Pamela Wilson
Blog 9
LS589 W1
In writing about the decline of education in the United States, Marc Prensky (2001) states that we ignore the fundamental cause of this decline. Prensky postulates that our students are no longer the same as the students that our educational system was designed to teach. He notes that today’s students are the first generation to have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using digital age toys and tools. He has developed the concepts of Digital Natives or native speakers of the digital language and Digital Immigrants, or those who have had to learn the digital language later in life. He believes that Digital Natives learn differently than Digital Immigrants and therefore need to be taught in a different way than we traditionally taught students. Traditionally students were taught to work in manufacturing and agriculture. The world has moved beyond that into advanced technology.
In addition to this, low income students have a handicap even though they are digital natives. In an interview for the National Education Association, MIT professor Henry Jenkins (2008) says that low income students are students that have experienced a participation gap. He notes that there is a gap between students who have continuous broadband access and students who have to go to school labs or libraries to acquire broadband access. School and library computer labs often have time limits and filters which block out certain sites. There are limits on what users can do with the computers also. He states that this leads to a gap in skills and competencies. An article entitled Mind the Gap (Long, 2008) states, “According to Pew Research, there are still 30 million American households that do not have a computer, mostly in low-income or rural communities.” It gives these statistics: 39% of Hispanic children, 45% of black children, 11% of Asian and Pacific Islander children, and 15% of white children rely on schools to use computers. So there really is a computer participation gap among select populations of students.
Because I teach inner-city low income students, this participation gap is of importance to me. When I first started learning about Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, I was confused because even though my students didn’t have access to the Internet and the World Wide Web, they still behaved as Digital Natives to use Prensky’s terminology. This confusion was resolved when I discovered the term media-based learning style. My students are surrounded by television, radio, MP3 players and video games. So even though they may not have access to online computing, they still learn the way that “Digital Natives” learn because they have been surrounded with digital technology all of their lives. There is even evidence that video game playing enhances the learning experience of students. In the MSNBC article, Researchers Tout Positive Effects of Video Games (Lewis, 2005), Mitch Wade, an information consultant for firms like Google and Rand Corp., stated, “It’s the problem-solving. And we saw that when we surveyed professionals who grew up playing video games. What’s a surprise is that they’re better at things you need in business—like team play and careful risk-taking.” This is a personal frustration for me because my school’s Internet filter blocks out all of the educational gaming sites.
The bottom line is this. As teachers in the 21st century, we have to meet our students where they learn best. We also have to teach them the skills that they need to survive in our technological world. In short, we have to give them the tools that they need to become lifelong learners, just as we have had to become.
References
Jenkins, H. (2008) The participation gap. NEA Today. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.nea.org/home/15468.htm
Lewis, G. (2005, May). Researchers tout positive effects of video games. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7912743/
Long, C. (2008, March). Mind the Gap. NEA Today, 24-31
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, Vol. 9, No. 5.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Assessment of Meaningful Learning Using Technology
Pamela Wilson
Blog 8
LS 589-W1
In our class readings, we have read about ways to implement technology into meaningful learning experiences in the classroom. We have read about pilot programs set up to study the effects of meaningful learning using technology (MLT). However, we haven’t read very much about how to evaluate students learning when they use MLT. In chapter 8 of Ashburn & Floden (2006), one of the “key dimensions” listed as a topic for professional development is “Type of evaluation: descriptive, comprehensive, longitudinal, etc.” (p.171). There was neither footnote nor further clarification as to what these types of evaluation could mean. Since I don’t foresee having professional development on assessing MLT in the near future, some clarification in the book would have been helpful.
When I think of descriptive evaluation, the question arises, whose description? Do the students describe their experience with MLT and the teachers evaluate the description, or do the teachers observe and keep a running record of the student’s MLT experience? Does comprehensive evaluation look at the end product and evaluate the project based upon that? And what is longitudinal evaluation? Does that mean following the project and keeping grades along every step of the way?
I think that the issue of evaluation of MLT should have been handled with more detail. Glenman and Melmed listed problems in 1996 regarding the evaluation of MLT by using traditional methods (Johnston & Cooley, 2001, p. 82). Three major problems are listed. “Many achievement tests do not reliably measure all the outcomes being sought….Assessments of the impact of technology are really assessments of the instructional processes enabled by technology…. The very dynamic nature of technology makes meaningful evaluation difficult….” This indicates that we must come up with new models of evaluation if we intent to teach for MLT.
