yoany_bobbe_FINAL€¦ · Web viewAccording to the National Research Council, “today’s...

Should Cyber Education be Concerned...

Running head: Anonymity in Cyber Education...

Anonymity in Cyber Education: Should You Be Concerned?

Bobbe [email protected]

Yoany BeldarrainFlorida Virtual School [email protected]

Baggio & Belderrain©2007

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



2


Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the pros and cons of anonymity in cyber education.

It evaluates both sides of the issue and presents them in a way that will help cyber

educators and instructional designers understand the social, cultural and educational

implications of anonymity. The PATRIOT Act and other initiatives impacting anonymity

are discussed, including the far-reaching effects of anonymity within online educational

settings and group dynamics. This paper will further compare and contrast anonymity’s

potential for limiting and monitoring academic freedom to the social benefits it brings,

while discussing the social identity model of deindividuation and how gender impacts the

effects of anonymity in online learning environments.


3


Table of Contents

I. Anonymity in Cyber Education: A Balancing Act.........................................4-6

II. Definitions and Implications..........................................................................6-8

Anonymity and the Right to Privacy..............................................................8-9

Why Cyber Education?.................................................................................9-10

What Society Values..................................................................................10-13

Monitoring The Online Learning Environment..........................................13-14

III. Social Implications of Anonymity

Minimizing Instructor Authority................................................................14-15

The Emergence of a New Persona..............................................................15-16

Deindividuation..........................................................................................16-18

IV. Best Practices

Building Interaction....................................................................................18-20

Security............................................................................................................20

V. Protecting the Rights of Individuals

FERPA vs. PATRIOT Act.........................................................................21-22

Litigation vs. Academic Freedom..............................................................23-25

U.S. vs. Europe: Policy on Internet Anonymity........................................25-26

VI. Conclusion..................................................................................................26-27

VII. References..................................................................................................27-32


4


Anonymity in Cyber Education: A Balancing Act

The topic of anonymity in cyber education presents ethical concerns as well as

benefits. Anonymous communications include those that are truly anonymous,

pseudonymous, untraceable, or traceable, but only with investigation or process (Detweiler,

1993). The privacy offered by the anonymity of cyberspace can influence a person’s level

of isolation. This is a risk that online learners take and which instructional designers must

minimize. Anonymity affects class discussions, emerging online identities and

interpretations. This brings a new freedom for learners who do not want to feel

categorized. This added benefit includes instructors, especially those with a physical

disability that could be perceived negatively by students (Lance, 2002).

As online learners get to know each other through interactions, new social norms are

then developed within the course room, requiring that individuals use new communication

skills (Kerka, 1996). Monitoring within the online course room also presents an issue. E-

learning platforms such as WebCT let instructors monitor how learners are using the course

room.

Anonymity is a precious and highly guarded right by many. There is a dichotomy in

a technological society: on one hand, anonymity is one of the characteristics of technology;

on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly less evident. Misconduct and improper use

of the Internet have prompted governments around the globe to seek regulation and control

over the anonymity inherent in web-based communications. The online community,

including distance learners, is affected by these policies and/or lack there of.


5


Improvements in telecommunications and mobile learning as well as the continuing

development of alternative technologies to deliver education to learners is creating a

climate of digital access that has more user entry points daily.

The kinds of issues surrounding anonymity and the way theses issues influence

cyber education are difficult to pin down. According to the National Research Council,

“today’s observations differ from yesterday’s and will be overtaken by events tomorrow”

(Kettler, Klensin, Medin, Partridge, Schutzer et al, 2001). Never the less, good policies

cannot be developed unless a constant conversation is taking place regarding the issues

faced by the educational community.

Of primary concern to the Internet community are the issues of privacy, anonymity,

and identity. Educators are becoming increasing concerned with online authentication not

only with assessment, but also with the sheer number of communications and type of

interactions.

Learning resources are no longer concentrated in the schools and libraries. They

are now available to learners from sources worldwide. As technologies converge, it is

critical for the learning community to understand how these implications affect both

anonymity and the learning environment. Comprehensive Cyber Learning Systems can

include an array of technologies bundled together to create learning solutions that involve

telecommunications, computers, video, voice, email, fax, iPods, and web sites.


6


In addition to one on one instruction, there are also conditions where multiple

learners can conference while several points of connectivity are involved in learning. In

order to plan for cyber education successfully, it is critical that the issues confronting the

extended cyber space community are understood (Kettler, Klensin, Medin, Partridge,

Schutzer et al. 2001).

Definition and Implications

The meaning of anonymity in an age of global Internet connections is not the same

as it was a quarter of a century ago. The concept of obscurity in a society that is

electronically capable of sending information around the world in nanoseconds has

implications far beyond those of just remaining nameless. The traditional definition of

remaining nameless or the quality of being unknown or unacknowledged takes on new

meaning when technologies make it possible to trace people in ways that our forefathers

never dreamed of (American heritage dictionary of the English language, 2000).

