learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Social Networks, eLearning and Internet Safety: Analysing the Stories of Students Birgy Lorenz, Kaido Kikkas and Mart Laanpere Institute of Informatics, Tallinn University, Estonia birgy.lorenz@gmail.com kaido.kikkas@tlu.ee mart.laanpere@tlu.ee Abstract: eLearning has recently become more social and open, involving open educational resources, open courses, open learning using personal learning environments or social networks. We believe the schools are not ready for this yet, as strategies and regulations supporting open learning are not up to date. It may seem easier to restrict the use of Twitter, Facebook etc rather than integrate them into the learning process. Our study which was based on the qualitative analysis of 201 stories written by secondary school students shows that a typical safety incident is not solved adequately when existing regulations are used by the schools. We carried out the qualitative analysis of 201 e-safety related short stories presented by students (aged 12 to 16), parents, teachers, school IT managers and police, collected through the Safer Internet in Estonia EE SIC campaign. 2/3 of the stories are fictional – they may be based on urban legends which however appear to refer to real stories. 1/3 of the stories reflect real incidents. We mapped typical behaviour patterns and templates, beliefs regarding privacy as well as regulations and limitations concerning the use of social networks at schools. We found that most of the solutions used by schools to ensure e-safety are either technical or purely regulation-based, only some schools appeared to have studied or elaborated on pedagogical or behavioural aspects. Problems are defined by limitations and regulations while actual safety incidents (whether in- or outside school) remain largely unsolved (or even undetected). Schools tend to excuse their unawareness with „we'll react when it happens“ (secretly believing that it will not happen). Most schools also try to delegate such problems to parents - who in turn look upon schools for help, as their only reaction to safety incidents is often just applying time limits on Internet use. Thus there is an urgent need for information and working guidance mechanisms for managers, teachers, parents and students. These matters must be solved well before schools reach the critical mass in using eLearning, social networks and modern gadgetry as parts of curriculum. Schools are expected to apply new technologies in teaching and learning, but safety of student and teachers is paramount in this context. Keywords: online safety, schools, policy, new technologies, social media 1. Introduction The internet safety issues in the context of eLearning are quite often addressed in a simplified, blackand-white manner, using rare cases of criminal privacy violation to scare teachers and parents. We believe that fear is not the best teacher in this domain. Our goal was to: Evaluate what kind of e-safety stories are students and experts (teachers, it-managers, and police) telling and how they are related; Find typical e-safety stories to promote development of regulations in these areas; Previous studies in this matter can be divided into 6 bigger groups: cyber-bullying (Berson 2002); moral issues – pedophilia, inappropriate content, behavioural errors (Akdeniz 1997; Carr 2004; Mitchell 2004; Peters 2009); programs and materials for schools (Wishart 2004); threat analysis for eLearning (Alwy 2010); normal teenage internet usage (Bullen 2000; Enochsson 2005; Dworschak 2010); Internet usage analysis (Livigstone, 2011; The Safer Internet for Children Qualitative Study in 29 European Countries 2007; Towards a Safer Use of the Internet for Children in the EU – a Parents’ Perspective 2008). While according to the EUKids Online II survey (Livingstone 2010) Estonian students are among the top users of Internet and have had substantial exposure to online security risks, there has been next to no attempt of national-level regulation in this field. We analysed the typology and sources of safety incidents, the real solutions offered, the students' thoughts and feelings stemming from the situation, the solutions suggested by students and whether these typical solutions actually apply in real-life situations. The practical experience of students, teachers, IT managers and police indicates a gap between the measures used in education and real life. 416
2. Background Birgy Lorenz et al. The new National Curriculum for Primary and Secondary Schools prescribe the use of multitude of digital tools in the learning process: virtual learning environments (VLE), personal learning environments (PLE) and other web 2.0 resources like social networking to be used in a classroom (National Curriculum 2010). A recent study shows that even with the good existing training opportunities and guided by the requirements of the new curriculum, most of the Estonian teachers are not ready to facilitate students in the matters of e-safety (Maadvere 2010). In the teachers' communities there are some discussions about the differences between the real life needs of a 21st century learner and how the schools should meet these needs. There are rising new challenges like digital divide, globalization as being a part of global internet village, digital sociality, familiarity in communicating; the changes in the roles of student and teacher and in understanding the