Final Policy Recommendation

Issues Affecting Computer and Internet Use in Teaching and Learning: Penn State Lehigh Valley


Report to the Senior Management Council
The Pennsylvania State University
Lehigh Valley College


Executive Summary


November 2007



Eileen M. Grodziak
Instructional Services Specialist
Digital Commons Coordinator
The Pennsylvania State University
Lehigh Valley College
EDTEC448











Within the past decade the rapid technological advances in computer technology and Internet innovation have made the use of computers and the Internet commonplace in daily life, business practices and education throughout Penn State University campuses. As the Lehigh Valley campus community continues to embrace and increase the use of computer technology in teaching and learning. Several issues arise that require additional campus and departmental policy guidelines to address the unique local environment of the Lehigh Valley. The areas of investigation for the purposes of this report are: Internet Access and the Digital Divide; Accuracy and Validity of Information; Compliance to Copyright Laws; and Computer/Network Security.

Students entering the Lehigh Valley Campus have experience in basic computing skills, such as email, Internet navigation and word processing. Computer technology is a required unit of study in the area high schools. However, due to a wide diversity in the social, economic and racial population of the local area, there may be some subpopulations that do not have equal access to computing and internet technology.

As students’ use of Internet resources is increasing, so too is faculty’s concern regarding the reduction in students’ ability to critically analyze the accuracy and validity of information obtained from the Internet. This vital skill is necessary for students to be successful in the research-based education that Penn State provides.
University Libraries offers tools to educate students in this area of critique, but students may not be utilizing them.

The acquisition of digital content creation tools for education and Internet sharing raises the issue of adherence to copyright laws. Recent litigation judgments and suit settlements for copyright infringement, on behalf of the entertainment industry, brings to light the need for the University and our local campus to provide more comprehensive education and adherence to the University’s copyright guidelines.

Industry and government initiatives that address the increased incidence of security attacks on digital personal information are changing the way that the University must conduct business. The University will continue to monitor all the external factors that threaten the integrity of the University’s informational assets. In response to emerging guidelines and mandates regarding computing behavior and secure data repositories, the Lehigh Valley campus will develop local strategies to ensure the security of the University’s digital information.

Policy Recommendations:

From the investigation of these four issues regarding computers and Internet teaching and learning at the Lehigh Valley campus, it is evident that additional education is warranted as a possible means to address at least three issues. Many in our campus community lack understanding of, or interest in, the technology changes/advances that require additional attention to computer security measures. With regard to validity of information sources and copyright, the campus faculty and staff are well-informed, but report limited instructional time to address the topic with students. In one instance, education is advised for all parties: on the other, the student population is targeted. Some recommendations require multiple campus resources. Several strategies deal directly with practices that are within the scope of the Digital Commons.

The issue of access and digital divide may require additional study to address.
Additional information is needed to determine the impact of socio-economic factors that may impede our students’ access to technology. The main area of access is addressed with the open labs. The next area of digital divide to address to address is autonomy of use through home access. Questions that need to be answered are: Do all of our students have access to a home computer? If not what is the percentage? How does the campus community respond to the existence of a need? Such inquiry will require time and resources. For the short term one recommendation is made to repurpose usable life-cycle equipment for these students who lack home computers.








The Digital Divide and Home Computer Access

Background:

