Teaching with Technology, Module 4 - Privacy and the use of technology in public schools.

There are many laws surrounding the expectation of privacy for students in the public schools system, especially with regard to the use of technology. Unfortunately, these rights to privacy are not always easy to enforce or ensure with the prevalence of technology use in today's school environment. I read an article by the Center for Educational Privacy and Law at the University of San Diego (CEPAL) titled, "Legal Implications of Using Digital Technology in Public Schools: Effects on Privacy". In this article, several interesting points were made concerning the difficulty of technology use in public schools and maintaining student confidentiality. One of the most interesting concerns for privacy that schools face is called householding. "Householding allows data collection to occur across devices regardless of whether or not they are owned by a district or owned privately by a student" (CEPAL, 2015, p. 6). This rather sneaky method for data collection is strong enough to pinpoint usage across devices at any time, so students are not immune to data collection whether working on school work at school or home. The many laws that protect students autonomy are not much of a deterrent to this sort of activity. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), and Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), are limited in what they have jurisdiction over and the depth to which online information is protected. For example, FERPA does not have any consideration for third party application operators, the PPRA has made considerations for protection, but does not include any currently, and COPRA only protects children up to the age of 13, so is very limited once children are out of the primary grades (CEPAL, 2015, p. 10). Furthermore, the only real protection that seems to be available to parents is opting out of the use of technology devices provided by schools and districts. This brings up other, very real implications concerning the equity of technology availability, especially at high poverty schools where many, if not most, families do not have reliable access to the requisite technology.

An article provided by Dr. Wicks and Sonja is concerned with online privacy as a part of creating digitally competent young people. The article had some interesting aspects that are specific to the subject of my inquiry, namely Ribble's three categories and nine elements of digital citizenship (Ribble & Miller, 2013, p. 140). The category of interest is Protect Yourself/Protect Others, and provides three elements, Digital Rights and Responsibilities, Digital Security, and Digital Health and Welfare (Ribble & Miller, 2013, p. 141). Of particular note, is the Digital Rights and Responsibilities section where educational leaders are encouraged to remind students that they are to follow certain guidelines to continue using the technology at school or provided by the school. Students are further reminded that if they find themselves in a situation that doesn't feel right, they should remove themselves from that situation and report this to an educator or administrator (Ribble & Miller, 2013, p. 140). These steps taken could potentially aid in keeping student information private, especially if an individual is attempting to illegally gain private information regarding a student.

I also liked the resource that Cassie posted, Netiquette, by Rutgers University. Although this resource is more in the vain of how to interact with others in an online educational environment, it has some great information that students should know and understand when partaking in online courses and collaboration. Understanding how to interact with others in an online venue could also help students in the ethical use of online tools and in the protection of their own and others' personal information. This type of resource could easily incorporate information about privacy and how students can stay safe when using various online resources.

Overall, the use of technology is a great way to help engage students in the educational process. However, this use of technology should not come at the expense of keeping student information private. There needs to be some additions to current federal laws to aid students, parents, and the educational community in their work to keep student information private. From the resources I read, there are some additions to current law and other legislation in the works, but they still need to be approved before they can help this privacy protection. Educators should do all they can to help curb the release of personal information, according to federal and state laws, and parents need to work with their student to teach them about appropriate and safe use of technology.

Center for Education Policy and Law (2015). Legal Implications of Using Digital Technology in Public Schools: Effects on Privacy. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego.

Ribble, M., & Miller, T. N. (2013). Educational Leadership in an Online World: Connecting Students to Technology Responsibly, Safely, and Ethically. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 137-145.

 

Standard 12 - Teaching with Technology, Module 3

Module 3 Triggering Question: How can I demonstrate the work processes associated with an innovative educator in the math classroom?

In my research of this topic, I wanted to discover what it means to be a technologically innovative math educator. The article I read outlined two vital aspects of technology use that are necessary to deepen students' mathematical knowledge. The first category used in the article is the use of technology as an amplifier. The article states that the amplifier use, "supports a shift in the focus of students’ mathematical activity and thinking from drawing and measuring to looking for patterns and making and testing conjectures” (Sherman, 223). I am currently using at least one amplifier in my classes, the graphing calculator. This resource has allowed my students, while working with transformations, to get past worrying about making a table, and remembering rules to make a graph and allows them to get to the inner workings of transformations. The second category used is the reorganizer. The reorganizer "has the power to affect or shift the focus of students’ mathematical thinking or activity" (223).  In reflecting on my practice, I realize that I do several things associated with either the amplifier or the reorganizer, but very few of them rely on technology right now. To move toward being an innovative educator, I will need to work on incorporating technology tools as a means of moving toward deeper learning.

An additional article, from this weeks reading, offered some more interesting points of reference in determining the efficacy of technology. The two interesting ideas from this article are collaboration and connection of knowledge (Starkey, 20-21). These areas are very important in being learners with technology as they allow students to process the information gathered or learned. When students are collaborating, they are allowed to process new learning together which gives students the potential for multiple points of entry. These multiply points of entry are vital to putting their learning into their own words and style of understanding. Similarly, connecting their learning to other areas of knowledge, especially to previous knowledge, allows students to deepen their understanding and connect different issues. Both these aspects can help to strengthen any new learning and better students problem solving abilities, both of which elevate their ability in math.

Sherman, M. (2014). The role of technology in supporting students’ mathematical thinking: Extending the metaphors of amplifier and reorganizer. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 220-246. Retrieved from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol14/iss3/mathematics/article1.cfm (Links to an external site.).

Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating Learning in the 21st Century: A Digital Age Learning Matrix. Technology, Pedagogy And Education, 20(1), 19-39.