Katkin’s weBLOG

It would seem rather appropriate that this week’s post is timed to coincide with our Freedom to Read Week in Canada. From February 22nd through 28th, Canadians are celebrating the 25th anniversary of “Freedom to Read Week.” This annual event draws attention to our right to intellectual freedom and serious issues such as censorship.

Intellectual freedom can be defined as an individual’s right “to read, to listen, to write, and to speak your beliefs and opinions” (Kids, know your rights! created by the Intellectual Freedom Committee 2005-2007, Association for Library Service to Children). In Canada, our Canadian Library Association’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom also states that:

All persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the nation’s Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and development of Canadian society.

In “Intellectual Freedom 101,” Helen Adams refers to “intellectual freedom” as “one of the core values of the library profession” (Adams, 2007). Libraries play a prominent role in supporting our right to intellectual freedom, even when it might be considered “to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable” (CLA, Statement on Intellectual Freedom) to do so. This means that libraries and librarians have a responsibility to ensure there is access to materials that express a variety of opinions and interests, although there may be some who object to their content and may challenge their inclusion in a library collection.

Intellectual freedom also includes respect for intellectual property. Intellectual property and copyright protect the work of others from being reproduced without permission. It is important for students “to understand that property is a two-sided issue: they need to respect the property of others as well as protect their own property from the abuses of others” (Johnson, 2003). Since it has become so easy to copy the content from electronic sources, there is a need for increased emphasis on ethical behaviors such as respect for intellectual property by seeking permission for use and acknowledging authorship.

In this digital age of learning, we all have the potential to be content creators in the Web 2.0 environment. David Warlick agrees in “Redefining literacy 2.0,” when he says that “an increasingly accessible Web” means that many of us,”our students included, are [becoming] information producers and intellectual property owners” (Warlick, 2009). We can express ourselves in writing, visually, through sound, through movement, and through multimedia. However, with all this new freedom, comes responsibility and the need to be literate in new ways. In the United States, the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for students was updated in 2007 to include the concept of digital citizenship which states that “students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior” (NETS-S).

The “affective domain” of our own K-8 continuum model for Literacy with ICT across the curriculum in Manitoba consists of four big ideas: responsibility and ethics, social implications, collaboration, and motivation and confidence. The affective domain is an important target area for our teacher-librarians, as classroom teachers often focus their attention on the big ideas of the cognitive domain of the continuum. Teacher-librarians can provide the essential support to help students “recognize the need to acknowledge authorship of intellectual property” in various media (text, images, music, video). As well, teacher-librarians guide students to recognize and question unethical behavior that might materialize in the form of bias, prejudice, hatred, racism, fraud or theft. Teaching students to be critical evaluators of online information becomes a critical new literacy for our students.

In his book entitled Learning right from wrong in the digital age, Doug Johnson asks the question…”Why do technology ethics deserve special attention? In considering the following, it becomes apparent that students require support in developing new literacies in “appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use” (Ribble, 2008-09) for the following reasons:

• media such as books, films and television have trivialized our respect for technology ethics by making hacking into computers seem acceptable, and even “heroic”
• a virtual world seems less serious than the real world, making it easier to “copy” software from a computer, as compared with physically “stealing” software from a computer store
• there seems to be less physical evidence when breaking the law electronically

In “Intellectual freedom for youth: Social technology and social networks,” author Annette Lamb outlines eight ways teacher-librarians can use their instructional role to support both students and teachers in navigating the “key issues related to intellectual freedom and social technology for young people.” Lamb’s “eight ways to take action” are particularly attractive because they allow teacher-librarians to envision specific ways in which they can use new social technology tools “as an opportunity to enhance thinking and learning” (Lamb, 2007).

1. look for ways to include these new tools in “positive, productive ways”
2. keep informed about new legislation (Bill C-61) that moves forward, rather than hinders progress
3. use social technologies to “amplify learning”
4. encourage students and teachers to evaluate social networks for themselves
5. work with students and their parents in developing strategies to ensure safety and privacy online
6. scaffold student experiences with social networking, from both within (portal) and outside (world wide web)
7. continually update your policies (collection development, selection policy, library procedures)
8. advocate for intellectual freedom

Source: Lamb, A. “Intellectual freedom for youth: Social technology and social networks, “Knowledge Quest: Intellectual Freedom 101. Vol.36, No.2, 38-45.