The standard questions of email, credit card identification, website visitation will not

be discussed in this article; instead, the implications for education and particularly cyber

education will be the focus.

Anonymity is a very lose word on the Internet. While IP addresses provide for

tracking and some identification, the lack of geography makes real individuality scarce.

This lack of identity brings to light serious issues about how we distinguish, handle, and

negotiate identifying information. Having authentic records are critical to cyber education.

Authenticity is an interdependent of anonymity. There are three interrelated terms that

should be discussed: privacy, anonymity and identity.


7


Privacy links information with identity. Information is obtained about individuals

both directly and in directly on the Internet. One of the biggest concerns for learners is that

this information may fall into the wrong hands or be used for unintended purposes. There

is also the concern of misuse of information, or that the information provided by the learner

for one purpose can be used for other purposes. Then of course, there is the concern that

information can be collected online and used without the learners’ consent or knowledge.

Technologies have been developed to deter the loss of privacy and anonymity.

These include Web browsers that can deny loading personal information along with P3Ps

or Platform for Privacy Preferences. Certainly one-way to control security breeches is to

let technology correct the problem. Regulation through the enactment of laws is another

approach to (Spinello, 2003).

The United Sates has dealt with this regulation my market segments. The debate

over what and how much regulation is necessary in each of these economic and social

sectors is ongoing. The importance of learner information privacy is not a hotly debated

issue but a more ample reflection of the consequences may be brought to light under the

PATRIOT Act (Kettler, Klensin, Medin, Partridge, Schutzer et al.2001). Anonymity

though affects learning and academic freedom directly. There is a direct tie between

certain types of political dissention and academic dissention.

The counterweight to anonymity is accountability. Anonymity is seen as

undesirable when it becomes an enabler for fraud or deception. The ease of assuming an

anonymous identity on the Internet makes many frightening situations possible. Damage to

an innocent third party could occur by an anonymous communication that is damaging

being transmitted that would appear to come from another individual.


8


We now live in a world that 007 only imagined. George Orwell constructed a

concept in his novel 1984 of “Big Brother,” which has become frighteningly true. The

storehouse of information cannot only track our movements through video surveillance

cameras at every ATM and shopping mall, but also keeps track of our birth, death and most

important matters in between. The narrowing down of individual identification has

implications for both political and academic freedoms.

Minor implications include tracking how long a student has accessed a classroom

and what articles they have checked out of the library. Major ones can include tracking

subversive political views or actions that threaten the stability of the government. A

person’s name is no longer the only source of identity. Buying patterns, social interests,

and even innocent behaviors make it possible to identify people by mining data from

seemingly endless and magnanimous data sources. How does this limit academic freedom

and affect education in a cyber society?

Anonymity and the Right to Privacy

Anonymity is the possibility to act in private. Privacy means the ability to act

without being known or isolated from the invasion of others. This right to privacy is

fundamental to the constitution of the United States of America and other democratic

governments. In the U.S., The revolutionary war was fought to protect ordinary citizen’s

rights to privacy. The Bill of Rights peripherally demands it. Our society places a huge

value on privacy, which means that privacy must be protected and provided for by our

society.


9


In years past, choosing not to reveal one’s name or writing with a pseudonym

enabled anonymity. The ability to act undetected offered the freedom to think and express

things that may not be in favor politically, socially, or otherwise. It also offers protection

from ridicule and retribution. Being unreachable though, has other consequences

(Nissenbaum, 1999).

From wiretapping and Watergate to garbage searching and identity theft, the courts

in the U.S have again and again upheld the right to privacy. In 1960, the Supreme Court

passed a law declaring privacy as a separate right. The federal government has since

passed several laws upholding this right including in the Privacy Act of 1988 (Mietus,

2000). This Privacy Act has eleven Information Privacy Principles (IPP’s) and ten Nation

Privacy Principles (NPP’s) that apply to government agencies, the states, health care and

the private sector. The federal government has also passed a host of additional legislations

to address data mining, matching and telecommunications (Federal privacy law). As

educational initiatives move into this dimension of cyberspace, personal privacy is affected,

thus influencing the anonymity inherent in distance education.

Why Cyber Education?

Distance learning has traditionally meant “education in which students take

academic courses by accessing information and communicating with the instructor

asynchronously over a computer network” (Dictionary.Com) or “learning that takes place

via electronic media linking instructors and students who are not together in a classroom”

(Merriam-Webster). While the second definition is a little broader, it is not specific enough

to describe the experience of leaning that is taking place in our computer-connected

society.


