Garland Green's Blog Portfolio

DRM & the Undefined Future of Online Education

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:57:25 -0700

    The last decade has seen the development of new online media technologies that have sparked new and innovative ways to deliver content to the home user. The deployment of increased connectivity mechanisms, commonly referred to as “broadband” technologies, has led to the increase in faster and more stable networks, supported by affordable commercial pricing structures, often times bundled with more traditional media content packages such as cable and satellite. Such providers as Dish Network, Cox Cable, Directv, and most recently, Charter Communication, now boasts that their customers can “(e)njoy blazing-fast speeds up 16Mbps” (fast enough to watch a full screen movie) for just under sixty dollars a month.

    These new developments in broadband connectivity and affordability have allowed for the increased ability to download data and opened the door for these new delivery technologies to flourish. With these new technologies has come an increased ability to deliver more content rich information to students. This is done through the use of web-ready presentations. These tools have tested the ability of educational institutions to monitor the use of these technologies as well as pushing the laws of the United States and their ability to keep up. But these developments have had a tremendous impact on the way K-12 educational institutions comply with Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Fair Use in the twenty-first century when it applies to distance education.

    This paper, and the research contained within, is intended to be a guide for educators and administrators to use as they evaluate these new technologies, in particular, streaming technologies, used in an online and virtual educational setting. While serving as supporting document in the development of policy for the Sonoma Academy, it is offered as an addition to the broader dialog of DRM within K-12 organizations, and the surrounding challenges associated with complying with all laws, and the development of online programs.

    With the exception of dedicated criminal elements, few organizations intentionally set out to break copyright law. But even fewer institutions have the resources needed to employ a full time copyright expert to continually monitor compliance with the ever-changing issues surrounding digital rights management and international copyright law. It is for that reason the K-12 organizations have tried to place the responsibility for copyright oversight and enforcement within the portfolios of existing library and media specialists. In the past, DRM and the responsibility for institutional oversight was traditionally the responsibility of the library and media specialists (librarians) to teach their staff about digital rights management. This portfolio structure required that these specialists deal with two very distinctively different content areas: traditional DRM focused on books and magazines and the photocopying of the media, and now the digital accountability and streaming media technologies that have emerged within the last ten years. Furthermore, what is complicating the need for digital copyright oversight has been who within the organization will have the responsibility for ensuring copyright oversight?

    What makes this even more complicated is there is a growing need to support online curricular developments by using these new technologies and this has stressed educational organizations' ability to deliver and still comply with copyright law. K-12 institutions at one time had only to concern themselves with supporting media demands within the traditional brick-and-motor school.

    There have been many efforts in the past to support the media professionals, and to provide guidelines to aid them with copyright compliance. These guidelines gave traditional educational organizations an umbrella protection that made the use of media rich content broadly available to their teachers and allowed them to adhere to the copyright laws of the nation. These protections were broadly referred to as Fair Use. Before 1980 the concern for media professionals had to deal with following copyright law regarding the recording of video off the airwaves, or “off-air” recordings. It is for that reason Congressman Robert Kastenmeier (Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice), appointed a Negotiating Committee the purpose of establishing these guidelines to provide standards for both owners and users of content.

    These guidelines in no way could have predicted the impact that the Internet would have on the development of new audiovisual technologies (RealMedia, QuickTime, MythTV, the iTunes Store, Hulu.com and Blinkbox.com). Furthermore, the guidelines were so restrictive that they did not allow for the legal long term storage made possible by the drastic drop in storage cost. While one could argue that the guidelines were well meaning, they had the result of being more effective in limiting use than allowing it. They even went so far as to define the amount of time the teacher had to preview a piece of work and determine if she wanted to use it in her curriculum.

    But even in 1979 Congress understood that new technologies would challenge existing copyright law as well as the impact they would have on the way educators and library and media specialists would need to approach copyright. Congress could not know that educators would be grappling with a moving target of compliance with the development of the home-computer-to-home-computer sharing software first pioneer by Napster. The home-computer-to-home-computer technology has become known as Peer-to-Peer (P2P), in which every computer involved in sharing information is both a server and recipient. But with robust, and affordable, networks within the realm of possibilities, the Copyright Act, and the work done by Congressman Kastenmeier, was fast becoming outdated and ineffective.

    By October 2002 these networks had become affordable possibilities and universities had to find ways to meet their responsibility to provide good educational content and yet adhere to digital copyright. Educators have long felt protected by the umbrella of “Fair Use” and by the fact that their end user was a teacher working in an accredited educational institution or a student doing pedagogical research. However, the impact of asynchronous delivery systems, in which the educational information is stored on a school's server and is then accessed at another time by students at their convenience changed the nature of oversight and required a closer look at how   media was stored and disseminated.

    By definition, innovation of these new media moves beyond the laws that were written to regulate information use. You need the protection of intellectual property in order to grow new media and yet you need the development of new technologies to transfer it. However, the development of new technologies put stresses on the ability to ensure protection. K-12 organizations are confused and frustration about how to use media materials and still comply with the law. A candid look at how teachers and media professionals are coping is important.

