SUNY Course 2: Final Reflection. In a perfect world…
…we would not be discussing what kids can’t do in our library.
We’d be talking about how to facilitate, among other web2.0 strategies, student exploration of the following emerging trends;
- Gaming – World of Warcraft broke the 10,000,000 user mark – a year ago. Kids ARE gaming!
- Virtual Worlds –Virtual worlds like Second Life may soon become pervasive. An AUP should acknowledge this.
- S/W Downloads – we need better guidelines for downloading – what, when, how, to where?
- Streaming Media – better guidelines on use (when, where, how – e.g. using headphones, etc)
- Cloud computing and the Symantic Web (related to the above, but broader in scope as everything begins to reside on the “cloud” and as “smart objects” become ubiguitous) – the Horizon Report, 2009
Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world. In the first place, all of the above require access to bandwidth that we just do not have at this time in Thailand. Even in the US, a Neilsen News report on April 13 that Streaming video had increased by 40% in one year was followed shortly by news of bandwidth caps by big internet providers. “Capping”, is, of course, a relative term. 250 GB of data/month (equivalent of 120 full-length movies or 65,000 songs) seems a lot in an environment where real download speeds are measured in 2-digit KILOBYTES/second rather the the 1-2 megabytes/second Thai home users typically pay for.
Even at our school, where we have something like 40 megabytes/second, it still often takes several seconds for a static page to stream in, and streaming video is often broken up with pauses for buffering. Allowing students to explore the new technologies with no limits is simply not a practical option at this time.
And then there’s the issue of teen decision-making skills. We greet around 1200 visitors in a typical day in our main library, and 50-60% of these borrow a wireless laptop for use during their visit. We have 150 chairs in 7 discrete seating areas dispersed over 700 square meters on two floors. Realistically, we simply are not aware of what most students do with the computers most of the time. In this environment, and in consideration of others rights to a “quiet, productive workplace” environment, we feel it incumbent on us to provide guidance in what uses of the area, and the the technology being used in it, are in keeping with this objective. A “Technology Use Agreement” that students sign off on, help us all stay on the same page regarding appropriate use.
Coming out of this course, we have a Proposed new HS Acceptable Use Policy. Since it has not yet been adopted for officila use by the school, we feel we still need a document to help us manage technology use in the Main Library.
Our final cut at a “Technology Use Agreement” for ISB’s Main LIbrary may be construed as focussing on prohibition rather than entitlement, but in our defence, we have attempted to open the doors to new and creative explorative options not available in our existing agreement. Rather than specifically prohibiting gaming, etc, for example, we suggest that students seek permission to engage in activities outside of the normal scope of online activity.
In our prohibitive rather than entitling stance, we are not alone. In the litiginous United States, AUPs can be even more rife with legal jargon and limitation. An example from DadeSchools in Florida is a case in point. This document specifically focusses on limitations and prohibitions, and regularly references School Board Policy which in each instance is a case-study in legal jargon. It, like many AUP’s still out there, could be seen as a document with a built-in self-fulfilling prophecy for failure. Few users are going to plow through the intricacies and exhortations to determine what really can and can’t be done with the tools it references.
We should count our blessings that for the moment, at least, we feel we can cover the ground in our Main LIbrary with a relatively benign, single page isb-technology-use-agreement-final-120509
Of course, the fact that we have not fundamentally changed the Use Agreement we have had in place since the adoption of wireless laptops suggests that should the environment change in the near future, we should – make that we must – revisit the question again.
Perhaps in that newly renovated “Learning Commons” we are working toward, we WILL be able to enable and promote the many creative and innovative ways in which kids could use the technology.
Amen to that…