In our schools, teacher-librarians don’t only find themselves providing guidance in ethics and responsibility to students, but to their colleagues as well. As Mike Ribble observes in the article “Passport to digital citizenship: journey toward appropriate technology use at school and at home,” we are not only “educat[ing] our children on the issues that are occuring with technology but provid[ing] resources for our teachers and parents as well.” Teaching and promoting ethical behavior to adults is critical because they are often the models for students in their care. If we expect students to model responsible, ethical conduct when using technology, then we must also display the same regard and respect as their teachers. As Doug Johnson says, “It’s useless to lecture about intellectual property when we as adults use pirated software!” (Johnson, 2003).

An important strategy that teacher-librarians can use when dealing with the controversy that often results from disagreeable discussions that lecture on copyright infringement, plagiarism and disrespect for intellectual property, is to focus on the positives and what is permitted, rather than what is not. For example, if students and teachers are frequently using images that are not copyright free, teacher-librarians can re-direct them to sites and sources where they may have permission to use free images (World Book Online, Creative Commons, flickr). When we want to divert students and teachers from activity that is seemingly harmless, but unethical, teacher-librarians can experience greater success if they have a do-able alternative ready to offer up in substitute of the offending behavior.

Perhaps one of the most effective ways educators can “help students understand and appreciate information as valuable property is to make them property owners” (Warlick, 2009). We can also support students in developing a deeper understanding of intellectual property, by encouraging teacher-librarian and classroom teacher collaborations, whereby this dynamic instructional team plans and designs assignments that discourage plagiarism and promote original thought. By embedding safety, ethics and responsibility within student projects, digital literacy skills should eventually become seamlessly woven within the inquiry process. More than ever before, schools will need to rely on the skillset and expertise of the teacher-librarian in interpreting copyright laws, confronting censorship and defending intellectual freedom in a new digital age – where the very social nature of our online environment has forced us to re-evaluate how we interact with both public and private information.

The arrival of computer technologies and the Internet into mainstream use has propelled the term “digital divide” into our everyday language. Originally, the term was first used in the mid-1990s to describe “gaps in ownership of computers between groups, during which time the increase of ownership was limited to certain ethnic groups” (Wikipedia). Even though the term “digital divide” may be new, the concept is not. For example, consider the early introductory stages of the telephone or the television… in their day, these technologies also exhibited a divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” … but over time, as more people were able to acquire these new technologies, the issue of equity became less of a concern.

Generally speaking, the term “digital divide” has come to mean “the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all” (Wikipedia). As the “digital divide” gapes and recedes, it also continues to evolve and redefine itself to describe a variety of “imbalances in [ICT] resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen” (Wikipedia). As George Sciadas states in the research paper, “The Digital Divide in Canada,” it has become an “umbrella term for many issues,” including access to and use of ICT, inhibitors to using ICT, and literacy with ICT skills. It can also be “used to refer both to internal country divides, as well as divides across countries” (Sciadas, 2005).

Global Digital Divide

In examining the “digital divide” from within a global context, it is not difficult to understand how the gap increases in areas of the world where the Internet is not easily accessible. Lack of access to technology and the Internet creates a ripple effect because without the infrastructure and necessary hardware, education and the economy both suffer when a country’s citizens remain illiterate in using new ICT skills. Common factors that contribute to the “global digital divide” are gender, age, income, education, ethnicity and country of residence. In many cases, these factors “overlap, so that some groups are doubly or triply disadvantaged” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003).

Digital Divide in Canada

According to a recent Canadian Internet Use Survey referenced in the Globe and Mail, “age, income, education and place of residence” continue to be factors that contribute to the “digital divide” in Canada. In 2003, Dianne Looker and Victor Thiessen reported the following statistics based on interviews with high school students in Canada. Although some differences were marginal, their study revealed that “there is indeed a digital divide for Canadian youth in terms of access and experience with ICT:”

• a divide persists between users and non-users (heavy and light use equates to competence and tentative use)
• male and female students report equal access to technology, but different reasons for why they use it (gaming, social networks, school work)
• rural students less likely to have computer access at home, but use their school and local library computers more than their urban counterparts
• urban students have more access to specialized software for specific subject areas
• less computer support and professional learning opportunities for teachers in rural areas
• where the level of parent education is low, computers are rarely used at home or there is no computer
• lower socio-economic status homes tend to spend less time on the computer
• schools where teachers struggle with time limitations, pressure to cover the curriculum, lack of funds, limited number of Internet connections

Source: Looker, D. & V. Thiessen. (2003). Digital Divide in Canadian Schools.