The Lehigh Valley Campus of Penn State University attracts local Lehigh Valley-area students to attend this campus location for the first two years or the full four-years of a baccalaureate program. The diversity of the Lehigh Valley Campus population reflects the social, economic and ethnic diversity of the area, including a diverse immigrant population. Three primary factors for enrollment in this campus are the Penn State reputation, the small campus size and the economic savings (minimal housing costs for at-home students; students retain their jobs upon entrance to college). Due to one of these factors, the economic savings factor, our campus attracts lower income students for whom a Penn State education would otherwise be unattainable.
Although current statistics can be obtained on the exact income status of the student population, little is known about the extent to which students lack in-home computer access. The research of Beltran and Fairlie (2007, March) suggests a positive relationship between in-home computer and Internet access and educational outcomes. The study of immigrant youth and the digital divide by Fairlie, London and Rosner (2006, September) found that while it is true that lower income students are less likely than higher income student to have home computers, within this group, immigrants are less likely to have home computers than their U.S. born counterparts. Despite secondary school computer access among both higher-income and lower-income students, Becker( 2003) reports the computer use by lower-income students to be limited to basic skills remediation, where as their higher-income counterparts’ computer use gains them mastery with higher-order skills. He predicts an increasingly wider divide between low and high-income students due to the difference in the way the computer is used to access information between the two groups. Other research suggests “in-home expertise is crucial to successful use of the Internet for educational purposes” (Cleary, Pierce & Trauth, 2005, December). The first element necessary to access the Internet, where available, is a basic computer.

The Penn State Lehigh Valley campus provides public computer labs and library computers, as do the public libraries in all of the students’ home communities; however, there are factors that hinder students from fully utilizing these resources:
• Students must be on campus to access the open student labs. That means longer time spent on campus to complete coursework.
• Use of the open labs also requires the student to drive to the campus (there is no public transportation access) or to drive/use public transportation to the public library.
• The lab hours are limited to the hours that the campus is open (8a-9p with more limited weekend hours; the public libraries’ hours are further limited)
• Students are reporting difficulty “getting on a computer” during the campus’ high volume class days, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
With research suggesting the correlation of home computer use with positive educational outcomes, it is in the campus community’s interest to research the extent to which current students lack home computer access.

Issue to be addressed:
Due to the presence of low-income and immigrant students in the campus population, it is possible that a percentage of these students do not have access to home computers. Since research suggests a positive relationship with home computer use and educational outcomes, it is in the best interest of this campus community to research the extent of the issue and find a means to mitigate the gap in students’ in-home computer access.

The campus currently equips open computer labs, laptop classrooms and all full-time faculty and staff with a standardized set of computer equipment that is replaced every three-four years according to the warranty agreements. Standard University policy has the replaced units returned to University salvage. Individual colleges, departments, or campuses may determine the use/distribution of life-cycled equipment that was purchased with grant money and/or budgets other than the standard University technology budget. In some cases, faculty were granted permission to retain life-cycled laptops and desktops. In other cases, especially when a full lab of equipment is replaced, the usable equipment is offered to faculty and staff to purchase at a moderate fee. There are no warranties or service agreements associated with this equipment; therefore, the local IT staff does not support further use.

Policy Recommendation 1:
1. Laptop computers that are retired from university business due to life-cycle expiration and are operational will be available, for low or no cost, to students for whom an in-home computer is unavailable. The students will be qualified to receive these units by the Office of Financial Aid and the Office of Student Services.
2. A task force made up of members from the campus Office of Student Services, Student Activities and Information Technologies will be charged with creating, conducting and compiling the results of a study which will determine to what extent PS-LV students lack access to in-home computers.
3. Based on the results of this survey (is it a large percentage? Is it a small percentage?), the task force will seek policy recommendations to further close the gap between home computer owners and non-home computer owners, if necessary

Pros:
• Students who receive a computer will have autonomy in their computer use for coursework completion that requires word processing and other software resources. They will also have autonomy to access the wireless Internet in public access locations (LV campus and public libraries, among others) without having to rely on availability of equipment and defined time use restrictions (pubic libraries).
• Students will have greater access to computer to practice and use essential computer skills and increase skill proficiency.
• The access to an in-home computer can have a positive effect on the student’s educational outcome.

Cons:
• The campus Information Technology Services Department will not realize the income of $250 per unit that staff, faculty and /or students pay to receive the life-cycled computer.
• Providing the student with a computer does not guarantee home internet access.
• The standard PSU computer support will be available. There will be no technical support or extended warranty available on the issued computers.