Media literacy educators experienced the copyright information they received as mostly negative, and mostly hampering their pedagogical goals. Some responded by attempting studied ignorance, believing that increased knowledge would impede their work even more.” In this case, ignorance is truly bliss. However, still other teachers simply “(c)lose the door. Quiet defiance of copyright norms (as understood), within the four walls of a classroom, is common.”

    But the real cost to the educational institution is not simply in paying for the time spent by media literacy professionals chasing down the best practices for a specific use of a particular piece of supporting media, the real cost may, in fact be in hyper-compliance with the law that blocks legitimate use of content. As the Center for Social Media points out:

(s)ome people—even some of the same people—also over-comply with copyright law, and even forgo using legitimate teaching tools and techniques for fear of violating copyright The true cost of this willingness to hyper-comply is that (t)he pedagogical costs of studied ignorance, quiet transgression, and hyper-compliance are many. The quality of the curriculum materials that teachers design is impaired; the work that is created, either by students or teachers, has limited circulation; and students learn copyright misconceptions.

     
    Forasmuch as educators and media literacy professionals, in good faith, attempt to comply with the copyright responsibilities of the K-12 organization, there is a cost associated with understanding, or misunderstanding, what is required by copyright law. Relying too heavily on old information learned over the years or at a teacher or media conference may be as negligent as not adhering to the copyright laws at all. In this case there may be unduly restrictive rules that are in place and hamper legitimate access to media under the Fair Use sections of the Copyright Act.

    The challenges facing K-12 organizations are many if they wish to move forward with distance, asynchronous and online education. These challenges are both understood and very well articulated by the American Library Association (ALA): “To understand the magnitude of the issues at stake, one needs to comprehend, not only the growth of distance education, but also the expansion of copyright protection.” What makes digital copyright in educational more challenging is that no longer are there boundaries associated with educational facilities. Sonoma Academy can be found at www.sonomaacademy.org. Because Sonoma Academy has a web presence it has a global presence that has to be taken into consideration when sharing content with students. As the World Bank points out:

There is tremendous growth and diversity in distance education--in the number and types of individuals learning outside traditional classrooms, in the variety of providers, and in the range and effectiveness of new technologies serving as delivery tools for learning. Distance education is becoming increasingly global, creating myriad new alliances as traditional educational institutions join with businesses, foreign governments, and international organizations to offer and use distance learning. Developing countries now have new opportunities to access knowledge and enhance their human capital. | 

    Therefore, just as the World Bank has followed the lead of the United States with the language of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (US GATT), there is a precedent and a reason to believe that the US copyright language, as it applies to distance education, could become the road map for how the world moves forward with copyright and Fair Use. Let's be clear that when we talk about distance education we are almost always talking about the asynchronous delivery of content on a restricted-access network, that is to say a network that has strong controls over who can access and post information online, and is posted for the purpose of educating students. The most common form of oversight is primarily delivered through the use of a user name and password. Therefore, copyrighted material that is transmitted over a restricted-access network for the purpose of educating students gives the educational institution a copyright advantage over commercial organizations.

    However, a certain amount of policy heavy lifting must be done before these educational organizations can enjoy these advantages. It is most preferable to have formalized policies, in place before posting copyrighted material online to be used for distance education, however, it is not necessary. There must be at least a set of informal policies dictating how educational institutions govern the way instructors post copyrighted material online. To comply with both the spirit and the letter of the TEACH Act (Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002), school districts and universities should have board-approved standing policy that dictates what can be posted online, but again, this is not necessary as long as there is a deliberate and concerted action leading to a final board policy.

    Unlike previous copyright law, the TEACH Act eliminates the requirement of a physical classroom. However, section 110(2)(C) of the TEACH Act makes it clear that:
(T)he transmission must be made solely for, and, to the extent technologically feasible the reception of the transmission must be limited to, two defined classes of eligible recipients: students officially enrolled in the course for which the transmission is made; and officers or employees of governmental bodies as part of their official duties of employment. 

In those instances where a teacher may be concerned about posting information online for their students, three important criteria should be met:

1.    Is the institution recognized by an accredited governmental body as an educational institution,
2.    Is the information protected from public and intended to be used and “...directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission,” and
3.    Has the educational institution legally obtained the material needed to support the curriculum?

    But the law also makes it clear that even if you meet the criteria above, it is important for educators to know that material posted simply as complementary content or used for entertainment purposes (similar to showing a movie in class before the Christmas break) may not be covered by Fair Use and or the TEACH Act. Furthermore, material should not “...be retained no longer than reasonably necessary to complete the transmission.” This means that allowing students to download content and store it indefinitely will not be covered under Fair Use. There is an admission by lawmakers that, while streaming technologies with restrictive safeguards are available, not all educational facilities have access to these technologies for a multitude of reasons. Again, there has to be a demonstrated, deliberate, and concerted action that puts these technologies and safeguards in place when the reasons for not having them are eliminated.