Digital Divide in Education

Access to computers and the Internet tends to be the focus of most discussions concerning the “digital divide.” However, the ways in which computers are used both at school and at home offer yet another dimension to the term “digital divide.” For example, students can still be disadvantaged by a teacher or parent who does not model the use of new technologies effectively.

In the AASL blog post “Web 2.0 in schools: our digital divides are showing!” mmardis suggests that the integration of Web 2.0 tools in our schools is causing a new kind of “digital divide.” In reflecting on mmardis’ four quadrant divide model, I can evaluate how we are enabling or reducing a digital divide within our own school division:

1. Access (technology, bandwidth)

In terms of access to computer technologies and the Internet, our school division has been very diligent in providing equity to all our schools, regardless of factors such as school population, location and teacher education. All of our schools have comparable access to hardware, software, professional learning opportunities and technical support. We are now in the process of dismantling our computer labs in our K-8 schools and reconfiguring our hardware in pods of computers in school libraries and classrooms. Teacher-librarians will be instrumental in helping classroom teachers to make this shift in how they structure their instructional time with students. In “Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency,” author Sandra Kay Plair anticipates that it will be difficult to “convince veteran teachers to rethink the role of technology” and move them towards a new understanding of “the value that new technology tools have to offer to student learning” (Plair, 2008). The collaborative and instructional skills of the teacher-librarian will be critical to building a culture of inquiry that seamlessly integrates technology into the classroom setting, thus increasing student engagement and supporting best practices in teaching.

2. Skill (personal, professional)

For most teaching staff in our division, Web 2.0 tools are still very much buzz words. We are just beginning to use the language of blogs, wikis and podcasts in terms of our portal system… but having access to new tools is only half the battle… being able to use these new tools effectively and responsibly is even more important. In order to help build understanding among staff, one of our divisional strategies has been to empower teacher-librarians to offer instructional leadership in using blogs and wikis to support both student learning and professional learning for teachers. In order for our teacher-librarians to develop the necessary skills, the instructional technology coordinator has offered after-school workshops at various schools around the division… blogs one week, wikis another. We have also embedded the use of Web 2.0 tools in our teacher-librarian inquiry workshops and presented our PD plan in the form of a wiki. As a result, teacher-librarians are beginning to make new connections with students through book club blogs and collaborating with colleagues by using wikis to plan committee events. Using new tools in an authentic and meaningful context, not only models the tool for new learners, but generates useful content at the same time.

3. Policy (acceptable use, library, filtering)

Although our division blocks most Web 2.0 tools, we do have access to blogs, wikis and podcasts from within the confines of our divisional portal. Our policy is not to provide access to open source software that requires an external email address, but the tools in our portal can provide a simulated experience for our students and staff from within a safe environment. While we are learning to blog, to record and post a podcast, and to collaborate on a wiki, we are building the same skills we will need to use on the open web. In order to respect our divisional policy and give our students a similar Web 2.0 experience, our teacher-librarians are working collaboratively with their school personnel to set up classroom blogs and use wikis for class projects where appropriate. An important strategy will be to “share” how we are using these tools to support student learning successfully, rather than “tell” decision makers that we need increased access and less filtering. As Stephen Abram counsels in “Talking tech with leaders: getting buy-in and understanding,” “you’re building support for a vision and trying to influence priorities” (Abram, 2009).

4. Motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic)

I know that many of our teacher-librarians and instructional technology advocates are motivated to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into their practice. My motivation in using the tools that we have, is to use them effectively in context and exhaust their possibilities within the portal. At present, we are able to connect with students and teachers in other schools which is a start to expanding the confines of the physical classroom space. However, what makes Web 2.0 tools so engaging for learners is not so much the creation of the content, but what comes after publication (Richardson, 2009) … the comments, the discussions, the new ideas, the new understandings. What can be more intrinsically motivating than feedback from a real audience? How long will we be satisfied with only connecting to our immediate community of learners within the portal? In demonstrating our mastery of the tools from within the portal, we will be in a better position to advocate for less restrictions and the use of external Web 2.0 tools that are already available outside the school.

Without question, Web 2.0 tools are gaining in popularity outside our schools. Since students are already using these new technologies, we need to recognize the impact they are having and use these tools to re-engage students in learning. We need to give students the opportunity to use these new tools for learning, not just communication. In a “big picture” sense, Web 2.0 tools allow students to find their own teachers in a connected world (Richardson, 2009).