Policy Recommendation 2:
1. A task force made up of members from the campus Office of Student Services, Student Activities and Information Technologies will be charged with creating, conducting and compiling the results of a study which will determine to what extent PS-LV students lack access to in-home computers.
2. Based on survey results, the task force will research and prepare an application for government and/or other foundation grant opportunities that will fund the acquisition of computers for low-income students who lack in-home computer access.
3. The task force, working with the LV campus Office of Alumni Affairs and the Development Office, will seek sponsorship from alumni and area businesses to provide the in-home computer access.

Pros:
• Students will receive new computers that will carry at least the standard manufacturer’s warranty.
• Technical support service and/or extended warranty can possibly be provided from a grant allocation.

Cons:
• The campus donor pool is already taxed with attempting to fund seriously-needed capital building projects and improvements.
• The grant research and application process is not a guarantee of fund allocation.
• A grant process requires personnel resources.

Validity and Accuracy of Internet Resources
Penn State Lehigh Valley Digital Commons

Background:

Students who produce digital content in the Penn State Lehigh Valley Digital Commons Studio must provide proper citation to works that are used to create the scripts or the images in their multimedia projects Students also must ensure that all resources used are both valid and accurate. During the first year of the studio’s presence at the Fogelsville campus, the issue of resource validity has not been raised. As multimedia creation is further integrated into the teaching and learning environment of the campus, it is necessary to create a policy that addresses educating students in the use of valid and accurate Internet resources to create their multimedia projects.

Penn State University Libraries addresses the issue in the “Information Literacy and You” self-learning modules that are located at:
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/instruction/infolit/andyou/infoyou.htm
The specific reference to evaluating Internet resources is located at:
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/instruction/infolit/andyou/mod6/eval.htm

Policy Recommendation 1:

Digital Commons Staff will direct students who are using web references to the Penn State University “Information Literacy and You” Learning modules. With this resource, students will be able to determine the accuracy, validity and appropriateness of the web resource that they are using for a multimedia presentation.

Pros: The Library Resource is readily available on the PSU University Libraries site. It is contain modules for self-directed learning.

Cons: Students will forget to follow up and take time to access the resource to learn how to check their site for accuracy.

Policy Recommendation 2:

Prepare a checklist tool or simple chart, such as those located at http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/EvalForm_General.pdf and http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/evaluating/
Using the checklist/tool, walk the student through the steps of critically evaluating the authenticity of the web resource. In addition, have the student access the University Libraries link to “Information Literacy and You,” on one of the DC computers.

Pros: Digital Commons Staff will have a tool-at-the-ready to use with students. It will be a tool that will provide education at the time a resource is considered for use/inclusion in a multimedia project. Use of such a tool will not depend upon students remembering or taking the time to access a web resource after they leave the Digital Commons.

Cons: Digital Commons Staff resource allocation will be needed to create a suitable checklist tool. Additional time will be needed to work with the student and use the checklist/tool. This may take away time from training in multimedia production.

Background:

The existence of Copyright Law, with the protection it affords authors, artists, creators and their promoters, is not a new phenomenon. The first Copyright law was enacted in 1790. Since then several laws were enacted to further define and protect original works of art. The emergence of the World Wide Web and the most recent Web 2.0 social collaboration tools have brought copyright law, and infringements there of, to the awareness of the general public.

"The Internet has been characterized as the largest threat to copyright since its inception. The Internet is awash in information, a lot of it with varying degrees of copyright protection. Copyrighted works on the Net include news stories, software, novels, screenplays, graphics, pictures, Usenet messages and even email. In fact, the frightening reality is that copyright law protects almost everything on the Net. " ("The Copyright Web site" http://www.benedict.com/)

Public and private entities have exerted greater pressure in most recent years to protect their intellectual and/or financial interests by initiating lawsuits in an effort to discourage use of the materials, for which they hold the copyrights, without their express permission (and, in some cases, without royalty payment) in the new Web 2.0 environment. High-profile cases illustrate the lengths to which some business interests will go to ensure that their rights are upheld, and provide a glimpse of the financial impact of such litigation, i.e. J.E. Rowling, Disney, Sony.