    Like previous efforts to clarify the Fair Use of copyrighted material for educators, technology has moved past even the TEACH Act of 2002. However, what has not changed is the requirement that the educators respect the rights of the copyright holder. If a decision is made by the copyright holder to place copyright protections on their content, the educator must respect these protections to the extent technically possible. That is to say that if a piece of music is purchased from Apple's iTunes store with built-in digital rights management, then the educator is required to adhere to these protections and not remove them, even if it is technically possible. If these protections are not acceptable to the educational institution, then policies that require the purchasing of continent that does not come with such restrictive digital rights should be adopted. To further complicate the matter, such sites as Hulu.com, which allow for the embedding of their content into distance learning tools, must not be striped of the digital rights associated with the content as well as the commercials that are part of the shared content. Section 110(2)(C) makes clear that the educational institution is responsible for understanding the digital rights measures that the content producer has deployed and may not “...engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to interfere with [such] technological measures.” This includes oversight of all users on the school's system.

    The TEACH Act has amended section 112 of the Copyright Act to take into account the so-called “ephemeral recordings” that require a limited long-term retention of copies of copyrighted materials. Ephemeral, in this case, is content that is sent to the end user over a broadband network for only the time required to view or listen to the content, which must then no longer be available to students. This is often referred to as “streaming technologies” where the content is played and is not available to be stored on the client computer for future use. This means that institutions can store copyrighted material on a   server, as long as once the content is shared with students “...the content may thereafter be placed in storage and outside the reach of students.”

    The TEACH Act allows for specific pieces of work to be shown in an asynchronous environment. More important than what the TEACH Act allows is what it specifically forbids. An educator cannot show work that is marketed and intended for dramatic performance only. It is also made very clear that content that is obtained in an illegal manor can not be used in any way. Therefore, if an educator videotapes a school play and posts that online, they are not covered under the umbrella of Fair Use. Nor is that teacher protected from possible penalties of law if that teacher accepts a “ripped” copy of a movie or downloads that movie using P2P software such as that which can be obtained from Bittorrent.com. While there are many and varied circumstances which the Copyright Act and the 2002 TEACH Act must cover, the one underlying theme that will be considered when the law is applied is, “What were the intentions of the educator at the time that they posted the materials?”

    If the educator obtained the material legally, used it as an integral part of their curriculum, made themselves aware of the policies of the educational institution, and used all technical means available to limit access to only students enrolled in their class, then the chances of violating either the Copyright Act or the TEACH are almost none. In fact, “(t)here's never been a lawsuit involving a media company and an educator over the rights to use media as part of the educational process.”
    While there has not been any litigation leveled against an educator, what is made very clear is that educational institutions must set aside funds to purchase digital content to replace old, outdated, or analog content if they wish to share it digitally and in an online, asynchronous, distance education environment. While costly and possibly inconvenient, the only provision available that allows for the conversion from analog to digital is if there are no digital opportunities available for purchase. Fair Use does not extend to content that is was not originally purchased in digital form.

    There have been many efforts to not only understand copyright law by educational institutions, but to apply it. However, these efforts have fallen short, not in spite of educators' efforts, but because of them. Peter Jaszi, Law Professor, American University concludes:

The so-called Fair Use guidelines on topics like photocopying and off-air taping are rigid, conservative, outmoded interpretations of the law, not the law itself. They no longer reflect the realities of the classroom, if they ever did. Today, they are strangling educational practice, rather than enabling it. 

    As much as the Fair Use has been rigid, conservative and outmoded for educators, it has been equally ineffective in keeping up with the delivery and storage mechanisms that emerged over the last decade. With the cost of storage dropping to almost nothing per megabyte, the ability to store digital content on a centralized storage facility has become not only affordable, but also desirable. Robust fiber optic networks and the ability to store and disseminate the digital content needed to support distance education have pushed existing copyright law to a point where the application of the law needs to be challenged. Teachers have started to do that.

    The current Copyright Law, and the TEACH Act make it clear that teachers can capture their in-class discussions and post them, even if the course shows copyrighted material. What is in question is the amount of time it may keep these materials. There must, however, be technical measures to prevent “retention of the work in accessible form by recipients of the transmission . . . for longer than the class session.” What is not known, and is not defined, is what constitutes the “class session?” This is something that should be addressed in policy since it has been argued that the class session is the length of time that the class is offered.

    Nonetheless, the ability to store digital content and distribute it over a restricted-access network is clear but the ability to store and maintain it is not as clear. The interpretation of Fair Use also applies to storage of media, but these new technologies require that educational institutions deploy additional accountability mechanisms.

    The one technology that holds the best promise of meeting the requirements of current copyright laws, and yet does not hamper the Fair Use of content, is ephemeral or streaming technology. Since this technology allows for control over the ability to download and store data, it can be used to limit the availability of content by controlling access via server-side controls, rather than relying on the individual teacher to meet the copyright requirements of law. By managing availability on the server, educational institutions can turn on and off content stored in directories.

    For many institutions there is a concern that by simply providing access to copyrighted content to students, the students will use technology to capture and maintain a copy of the school's content, and on their own, create a liability for the educational institution. In addition, such technologies as MythTV, which acts like a digital video recorder (DVR) with a long cable, allow teachers to record television programming that was once provided through “Cable in the Classroom” and show them to their students online. These technologies have become available after the TEACH Act was enacted and once again require an understanding of copyright law. The courts look at the initial intent of the educator when it comes to copyright compliance; however, on August 14, 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled in favor of cable companies and Fair Use. While I concede that finding good case law that applies to an educational environment is limited, it appears that the courts have started to look closer at opening up the definition and application of how it applies to the use of legitimate content.