10


E-Learning, e-learning and eLearning, are all spelling derivatives associated with the

term of distance education but do not clearly describe the phenomena. Clark (2003) defines

e-Learning as “training delivered on a computer (including CD-ROM, Internet or intranet)

that is designed to support individual learning or organizational performance goals.”

Although better, still not enough in a world that today includes poducation (education on

iPods), M-learning (mobile learning on handhelds and cell phones) and blended classes.

All dimensions of cyber learning or cyber education must be included in the question of

anonymity because the rate at which this type of learning is developing makes it impossible

to limit by definition the media of delivery of the instruction. In the future, this could

include virtual classrooms we have not yet dreamed of and delivery methods not even

thought of five years ago. Cyber education must therefore include the global village of

electronic networks and communication delivery vehicles and devices that can provide the

learner with materials and connectivity.

What Society Values

Society traditionally values adherence to its laws. The rapid expansion of the

Internet in around the globe has made it extremely difficult to regulate technologies that

change exponentially and overnight. Security breaches and identity theft pose constant

threats to individual privacy. The Web has become the new “wild west” for gunslingers of

information and hackers. National boundaries are disappearing and an international

concern for safeguarding individuals and their information from possible misuse has

developed (Karmaker, 2002).


11


This affects education as well as society as a whole. Threats to privacy, security,

fraud and harassment have implications to the educational community. Both teachers and

learners have issues to confront that are unique to this network-based information driven

way of teaching and learning. In addition to traditional ways of securing the individual’s

information, educational institutions must now adhere to the new code of cyber space.

Shea (1994) introduced ten core rules of Netiquette. Although these were developed for

commercial application, they apply to all cyber communications.

These include:

Remember to be human

Adhere to the same standards of behavior online, that you would follow in real life

Know where you are in cyberspace

Respect other people’s time and bandwidth

Make yourself look good online

Share expert knowledge

Help keep the flame wars under control

Respect other people’s privacy

Don’t abuse your power

Be forgiving of other people’s mistakes

These ten core rules have served as a bare minimum in cyber courtesies. The

Internet has no legal boundaries so it raises concern about the application of traditional

laws and international privacy. Cyberspace activities include all the digital transmitted

information that can be delivered with out the boundaries of geography.


12


Information can be used for good but it can also affect damage to reputations,

family and personal confidentialities. It can be misleading, and cause serious financial and

emotional harm. Misinformation can also have serious consequences in our cyber

educational sphere. There is a need to keep uncontaminated our sources of knowledge

(Shea, 1994).

The legal status of anonymity on the Internet is unanswered and debatable.

Individual identity is a complete concept that has foundations and cornerstones established

with anonymity and privacy.

People may have multiple identities for multiple purposes: work, government,

marriage, and social activities. This is achieved by providing different information to

different sources for different reasons. The questions about policy seem to revolve around

who is responsible for regulating this information and how (Kettler, Klensin, Medin,

Partridge & Schutzer, 2001).

Generally accepted international laws have not yet been enacted that can regulate

this environment. The Freedom of Information Acts passed in the United States and United

Kingdom are examples of laws that attempt to establish information policies and

protections (Parliament, 2000). Education has also been influenced by Freedom of

Information Acts (FOIA) access information requirements (Congress, 1966).


13


Education values freedom of expression. Peters (1993) criticizes distance education

as a kind of industrialization and assembly line version of the real thing “His notions, like

the computer themes in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: a Space Odyssey, sound slightly like

industrial age paranoia towards computer,” contends Smith (2001). In transcending

traditional views of privacy and cyber education the trend toward individualization seems

to have overtaken the cautions of ‘Big Brother” surveillance.

Monitoring The Online Learning Environment

Every learner is required in most asynchronous and blended courses to participate in

online discussions and assignment postings. These discussions and assignment postings

reveal the person’s name, but not the physical cues that help form an opinion about the

individual. Yet, in this semi-anonymous environment there is both, safety and concern.

Threaded discussions for example, are captured digitally and can be retained for extended

periods of time. A student’s interaction patterns can be analyzed for any particular purpose

and opinions can be formed based on the patterns found.

Anonymity can affect student contributions and student feedback. Because of the

permanent and visible characteristics of posting information online, many students for

example, may feel uncomfortable in posting unpopular or diverse opinions (Thomas,

2005). One way to protect against fear of retribution is to provide anonymity to the

learners. Because discussions are so critical to learner exchange and communications in

cyber space, developing interesting and robust exchanges is desirable. In addition, learners

are also not capable to provide anonymous informal feedback about the course while it is

being taught. This is just another example of the implications of anonymity (Jones, 2002).


14


While instructors are not in the business of judging students, they must monitor their

course room interaction and the quality of their discussion postings, which is a large

component of their grade. Instructors and peer learners are bound to form unintentional

misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Social Implications of Anonymity

Minimizing Instructor Authority

Because these Internet communications lack the initial social and emotional cues

that are provided in face-to-face environments, there is an initial feeling of anonymity.