policies and responsibilities (Veldre 2010, Murumaa 2010). There are a lot of materials (usually in English) that urge teachers to discuss these matters with students. But they are usually used as a reaction rather than a preventative act. At first nobody believes it could happen to them; yet if something happens, it's not announced and discussed as people feel ashamed (Hoiser 2009). Teachers are usually reluctant about e-safety - likely most schools have some video posted in the internet featuring a teacher who is unaware that he/she is a 'movie star' or some students secretly film other students (Vasli 2011). The discussions of incidents on e-safety tend to lead to internet usage restrictions at school. Schools and parents are interested in monitoring children’s behaviour in the name of preventing cyber-bullying or meeting with strangers (Hunter 2005). Studying school policies and practices, we could only find technical rules regarding computer wellbeing, time or operational policies (TDL arvutiklasside kasutamise reeglid 2004). Most schools regulate nothing at all, being afraid to create new precedents, or rely on the 'ostrich effect' claiming that having no incidents yet gives them no reason to act. In comparison, British schools opt for much more regulation (Children & Young People's Services 2011). In the United States, similar documents regulating teacher-student relations are given to sign by both parties (Ohio Policy reference manual 2011). 3. Methods We carried out two studies of e-safety stories and bottom-up policy development. The first study (Stage I) used the Grounded Theory (Chamaz 2006). The aim of Stage I was to decide who will be the focus group and what the main topics in the stories are. We used the 'go-around' exercise (Fundamental Team and Meeting Skills 2003) with empty cards and clustered the results with 50 participants (10 teachers, 6 experts, others were students aged 12- 16). People were divided into 8 groups (6-7 people in the group); 7 groups with students and 1 teacher, 1 group containing teachers and experts) and the goal was to: Decide who is involved in e-safety incidents and whom children look upon to get the information or help from; Gather and cluster data on what kinds of incidents can usually happen (the overall topics) and what would be important to the community. The results of Stage I were 13 different categories to code the e-safety stories into. Stage II used storytelling as a method. The story is a useful tool for learning - when we analyse stories, we can understand better how the world works for children (Vilke 2000). The stories were gathered from the people selected at Stage I: experts (police, teachers, psychologists, ICT experts) and students. The experts were selected from the Estonia EE SIC project using directed focusing (Teddlie 2009). Later we also used the snowball method (Gray 2007) as esafety educational experts are rare in Estonia. The stories from students were collected using a storytelling competition at InSafe project workshops in Estonia. We analysed the collected stories in line with qualitative case study method (Gagon 2010). 417
- Page 392 and 393: Andrea Kelz web-based activities in
- Page 394 and 395: Andrea Kelz system. Most other univ
- Page 396 and 397: Open Courses: The Next big Thing in
- Page 398 and 399: Kaido Kikkas et al. However, in the
- Page 400 and 401: Kaido Kikkas et al. generation of w
- Page 402 and 403: Kaido Kikkas et al. Occasional gue
- Page 404 and 405: John Knight and Rebecca Rochon guid
- Page 406 and 407: Evaluation of Quality of Learning S
- Page 408 and 409: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Essalmi
- Page 410 and 411: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. (LOs), l
- Page 412 and 413: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Then hie
- Page 414 and 415: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. If we lo
- Page 416 and 417: Models of eLearning: The Developmen
- Page 418 and 419: Stella Lee et al. Converging (AC a
- Page 420 and 421: Stella Lee et al. knowledge. Meta k
- Page 422 and 423: Stella Lee et al. Figure 3: Home pa
- Page 424 and 425: Stella Lee et al. Azevedo, R., Crom
- Page 426 and 427: Jake Leith et al. opportunities ble
- Page 428 and 429: Jake Leith et al. Data was collecte
- Page 430 and 431: Jake Leith et al. their informal sk
- Page 432 and 433: Jake Leith et al. For the summative
- Page 434 and 435: Sophisticated Usability Evaluation
- Page 436 and 437: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 438 and 439: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 440 and 441: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 444 and 445: Birgy Lorenz et al. 135 students p
- Page 446 and 447: Birgy Lorenz et al. The experts' st
- Page 448 and 449: Birgy Lorenz et al. Akdeniz, Y. (19
- Page 450 and 451: Arno Louw programmes, and within th
- Page 452 and 453: Arno Louw It should be clearly stat
- Page 454 and 455: Arno Louw somewhat an unwritten con
- Page 456 and 457: Arno Louw Lecturers assume that le
- Page 458 and 459: A treasure hunt has to be done to f
- Page 460 and 461: How to Represent a Frog That can be
- Page 462 and 463: Robert Lucas Occasionally we will a
- Page 464 and 465: Robert Lucas Note the need to creat
- Page 466 and 467: Robert Lucas Figure 5: A model of a
- Page 468 and 469: Learning by Wandering: Towards a Fr
- Page 470 and 471: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes wa
