Synthesis of Key Ideas from this weeks resources on Copyright
One of the most interesting ideas in the Hobbs (2017) reading Copyright Clarity was that the guidelines on copyright are not laws. In Hobbs section on “The Problem With Educational-Use Guidelines” (pg.27-28), the struggle educators have with understanding the copyright laws have been confused by these guidelines promoted by the media and publishing industries and rejected by the American Library Association and others educators. I do not think that it has been made clear to some educators that the Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia are not in fact law and that they were rejected by the ALA. I had heard the 10% guideline. I know somewhere along the way I had come across a set of guidelines presented to me as fact and law and they included the 10% rule. The whole idea that copyright has the fair use rights, I knew this, but I really didn’t truly understand it, and the reading helped to clear up misconceptions and helps me to more comfortably embrace the transformative use of materials as students create media. This is refreshing and encouraging as I help students become creators and not just consumers of media. I was often concerned with students using copyrighted materials in their research and digital projects. It is hard to teach copyright if you don’t fully understand it and have been given false information along the way. I have always had students cite everything and still worried about them missing something and not properly citing something. I also combat plagiarizing and copy and pasting, especially in the younger grades where the concept is completely new to them. These ideas are relevant to my work because I am supposed to be helping students to become digital citizens and media smart and understanding the copyright laws and fair use are critical pieces to the puzzle of helping them to become competent and wise creators. The question the reading raise is how to create lessons plans that get these copyright and fair use and codes of conduct across in a way that even elementary school students can begin to understand and implement in their own digital creations and projects. It’s important that I am teaching them the right information, but it also has to be engaging enough and in language that they can understand. It sounds challenging. The lessons would have to be authentic and tie into something they were working on instead something taught in isolation of real projects that have meaning for the students. I also am now aware that, as I look for resources to teach copyright, I may come across biased and misleading information put out by corporations and industries that gain advantage and even possibly profit from the misunderstanding of fair use. I also want to look into the school district policies to see if there is any misinformation about copyright there. And somewhere down the road I feel like one of our faculty professional development days should address copyright because I think there is a lot of misconception and inaccurate information. This misinformation is hurting students and teachers’ ability to be supporting the 21st century learner skills. As Renee Hobbs (2017) points out, the “critical analysis of media texts, tools, and technologies, and the ability to compose using digital tools for a variety of purposes are some of the fundamental components of 21st-century learning” (pg. 94). She adds that it is not just the responsibility of the technology courses, but rather all teachers should be including these skills in their curriculum.
Hobbs, R. (2011) Copyright Clarity: How Fair Use Supports Digital Learning.Thousand Oaks: Corwin/Sage.
Reflection on LEAP 3
I am still queasy and unsettled from the digital storytelling project. I focused on the first criteria for evaluation of composing a short story that helps an audience to understand who you are. I chose to use pictures with dialogue and create a movie to show who I was, am and who I have evolved into. What I did ended up being a lot more personal than I had intended. While I enjoyed the project immensely through the process of going out to take pictures, digging through pictures and reflecting on my life, deciding what shaped me into who I am, and what images, text, and music would capture that, I had a really hard time with the mechanics of getting a URL link to the project, but then I also had trouble putting it out there for people to see. I realized that my principal and some of my colleagues follow me on twitter and the LEAP 3 project felt too personal to share with them. They do not know I am a cancer survivor and I don’t think I want them to know. They do not know I am a #metoo survivor and it is also something I would not want to share with my principal. So I think I made it way too personal and have felt unsettled and upset by my project ever since I published it. Upon reflection, the point of being careful with what you post for the world to see was really driven home as I have really felt uneasy about putting myself out there like that and I can’t get it back, undo it. It bothered me to the point where I created a new personal twitter account to share the LEAP 3 on so that my principal and colleagues have less of a chance of seeing it. So I have a professional twitter and a personal twitter account now. I have posted it to my Blog thinking not many people will actually go there to view it. I am very curious how other people see it. Maybe it is only way to personal in my own mind and does not seem like much to others having not lived the experiences. This speaks to the idea that the consumer of a created work will interpreted that work differently than the creator may have intended it to be. The way the viewer experiences the work will depend on their own life experiences and interpretations, which the creator has no control over . It has also shaken me again as I reflect on the scary experience of going through a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and always having in the back cavities of your mind the insecurity of whether it will return. It changes your view on life and refocused for me what I view as important and drives home the fragility of life. It put back to the forefront for me of how important it is to have gratitude for everyday and live life to the fullest like each day may be your last. I also wonder if the piece gives people the sense that I am a quiet, introspective, observer who loves the outdoors and my family and through my challenges have reinvented myself to this new chapter in which I have become a librarian. Upon reflection I wonder, did that come across? Was my piece successful even though it has shaken me? Has it had any effect at all on others? What is this experience of putting yourself out there and then not knowing at all how it is perceived? Wow. I don’t think I am doing justice to the intense effect this project has had on the new perspective I have as being the creator and putting it out there.
Burgess (2006) states, “increased availability and power of digital technologies, combined with the Internet, allow ‘everyone’ to be a media participant, if not a producer, and that this is in fact happening” (pg. 202). This infographic shares ways in which students are participating in media to inquire, collaborate and create and become engaged with authentic learning.