This allows introverted learners to participate in discussions and share feelings in ways

they may not be able to do in face-to-face classrooms. This same distancing also creates

equality between professors and students by eliminating things like standing in front of the

class and divesting the professor of some authority. Learners feel a greater sense of

anonymity and therefore empowerment to express ideas and open discussions, which leads

to a changing role for the instructor. The role is now more of a facilitator and less of an

expert; it breaks down the authority structure and opens up channels of communication.

Disarming the traditional lecturer of some authority has its social implications as

well. For instance, traditional societies that have long valued and respected educators will

find it inappropriate for a student to address the instructor by the first name or question an

assignment. Placing the instructor at a more equal level with the student can potentially

undermine the instructor’s authority, especially when the student is frustrated about

something that could otherwise have been resolved in a face-to-face environment (DeVries

and Lim, 2003).


15


Instructors and designers must take this aspect of anonymity into consideration, as it

can impact the way learners from different cultural backgrounds interact with the

instructor.

Equalizing instructor and learner roles can bring benefits to building online learning

communities. Online learning communities are the framework that facilitates the exchange

of social information as well as reinforcement of key concepts learned. Wegerif (1998)

cites learning communities as providing the social dimensions necessary for learners to be

successful in asynchronous learning environments.

The Emergence of a New Persona

This initial sense of anonymity and freedom gives way to a different feeling, as

individuals experience the emergence of new an online identify. The acknowledgement

that ones’ style and presence can be easily identified by the consistencies expressed in

writing and the ideas and attitudes that have not only been captured but also preserved over

time. Stronger one to one relationships may be the result of this connectedness, but so is

the realization that whatever is communicated will be retained (Smith, 2001). Anonymity

may also affect the quality of comments offered in communications by students. Peer

accountability and anonymity can affect the degree to which learners communicate with

each other as well as the quality of these communications.

Asynchronous learning environments create a new dimension for learner interaction.

New patterns of social interactions emerge as students take on their new online identity.

Gender differences can play a huge role in the way a learner interacts within a course room

(Rovai and Baker, 2005). Rovai and Baker found that female online learners felt more

connected during their learning experience. But how does interaction relate to anonymity?


16


The feelings of anonymity will impact the student’s interaction patterns. If females

tend to feel more connected, this could mean that females deal differently with the feelings

of anonymity than males. Further research is needed to investigate the relationship

between anonymity and interaction as they are impacted by gender.

Earlier studies in online learning showed contradictory conclusions in regards to

anonymity. Kiesler, Seigel and McGuire (1984, as cited in Rovai and Baker) suggested

that anonymity would minimize gender differences. But Herring (1993) insisted that

gender-based communication styles carry over into electronic environments. Herring bases

his claim on research showing that males who tend to be more aggressive face to face, also

displayed the same behaviors in online environments such as listservs. Meanwhile, the

women tended to be more assertive in male-dominated groups. Herring found a myriad of

gender differences that are visible in online environments; thus, he believes that true

anonymity is very hard to achieve.

Deindividuation

Deindividuation is the psychological state of mind that causes a person to become

less inhibited and less self-evaluative (Postmes, Spears and Lea, 1998). Postmes, Spears

and Lea’s social identity model of deindividuation (SIDE) targets the interaction of online

learners as individuals and as members of a learning community. They found that

computer-mediated communications did not free individuals from being influenced by

social norms or pressures. This is contrary to the idea that anonymity only brings freedom

of expression.


17


As a matter of fact, the SIDE model has been validated on several grounds. Other

researchers such as Scott (1999) have concluded that when a person’s identity is salient or

emergent, the person is less likely to follow the group norms. But when a more social

identity emerges, then the person is more likely to follow group norms and feel part of the

social structure. He contends that the same anonymity that causes students to become

uninhibited, is creating social salient identities that in turn increase the stereotypical

behaviors of those individuals (see Figure 1). In other words, when we identify ourselves

with a group, we are likely to behave according to the group’s norms.

Figure 1. SIDE: Context, Identity, and Action

University of Manchester

The effects of depersonalization on group dynamics are astounding. When learners

are depersonalized, their individuality is less salient, thus they bond with the group, giving

way to the emergence of stereotypes (Postmes, Spears & Lea, in press). Many studies

have been conducted to further explore these effects, including a study on the power of

cultural influences.


18


Individualistic cultures influence the way learners from that particular culture

identify themselves. Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe (in press) found that people from

individualistic cultures like in North America tend to have low identifiers, in contrast to

cultures that value collectivism. Collectivist cultures such as those from Asia show high

identifiers but follow the salient group norms, more so than low identifiers. This reveals

how cultural background influences a learner’s interactivity and feelings of anonymity.