Certain provisions in the US Copyright Law allow non-profit educational institutions to use copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder. The provisions, as outlined in the Fair-Use Guidelines and the TEACH Act, are very complicated and can be confusing to educators. There are no exemptions for educators and educational institutions that do not adhere to such provisions, regardless of whether they understand them or not and regardless of whether their students have the ability to pay for copyrighted resources or not (see Publishers Sue Georgia State U. for Copyright Infringement, http://chronicle.com/news/article/4319/publishers-sue-georgia-state-u-for-copyright-infringement).

As educational learning environments increasingly incorporate digitized and Internet elements, it is critical that educators and students, alike, are aware of and understand the copyright implications for their use. The potential financial impact of misuse is staggering with statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, and up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement (US Code http://altlaw.org/v1/codes/us/587610), not to mention the accompanying attorney and court fees, negative publicity and the ensuing loss of reputation (and, in the case of higher education, potential loss of donations).

Current Situation:

The new Digital Commons facilities provide easy access for faculty, students and staff to create digital media. With this access comes a responsibility for the University to educate users in the ethical and lawful use of resources that are employed in digital media creation. Current University policies regarding faculty and staff use of copyrighted materials are located in the General University Reference Utility and the University Policy Manual. A new website (http://copyright.psu.edu ) was launched this year to educate students regarding their educational and personal use of copyrighted materials. In addition, iStudy for Success learning modules are available for instructors to use in addition to their standard course content. They are designed to eliminate the need to devote valuable class time to address the basic issues of copyright and plagiarism.


Policy Option 1:

1. The PS-LV Digital Commons Coordinator will work with the campus University Relations Department and the Director of Academic Affairs to create a hand-out of copyright use FAQs and “Where to find more information” that will accompany a short introduction on use of copyrighted materials for digital content creation. This introduction will be included with the 20-minute “Orientation to the Digital Commons” that is required for all who are interested in using the equipment in the studio.

Pros: The implementation of such an introduction will provide an additional educational opportunity for students, faculty and staff to be reminded of the University policies regarding copyright.

Con: Developing such an introduction and accompanying fact sheet will require personnel resources. An introduction that will be included in an established Orientation will provide a very limited opportunity for education of copyright issues.

Policy Option 2:

The Director of Academic Affairs will address the use of copyrighted materials in teaching and learning and answer questions pertaining to implementation of University policies, in this regard, as part of one of the mandatory faculty and staff training sessions/meetings each year.

Pros: There is a vast number of University Policies. It takes time to understand and remember all them. By presenting this information on a consistent annual basis, all parties will be reminded of the importance of the University copyright policies and have the opportunity to have questions regarding the use clarified.

Cons: Opportunities of mandatory faculty and/or staff assembly are limited, especially for the adjunct faculty, who are most at risk for misunderstanding all the University policies. When such assemblies are held there is a large amount of content to be addressed. The amount of time that will realistically be provided to this topic will be limited.




Internet Security

Background:

Pennsylvania State University has recently implemented computer security policies and a computer scanning initiative, under which all university computers will be scanned at regular intervals to eliminate storage of Protected Personal Information.
These policies are aligned with recent federal laws and Payment Card Industry standards, which govern personal privacy. They supplement PSU administrative computer and network policies that are already in place and include, among others, network and firewall standards, Kerberos authentication requirements, file back-up and recovery standards.
In addition to the university-wide standards for network applications and hard drive storage, there are many additional security standards that local campuses and departments can adopt to protect University information as well as the personal information of each user.