    In closing, the need for teachers and educational institutions to rely heavily on the TEACH Act to guide their practice is clear. Since the act was written to support the growth of online education, it takes into account the need to deliver rich content to a student who may never enter a physical classroom, balanced against copyright agreements intended to protect the intellectual property of the holder. Furthermore, the TEACH Act takes into consideration the evolving nature of digital content delivery and is broad enough to grow with the rapidly changing market place. Ultimately, however, it is educators, and administrators, who must adapt their practices in light of a constantly evolving copyright law. Even with the broad protections provided to educators under Fair Use, and the TEACH Act, there must be an understanding that technology, and by extension online education, will be constantly changing and the laws will always struggle to adapt.

But in the end it is the responsibility of the educator to follow logical best practices as a matter of policy.

Stone, Brad. "Testing Over, Hulu.com to Open Its TV and Film Offerings This Week." New York Times 11 March, 2008 Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/business/media/11hulu.html

Brooks-Young, Susan. "Video Streaming: Harnessing a Unique Capability of Technology" Today's School, Shared Leadership in Education. 30 March, 2008. Retrieved from http://www2.peterli.com/ts/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=912

"U.S. Colleges Reeling from Financial Crisis" News Max. 30 October, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/unversities_in_crisis/2008/10/30/146095.html

Rothman, David H. "Copyright and K-12: Who Pays in the Network Era?" U.S. Department of Education. 18 September, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/rothman.html

Doggett, Sandra L., Montgomery, Paula Kay. "Beyond the Book: Technology Integration Into the Secondary School Library Media Curriculum" Libraries Unlimited. Portsmouth, NH 2000.

Brown,Mary Daniels. "Outdated School Libraries: What Can You Do to Update Yours?" Education World. 01 August, 2000. Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin181.shtml

Pappas, Marjorie L. "Virtual School Library Media Center Management Manual" School Library Media Activities Monthly. January, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibrarymedia.com/columns/management/index.html

"The 20-Questions Fair Use Copyright Quiz" Glencoe/McGraw-Hill 30 November, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/computered/col/chapter1/rules/fair_use_quizfrm.html

"Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" United States Copyright Office. 20 November, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

"Report of the Conference Committee on the new copyright law H.R. Rep. No. 94-1733", November, 2007. Retrieved from www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

"Copyright and the DMCA." 30 November, 2008. MOREnet Retrieved from http://www.more.net/about/articles/2003/dmca-copyright.html

Fisher, William W. McGeveran, William. "The Digital Learning Challenge: Obstacles to Educational Uses of Copyrighted Material in the Digital Age" Social Science Research Network 04 November, 2008. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=923465

Hirtle, Peter B. "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States" Cornell University 10 January, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

Hobbs, Renee., Jaszi, Peter. Aufderheide, Pat. "The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy" Center for Social Media School of Communications American University. September, 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/files/pdf/Final_CSM_copyright_report.pdf

Crews, Kenneth D. "Distance Education and the TEACH Act" American Library Association 30 November, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/federallegislation/distanceed/distanceeducation.cfm#background

Potashink, Michael., Capper, Joanne. "Distance Education: Growth and Diversity" World Bank March, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/fandd/english/0398/articles/0110398.htm

Crews, Kenneth D. "New Copyright Law for Distance Education: The Meaning and Importance of the TEACH Act" Copyright Management Center, Indeiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis. 10 November, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/teach_summary.htm

Hobbs, Renee., Jaszi, Peter. Aufderheide, Patricia. "Ten Common Misunderstandings about Fair Use." Philadelphia: Media Education Lab. 30 November, 2008. Retrieved from: http://mediaeducationlab.com/index.php?page=274

"The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education" Center for Social Media School of Communications American University. November, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/code_for_media_literacy_education/ 
"The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit" 04 August, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTE0ODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/07-1480-cv_opn.pdf

When, Not If... Maybe!

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:01:41 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 7. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it.

When I look at all the projects that are awaiting implementation I find that we have a "when", not "if" approach to implantation. In most cases I get the "when" wrong not the "if" wrong. But I do get it wrong and that means that we in the technology department need to always make sure we have plan for when the "when" moves to "maybe.".

Most technology is "sold" as being needed for the sake of institutional productivity. In short, you can do more with less time, and therefore, becoming more productive for the institution. As is pointed out in 7.3, page 120-121

But this is not always the truth. Folks like me have pointed to email for a long time as an example of effective ICT as well as the Internet being used as a kind of "Answer Man" and giving teachers access to information on demand. However, "...there is also a considerable body of research that at least sheds doubt on such contribution of ICT." And my teachers are quick to point that out. "Gar, do you have any data to support your X, Y, Z position on using this, or that tool?" I would like to be able to say, "No, but I know it in my gut" but that ain't going to work.