Johnston and Cooley (2001) quote Herman who stated in 1999 that standardized tests don’t measure learning through technology projects. Herman also states that “Longitudinal studies are difficult to conduct” (pg.83). Again, the word longitudinal is not defined. But the idea conveyed is that it is difficult to concretely evaluate MLT.
Appendix C in Ashburn & Floden (2006) contains three “Historical Narrative Rubrics” (p. 200) which give a guideline for one type of evaluation of a MLT project. This could be adapted to other projects and used as a guideline for assessment. I think that the use of rubrics is a good way to assess MLT because they give guidelines for the students and teachers in completing the project and in assessing the quality of the work. Rubrics could be designed for the different stages of the projects also. In this way the project could be tracked and graded as it evolves. I assume that this is what is meant by longitudinal assessment.
Johnston and Cooley (2001) cite tips that Michael Malone made in 1998 for assessment of the use of technology in the classroom. Malone suggests that the teacher “Establish clear expectations. Get feedback from students, parents, and colleagues. Be willing to change horses in mid-stream. Be your own worst critic. Consider the future needs of students. Consider school, district, and state measures” (p.93). Malone embellishes each of these suggestions to make them more meaningful. These suggestions help to establish a baseline of expectations and behaviors which can be anticipated through the use of MLT. However, the fair assessment of MLT will have to evolve as teachers experiment with and integrate technology into their classroom learning experience. Through collaboration and co-operation a fair system of assessment can evolve, but it will take time and experience. Hopefully teacher colleges will develop and teach assessment strategies for MLT to guide new generations of teachers in this endeavor.
References
Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Blog 8
LS 589-W1
In our class readings, we have read about ways to implement technology into meaningful learning experiences in the classroom. We have read about pilot programs set up to study the effects of meaningful learning using technology (MLT). However, we haven’t read very much about how to evaluate students learning when they use MLT. In chapter 8 of Ashburn & Floden (2006), one of the “key dimensions” listed as a topic for professional development is “Type of evaluation: descriptive, comprehensive, longitudinal, etc.” (p.171). There was neither footnote nor further clarification as to what these types of evaluation could mean. Since I don’t foresee having professional development on assessing MLT in the near future, some clarification in the book would have been helpful.
When I think of descriptive evaluation, the question arises, whose description? Do the students describe their experience with MLT and the teachers evaluate the description, or do the teachers observe and keep a running record of the student’s MLT experience? Does comprehensive evaluation look at the end product and evaluate the project based upon that? And what is longitudinal evaluation? Does that mean following the project and keeping grades along every step of the way?
I think that the issue of evaluation of MLT should have been handled with more detail. Glenman and Melmed listed problems in 1996 regarding the evaluation of MLT by using traditional methods (Johnston & Cooley, 2001, p. 82). Three major problems are listed. “Many achievement tests do not reliably measure all the outcomes being sought….Assessments of the impact of technology are really assessments of the instructional processes enabled by technology…. The very dynamic nature of technology makes meaningful evaluation difficult….” This indicates that we must come up with new models of evaluation if we intent to teach for MLT.
Johnston and Cooley (2001) quote Herman who stated in 1999 that standardized tests don’t measure learning through technology projects. Herman also states that “Longitudinal studies are difficult to conduct” (pg.83). Again, the word longitudinal is not defined. But the idea conveyed is that it is difficult to concretely evaluate MLT.
Appendix C in Ashburn & Floden (2006) contains three “Historical Narrative Rubrics” (p. 200) which give a guideline for one type of evaluation of a MLT project. This could be adapted to other projects and used as a guideline for assessment. I think that the use of rubrics is a good way to assess MLT because they give guidelines for the students and teachers in completing the project and in assessing the quality of the work. Rubrics could be designed for the different stages of the projects also. In this way the project could be tracked and graded as it evolves. I assume that this is what is meant by longitudinal assessment.
Johnston and Cooley (2001) cite tips that Michael Malone made in 1998 for assessment of the use of technology in the classroom. Malone suggests that the teacher “Establish clear expectations. Get feedback from students, parents, and colleagues. Be willing to change horses in mid-stream. Be your own worst critic. Consider the future needs of students. Consider school, district, and state measures” (p.93). Malone embellishes each of these suggestions to make them more meaningful. These suggestions help to establish a baseline of expectations and behaviors which can be anticipated through the use of MLT. However, the fair assessment of MLT will have to evolve as teachers experiment with and integrate technology into their classroom learning experience. Through collaboration and co-operation a fair system of assessment can evolve, but it will take time and experience. Hopefully teacher colleges will develop and teach assessment strategies for MLT to guide new generations of teachers in this endeavor.
