Responded to
Devonee - https://plus.google.com/109581578406339641464/posts
Ena - http://ena-spoonfulofsugar.blogspot.com/
Jasmine - http://educ8842turnerj.blogspot.com/
Sanjay - http://onlineinstructing.wordpress.com/
Kelly - gasappwife.wordpress.com
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Video Presentation
Butakov,
S., Dyagilev, V. & Tskhay, A. (2012). Protecting
students' intellectual property in the
web plagiarism detection process.
This
qualitative research provides information about plagiarism detection services
and how they are critical for learning management systems in online and
distance schools. The plagiarism detection services help schools to catch
plagiarism quickly. However, when schools use outside services, the information
fed into them is able to be analyzed by these outside services. This means that
if someone plagiarizes, the plagiarism detection service is also notified. Some
schools consider this to be a breach of confidentiality because with that
information, a school can be criticized for the amount of plagiarism that comes
up in the system. Schools would like to keep the information fed into the
plagiarism detection service private and deal with it within their own system.
Suggestions are provided for how this can be achieved.
Falcon, R. (2010).
Intellectual property rights and the classroom: What teachers can do.
Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED525234
This
is a qualitative research study. Falcon (2010) believes that intellectual
property rights infringe on students' and teachers' abilities to collaborate
and interact in an intellectual manner. Although Falcon's study provides
information on how intellectual property laws can protect people, it shows how
they disable people from working collaboratively and using each other's ideas
to create new ones. Suggestions are made in order to change these laws that
would help make them better for students and teachers.
Jane, A. (2009). Developments in intellectual property and traditional
knowledge protection.
Austrian Journal of Adult Learning, 49(2), 352-363
This
mixed methods research provides an oversight of how intellectual property needs
to be protected in the areas of law, society, and culture. More specifically,
it concentrates on Indigenous people and their specific needs. It analyzes
their communities and how their culture is effected by intellectual property
theft and protection. It compares and contrasts recent developments with ones
from the past and their success rates.
Jameson,
D. (2011). Who owns my words?
Intellectual property rights as a business issue.
Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 210-215.
This
qualitative study explores the fact that "most college faculty" look
to plagiarism as an underlining moral issue rather than a business or legal
issue (p. 2010). From a business or legal issue intellectual property is
something that can be stolen. When it is stolen it is just like when a physical
object is stolen from someone's home. This study also provides definitions for
intellectual property and how it relates to plagiarism. It also explores
intellectual property rights in different industries, such as music.
Maiwald,
M. & Harrington, K. (2012). Transfer
of teaching materials between universities:
Where is the boundary between
legitimate transaction and violation of moral intellectual
property rights?
54(2), 61-64.
In
this quantitative study, Flinders University of South Australia's School of
Medicine passed on their curriculum to Deakin University in Victoria, Griffith
University in Queensland, and St. George's Medical School in the UK (Maiwald &
Harrington, 2012, p. 61). Approximately two years later a staff member from
Flinders saw a copy of the teaching materials being used at Deakin University
and the materials did not include any recognition for the people who created
the documents or were involved in the medical cases described (p. 62). It was
also discovered that 90% of the lectures were copied from Flinders, but a few
words were changed (p. 62). When Flinders tried to raise a complaint, the
school responded saying that Deakin University was not violating any rules
because the school agreed to give their teaching materials to them (p. 62).
When the National Tertairy Education Industry Union became involved it was
determined that Deakin University did break copyright and authorship laws as
they apply to intellect property moral rights (p. 63). As a result, Deakin
University has to include citations from who they received the material from
and had to issue an apology (p. 63).
Stakey,
L., Corbett, S., Bondy, A., & Davidson, S. (2010). Intellectual property: What do
teachers and students know?
International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
20(3),
333-344.
This mixed methods study provides
both hard and soft data on what teachers and students know about intellectual
property. The research analyzes how much technology teachers know because they
must teach their students how to respect everyone's intellectual property
rights. Students must also learn how to protect their own ideas and how to
exercise their own intellectual property rights. A survey was distributed to a
small group of students and teachers in order to identify misconceptions about
intellectual property. The research shows that teachers and students have
difficulty distinguishing the definitions and rights that fall under patents,
copyrights, and registered designs.
Resources
American
Association of University Professors. (1999). Statement on distance education.
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/report/statement-distance-education
Butakov,
S., Dyagilev, V. & Tskhay, A. (2012). Protecting
students' intellectual property in the
web plagiarism detection process.
Falcon, R. (2010).
Intellectual property rights and the classroom: What teachers can do.
Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED525234
Jane, A. (2009). Developments in intellectual property and traditional
knowledge protection.
Austrian Journal of Adult Learning,
49(2), 352-363
Jameson,
D. (2011). Who owns my words?
Intellectual property rights as a business issue.
Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 210-215.
Maiwald,
M. & Harrington, K. (2012). Transfer
of teaching materials between universities:
Where is the boundary between
legitimate transaction and violation of moral intellectual
property rights?
54(2), 61-64.
Pamela
McCauley Bush (2013). About Dr. Bush. Retrieved from
Stakey,
L., Corbett, S., Bondy, A., & Davidson, S. (2010). Intellectual property: What do
teachers and students know?
International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
20(3),
333-344.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Moving Toward Dynamic Technologies
I believe I am on the static end of the static-dynamic continuum because the technologies I use in my classroom are more informative than they are interactive (Moller, 2008, p. 1). I need to brainstorm ways that I can use technology in my classroom in more of a dynamic way. In other words, to use interactive technologies that help students to build on their own knowledge (p. 1).
One of the reasons I am in this position is because of the limited technology available in my school. Due to this, I need to get more creative and more organized when it comes to integrated technology meaningfully into classroom time.
I think I can move towards the dynamic end by looking for interactive games that relate to lessons I am teaching and creating a computer schedule so students can take turns utilizing the games. The types of games selected would be those that help build on the academic skill knowledge of the students. I do not think this will completely bring me into the dynamic end, but it will help me to progress towards there.
Resource
Moller, L. (2008). Static and
dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)