So when I talk about purchasing new tools that will replace a time-tested, well-practiced process with new tools, online grades for example, there is predictable blow-back. However, as is pointed out, "'We see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics." I hear this all the time and I can't help but think that it is total fecal matter. Here is why: it is always faster and easier to input data on paper, at least at the "input" stage. Teacher A writes down attendance on a piece of paper and kid B picks it up and takes it to the office. A person writes it down on a piece of paper and enters it into a book or something. Fast for the teacher, laborious and not productive for the organization, even if it is faster and more productive for the teacher. Input faster, organizationally slower and less productive.

So the problem comes in when we try to define productivity in the traditional sense. Sure, in the minds of our users (and we covered this in the last chapter -- perception is truth) it is so easy to print out a newsletter and give it to your kids to take home, as opposed to posting it on a school web page. As is pointed out (and I will adapt this to my K-12 example): "According to Brynjolfsson, the first explanation (reference to the computer age being everywhere but no statistics) is the most important, which would mean that there is no real productivity paradox - but a measuring problem with regard to the output criteria in the service sector."

As it applies to K-12, how do you measure the productivity of a teacher converting a newsletter to a school web page if the only measure is "teachers' time" being the metric? You can't because you do not take into account the impact on the consumer (that word again), the parent, being able to access that data at every turn and at every time? So the service sector in this case is our parents and their time is too something we need to consider in the productivity equation.

So to close this, it is true that there a definable challenge to determine the effect on an organizations' productivity as a result of ICT. The real struggles, as is pointed out on page 123 it is not the effectiveness versus opportunity that is important, what should be considered is that there is "(a)n important negative effect of ICT is information overload." That is the job of the Director of Technology to determine the when, not the if. Once there is a clear understanding of what will help the organization, and thus being more productive to not only the staff, but the wider K-12 community then implementation must happen. The issue becomes when and to what impact will it have on the information and data collection overload have on the workings of the district. So it is not a matter of if, but when. Well... maybe.
-G

Between The Keyboard and Chair

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:17:51 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 6. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it.

I find that a good portion of my day is spent finding a way to fix the technical problems that rest between the keyboard and the chair. No matter how good we are as a technology team and I as a technologist it always comes down to the people. Subsequently, I found the discussion about "user friendliness" and the success of the media choice and use of the technology most relevant.

In section 6.2, page 95 Accessibility focused on the fact that as technologists we need to not only focus on the level of user-freindliness itself, but making sure that we match the tool with the end user and their level of experience. " It is, therefore, not the level of user-friendliness itself that is important, but rather the right match between the user's experience and the complexity of the system." Again, I am in this program in order to help me translate new technologies into the K-12 environment. It is for that reason when we talk about "user-friendly" in terms of accessibility, we talk in terms of "dumbing-down" the tool. I have said this to others, and behind closed doors I might add, that we have a baby boomer logjam when it comes to integration of new tools. This puts an added need to find tools that fit the end user and still meet the needs of a changing data-driven demand for accessibility to information.

In BOX 6.1 there is discussion about using a tool that was meant for on purpose being used inappropriately for another. The idea that you would hold a fact-face-meeting and send folks back to an email treasure hunt to find out if you are fired is almost criminal. However, it does demonstrate one use. I did however, have a cousin of mine who is attending Stout "break up" with his girlfriend by simply changing his relationship status on Facebook.com. If you talk to him it worked just fine for both parties.

My point? "Effective communication depends on choosing a medium that is compatible with the task at hand." It is true that there are various competing theories about how to do this, having a dialog about administratively "dictating" the appropriate use of these tools is part of any job. We have just adopted a new Acceptable Use Policy for SDMA because of misuse of these tools as was described above. I find it interesting the level of resistance to the incorporation of new, better suited tools, such as Chat over e-mail. We have covered that already.

Therefore, I think I subscribe, for now, to the Subjectivist approaches to the adoption and integration of technologies into an organization. "The social influence model argues that media richness cannot be determined objectively. What is important is the way various media are perceived. The perception depends on the user's attitude as well as the options and behaviour of others. Furthermore, different people may have different perceptions." Point in case as it applies to Chat versus e-mail. Skype versus a phone call, and so on.

This leads me to the end of this post. When we consider the introduction of new technologies into an organization we have to understand that our end users will make assumptions that can not be determined objectively. "The same goes for matching medium and task: different users will make different choices based on their personal perceptions." As I said, it is between the keyboard and the chair.

-G

5.5 ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 05:09:25 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 5. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it."

I want to return to the examples I used in chapter 4 from a perspective of implementation strategies. I will look at LAD and Prototyping. Before doing so let me go back to chapter 4's example. We have every classroom equipped with a TV (all are CRT), VCR's and in some cases a DVR/CDROM player. However, these TV's and media boxes will need to upgrade since the contract between Menomonie and "Channel One", the company that purchased the TV's for us ends in January 09 and we have a new HD broadcast issues.

So as I said we need to replace the VHS players, the DVD players and the TV's. The TV's are easy. We will need to add digital projectors (push of new technologies) since the cost is comparable to a new HD TV that can accept the HD signals that will come in January. To connect to it we can repurpose our teachers' laptops since every teacher has one assigned to them. In this case we eliminate the tuner if we use a web browser to show recorded TV content and Movies on DVD. To do this we have chosen to use Open Source tools to eliminate the need to purchase new VHS/DVDR's in classrooms and libraries.