References
Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Technology, Teaching, and Educational Theorists
Pamela Wilson
Blog 7
LS 589-W1
In chapter 7 of Ashburn and Floden (2006), McCrory states that teachers need to know how to use technologies as tools for meaningful learning and they need an assortment of technologies to keep students engaged. They also need to know what the use of technology for engaged learning looks like in practice (p. 141). While it is true that some teachers don’t take the use of technology to higher levels of learning because of lack of knowledge, experience, and support, I submit that educational theory such as is found in Chapter 7 does not help teachers improve in practice. In some ways it frustrates us.
For example in the second sub-section of Ashburn and Floden (2006) about stability under the heading entitled “Affordances for Teaching,” McCrory notes that technology changes rapidly and teachers should select from technologies that don’t change rapidly (p. 150) so that they can become proficient in the technology. This chapter gives examples of science technologies which have been relatively stable, but the chapter doesn’t deal with the issue that technologies that are subscriber based are often chosen by the curriculum department of the school for use across the entire district. The teacher doesn’t have much voice in what is chosen. Sometimes the subscription is kept for a couple of years and then changed for something newer and better. This as McCrory notes does not give the teacher enough time to learn to use the technology effectively. An example of this occurred in my school district recently. Teachers were required to learn and use GradePro for all of our grading. We had GradePro for three years and then the school district switched to Infinite Campus. This required more training and time spent in learning the new application. The settings of the program were fixed by the technical people in the district and are not user friendly for the teachers who have to manage their classrooms and input grades. The process of simply copying and pasting assignments between classes has now become a multi-step process which takes more time and has more room for error. The advantage of Infinite Campus is that it is Internet based and attendance and grade books can be viewed by others in the district and eventually by parents at home. But it was just one technological change of many that teachers have had to adapt to in the last several years.
In the sub-section about authority, McCrory (2006) states that, “Deciding whether curriculum materials present information that is true or false, reliable or unreliable, or relevant or irrelevant is not a routine activity in classrooms using conventional resources.” McCrory goes on to state that incorrect information is often contained in textbooks but teachers are “free or even encouraged to count on textbooks as authoritative” (p. 150). These are very powerful statements which imply criticism on the quality of pedagogy by professional teachers using traditional texts. Yet McCrory offers not one endnote, study, nor authoritative source to back up this claim. The implication is that teachers have little critical reading skills and little knowledge of their subject matter. Yet when it comes to using technology teachers are supposed to be able to teach critical evaluation of online materials. What is the difference? One of the duties of teachers is to teach critical evaluation skills to students no matter what the medium used. I think that it is unfair to publish such statements without supporting evidence. This type of argument isn’t needed to promote the use of technology for meaningful learning in the classroom.
I support the use of technology for meaningful learning in the classroom. My point in this blog is that educational theory is not what teachers need. We need practical help in applying technology to our classroom situations. We need positive support and time to develop detailed projects and plans. We are the ones in the trenches and we don’t need to worry about friendly fire as we do our jobs.
Reference
Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.
Blog 7
LS 589-W1
In chapter 7 of Ashburn and Floden (2006), McCrory states that teachers need to know how to use technologies as tools for meaningful learning and they need an assortment of technologies to keep students engaged. They also need to know what the use of technology for engaged learning looks like in practice (p. 141). While it is true that some teachers don’t take the use of technology to higher levels of learning because of lack of knowledge, experience, and support, I submit that educational theory such as is found in Chapter 7 does not help teachers improve in practice. In some ways it frustrates us.
For example in the second sub-section of Ashburn and Floden (2006) about stability under the heading entitled “Affordances for Teaching,” McCrory notes that technology changes rapidly and teachers should select from technologies that don’t change rapidly (p. 150) so that they can become proficient in the technology. This chapter gives examples of science technologies which have been relatively stable, but the chapter doesn’t deal with the issue that technologies that are subscriber based are often chosen by the curriculum department of the school for use across the entire district. The teacher doesn’t have much voice in what is chosen. Sometimes the subscription is kept for a couple of years and then changed for something newer and better. This as McCrory notes does not give the teacher enough time to learn to use the technology effectively. An example of this occurred in my school district recently. Teachers were required to learn and use GradePro for all of our grading. We had GradePro for three years and then the school district switched to Infinite Campus. This required more training and time spent in learning the new application. The settings of the program were fixed by the technical people in the district and are not user friendly for the teachers who have to manage their classrooms and input grades. The process of simply copying and pasting assignments between classes has now become a multi-step process which takes more time and has more room for error. The advantage of Infinite Campus is that it is Internet based and attendance and grade books can be viewed by others in the district and eventually by parents at home. But it was just one technological change of many that teachers have had to adapt to in the last several years.