As an experiment last week, I decided to add a Clustrmap to the left sidebar of my blog. I’ve been thinking about where the content of this blog has been travelling. It’s very easy to forget that others may be reading and sharing what is written here. I expected to see red dots pop up in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, but certainly not in Toronto, the United States or the Netherlands? Now this might be a bit of a stretch in regards to this week’s “digital divide” theme but I’m going to make a pitch for how clustrmaps might reveal emerging trends, which are intriguing, but hardly scientific by any means.

In referring to how his own learning takes place through the contacts he makes on his blog, Will Richardson reflects on how Web 2.0 learning makes it possible for him to connect with many “teachers.” He adds that it’s “humbling” that so many people worldwide visit his blog every week. In acknowledgement of Richardson’s authority on Technorati and his reputation as a top Edublogger, we can examine his clustermap, considering that most weblogg-ed visitors are interested in education and/or savvy to Web 2.0 tools. Although, not a thoroughly scientific premise, the clustermap reveals a “digital divide” of its own. Examine Will’s map for yourself and consider a digital divide among educators around the world that is taking place at this very moment, between those who are tracking Richardson’s new ideas and those who are not.

PROLOGUE

The question of how much or how little we need to filter Internet content for our students is a 21st century conundrum for most educators today. We are struggling for consensus in this transitory time where we are talking about developing 21st century learning skills, but simultaneously obstructing the means by which we can move forward in acquiring these skills. Even though the emergence of Web 2.0 tools and access to open source software brings new challenges to educators, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the realization that these new resources also “bring tremendous learning advantages to our students” (Hall, 2008).

THE PLAYERS

• Students
  • often several steps ahead of most adults when it comes to navigating the Internet (both their parents and their teachers included)
  • active participants in social networks and comfortable in using Web 2.0 technologies
  • required “to power down” at school
  • lack experience in using “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
• Teacher-Librarians
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • offer expertise in using “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
  • frustrated by restricted access to online resources and Web 2.0 tools
  • advocates for intellectual freedom
  • concerned about “making waves” when jobs are on the line (Bell, 2008)
• Classroom Teachers
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • frustrated by restricted access to online resources
  • seeking instructional support in implementing “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
  • concerned about “making waves” when jobs are on the line (Bell, 2008)
• School-based administrators
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • obligation to the students, parents, staff and community
  • obligation to the school board trustees and superintendents
• Information Technology Directors and Supervisors
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • responsible for setting and maintaining the levels of access on the network filter
  • responsible for responding to requests to unblock resources
  • often make decisions regarding what students and teachers have access to at school
• School Board Trustees and Superintendents
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • have a legal obligation to the students, parents, staff and community
  • can be “set up for litigation if students are exposed to questionable content” (Media Awareness Network, 2009)
  • rely on the expertise of information technology directors and supervisors
  • have concerns for placing teachers’ careers in jeopardy without filters in place

ACT I – What we know…

We can all agree that when it comes to our children, we want to ensure that they are always as safe as possible while working online, both at school and at home. In our “Acceptable Use Policies,” we recognize that “the Internet is a valuable resource for students, and [that] students need to know how to use the Internet effectively and safely” (LRSD IT Acceptable Use & Safety, 2005). Even so, most school divisions filter web content from the Internet by restricting words or meanings that may be considered offensive or inappropriate for children. Filters can also shield students from obscenities, profanity, slurs, blasphemous terms, and slang terms for items such as drugs. For the most part, filters provide schools with “a reasonably high degree of protection from objectionable material when using online resources” (Hall, 2008).

According to Robert Losinski in “Patrolling Web 2.0,” it takes more than just blocking harmful sites to keep students from accessing them.” Reports on how “students can get around a standard filter and gain access to just about any site imaginable” (Losinski, 2007) continue to raise questions about how effective filters are in protecting our children. In the United States, the Children’s Internet Protection Act or CIPA, was legislated to “address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers.” As outlined in CIPA, schools and libraries receiving federal funding must purchase content filters to “prevent users from viewing objectionable material” (Villano, 2008). Despite the high financial costs required to support CIPA’s conditions, students admit that it is not difficult to slip by the filter using “anonymous proxy servers” (Losinski, 2007). By relying heavily on web filters to protect us from unseemly content, it seems as though we may be developing a “false sense of security” by putting all our faith in an unreliable technology.

ACT II – What we are learning…

As web filtering continues to be an issue of concern, both students and teachers are experiencing frustration in being unable to retrieve the information they need to access while at school. In the article “What are we protecting them from,” author Matt Villano concedes that often schools that operate filters at the highest settings may actually be doing their students a disservice by blocking access to quality information as well.