However, in doing so we will change the way our organization records, disseminates and archives the new digital content. For those interested in the tool we have chosen to use MythTV to do that.

However, as is pointed out on page 89:

"Over the past decades ICT (Information Communication Technology) has become an important trigger for organizational change. Although social systems cannot be designed and imposed, attempts can be made to influence and realize the way organizational objectives are achieved through clever interventions and strategies. To do so, it is important to have knowledge of the process of change. The focus is on human behavior, organizational culture, the stimulation of change, hierarchies and an awareness that organizational change is a continuous process."

In deed, as you can imagine, our traditional Library Media Specialists (Librarians) feel both both skeptical and threatened. However, while I did not understand it at the time, I used Prototyping since we understood that our "(u)sers have a hard time making their needs and requirements explicit." In my case they used the head in the sand approach and just ignored the challenges. But a strict Linear Application Development model would, in fact, have given us built-in obstacles that would impede our success. As is pointed out: "In order to improve the quality of the design, various validation steps and feedback loops..." need to be designed to make sure the transition from an analog, front-of-the-room-single-box approach, to a networked, streaming-media approach needs to be developed. We have developed a prototype and have been collecting input from two of our Library Media Specialists to help with developing deployment strategies.

Therefore, the importance of understanding importance of organizational culture and the impact that these new technologies will have on those is vital to the success of this project specifically, but ICT in general. As it written in the conclusion: "Implementation can be interpreted in a broad as well as a narrow sense." As it should be. The big idea for me has to do with understanding the impact new ICT will have in acting as a "trigger" for change. In my case, the way Librarians will need to do their jobs in the next six years. An if you have never worked with this group of educators, this is no small job.

"Big Idea" You Find In Chapter 4

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:44:12 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 4. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it."

Understanding the push and pull outlined in 4.2 is important in all modern organizations and understanding the importance of in public education is vital. Let me use a real life example of understanding the importance of it as it applies to 4.2 pages 60-61.

We have every classroom equipped with a TV, VCR and in some cases a DVC/CDROM player. However, these TV's are all CRT boxes and we will need to upgrade these since the contract between Menomonie and "Channel One", the company that purchased the TV's for us ends in January 09.

So the push of the market and new technologies has made our CRT TV's and VCR players obsolete. As much as that is the case, so too are the DVD /CDROM players no longer of much use since the new format, Blue Ray or what ever "wins" will drive the HD content that is played. This is a market push to change.

The pull in our case has to do with the need for content consumption (that word again) in a convergent paradigm. So the "(c)hanging requirements from the environment and the organization: the environments within which organizations operate are becoming increasingly complex (hard to understand) and turbulent (subject to constant change).

In our case the complexity has to do with moving the traditional brick and mortar classrooms to the asynchronous and online environment that gives all our teachers access to the same tools they have in the classroom. In my example access to TV, DVD (movies) and audio books.

Secondly the push of the technology itself. We now have access to online DVR's, not simple TV's and this can be viewed through the web browser, digitized digital "movie" content and the ability to stream audio books through iTunes, Shoutcast, Flash Players and so on. The push of the new technologies that can help eliminate the need for hard-wired single purpose boxes. Therefore, the "(a)vailibility of technology: the mere fact that ICT applications are available is also a reason to consider to what extent these applications have to be adopted by the organization." In this case, sdmaonline.com

Finally, we know that know that we now have competition for our educational dollars from other schools facing the same challenges. Now they don't have a brilliant guy like me who understands this stuff so they are in trouble. (That was to check if you were listening :-} ) "The behaviour of others: the 'me-too', or 'bandwagon' phenomenon also plays an important part in justifying the adoption of ICT applications." While there is a part of that that drives ICT in education, in our case this is much less the case as it was in the past since we have a tangible and identifiable need to adopt these new technologies in order to remain both viable and relevant in the marketplace.

The final reference from 4.2 is what I find most important: "The interaction between 'technology-push' and 'market-pull' is of great importance at the market level where innovations are developed and subsequently offered."

TCP/IP

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:14:31 -0700

Q: Describe a milestone in the History of ICT. Include a date of the milestone, describe the milestone, and why it was important. Include at least on reference.

It ain't sexy, it gets little fanfare and is a redheaded stepchild to the other topics posted here, however, TCP/IP is the diesel that powers the Internet engine and subsequently the Information Communications Technologies that will support our futures. I think that when we talk about

disruptive technologies we often focus on the implementation of them and the impact they have on social structures. Our previous discussion was in part about this. How do these new technologies change the way we communicate? Without TCP/IP, possibly a previous incarnation of NCP, or a hacked together attempt at a routed UDP, we would have had to come up with an open protocol in order to do that. The TCP/IP protocols won the day.