In the sub-section about authority, McCrory (2006) states that, “Deciding whether curriculum materials present information that is true or false, reliable or unreliable, or relevant or irrelevant is not a routine activity in classrooms using conventional resources.” McCrory goes on to state that incorrect information is often contained in textbooks but teachers are “free or even encouraged to count on textbooks as authoritative” (p. 150). These are very powerful statements which imply criticism on the quality of pedagogy by professional teachers using traditional texts. Yet McCrory offers not one endnote, study, nor authoritative source to back up this claim. The implication is that teachers have little critical reading skills and little knowledge of their subject matter. Yet when it comes to using technology teachers are supposed to be able to teach critical evaluation of online materials. What is the difference? One of the duties of teachers is to teach critical evaluation skills to students no matter what the medium used. I think that it is unfair to publish such statements without supporting evidence. This type of argument isn’t needed to promote the use of technology for meaningful learning in the classroom.
I support the use of technology for meaningful learning in the classroom. My point in this blog is that educational theory is not what teachers need. We need practical help in applying technology to our classroom situations. We need positive support and time to develop detailed projects and plans. We are the ones in the trenches and we don’t need to worry about friendly fire as we do our jobs.
Reference
Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Digital Storytelling
Pamela Wilson
Blog 6
LS589-W1
I was really excited when I looked at The Educational Used of Digital Storytelling at http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu, the website to which Dr. Magolis referred us this week. Because I am an English teacher, I love good stories. I love writing stories and I love listening to stories. Digital Storytelling brings the best of everything to storytelling because you can include graphics and sound. I wanted to spend more time learning about digital storytelling, so I decided to write my blog on that topic for this week. I am getting my information from the aforementioned site which covers the topic in an excellent manner.
According to The Educational Used of Digital Storytelling, “Digital Storytelling is the practice of using computer-based tools to tell stories (University of Houston, pg. 1, 2008). These stories can contain text, audio narration, computer-based images, video clips, and/or music. The stories can be about historical events, personal narration, fictional characters, whatever the writer can imagine and has an interest in. Daniel Meadows, a British digital storyteller and teacher defines digital stories as “short, personal multimedia tales told from the heart.” He describes them as “multimedia sonnets from the people “ in which “photographs discover the talkies, and the stories told assemble in the ether as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, a gaggle of invisible histories which, when viewed together, tell the bigger story of our time, the story that defines who we are (University of Houston, pg. 1, 2008). He said that so poetically that I had to quote him. And indeed the samples that he shows on the website are poetically inspired and beautiful. I think that even the most unmotivated students would be motivated by digital storytelling.
To create digital stories, you need photo, video, audio, and image editing software. You also need a media player to play it on. The web site suggests numerous software applications which work well for digital storytelling. This website contains a short tutorial on the seven elements of digital storytelling from The Center for Digital Storytelling in Berkeley, California. Digital storytelling can be used by educators in any grade level to introduce new material, teach students to research, and teach students to use digital and editing tools (University of Houston, pg. n.p., 2008).
An issue of real concern in using digital storytelling in the classroom is the copyright law. The creator of any fixed work owns the right to use the work. Permission must be obtained from the copyright holder if you want to use their work in your work. There are some exceptions to this law and these are considered in the Educational Fair Use laws. There is a very significant amount of information concerning copyright on the digital storytelling web site. It is contained on the web page http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/copyright.html. Copyrighted material may be used for projects if it is only viewed by people in the school in which it was created. Materials may also be used if access to your site is limited. You can not publish material containing copyrighted material on the World Wide Web as a public document because there is no guarantee that it will be used only for educational purposes. There is a good faith fair use defense that can be used under certain circumstances and this is also covered on the web site. There are 26 pages of information and web links dealing with copyright and it would serve the teacher well to study it closely before starting digital storytelling with their students. I have printed these pages off and intend to read them as I have spare moments. I can see digital storytelling as being a very popular and engaging teaching tool.
Reference
The University of Houston. (2008). The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu
Blog 6
LS589-W1
I was really excited when I looked at The Educational Used of Digital Storytelling at http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu, the website to which Dr. Magolis referred us this week. Because I am an English teacher, I love good stories. I love writing stories and I love listening to stories. Digital Storytelling brings the best of everything to storytelling because you can include graphics and sound. I wanted to spend more time learning about digital storytelling, so I decided to write my blog on that topic for this week. I am getting my information from the aforementioned site which covers the topic in an excellent manner.