The question as to whether asynchronous learning environments are better at

sustaining anonymity poses a concern for designers who are being asked to do just that.

Research has shown that computer mediated communications are not necessarily

asynchronous. Wegerif (1998) cites the example of frustrated students and instructors

having to sort through an extensive list of messages after being a short time away from the

course room. The challenge is to provide a sense of community for learners of both,

individualistic as well as collectivist tendencies.

Best Practices

Building Interaction

Face-to-face interactions have the effect of immediacy and the results of unethical

and improper behaviors are immediately conveyed. On the other hand, online interactions

can establish a mental distance that makes people to feel less like they are causing harm

and more distant from ramifications. Overtime though, and with established guidelines,

this psychological detachment can be reduced. Cheating is a concern that is on the rise

with faculty. The ease at which one student can substitute another’s work with ease is

accelerated.


19


Couple this with an educational environment that adds on grade pressure and often

does not address information of cheating, and a hot house for academic infractions is

created (Gearhart, 2001).

Building an online community is as important as dealing with ethical infractions.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) stipulate that there is no online course without a learning

community. It would then be logical to say that a learning community cannot exist without

interactivity.

Interactivity within the online learning environment “can be defined as those

functions and/or operations made available to the learner to enable them to work with

content material presented in a computer based environment (Sims, 2000).” But indeed

interactivity in distance education also encompasses the relationships that emerge as

learners and instructors take on new roles and identities. This takes us back to the SIDE

model.

Planning and organization are pillars for building interaction among learners as well

as between learner and instructor. There are a myriad of other skills and responsibilities

that stem from planning, such as facilitating collaborative groups; choosing questioning

strategies (Cyrs, 1997) and applying the most pedagogically sound practices that fit the

objectives.


20


An instructor is responsible for creating a student-centered environment that

encourages interaction for different purposes. According to Wagner (1997), there can be

interaction for the purpose of increasing participation, developing communication,

enhancing retention, supporting learner control/self-regulation, and interaction to receive

feedback or clarification. Another important purpose of interaction is to increase

motivation, which is a big factor of learner success in distance education.

Sims (2000) cites four dimensions that should be taken into account when assessing

learning theories for the purpose of identifying how they promote interactivity:

1. Learners - the who of the learning process:

2. Content - the what of the learning process

3. Pedagogy - the how of the learning process

4. Context - the when and where of the learning process

Seasoned distance educators understand the need for interactivity. As Pelz (2004)

puts it, “interactivity is the heart and soul of effective asynchronous learning.”

Security

Protecting the anonymity and privacy of students is of utmost importance. Delivery

platforms such as WebCT and BlackBoard allow instructors and moderators to access

student information at any given time. But is the information truly secure?

Security breaches are an unpleasant reality for educational institutions as well as

businesses. In a recent analysis of campus networks, it was revealed that several major

U.S. universities such as Texas A& M had security gaps beyond belief (Foster, 2004).

According to auditors, confidential information residing in the school’s server was at risk

of being exposed, erased or stolen by hackers, not to mention infected by viruses.


21


While the universities at risk have since then taken great steps to remedy their

situation, one can not help but wonder how much information from anonymous surveys

and confidential documents is actually out there.

Even more significant are questions of monitoring and encryption. It is now

possible track not only IP addresses but also accessed data and information. Many

governments are pushing for regulations to guard against access and distribution of

information that can be construed as sensitive or dangerous. Limitations on freedom of

expression over the Internet and methods of tracking communications can make the

anonymity inherent in self-expression a thing of the past. By limiting freedom of

expression and movement on the Internet legislation like the Patriot Act threatens the very

core of Internet anonymity (Nijboer, 2004).

Protecting the Rights of Individuals

FERPA vs. PATRIOT Act

In an attempt to protect citizens from unforeseen terrorist attracts, the U.S.

government has enacted laws that make monitoring easier. While these laws may mean

well, they have impacted education in profound ways.

The PATRIOT Act has limited academic freedom and diversity of perspective. A

good balance of democratic views and divergent opinions are now threatened, and so is

freedom of academic pursuit. This is compounded in a digitally connected world of

traceable information and profiling. Anonymity is absent in the inquiry of government

officials into educational record that has always been scarred. Because of the implications

of this act, face-to-face as well as online learners will have to make politically correct

inquiry or face the inquisition of government officials.


22


This type of limitation warns off the pursuit of academic freedom. In many ways

this cancels the rights guaranteed students and parents granted under FERPA, the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (ACLU, 2002).

FERPA provided a tough standard for the review of educational records by third

parties. Prior to September 11, few third party inquiries required release of student records.

