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
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
2
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
3
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
4
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
5
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
6
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
7
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
8
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
9
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
10
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
11
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
12
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
13
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
14
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
15
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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?
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
16
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
17
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
18
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
19
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
20
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
21
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
22
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
23
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
24
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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).
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
25
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
26
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
27
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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.
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
28
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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,
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
29
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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'
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
30
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
31
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
32
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
Research, 25, 689-715. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~tpostmes/postmes1998b.html
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
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~tpostmes/postmes1998b.html
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
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
33
Should Cyber Education be Concerned...
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
Baggio & Belderrain©2007
34