Introduction
Educational institutions typically establish expected standards of behavior and put these in writing so that the standards are available to all and the existence of these expectations cannot be disputed. This is true for me as a college faculty member and it is true of the students who participate in my classes. When I discuss the expectations associated with the use of technology in my classes, I typically ask students if they know where to find the list of the expectations that apply to them. Would you be able to locate the expectations that apply to you?
Very often my students know that standards for their behavior exist, but are vague on specifics and even where they might locate these expectations. I must admit that in creating this example I thought I was aware of the answer to the question I had been asking (I wrote some of the early language on computer use years ago) and I found out that the answer was more complex than I realized. Our institution has a 80+ page document called the Code of Student Life that contains several very detailed sections on computers, copyright, and Internet behavior. By detailed, I mean you are informed that it is against institutional policy to engage in such activities as "packet sniffing" and "smurf attacks". There are also some independent documents that govern more specialized activities such as what students can post on personal web pages they create and make available on university servers. It appears that very detailed expectations exist, but not a great deal of effort has been expended making certain students are aware of what is expected of them.
My intent in this introduction is not to criticize my institution. I assume the approach taken here is typical and students are all provided the documents that describe their responsibilities. My intent is to get you to use your own circumstances as a starting point to reflect on how educational institutions meet their responsibility in encouraging and assuring responsible behavior.
K12 institutions cannot and should not operate in the manner I have just described. I would suggest that this is the case because:
Frankly, the educational use of participatory applications is presently in a tenuous position. This is not generally the case because the activities are regarded as unproductive, but because of issues concerning safety and responsibility. Perceptions and not hard data are the issue here. The perceptions of parents, teachers, administrators, and politicians determine what risks are acceptable. Blocking access to anything that is a potential danger may seem an acceptable solution.
Our response is to directly challenge this position by suggesting that:
So, we think it is important to frame this as an educational issue and we suggest that the activities that follow from this perspective are somewhat different than those required when emphasizing rules and enforcement. We don't assume students always know what is acceptable behavior and perhaps of significance for student self regulation when outside of a supervised environment why expected practices in the school environment were established.
The approach we propose is two-tiered (actually the approach taken at my university operates in this fashion) that includes a general policy statement (a traditional AUP) and a policy statement that is likely to be class and tool specific. Hence, a classroom teacher wanting to involve students in a project that incorporates a blog might create guidelines and secure consent (from parents) and assent (from students) specific to the blog project. Note the distinction between consent and assent. Consent can be given only by individuals with legal responsibility. Assent implies informed participation by an individual unable to assume legal responsibility. We propose that the project specific policy statement would be more specific and would likely be used in situations when parent/guardian signoff would be expected.
General Acceptable Use Policies (AUP)
An effective AUP for K12 settings must be prepared to serve both enforcement and educational purposes. These dual roles will influence what content is included in the written document, but a more important difference, say in contrast to the scenario I sketched in the Introduction, will be in how the document is used. The following material will offer some suggestions for what goes into an AUP and for how it might be used.
In previous material we have written on this topic (Grabe & Grabe, 2007), we identified four categories of information we identified in the more impressive examples we examined. These categories include:
These categories were intended to be general and were proposed to cover uses of technology before the use of the participatory web had become more common. However, we still like the format and see it as a good way to begin a discussion. As you may have gathered from other materials we offer, we tend to focus on general guidelines and ideas rather than to propose a specific product. Even more than a rubric or a lesson plan, an AUP must be tuned to local goals and circumstances. If you want examples of either general or project specific policy documents, they are easy to find. Simply search the Internet for AUP or AUP and a specific application (AUP +blog). If you examine the hits from such a search, you will see what we mean by variability determined by local expectations. AUPs may address many specific issues (e.g., use of student names, pictures of students) and policies vary (e.g., first name only, pseudonym, no names).
What follows is a description of the four categories.
Purpose
This is a good example of a category of content focused more on developing understanding than on enforcement. However, the development of understanding should make the need for rules and methods of enforcement seem less arbitrary.
What might be included in introductory comments establishing "purpose"? Consider why schools invest in technology and then why the use of this technology must be regulated in certain ways.
First, schools invest in technology tools that promote student learning. The focus on learning offers one way to differentiate acceptable from unacceptable uses. Hence, it would be completely appropriate for a librarian to ask a student to turn off a computer and return to his classroom when observed playing some online games (I risk the wrath of the game advocates here). It might be appropriate to play the same game at home when "recreation" might be an acceptable purpose.
What are some other purposes appropriate to the educational setting? Certain categories of "communication" would seem essential. Communication between teacher and student, between administrator and teachers or parents, between students within the school, between students in different schools working on a collaborative project, etc. would represent obvious examples. Purpose may also involve appropriate topics of communication. For example, you may have personal experience with situations such as individuals taking advantage of an internal communication system to advertise a car or a refrigerator they would like to sell. How about the use of an internal communication system to share jokes or cartoons? Such situations are dealt with in many ways, but whatever approach is taken connecting the decision to purposes is a way to deal with accusations that decision makers are arbitrary.