It is true that the Internet is the primary reason TCP/IP is what it is today. Without Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) we could not talk to each other in the ways that we do. However, before there was the World Wide Web there was ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Networks) and "ARPAnet created the TCP/IP communications standard, which defines data transfer on the Internet today." (SOURCE)

Furthermore, "(w)hat many people don't realize is that in early versions of this technology, there was only one core protocol: TCP. And in fact, these letters didn't even stand for what they do today; they were for the Transmission Control Program. The first version of this predecessor of modern TCP was written in 1973, then revised and formally documented in RFC 675, Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program, December 1974." (SOURCE)

I concede, that a dialog about TCP/IP can be a big bore, but when you couple in P2P with TCP/IP you get Skype, iChat, and a host of technologies yet to be seen. So I conclude TCP/IP is a silent warrior in the business if information communications technology and deserves an honorable mention.

Gutenberg press, and other devices

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:48:58 -0700

Q: In class their was a discussion about the Gutenberg press, and other devices. It was mentioned that we were only focused on producing information and not considering the consumers of the information. If you refer back to all the communications models we looked at, you will note that there is both a sender and a receiver of information in the models that deal with the technology. The sender and receiver is the same as the producer and the consumer. This was a prelude to the actual discussion.

In class there was a discussion of whether or not there is a difference in the producing and consuming of information by those in the 10 to 12-year-old age range. This was based on antidotal information and so we need to determine if there really is a difference in the way people of this generation consume information. In your post you need to state...

1. Whether or not you believe there is a difference in the way this generation processes information and how so.

2. Describe the role of the sender in this communication process. Is it the duty of the sender to adapt to their audience's needs by adjusting their form of communication, or is it the receivers duty to adapt to the communication method chosen by the sender.

To refrain from gathering more anecdotal information, you need to site at least two references - one that demonstrates whether or not this generation consumes information differently and a second to determine whether or not we need to adjust to their communication methods or is their role to adjust to our traditional communication methods.

Since I "started this" I think I should be the first to post.

"Whether or not you believe there is a difference in the way this generation processes information and how so.

Answer: Yes, there is a difference. What is required is the "how", however. I will explain at the same time as describing the role of the sender. "Is it the duty of the sender to adapt to their audience's needs by adjusting their form of communication, or is it the recievers duty to adapt to the communication method chosen by the sender.

In this case I will suggest that it is caveat emptor intertwined with caveat venditor. I have provided two pieces of work that I have drawn on from in the past and I have come to believe that the both the vendor of information, the venditor of information, and the consumer, the emptor of information are at different times one and the same. The consumer of the information has to rely on others who have produced it (meta-data) in order to build a uniquely new position. To quote Doc Searls and David Wineberger from their book, The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business As Usual: "Markets are conversations." As a result in the market of the web, opinions are formed by conversations, and it is the conversation that contains the knowledge, not those who participate in the dialog. I will explain this in a bit, however, to answer the question quickly, it is not as simple as being a binary sender's responsibility or the consumer's responsibility, subsequently it is both. Let me explain:

The students of today have access to more raw data that is produced by the process of credentialing, as well as the average, non-accredited, shoot-from-the-hip-anything-anytime data producer. I believe that the technology of the day plays a vital roll in giving access to, and the ability to create the data that, according to Dr. David Winberger, the author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" makes up the web since "...everything is meta-data" on the Internet.

The impact of the technology of the day on the social structure and the way students access data, and as a result, value "conversation" from their peers and those who they decide should be considered an "authority" and to be listened to has changed in the last ten year. The impact of technology has precipitated the transformation in the way the younger generation values information, and by extension, the producers of it.

In the discussion in class I indicated that I had observed that our students, those students that we in Menomonie teach, no longer are as willing to accept what we say as teachers (and adults) is coming from a person of authority; a "trusted" source. In this case I was pointing to my observations about the kids I have personally observed. However, this notion did not pop out of the sky through a celestial osmosis of understanding.

Dr. David Winberger, author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" (please watch the film I captured of his online presentation from his blog) states that: "The knowledge is in the conversation, It is not in Harold's head, its not in your head, its not in any head, its in us talking together and that's what we can do now. So we find this out on the web, we always knew this, so what the web is revealing to us about knowledge is what we have always known about knowledge, but our thinking about it has disputed.

Initially the conversation was started by Winberger. (11:28 into the film). His focus is on the university intellectuals, however, I am interested in the K-12 educator, but his point is well taken when he states:

"We had this idea that there were these authorities who have PHD's... well you know, that never worked, doesn't work now, instead what we have, as we always have, nuances of authority where authority becomes meta-data. Authority is: '...here's meta-data that tells me I should believe you, to one degree or another.' And we all get to create the meta-data which is a huge problem, of course, because a lot of us aren't qualified to judge what should be believed, but we do anyway. Because, just as we continue to talk, even though we are not qualified to."

In deed, this is true. Many people have relied on the traditional structures of authority (K-12 education and the teachers that work there) to vet information, the web is changing this model. I make no value judgement on the idea of "is this good or is that bad?" I don't care about that at this time. What I am interested in is better understanding what it is that I am observing. And I am observing a change in the way students interact with information, meta-data if you will.

But Winberger takes it a step further: "So we have this issue because everybody now can use meta-data to point at stuff and say: '...believe this, don't believe this, this is sort of right, you got the first part of this right, liked the first part of the chapter, I hated chapter four...' what ever, we all get to do that. The authority of knowledge gets split off from the thing itself and becomes meta-data pointing at it, meta-data we can all create. This does not fit well into the model of credentialing institutions but it is already there."