Inforgraphic Link: Infographic Link
- Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling. Continuum, 20(2), 201-214. Retrieved from https://digitalauthorshipuri.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/hearing-ordinary-voices-burgess.pdf
Discussion #2 – Response to Readings
While reading Pangrazio (2016), the thought that kept screaming in my head was, why does it have to be either or? Why can’t it be a blending of the different definitions, approaches and frameworks in relation to your audience and purpose? I am not going to use the same framework for all situations, I am going to pull from each to attain my intended goals. As an educator, so much depends on the grade level and concepts that structure our lessons and lead to our intended outcomes. Elementary school students (and some teachers) are just beginning to comprehend and learn the educational value of digital literacy. As such, we begin with the fundamentals of the tools, digital citizenship and internet safety, how to be proficient using the tools and the aspect of learning that helps them to develop into competent readers both of print, online sites, and other forms of media, first before we can move onto learning to assimilate, evaluate and reintegrate information. Pangrazio’s (2016) final speculative critical digital design framework that she is testing in which “visualization, critical self-reflection and transcendentalism” (2016, p. 173) are being “explored” are concepts beyond the scope of an elementary school level, but that doesn’t mean we can’t begin to integrate some of these concepts into the lessons as we move toward self-directed, personalized, curators and not just consumer classrooms. She does not state what grade level this is being tested on and I would like to know for whom she is referring to. I can see the possibility of including aspects of the techniques, but as I said some of these students are still learning to read. We do begin that process of questioning and reflecting as early as kindergarten, but with the teacher reading aloud and working on those skills with students who have not quite mastered reading independently for meaning, but can listen and discuss using guidance and their own background knowledge and life experience to build new knowledge and begin to question the creator of the information’s purpose and message. As Hobbs states the importance of the use of open ended questions with asking what they think, asking for reasoning as a means for these young students to find their voice and begin to understand who they are. Getting that “tacit knowledge” into “explicit knowledge” that Hobbs (2017, pg. 51) explains with the “simple act of classroom discussion”. I am often amazed at the discussions that ensue when the questions are open ended and the environment created is one of acceptance and students feel safe sharing and feel that they are valued and listened to. The classroom environment you create, I feel, is just as critical to Pangrazio’s (2016) framework success as the framework components. I don’t agree with Kress (2003) that Pangrazio quotes as saying the “world of communication is now constituted in a way that make in imperative to highlight the concept of design, rather than the concepts such as acquisition, or competence, or critique” (Kress, 1997, p. 77). I scribbled in the margins as I read, don’t we need both? Why the inclusion of one over the other? It is a process, a journey where I feel students must acquire, gain competence and the ability to critique to venture into design. As Hobbs (2017) states that, “the key concepts and core principles of digital and media literacy help you develop critical thinking skills in responding to multimedia messages, which can be a catalyst to your own creative expression” (p. 45). As I started this response with, why not take what we need from all definitions and frameworks?
Hobbs, Renee (2017). Create to Learn: Introduction to Digital Literacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Kress, G. (1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: the potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53–79). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualizing critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163-174, https://digitalauthorshipuri.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/pangrazio.pdf.
- Which of the concepts from media literacy might apply to the current problem we have with the rise of so-called “fake news”?
The concepts that apply to the current “fake news” problem are from Buckingham’s (2003, 2008) four essential components of media literacy. The first component referenced in the reading, “Representation” (pg. 267), speaks to how digital media can offer “particular interpretations and selections of reality” (pg. 267) depending on the intentions and bias of the creator. When the creator of digital media interprets and takes things out of context to fit their own biased agenda, reality can be distorted. As Hobb (2017) states, “Intentional deception is abhorrent to a responsible communicator” (pg. 12). So, it is essential that the consumer of information is aware and cognizant of where this news or information is coming from and the authority and reliability of the source. The concept of Representation, according to the reading, also refers to how digital media can “embody implicit values and ideologies” (pg. 267) and users need to be able to evaluate what they view by being aware of the motives and bias of the creator. The reading also states that the consumer of digital media also must have consideration for the authority of the creator as well as the reliability of the source. The consumer could contribute to the circulation of inaccurate media or “fake news” if they share unreliable information. Another point made, that I think is important in evaluating digital media that the reading addresses, is the idea to consider not only whose perspective, or “voices” is the term used, are represented, but also to consider whose perspective is not. Who’s left out of the conversation and why.
The next essential component of media literacy from Buckingham (2003, 2008) that apply is “Production” (pg. 268). The reading states that Production refers to the consumer considering “who is communicating to whom, and why” (pg. 268). This component deals with the consideration of the global commercial enterprises of advertising, promotion and sponsorship as well as non-commercial special interest groups with a specific agenda that might not be immediately visible to the consumer as both sources try to persuade and influence information or news. These factors can “influence the nature of the information that is available in the first place” (pg. 268). When considering who is producing media, the consumer must be diligent and understand where the information is coming from. Hobbs (2017) states that the term “fake news” started in 2016 with some political hoaxes and she points out that they can “seem funny, but have devastating consequences” (pg. 12).
The last essential component of media literacy from Buckingham (2003, 2008) that relates to “fake news” is “Audience” (pg. 263). The reading encompasses the idea that this component relates to fake news by pointing out that each person also shares in the responsibility of being aware of themselves as the audience and how we use media and respond to it, share it and how “media are targeted at audiences” (pg. 268). Another point the reading makes is that as the audience, we must realize that we can be manipulated even by how a web site is designed to guide us to navigate to particular points and at the same time being aware of the complex interactivity of the internet and social media and reflect on how we use it, how we can change and influence media and whether we contribute to fake news or change the conversation and bring integrity to our digital authorship. As Hobbs (2017) states, “As a digital author, you’ll act in good will towards your audiences because you expect that others will behave accordingly” (pg. 12-13)
Buckingham, David (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Buckingham, David (2008). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about digital media? In C. Lankshear and M. Knobel (Eds), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (pp. 73 – 90). New York: Peter Lang.
Hobbs, Renee (2017). Create to Learn: Introduction to Digital Literacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Library Media Specialist in a K – 4 elementary school. Blog for EDC 534 Digital Authorship Course