In “I’m Mad and I’m not going to take it anymore,” Mary Ann Bell states that “not allowing access can be dangerous, as it keeps us from teaching kids to be safe and smart online when they are on their own.” (Bell, 2008). She adds that filtering can lead to “laziness” because “it is easier to widely block a list of words than [to take the time] to carefully evaluate materials” (Bell, 2008).

We have also learned that “web filters can’t stand alone in an effective online safety strategy” (Losinski, 2007). Students also have access to computers outside school where content is not filtered and supervision varies depending on parent involvement. Therefore, it becomes more important than ever that students become educated in how to protect themselves online. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communication they receive” (McDonald, 2007) are essential skills for today’s learners.

In “Justifying the social tools: improving the conversation,” Stephen Abram states that restricting access to the Internet has the potential to “damage the teacher-librarian’s key roles in preparing learners to research well.” For teacher-librarians, collaboration and critical thinking are not new skills… but, perhaps more than ever, students need to be able to find, edit and evaluate information in an authentic environment.

The teacher-librarian provides leadership and instructional support to both students and teachers. Developing critical evaluation skills, designing effective search strategies and respecting intellectual property are becoming core skills for student success online. David Warlick refers to this shift as an “ethical imperative” which means we must “teach children to be their own gatekeepers” when it comes to being “literate in the new information landscape” (Warlick, 2007).

ACT III – What happens next…

Finding consensus between student safety online and student access online has become the essence of the filtering conundrum in our schools. In “Patrolling Web 2.0,” author Robert Losinski comments on the irony of how school divisions provide students and teachers with Internet access as a resource to complete research assignments… yet filter the exact content that would enable them to actually carry out their inquiry-based research. Mary Ann Bell echos this concern when she observes that “state standards call for online collaboration that is hindered by overly restrictive filters. Thus, schools are working environments that keep them from achieving their own goals” (Bell, 2008).

Even though school filters may restrict our Internet access at work, both students and teachers spend the majority of their time in an “unfiltered world” outside of school. This is our reality and we need to know how to deal with it more effectively. Filtering online content in our schools works in direct opposition to our need to increase experiential learning. Blocking access to electronic learning sources can affect curriculum delivery.

Teacher-librarians are well-positioned to play an important role in transforming teaching and learning in our schools. In reflecting on my own teaching and learning, I can envision a personal action plan that has the potential to impact favorably on student learning during this transitory time.

• ask pertinent questions in regards to filtering standards in our school division
• ensure that Acceptable Use Policies “respect the rights of both child and school,” emphasize “supervision and guidance,” rather than “surveillance and control” (Media Awareness Network, 2009)
• refocus our attention on the Canadian Library Association’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom
• develop an action plan for teacher-librarians to take the lead in preparing students and teachers to become fluent in new 21st century literacies, that emphasize critical thinking, evaluating and editing
• create a technology hearing committee comprised of representatives of all the stakeholders (students, teachers, classroom teachers, principals, parents, community members, technology directors, senior administrators and school board trustees) to address the question of content filtering in our schools. In “Filtering woes redux,” Mary Ann Bell reminds us that stakeholders like “librarians, teachers, and administrators need to work together to use the best the Internet has to offer and to help students be successful and safe searchers” (Bell, 2006).
• bring current literature and research findings on filtering to the attention of all stakeholders.
• advocate for the empowerment of curriculum coordinators and school-based teachers to become actively involved in making filtering decisions
• investigate ways in which to educate and inform parents more effectively in regards to filtering in schools. In “Web 2.0: the virtual wild, wild west,” Don Hall advocates for building “a parent-education program about Internet safety and content filtering in the home” (Hall, 2008).
• propose a filtering system that is built on a “sliding scale,” that releases restrictions as students advance in age and move through their formal school education
• “create a list of highly effective, district supported Web 2.0 resources that are aligned to your instructional program” (Hall, 2008). Our division has already embraced Photostory in this way, perhaps there are others we might add… Voicethreads, for example.

EPILOGUE

Although filtering web content in our schools may appear to be all about safety, it is also becoming more about disabling our students and teachers. We acknowledge that information is everywhere, but we are reluctant to admit that filters in our schools just don’t work in the way that they should in this time of transition. In many ways, filters actually jeopardize what it means to be literate in the world today.

As we work our way through this conundrum, it will be necessary to ensure that students, educators and parents become educated in how they can navigate this new landscape critically and prudently, rather than “fighting over which Web sites to block” (Hall, 2008). As Doug Johnson ponders in “Changes from the radical center of education,” … “The solution to most of the world’s problems will rely on effective education,” … and the filtering conundrum is no exception.