Under the direction of the interim supervisor, the ITS staff recently conducted a thorough review of all University policies relating to Internet connectivity and employee computer use. During this review several needs were identified:
1. The need to review computer use policy with the campus faculty and staff. Each employee signs an “agreement of use” prior to receiving their access account; yet, many seem to have forgotten exactly what they signed.
2. The need to develop a comprehensive inventory of all University assets that the Lehigh Valley campus is currently responsible for.
3. The need for continuing education in safe computing habits.

Policy Option 1:

An inventory of all computer equipment wilI be conducted. Laptops and desktops and printers can be inventoried directly through the network. Other peripherals (projectors, wacom tablets, dvd players, etc.) must be physically inventoried. In addition to the hardware equipment inventory, an inventory of each computer’s installed software will also be made. A form (Computer Software Use Agreement) for this inventory has already been made. ITS personnel will list the all applications that are installed according to “supported” and “not supported,” as per University policy. The employee will sign acknowledging the receipt of the application inventory and a copy of the Access ID Computer Use Agreement. Each time a new unit is issued, this Software Agreement and Computer use agreement will be issued and employees will sign acknowledgement of such. To be effective, this policy must be adopted through the Senior Management Council

Pros:
A physical inventory serves as a guide to “where University information is stored.” Reissuing the Computer use agreements serves as a reminder of the University policy that all employees already agreed to. Inventory of software applications reduces the risk of ITS personnel becoming involved with faculty/staff personal business.

Cons:
Faculty/staff may feel that their personal rights are being violated through such an inventory. Personnel resources will be required to conduct the inventory.

Policy Option 2:

Educate all employees in the safe use of computer and Internet Resources using the ITS Training Services Computer Security workshop materials at the onset.
• Monthly email “tip ”of best practices.
• Posters placed in faculty/staff lounge (and a smaller one at mailbox locations) at both campus locations to reinforce the tip
• Brief mention of the monthly tip during staff meetings and faculty senate
Examples of such “best practices” and may found at http://www.staysafeonline.org and www.OnGuardOnline.gov.

Pros:
For busy working adults, it is much easier to ponder small pieces of information, rather than a formal training session. Visual representation of email material and brief mention of the monthly tip during regularly scheduled meetings will provide the information in modalities that serve most learning styles.

Cons:
Email message will be ignored due to disinterest. Faculty/staff may not pay attention to announcements and/or visuals. More education/compliance is needed than can be provided through a monthly “tip.”

References:

Cleary, P.F.; Pierce, G.; Traut, E.M. Closing the Digital Divide: Understanding Racial Ethnic Social Class, Gender and Geographic Disparities in Internet use Among School Age Children in the United States. Universal Acces in the Information Society, Volume 4, Number 4, p. 354-373 (2006). http://cis.ist.psu.edu/node/76.

Copyright Perspectives. Pennsylvania State University, http://copyright.psu.edu

The Copyright Website, LLC. http://www.benedict.com/

Top Eight Cyber Security Practices. National Cyber Security Alliance.
http://www.staysafeonline.org

Evaluating Web pages, Techniques and Questions to Ask. UC Berkeley Library.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/EvalForm_General.pdf

Fairlie, R.W.; London, R.A.; Rosner, R.; Pastor, M. Crossing the Divide: Immigrant Youth and Digital Disparity in California. September 2006. http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/digital.pdf

Greenwood, A; Steyn, D. University of British Columbia Library. Criteria For Evaluating Internet Resources.
http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/evaluating/

How to Evaluate Information on the Web. University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University.
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/instruction/infolit/andyou/mod6/eval.htm

Howard, J. Publishers Sue Georgia State U. for Copyright Infringement. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 16, 2008 http://chronicle.com/news/article/4319/publishers-sue-georgia-state-u-for-copyright-infringement

Information Literacy and You. University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University.
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/instruction/infolit/andyou/infoyou.htm

Information, Privacy and Security. Pennsylvania State University. http://www.ipas.psu.edu

Jackson, L.A.; Von Eye, A.; Biocca, F.A.; Barbatsis, G.; Zhao, Y.; Fitzgerald, H.E. Does Home Internet Use Influence the Academic Performance of Low-Income Children?. Developmental Psychology, Volume 42, Number 3 (2006).