Only a court subpoena or pursuit of a subpoena could disclose student records. The

PATRIOT Act has all but eliminated anonymity in student records. The PATRIOT Act is

“ Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (ACLU, 2002). This quickly crafted piece

of legislation permits surveillance of any activities the government sees as adverse or a

potential threat to terrorist activities in the United States. This lowers the standards of

access to a person’s private academic record and compromises the issue of anonymity and

personal freedom. Reasonable suspicion is the standard established by the PATRIOT Act

and constitutes a major invasion of privacy, thus eliminating the ability to act in anonymity.

A court-litigated case adds to this threat to anonymity and academic freedom.

Gonzago University v. Doe (ACLU, 2002) limited the threat of exposing a learner’s private

record to loss of federal funding. This severely limited the rights guaranteed under

FERPA. With the federal government given easy access to a student’s records and

undermining privacy rights in enforcing FERPA, “student privacy is the most vulnerable

position in decades” (ACLU, 2002).


23


Litigation vs. Academic Freedom

The cry for legislation to regulate the mavericks of online learning is also coupled

with the cry to protect both the student and the instructors’ intellectual property rights. The

widespread use of the Internet to research, publish and disseminate information has caused

growing concerns regarding digital materials academic freedoms. Both the authors and

users of this disseminated information are affected. Institutions are now taking a second

look at ownership of information and professional contracts. The right of faculty to

ownership of published information is intermixed with the digital dispersing of materials.

The financial stakes for all the participants, the learners, the faculty and the institution are

heightened and become easily confused.

The Internet use “policy of many educational institutions tries to restrict information

that would otherwise be available to students and teachers. This has the affect of limiting

academic freedom and expression. The possibility of abuse at some unknown time in the

future is not grounds for invasion of privacy and loss of anonymity. There are tried and

true reasons for academic freedom and these must be carried over and extended to cyber

education. Often broad sweeping language in legislation can cause abuse and confusion.

The rights to use information in cyber education can be compounded with the rights

to distribute information. The transmission of materials over various kinds of networks is

to straight forward. This is true of not only original materials but also content that may be

a derivative of the original (Bruwelheide, 1997).


24


Traditionally, academics have favored supporting learners in their quest for a search

for knowledge by permitting access to a shared body of knowledge. This role was

traditionally filled by the libraries and required a physical presence to access the

information. All of that has changed with the Internet. Libraries have become repositories

of digital information and Internet access has eliminated physical presence as a requirement

for access (Derlin & Erazo, 1997).

Anonymity has become an issue that affects access to information. The view has

changed and “with the advent of Internet based online products which can exist anywhere

in the world, these system-centric mechanisms no longer suffice” (Hunt-Coffey, n.d.). This

crosses the barriers of tracking down information on usage and still protecting the

individual’s right to privacy. It also posses legal and security implications for the library as

hackers and rebels invade library systems without authorization. Lack of protection can

lead to significant affects on academic freedom and too much legislation can limit freedom

in other ways.

Profiling is legitimate business in this and other countries. While information is at

risk of being from hackers and identity crackers, the real threat to anonymity comes from

access to legitimate businesses. Detailed data of where a person lives, what kind of car

they drive, what they eat and where they shop is available to create an ever-narrowing

profile of the individual. The online dimensions of profile have eliminated the constraints

put in place by the architecture of the offline world. These profiles contain an

unprecedented amount of information (Nissenbaum, 1999).


25


Even though Internet use policies warn users of public nature of the Internet, caution

should still prevail. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Document “Privacy in Cyber Space:

Rules of the Road for the Information Super Highway” states “There are virtually no online

activities or services that guarantee an absolute right of privacy (Academic freedom,

privacy, copyright and fair use in a technological world, 1999).”

U.S. vs. Europe: Policy on Internet Anonymity

The European Union has taken a stronger stance than the United States to assure

privacy and anonymity on the Internet. Because of the global reach of CyberEducation, it

is interesting to examine the diverging paths taken by these entities. While the United

States has relied on a policy of “hands off’ and self regulation Europe has passed laws to

protect privacy and the individual. The United States stance is founded on the belief that

“laissez faire” market regulation and self-policing by the technologies industry is the best

way. Instead of sweeping policy regarding the issues of privacy and anonymity of Internet

data, the United States has taken the approach of targeting industries by regulating them

specifically. These specific laws are used to control situations where sensitive data could

be important for example FERPA for education and other initiatives in health care

(Spinello, 2003).

Europe has taken an opposite approach. The European Union has chosen to regulate

the privacy rights of the individual, which they consider to be deserving of complete

protection. The legislation covers the next generation of Internet protocol and requires for

maintain proper confidentiality with respect to location, actual data, and information

trafficking. This initiative empowers users to take control of their own personal

information.


26


The major problem with this policy is it is not supported by the technologies

currently available for Internet communications. The current protocol gives away the

location and traffic information when a user accesses the Internet. What is important is the

philosophical underpinning behind the laws. Social and cultural expectations are forcing

the Internet to comply with technologies that support user determined anonymity (Dunne,

1997).