According to The Educational Used of Digital Storytelling, “Digital Storytelling is the practice of using computer-based tools to tell stories (University of Houston, pg. 1, 2008). These stories can contain text, audio narration, computer-based images, video clips, and/or music. The stories can be about historical events, personal narration, fictional characters, whatever the writer can imagine and has an interest in. Daniel Meadows, a British digital storyteller and teacher defines digital stories as “short, personal multimedia tales told from the heart.” He describes them as “multimedia sonnets from the people “ in which “photographs discover the talkies, and the stories told assemble in the ether as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, a gaggle of invisible histories which, when viewed together, tell the bigger story of our time, the story that defines who we are (University of Houston, pg. 1, 2008). He said that so poetically that I had to quote him. And indeed the samples that he shows on the website are poetically inspired and beautiful. I think that even the most unmotivated students would be motivated by digital storytelling.
To create digital stories, you need photo, video, audio, and image editing software. You also need a media player to play it on. The web site suggests numerous software applications which work well for digital storytelling. This website contains a short tutorial on the seven elements of digital storytelling from The Center for Digital Storytelling in Berkeley, California. Digital storytelling can be used by educators in any grade level to introduce new material, teach students to research, and teach students to use digital and editing tools (University of Houston, pg. n.p., 2008).
An issue of real concern in using digital storytelling in the classroom is the copyright law. The creator of any fixed work owns the right to use the work. Permission must be obtained from the copyright holder if you want to use their work in your work. There are some exceptions to this law and these are considered in the Educational Fair Use laws. There is a very significant amount of information concerning copyright on the digital storytelling web site. It is contained on the web page http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/copyright.html. Copyrighted material may be used for projects if it is only viewed by people in the school in which it was created. Materials may also be used if access to your site is limited. You can not publish material containing copyrighted material on the World Wide Web as a public document because there is no guarantee that it will be used only for educational purposes. There is a good faith fair use defense that can be used under certain circumstances and this is also covered on the web site. There are 26 pages of information and web links dealing with copyright and it would serve the teacher well to study it closely before starting digital storytelling with their students. I have printed these pages off and intend to read them as I have spare moments. I can see digital storytelling as being a very popular and engaging teaching tool.
Reference
The University of Houston. (2008). The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Privacy and the Internet
Pamela Wilson
BLOG 5
LS 589-W1
Because I am a person who values my privacy very highly, I decided to look this week at the issue of personal privacy while using the new technologies that are available through the Internet. I don’t use the Internet too often for personal use. My use of it is generally work or school related. Since taking this class on new technology I have used many applications which are great, but leave me wondering how private my actions are.
I found a very good article on privacy and the internet on The Digital Author. One disturbing thing that I found out is that as of 2001, there was “no one comprehensive federal legislation for Internet privacy” (Dobbs, 2001, p. 5). Most of the legislation that we have has developed over the years on a case by case basis. It only covers the disclosure of information and not the collection or use of information obtained on the Internet (Dobbs, 2001, p.5). Dobbs (2001) refers to a 1998 Harris Poll on online insecurity which found that “worries about protecting personal information on the Net ranked as the top reason people are staying off the Web” (Dobbs, 2001, p.2). This concern is deals with the security of information sent over the Internet, but also with concerns about what others will do with the information that they collect.
The fact is that in the United States, we don’t have privacy on the Internet. Dobbs’ article was last updated in July of 2001 so it doesn’t deal with the issues which were created after the 2001 September 11th terrorist attack on the United States when the Homeland Security Department was created. Dobbs (2001) reports that in 1998 the European Union had stronger privacy acts to protect its citizens on the Internet than we have in the United States. In 1999, Canada also passed a bill for the protection of Canadian’s privacy while on the Internet. In the United States the protection of privacy is formulated on the premise that industry will self regulate and protect consumer’s privacy. One analyst stated that “Most privacy policies are a joke. …The vast majority of policies are made up of vague terminology and legalese that serve to protect companies more than individuals” (Dobbs, 2001, pg 10).
