Technology and Learning offers a copyright primer and chart for administrators (you may have to register to use this site). I have to bite my tongue when I see that a resource has been created for administrators, but if I say anything more I may get myself in trouble. Hall Davidson (the author) has made an effort to use concrete examples and organize issues within a convenient table.
The trouble I have attempting to understand copyright is that the language of copyright law always seems vague and my mind quickly jumps to very specific examples that remain unclear. Here is an example based on the chart provided by Technology and Learning and not the original law or related cases. One topic within the chart concerns the use of copyrighted characters (e.g., Bugs Bunny) and the description of violation claims – “Copyrighted characters may not be used without permission for any school purpose other than instruction.” This actually surprised me because I would probably not assume I could use an image of Bugs or a recording of “that’s all folks” for any purpose. Then I started to wonder about the meaning of instruction. Does the word “instruction” mean use of the image/sound as an example that preserves a focus on the original use of the protected resources (e.g., a discussion of copyrighted material, a discussion of branding as a business strategy) or does it mean the use of a resource as part of a general educational enterprise (e.g., creating a stamp of bugs and using this stamp to reward good student work). See what I mean by the problems that arise when considering specific cases?
I have not been an administrator now for several years. Perhaps if I was presently in such a capacity, I would be able to think more clearly about such issues.
That is all folks.
Let me tell you where I am going with this in hopes that you will stick with me. Those in the midst of innovations tend to focus on how what they are doing is drastically different and better than what came before. The lens of history often reveals it was the generation before that was actually responsible for the change. In addition, a preoccupation with what is new may limit learning from what came before and it may actually be the third generation that is able to tie things together.
Back to sex (in case your mind has started to wander) – I am a product of the 60s and I was in college during the “sexual revolution”. It was a time of many changes and many challenges and an age group was labeled as if this group were somehow responsible. As participants, we thought so. However, from what I have read of historical analyses of such matters, the greatest change actually occured among those in the generation preceding the generation associated with the phenomenon.
The focus on the distinction between digital natives and digital immigrants (not my favorite terms) has elements of the same misperceptions. Mixed within the generation of digital immigrants is a group that might be called the digital discoverers. These individuals created the applications and enabled the trends responsible for the activities of the digital natives. In contrast to digital natives, the discoverers actually understand how the applications work and understand the social and technological contexts out of which these applications emerged. While it is true that an understanding of technological or sociological context are not necessary to use the present applications, I tend to believe that adapting applications occurs more productively when connections with the past are appreciated. This is true of those programmers creating new tools and also of those who use such tools. Concepts such as metadata are hardly new. Database design and relational database structure use techniques that include attaching descriptors to records and systems for linking existing databases. Perhaps the same is true for those focusing on tool applications.
Adaptation is what many are really interested in. Educators are not using blogs, wikis as they tend to be used at present – the intent is to adapt common use to classroom use. “Native” bloggers did not take up blogging within the context of “blogging to learn.” The interest in social software applications could have roots in existing experience. Researchers have been struggling with how to productively engage students in online discussion for some time. The research on “writing to learn” has a longer history. Back in the ’60s when I was told I was part of that “other revolution” there was a lot of interest in productive “face to face” discussion. What should be done to engage ALL learners? What should be done to encourage deep rather than shallow thought?
So, what has changed?
Trying to get a handle on the concepts of Web 2.0, social software, folksonomy, metadata, and the cluster of related terms that seem to continually pop up in blogs you follow? I would suggest an article written by Bryan Alexander appearing in the March/April Educause Review (actually I suggest the online version because it is interactive and invites exploration).
I am not certain “official” definitions for some of these concepts (e.g., Web 2.0) exist and one has to appreciate the effort to capture some of the core attributes. I would describe the trends differentiating older and newer versions of the web as a greater emphasis on microcontent (the contribution of elements of information – e.g., blog post), content flow rather than constancy, multi-user contributions of such content, and greater interactivity among users (cross-referencing, tagging). I have taken considerable liberty here and I would encourage you to read the article.
The article continues with a nice review of several categories of software (nicely linked from the online version) and an attempt to consider the educational applications of such services/software. I felt the article was stronger in identifying the concepts guiding these online services and in considering some of the technical aspects than in outlining issues of educational significance.
The Duke Law School has decided to use a new approach to explain some challenging concepts – copyright and fair use. The idea is to embed core ideas within the story line of a comic book. The storyline follows the adventures of a filmmaker and her struggles with the reality of fair use. The link I provide offers access to a paper and Flash version.
Resource produced by the Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
See Andy Carvin’s Waste of Bandwidth for a more detailed account. It was his post that brought this resource to me attention. Andy’s post contains some additional information regarding the sharing of resources across blogs and the license that allows such sharing.
An aside – encountering an example of an online comic is timely for me. I gave an exam in my grad EdTech class a week ago containing a question that asked students to evaluate the potential of an online comic book as a multimedia format for presenting complex ideas. The question was more focused on some of the multiple media vs. multiple modality issues raised by Mayer. The examples in his research articles looked like the panels from a comic book to me. So, for my students who also follow my blog, the idea was not as unrealistic as you thought.
I don’t know about you, but there is a limit on the number of conferences I can attend. I have a limited budget, I live a long way from most places, and I have other obligations in terms of time. I value the opportunity to access conference content from my desktop. Pocasts from the 2006 CUE conference make a great example. I would not make the trip to California for such an event, but I welcome the opportunity to listen and watch.
I started to think about this situation from the perspective of the presenter. The individuals I have in mind are those professional presenters who seem to move from conference to conference as invited presenters or keynotes. I do see some of these individuals often enough to recognize that some of them have one or two interesting ideas and others think more broadly and tend to consistently have new things to say. It is the individuals with a specific focus I wonder about. They become less interesting when I have listened to the same idea a couple of times. Do you think they object to the recording and dissemination of their “canned” presentation? Perhaps if you accept a fee, expectations change.
What about those presenters who pay a conference registration fee and present for free? Some of the podcast advocates I listened to by way of the CUE link noted the increasing frequency with which they see individuals with ipods and mikes recording sessions. Under what situations might this be inappropriate? I would think that podcasting a presentation without consent would be inappropriate. While often the presenter would probaby not object, if you intend to share a recording, I would think the proper thing to do would be to ask.
eSchool News describes the effort to develop a new information source called the Digital Universe. The resource appears to aspire to be a higher quality version of something like wikipedia. Individuals will have the opportunity to contribute, but provisions have been built in from the beginning for greater supervision of resource development provided by “stewards.” It appears some, but not all resources will be available at no cost. I see that Dr. Lawrence Lessig, Chairman of the Creative Commons Project, is a member of the board of advisors.
Presently, the Digital Universe exists as a grand plan, a general structure, and a few examples. It will be interesting to contrast this venture with wikipedia and perhaps to see how Google responds to both should these ventures take off. Not certain I understand the funding model at this point, but corporate and individual donations are a part.