The legislation passed in Europe affects the educational sector as well as other

sectors using the Internet (Spinello, 2003). Cyber education could be affected by the

methods used to empower the users to determine which information is communicated or

the degree of computing software and network resources necessary to make this possible.

Other considerations that could affect Cyber Education are the degree the user obviously

selects to control their anonymity and the degree to which trafficking identifications can be

detected between sources and destination (Dunne, 1997).

Conclusion

Anonymity in cyber education presents ethical concerns as well as benefits that must

be taken into consideration. The privacy offered by the anonymity of cyberspace is

threatened by the technological advancements that make possible the access to personal

information. Online learners take the risk of having their ideas and thoughts exposed, thus

it is the duty of instructional designers, instructors and educational institutions to protect

them. Anonymity affects class discussions, emerging online identities and interpretations.

But at the same time, there are new dimensions such as group dynamics that affect the

quality of discussions.


27


New social patterns and norms emerge, as learners tend to identify themselves with

their cultural background or other group behaviors. The tendency is to prefer either

individualism or collectivism; such preferences will dictate how a person will blend in a

group situation that is deindividualized. Gender differences, once believed to equalize

computer-mediated communication, emerge in asynchronous and synchronous learning

environments. Furthermore, online courses cannot be successful without a learning

community, and a learning community cannot exist without interactivity. Only by

understanding this relationship can cyber educators realize the impact of anonymity.

There is now a heightened awareness on the part of governments and educational

institutions on the need to protect personal privacy and anonymity. This awareness has

prompted legislations such as the FERPA and PATRIOT Act in the United States. While

these initiatives are meant to protect, they cause other problems that hinder the academic

discourse and intellectual exchange of ideas. Political tensions around the globe aggravate

the problems with privacy already faced by cyber educators. The European Union has

taken a different approach than the United States, leading the way in the enactment of laws

that directly protect consumers. Only time will tell how the rest of the world will deal with

these issues. In the mean time, cyber educators are faced with implementation choices that

build interactivity without compromising a learner’s self-identity, yet promoting cultural

understanding in a world that craves diplomatic dialogue.


28


References

Academic freedom, privacy, copyright and fair use in a technological world. (1999). The

Academic Senate of California Community Colleges. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

ERIC ED482188

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Online. (2000). 4th ed. Retrieved

June 7, 2005, from http://www.bartleby.com/61/

British Parliament. (2000). Freedom of information act 2000. Retrieved June 5, 2005,

from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm

Bruwelheide, J. H. (1997, fall). Copyright: Opportunities and restrictions for the

teleinstructor. In T.E.Cyrs, (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71,

103-109. Jossey Bass. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-TL.html

American Civil Liberties Union. (2002). USA PATRIOT act on FERPA. Retrieved June

5, 2005 from http://www.acluohio.org/publications/ferpa.pdf

Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of

instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Campbell, E. (2001). Let right be done: trying to put ethical standards into practice. J

Education Policy, 16, 5, pp395-411.

Detweiler, L. (1993) Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet. Retrieved April

28, 2005, from http://rewi.hu-berlin.de/jura/proj/dsi/Netze/privint.html

DeVries, J. & Lim, G. (2003, November 7-11). Significance of online teaching vs. face-to-

face: similarities and differences. E-Learn 2003, World Conference on E-Learning

in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education. Retrieved June 6,


29

http://rewi.hu-berlin.de/jura/proj/dsi/Netze/privint.html


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm

http://www.bartleby.com/61/


2005, from http://learningportal.tp.edu.sg/staffole/resources/pdf/article/Grace/

F2FandOnline.pdf

Dictionary.com. Retrieved June 4, 2005, from

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=distance%20learning

Federal privacy law. (2004). Retrieved June 5, 20005, from

http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/index.html

Gearhart, D. (2001). Ethics in distance education: Developing ethical policies, Journal of

Distance Learning Administration: State University of West Georgia, Distance

Learning Center. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring41/gearhart41.html

Herring, S.C. (2000, winter). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. The

CPSR Newsletter, 18 (1) 3-11. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/

herring.html

Hunt-Coffey, N. (n.d.). Are you who you say you are? Network access management in

California community college libraries. Glendale Community College Library.

Retrieved June 4, 2005, from

http://www.glendale.cc.ca.us/library/grants/authentication.pdf#search='regulating

%20library%20access'


30

http://www.glendale.cc.ca.us/library/grants/authentication.pdf#search='regulating%20library%20access

http://www.glendale.cc.ca.us/library/grants/authentication.pdf#search='regulating%20library%20access

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html

http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/index.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=distance%20learning

http://learningportal.tp.edu.sg/staffole/resources/pdf/article/Grace/F2FandOnline.pdf

http://learningportal.tp.edu.sg/staffole/resources/pdf/article/Grace/F2FandOnline.pdf


Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. (in press). We're all individuals: Group norms of

individualism and collectivism, levels of identification, and identity threat.