Taking actions that provide for student safety is another purpose and obviously a topic that must be addressed when establishing rules for use of the participatory web.
Access
AUPs often identify the services that are available and state requirements for student access to these services. For example, a school may operate a blog server and allow students to post IF they have completed a training program (or course) and IF parents have signed an agreement form.
Unacceptable behaviors
This section of an AUP identifies unacceptable behaviors and related sanctions (recall my mention of packet sniffing and smurf attacks as forbidden actions listed by my university). My institution lists both specific activities (e.g., smurf attack), but also more general types of inappropriate behavior (e.g., harassment). I assume the intent in this approach is to avoid the impression that specific behaviors not mentioned are not forbidden.
Privacy
This topic concerns a statement of the rights assumed by the institution. For example, my institution assumes that because the resources I use are intended to benefit the institution and are owned by the institution, I should expect that the institution can examine the data (e.g., email, web pages, data files, log files) I create or store. Instead of assuming I would know this, the institution takes a proactive approach and tells me. Hence, if I want to keep data private (e.g., email), I know to use a service not provided by my employer.
Tool and Project Specific Acceptable Use Policies
A tool/project specific policy would likely contain the following components:
What are some expectations that might be included?
Participants should assume anything they contribute (to the blog, wiki, podcast) will be available to anyone with Internet access. They will not put material online they do not want teachers, any other students, parents, or people they do not know to see or hear.
Participants will be careful to reveal personal information according to established guidelines. These guidelines might involve the use of their names and the names of others involved, the inclusion of images of group members, and information such as home and school addresses or phone numbers. Because local values on these matters differ, the specific expectations must be clearly stated.
Participants will follow rules designed to protect the content they have created. For example, they will not reveal personal passwords to anyone.
Participants involved in collaborative projects (e.g., wiki) will make changes to the group product only with the intent of improving the product.
Participants will describe others and the work of others in constructive and positive ways. When the intent is to take a different position or dispute an opinion, the point of disagreement will be described in a manner focused on ideas and not the participants.
Participants will contribute content in a manner consistent with copyright expectations.
Example - A project involving a wiki
This hypothetical example has been generated to illustrate some of the principles listed above.
During the coming Spring and Fall, students from Miss Wiggen’s fourth-grade class and Mr. Stanson’s fifth grade class will be involved in a project to learn about prairie ecology. Students will develop a small plot of school property as a prairie habitat and will learn about prairie plants and animals from various sources. Students will create a wiki and from time to time will add material they write and pictures they take to describe what they have observed and learned. A wiki is an easy to edit web site. Developing material for the wiki will provide students an opportunity to practice their writing skills and think carefully about what they are learning. This wiki will be available to anyone with a connection to the Internet.
Rules for using the wiki:
1. Anything a student puts on the wiki is available to the public. Do not put anything on the wiki you would not want your teacher or parents to see. Use your best writing skills when working on the wiki. Remember others will read our material and we want to be proud of our work.
2. Our school policy does not allow the use of student names in anything created for viewing on the Internet. Be careful what you write for the wiki does not contain names. Our wiki will contain pictures of the habitat site and these pictures may show students from our classes. Students who participate in the wiki project may appear in pictures that can be viewed on the Internet.
3. A wiki allows students to change what others have written. When working on group assignments make changes to the work of others in your group only to improve what your group is writing. Sometimes to improve the work of the group one student working on the wiki will change what another student has added. We assume you will change what someone else has created only in a "good faith" attempt to improve what the group has created. A wiki allows your teacher to view all of the changes made and who makes the changes so your teacher will know if anyone has purposefully destroyed the work of someone else. Anyone who has purposefully destroyed the work completed by another student wiki will no longer be allowed to use the wiki.
4. Be careful when writing about things you have learned from books or from web sites you visit. Remember you must write what you add to the wiki yourself so do not copy from a book or a web site. When you take ideas from another source to use in your own writing, remember to list the sources you used at the end of your work.
5. It is important that you do not share your wiki password with anyone. Any changes made with your password will be your responsibility.
I have read these rules and agree to follow them in doing my work.
Student signature ___________________________________
Date ________________________________________
As parent or guardian, I understand that this project is being conducted for educational purposes and that my child has agreed to abide by the rules stated above. By signing below, I also approve the display of work completed by my child on the Internet.
Parent/Guardian signature ____________________________
Date _________________________________
Signed forms must be returned to the teacher before a student will be allowed to work on the wiki.
The opportunity for learning
If you think about the hypothetical project description and list of expectations, you can probably imagine how the presentation of this material would provide an opportunity to discuss why these expectations are necessary and how some of the guidelines might apply in other situations. Why don't we want to include our names in material that strangers might find on the Internet? If we are on the Internet at home and find what looks like a fun game that asks that we enter our name before we can play, what should we do?
Reference
Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.