On Guard Online: Your Safety Net. United States Federal Trade Comission. http://www.OnGuardOnline.gov

United States Code: Title 17; Chapter 5, Section 504. Remedies for Infrigement: Damages and Profits. http://altlaw.org/v1/codes/us/587610

Jackson, L.A.; Von Eye, A.; Biocca, F.A.; Barbatsis, G.; Zhao, Y.; Fitzgerald, H.E. Does Home Internet Use Influence the Academic Performance of Low-Income Children?. Developmental Psychology, Volume 42, Number 3 (2006).

Internet Security Policy Options

Background:

Pennsylvania State University has recently implemented computer security policies and a computer scanning initiative, under which all university computers will be scanned at regular intervals to eliminate storage of Protected Personal Information.
These policies are aligned with recent federal laws and Payment Card Industry standards, which govern personal privacy. They supplement PSU administrative computer and network policies that are already in place and include, among others, network and firewall standards, Kerberos authentication requirements, file back-up and recovery standards.
In addition to the university-wide standards for network applications and hard drive storage, there are many additional security standards that local campuses and departments can adopt to protect University information as well as the personal information of each user.

Under the direction of the interim supervisor, the ITS staff recently conducted a thorough review of all University policies relating to Internet connectivity and employee computer use. During this review several needs were identified:
1. The need to review computer use policy with the campus faculty and staff. Each employee signs an “agreement of use” prior to receiving their access account; yet, many seem to have forgotten exactly what they signed.
2. The need to develop a comprehensive inventory of all University assets that the Lehigh Valley campus is currently responsible for.
3. The need for continuing education in safe computing habits.

Policy Option 1:

An inventory of all computer equipment wilI be conducted. Laptops and desktops and printers can be inventoried directly through the network. Other peripherals (projectors, wacom tablets, dvd players, etc.) must be physically inventoried. In addition to the hardware equipment inventory, an inventory of each computer’s installed software will also be made. A form (Computer Software Use Agreement) for this inventory has already been made. ITS personnel will list the all applications that are installed according to “supported” and “not supported,” as per University policy. The employee will sign acknowledging the receipt of the application inventory and a copy of the Access ID Computer Use Agreement. Each time a new unit is issued, this Software Agreement and Computer use agreement will be issued and employees will sign acknowledgement of such. To be effective, this policy must be adopted through the Senior Management Council

PROS:
A physical inventory serves as a guide to “where University information is stored.” Reissuing the Computer use agreements serves as a reminder of the University policy that all employees already agreed to. Inventory of software applications reduces the risk of ITS personnel becoming involved with faculty/staff personal business.

CONS:
Faculty/staff may feel that their personal rights are being violated through such an inventory. Personnel resources will be required to conduct the inventory.

Policy Option #2

Educate all employees in the safe use of computer and Internet Resources using the ITS Training Services Computer Security workshop materials at the onset.
• Monthly email “tip ”of best practices.
• Posters placed in faculty/staff lounge (and a smaller one at mailbox locations) at both campus locations to reinforce the tip
• Brief mention of the monthly tip during staff meetings and faculty senate
Examples of such “best practices” and may found at http://www.staysafeonline.org and www.OnGuardOnline.gov.

PROS:
For busy working adults, it is much easier to ponder small pieces of information, rather than a formal training session. Visual representation of email material and brief mention of the monthly tip during regularly scheduled meetings will provide the information in modalities that serve most learning styles.

CONS:
Email message will be ignored due to disinterest. Faculty/staff may not pay attention to announcements and/or visuals. More education/compliance is needed than can be provided through a monthly “tip.”