- Page 472 and 473: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes Th
- Page 474 and 475: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes is
- Page 476 and 477: Linda Martin et al. across the sect
- Page 478 and 479: Linda Martin et al. confidence. Alt
- Page 480 and 481: 8. Conclusion Linda Martin et al. T
- Page 482 and 483: Personalized e-Feedback and ICT Mar
- Page 484 and 485: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
- Page 486 and 487: Source: Own elaboration from survey
- Page 488 and 489: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
- Page 490 and 491: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
Social Networks, eLearning and Internet Safety: Analysing<br />
the Stories of Students<br />
Birgy Lorenz, Kaido Kikkas and Mart Laanpere<br />
Institute of Informatics, Tallinn University, Estonia<br />
birgy.lorenz@gmail.com<br />
kaido.kikkas@tlu.ee<br />
mart.laanpere@tlu.ee<br />
Abstract: eLearning has recently become more social and open, involving open educational resources, open<br />
courses, open <strong>learning</strong> using personal <strong>learning</strong> environments or social networks. We believe the schools are not<br />
ready for this yet, as strategies and regulations supporting open <strong>learning</strong> are not up to date. It may seem easier<br />
to restrict the use of Twitter, Facebook etc rather than integrate them into the <strong>learning</strong> process. Our study which<br />
was based on the qualitative analysis of 201 stories written by secondary school students shows that a typical<br />
safety incident is not solved adequately when existing regulations are used by the schools. We carried out the<br />
qualitative analysis of 201 e-safety related short stories presented by students (aged 12 to 16), parents, teachers,<br />
school IT managers and police, collected through the Safer Internet in Estonia EE SIC campaign. 2/3 of the<br />
stories are fictional – they may be based on urban legends which however appear to refer to real stories. 1/3 of<br />
the stories reflect real incidents. We mapped typical behaviour patterns and templates, beliefs regarding privacy<br />
as well as regulations and limitations concerning the use of social networks at schools. We found that most of the<br />
solutions used by schools to ensure e-safety are either technical or purely regulation-based, only some schools<br />
appeared to have studied or elaborated on pedagogical or behavioural aspects. Problems are defined by<br />
limitations and regulations while actual safety incidents (whether in- or outside school) remain largely unsolved<br />
(or even undetected). Schools tend to excuse their unawareness with „we'll react when it happens“ (secretly<br />
believing that it will not happen). Most schools also try to delegate such problems to parents - who in turn look<br />
upon schools for help, as their only reaction to safety incidents is often just applying time limits on Internet use.<br />
Thus there is an urgent need for information and working guidance mechanisms for managers, teachers, parents<br />
and students. These matters must be solved well before schools reach the critical mass in using eLearning,<br />
social networks and modern gadgetry as parts of curriculum. Schools are expected to apply new technologies in<br />
teaching and <strong>learning</strong>, but safety of student and teachers is paramount in this context.<br />
Keywords: online safety, schools, policy, new technologies, social media<br />
1. Introduction<br />
The internet safety issues in the context of eLearning are quite often addressed in a simplified, blackand-white<br />
manner, using rare cases of criminal privacy violation to scare teachers and parents. We<br />
believe that fear is not the best teacher in this domain.<br />
Our goal was to:<br />
Evaluate what kind of e-safety stories are students and experts (teachers, it-managers, and<br />
police) telling and how they are related;<br />
Find typical e-safety stories to promote development of regulations in these areas;<br />
Previous studies in this matter can be divided into 6 bigger groups: cyber-bullying (Berson 2002);<br />
moral issues – pedophilia, inappropriate content, behavioural errors (Akdeniz 1997; Carr 2004;<br />
Mitchell 2004; Peters 2009); programs and materials for schools (Wishart 2004); threat analysis for<br />
eLearning (Alwy 2010); normal teenage internet usage (Bullen 2000; Enochsson 2005; Dworschak<br />
2010); Internet usage analysis (Livigstone, 2011; The Safer Internet for Children Qualitative Study in<br />
29 European Countries 2007; Towards a Safer Use of the Internet for Children in the EU – a Parents’<br />
Perspective 2008). While according to the EUKids Online II survey (Livingstone 2010) Estonian<br />
students are among the top users of Internet and have had substantial exposure to online security<br />
risks, there has been next to no attempt of national-level regulation in this field.<br />
We analysed the typology and sources of safety incidents, the real solutions offered, the students'<br />
thoughts and feelings stemming from the situation, the solutions suggested by students and whether<br />
these typical solutions actually apply in real-life situations. The practical experience of students,<br />
teachers, IT managers and police indicates a gap between the measures used in education and real<br />
life.<br />
416