European Journal of Social Psychology. [Abstract]. European Journal of Social

Psychology. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from

http://www.ex.ac.uk/~tpostmes/postmes1998b.html

Jones, D. (2002). Student feedback, anonymity, observable change and course barometers.

World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &

Telecommunications. Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing

in Education. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/Barometer/

Kettler, A., Klensin, J.C., Medin, M., Partridge, C., Schutzer, D.,.et al. (2001). The

Internet's coming of age (Vol. 2005). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Retrieved June 7, 2005 from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069920/html/R1.html

Karmaker, N. L. (2002). Online privacy, security and ethical dilemma: a recent study.

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, ERIC IR021765

Kiesler, S., Seigel, J., & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Social psychological aspects of

computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 10, 1123-1134.

Kerka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet and the World Wide Web. Retrieved

May 8, 2005 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=21

Lance, G.D. (2002). Distance learning and disability: A view from the instructor’s side

of the virtual lectern. Retrieved May 8, 2005 from

http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/lance.htm


31

http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/lance.htm

http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=21

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069920/html/R1.html



McGreal, R. (1997, fall). The Internet: a learning environment. In T.E.Cyrs, (Ed.), New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71,67-74. Jossey Bass. Retrieved June 7,

2005, fromhttp://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-TL.html

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved June 4, 2005, from

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?

book=Dictionary&va=distance+learning&x=14&y=15

Mietus, J. E. A. N. J. (2000). Law for business and personal use (15th ed.). Cincinnati:

International Thompson Publishing.

Nijboer, J. (2004). Big brother versus anonymity on the Internet: Implications for Internet

service providers, libraries and individuals since 9/11,105, pp. 256. New World

Library. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from ProQuest Database 700128921.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

did=700128921&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientld=62763&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Nissenbaum, H. (1999). The meaning of anonymity in an information age. In A. Spinello

& H. T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in cyberethics, 2nd ed., (pp. 450-461). Sudbury,

MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective

strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pelz, B. (2004, June). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks. 8, 3, 33-46. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_pelz.asp

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries?

SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. [Abstract]. Communication


32

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_pelz.asp

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=distance+learning&x=14&y=15

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=distance+learning&x=14&y=15



Research, 25, 689-715. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from


Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (in press). Inter-group differentiation in computer-

mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics.

[Abstract]. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from


Scott, C.R. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L.R. Frey,

D.S. Gouran, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory

and research (pp.432-472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shea, V. (1994). Nettiquette. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning

theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, (16), 45-57. Retrieved

May 17, 2005, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/sims.html

Smith, G. & Caris, M. (2002). Teaching over the web vs. face to face. Retrieved June 7,

2005, from ERIC, IR021287.

Spinello, R. A. (2003). Cyberethics; morality and law in cyberspace (2nd ed.). Sudbury,

MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

Rovai, A.P. & Baker, J.D. (2005, Spring). Gender differences in online learning.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6,1, p31-45. Retrieved June 6, 2005,

from EBSCO Full text Database.

Thomas, J. (2005). Left column voices. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from

http://pdc.cvc.edu/common/oledetail.asp?sort=title&abs=54&IDX=138


33

http://pdc.cvc.edu/common/oledetail.asp?sort=title&abs=54&IDX=138

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/sims.html

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html




University of Manchester. (2002). SIDE: Context, Identity, and Action Retrieved June 6,

2005, from United States Congress. (1966). Freedom of information act. Retrieved June 5, 2005,

from http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/

University of Manchester. Social Identity Model of Depersonalization Effects (SIDE).

Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://www.depts.man.ac.uk/psychology/Commorg/internet@work/

Session3Pages/Session3Topic4/Session3Topic4.htm

Wagner, E.D. (1997, fall). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T.E. Cyrs, (Ed.),

New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26. Jossey Bass. Retrieved

June 7, 2005, from http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-

TL.html

Wegerif,R. (1998). The social dimensions of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 1. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_wegerif.asp


34

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_wegerif.asp



http://www.depts.man.ac.uk/psychology/Commorg/internet@work/Session3Pages/Session3Topic4/Session3Topic4.htm

http://www.depts.man.ac.uk/psychology/Commorg/internet@work/Session3Pages/Session3Topic4/Session3Topic4.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/

yoany_bobbe_FINAL€¦ · Web viewAccording to the National Research Council, “today’s...

Documents

Transcript of yoany_bobbe_FINAL€¦ · Web viewAccording to the National Research Council, “today’s...