My contention has been, regardless of what the impact of having access to "everything" online that links to "everything" else and turning everything into meta-data, the challenge is for us as K-12 educators to learn how to take this new, easily accessed juggernaut of digital information and CONTEXTUALIZE it. Once again, I do not pull this out of the air, even though I have tried to "K-12-it" and adapt it. Again, this was taken from Winberger: "We still need to do the thing we've done in the real world, which is to to take big pieces of information, reduce them to into small physical objects, and arrange the small physical objects so we can go back to the big pieces." That is value of an adult, the ability to contextualize this huge sum of data and contextualize it and put it into small physical objects of understanding.

The question is asked of us to indicate the difference and to use data to support it. I have a graph that I used to demonstrate the need to use social networking sites as a model of how we need to adapt the way we teach kids. I also used the "Frontline documentary "Growing Up Online."

In Growing Up Online the narrator points out, if not completely obvious: "This is the first generation to come of age, immersed in a virtual world, outside the reach of their parents." However, C.J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley puts it better when she claims (05:30 into the film): "It's just this huge shift, in which the Internet and the digital-world was something that belonged to adults, and now it's something that really is the province of teenagers. So there is this proliferation of pictures and videos and them living their lives in essence online " Danah Boyd of Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society further states that: " This is a generation that sees online not as a separate place you go but just a continuation of their existence. It's self-realization, it's learning about life."

C. J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley goes on to explain (18:15into the film): "In a way, the social networking sites are this digital representation of what we think of as adolescents. So what teens are doing is going around and trying on these different identities. I'm a goth, or I'm a punk, I'm a surfer or I'm a this, or that. And the internet's allowed them to display that identity in a very dramatic and very succinct way."

(The following information is taken from this image, dapted from the original to represent the current status at SDMA)

Therefore, when you combine the two points of view, along with the data collected in the BusinessWeek: “Web Strategies That Cater To Customers” you learn that 34% of young teens ages 12-17 are "Creators: publish Web pages, write blogs, upload videos to sites like YouTube." So at some point these kids have to adhere to caveat venditor because they will be judged by their peers with comments and ratings, both tools built into Web 2.0 blogging tools.

What is also interesting is that these same kids who are the producers of meta-data become "critics" of their peers. While nowhere near a majority, 24% of Young Teen are "Critics: comment on blogs and post ratings and reviews." This is considered by Winberger to be the meta-data that these kids base an opinion on in order to determine if the person is worthy of "authority" figured. What matters in the digital real is the strength of the argument, so in fact, caveat venditor, let the vendor beware. The big part of this should be clear.

In addition, what separates, like no other, is the growth of social networking sites in the life of young students. As was so well addressed in the Frontline documentary, 51% of Young Teens ages 12-17 are "Joiners: use social networking sties" such as FaceBook and MySpace. These tools are designed to funnel people to the online presence of the student and the way they produce their identity and information will determine if they get linked. A piece of information that is not linked on the web is a literal dead end. This simple fact means that the message has to be atractive to the consumer, and viseversa.

However, this is about the "production" of data, meta-data. Of Young Teens ages 12-17, 49% are: "Spectators: read blogs, watch peer-generated videos, and listen to podcasts." That is compared to 26% of the "Older Boomers" ages 51-61. That indicates a measurable difference in attitudes toward data. It was this data that I brought to the dialog in class and which was the basis for my "question", if it was a question at all, more an interesting observation. Therefore, the reader has to understand if the information that they use to form an opinion is worthy of being considered worthy, or in other words, an authority that can be trusted. The kids of today do this seemingly as a second nature. Therefore, a social caveat emptor.

To close this start to the dialog, it is important to remember that young people have (according to the data that I provided from Business Week) have their own communities that are not credentialed, but do police the quality of the data produced, either by themself or by other young people. The true meaning of peer review.

If you watch the video from Winberger, you will understand that being accepted as an authority is the determinator of value. Therefore, because of peer review and the commenting on data that is produced, there is a natural adaptation of information and a crafting of the message and the building of self, as was pointed out by the Frontline video. So I contended that the responsibility is one and the same. The first is to participate in a conversation that inspires the student to want to "...get it out there" and then start a conversation. The back and forth is where the value is and where authority is formed. To quote myself, "the beautiful thing about the web is you get to show people what you know and don't know, at the same time."

When you follow the struggles of the young people who are heavy consumers of data as well as producers you would be hard pressed to argue that a the Older Boomers, ages 51-61 approached the consumption, and production of data in the 20th century the way the young people of the 21st century do. The data shows that a full 61% are "Inactives: are online but don't yet participate in any form of social media." Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that the impact of readily-available, and nearly-free access to unlimited, data-rich content, made possible by the internet and technology is in fact changing the way our students consume data as well as requires students to adapt to the peer feedback and learn how to craft the identity that will bring them closer to what is considered worthy of being an athority. So to answer the second question, the built-in peer review that is made possible by the web 2.0 tools requires both sides to "adapt." Equally.