According to information published by the Australian Government at http://www.privacy.gov.au/topics/technologies/privacy one privacy threat is composed of cookies. A cookie is a bit of information sent to your computer browser when you go to a website. This information is saved to your hard disk and is retrieved by the web site every time you visit it. The problem arises when you provide information about yourself to the web site to purchase something or subscribe to a free service. The cookie can collect that information and then be used to profile you. There are software products that you can get to protect your computer from cookies. Among these sites are Cookie Crusher, Cookie Pal and Cookie Cruncher.
A way to protect credit card information if you buy over the Internet is to use Secure Socket Layer which is built into major browsers. SSL provides security while making the transaction, but if the company you are dealing with doesn’t have secure storage for credit card numbers, hackers can steal lists of credit card numbers from the site. To encrypt your email and make it readable to only those that you send it to, you can use a free program entitled PGP or Pretty Good Privacy.
So there are ways for people to protect themselves while on the Internet, but I am left wondering how much information about me is online. One day one of my students used Google to find my home address which was correct and my age which was incorrect. A fellow teacher told me that she found our salaries listed on a website that advocates that public school teachers are being paid too much. While it is wonderful what all we can do with technology we still must be cognizant that we don’t have privacy on the Internet.
References
Dobbs, L. E., Esq. (2001, July). Privacy on the Internet. The Digital Author. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://www.geocites.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_privacyontheinternet.html
Austrailian Government (n.d.). Protecting your privacy on the Internet. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://www.privacy.gov.au/topics/technologies/privacy
BLOG 5
LS 589-W1
Because I am a person who values my privacy very highly, I decided to look this week at the issue of personal privacy while using the new technologies that are available through the Internet. I don’t use the Internet too often for personal use. My use of it is generally work or school related. Since taking this class on new technology I have used many applications which are great, but leave me wondering how private my actions are.
I found a very good article on privacy and the internet on The Digital Author. One disturbing thing that I found out is that as of 2001, there was “no one comprehensive federal legislation for Internet privacy” (Dobbs, 2001, p. 5). Most of the legislation that we have has developed over the years on a case by case basis. It only covers the disclosure of information and not the collection or use of information obtained on the Internet (Dobbs, 2001, p.5). Dobbs (2001) refers to a 1998 Harris Poll on online insecurity which found that “worries about protecting personal information on the Net ranked as the top reason people are staying off the Web” (Dobbs, 2001, p.2). This concern is deals with the security of information sent over the Internet, but also with concerns about what others will do with the information that they collect.
The fact is that in the United States, we don’t have privacy on the Internet. Dobbs’ article was last updated in July of 2001 so it doesn’t deal with the issues which were created after the 2001 September 11th terrorist attack on the United States when the Homeland Security Department was created. Dobbs (2001) reports that in 1998 the European Union had stronger privacy acts to protect its citizens on the Internet than we have in the United States. In 1999, Canada also passed a bill for the protection of Canadian’s privacy while on the Internet. In the United States the protection of privacy is formulated on the premise that industry will self regulate and protect consumer’s privacy. One analyst stated that “Most privacy policies are a joke. …The vast majority of policies are made up of vague terminology and legalese that serve to protect companies more than individuals” (Dobbs, 2001, pg 10).
According to information published by the Australian Government at http://www.privacy.gov.au/topics/technologies/privacy one privacy threat is composed of cookies. A cookie is a bit of information sent to your computer browser when you go to a website. This information is saved to your hard disk and is retrieved by the web site every time you visit it. The problem arises when you provide information about yourself to the web site to purchase something or subscribe to a free service. The cookie can collect that information and then be used to profile you. There are software products that you can get to protect your computer from cookies. Among these sites are Cookie Crusher, Cookie Pal and Cookie Cruncher.
A way to protect credit card information if you buy over the Internet is to use Secure Socket Layer which is built into major browsers. SSL provides security while making the transaction, but if the company you are dealing with doesn’t have secure storage for credit card numbers, hackers can steal lists of credit card numbers from the site. To encrypt your email and make it readable to only those that you send it to, you can use a free program entitled PGP or Pretty Good Privacy.
So there are ways for people to protect themselves while on the Internet, but I am left wondering how much information about me is online. One day one of my students used Google to find my home address which was correct and my age which was incorrect. A fellow teacher told me that she found our salaries listed on a website that advocates that public school teachers are being paid too much. While it is wonderful what all we can do with technology we still must be cognizant that we don’t have privacy on the Internet.
References
Dobbs, L. E., Esq. (2001, July). Privacy on the Internet. The Digital Author. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://www.geocites.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_privacyontheinternet.html
Austrailian Government (n.d.). Protecting your privacy on the Internet. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://www.privacy.gov.au/topics/technologies/privacy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)