Jimbo B. Andres2012-0568

Online Educational Learning

Introduction

“Online Learning” has a history that spans almost two centuries (Spector, Merrill, Merrienboer,

& Driscoll, 2008), and this time period represents significant changes in how learning occurs and is

communicated. From basic correspondence through postal service to the wide variety of tools available

through the Internet, society has embraced new forms of communication through the years. One such

form, online learning, is known to have a history of access beginning in the 1980’s whereas another term,

referred to as e-learning, does not have its origins fully disclosed (Harasim, 2000)

As technology dominates the space and even penetrates individual’s mind, we find that a relaxed use

of technology and everything that it offers become more difficult to control. It seems that its logic when

started to move no one can just stop. This is also true to online learning, since this method of acquiring

knowledge involves the use of technology. If the use of technology cannot just be controlled, in the same

manner, engaging in online learning, if not absolutely the same, when it moves because of its logic and

system of its own, despite of regulations would evade rights. Thus, “it is important to know how the

learning environment is used, and the influences of the tools and techniques that distinguish the

differences in learning outcomes as the technology evolves.”

“Online Learning” has challenged traditional models of teaching and learning in higher education and

forced institutions of higher education to reexamine a variety of policies related to issues such as

curriculum development and control, evaluation of faculty and students, ownership and use of intellectual

property. From a legal perspective, the technology and scope involved in online or distance education

pose particular challenges because many legal and policy standards applicable to higher education are

based largely on the traditional model of brick-and-mortar classrooms and face-to-face interaction. These

issues have become important not just with regard to distance-education courses, but in all other courses

where the technology and techniques of distance education are incorporated to at least some extent Alger,

2001).

Revisiting of policies on matters pertaining to online educational learning, the use of online materials,

and even the laws guiding the use of them, and even the integrity to protect the rights and privacy of the

creators be protected. These topics necessitates the importance of this paper, aside from the fact that a

look on copyrights and the nature, effect and consequences of creative commons in online educational

learning.

The normative aspect, which is the values of technology and online educational learning, shall be

evaluated because while laws or regulations are important to be considered but the ethical values of this

nature should not be downplayed. Laws and regulations provides the limitations and extent, while ethical

values help in determining what is good and bad, which guide judgment.

I. What is Online Learning?

Online learning is described as “wholly” online learning (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), whereas others

simply reference the technology medium or context with which it is used (Lowenthal, Wilson, & Parish,

2009. Others display direct relationships between previously described modes and online learning by

stating that one uses the technology used in the other (Rekkedal et al., 2003). Online learning is described

by most authors as access to learning experiences via the use of some technology (Benson, 2002;

Carliner, 2003; Conrad, 2002). Both Benson and Conrad identify online learning as a more recent version

of distance learning which improves access to educational opportunities for learners as described as both

nontraditional and disenfranchised. Other authors discuss not only the accessibility of online learning but

also its connectivity, flexibility and ability to promote varied interactions (Ally, 2004; Hilts & Turoff,

2005). Hiltz and Turoff (2005) in particular not only elude to online learnings’ relationship with distance

learning and traditional delivery system but then, like Benson (2002) makes a clear statement that online

learning is a newer version or, and improved version of distance learning (Moore, Deane & Galyen,

2010).

These authors believe that there is a relationship between distance learning and online learning

however unsure on how this relationship happened. And because of these uncertainties people are led

into doubt whether or not this method of education truly answers the need of learners to become a human

person with knowledge and that knowledge be used in accord to promoting values that would help

promote in the building of community in real world. While this seems to be within the realm of

subjectivity, but this has to be taken into consideration especially if not guided with values.

II. Ownership and Control of Online Materials: Issue on Copyright

Major national associations such as the American Council on Education (ACE), Associations

American Universities (AAU), and American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have called

upon institutions to review their existing intellectual property policies and practices with regard to online

education and have developed policy recommendations in this area, this is in light of the complexity and

expense of the resources involves in developing online course materials, many institutions are revisiting

their intellectual property policies to clarify how they apply to online educational materials (Alger, 2001).

In considering the question of ownership of online educational materials, institutions must take into

account not only the academic tradition and practical considerations of policy administration but also the

legal standards under copyright law. Copyright law involves a bundle of rights, and questions of

ownership and use of online materials, and this should not be viewed as an all-or-nothing, zero-sum game

(Alger, 2001) because of the fact that, there’s a need to recognize the best policies and practices and

balance the rights of individual creators and contributors as well as the needs of the institutions as

communities of scholars and learners, which the cyber is the arena.

In the Philippines, issues on ownership must be given so much consideration. Faculty members

create lots of scholarly works regardless of commercial value, and the burden of claiming and exercising

ownership over all such works would be substantial in practice, especially in cases of publishing contracts

for articles and textbooks and even access to these works online.

This ownership rights and interests in online course materials are rooted in legal and educational

policy considerations. Traditionally, most colleges and universities have not sought to assert copyright

over ordinary course materials and other scholarly works (Gorman, Robert A., “Intellectual Property: The

rights of Faculty as Creators and Users,”). However, even if we have such policies which assert

institutional ownership, still the prevailing issue on ownership continues to evade rights.

This fact necessitates the importance of revisiting our laws to protect not only the works themselves

but the creators of those works. This proposition is very important because in the absence of, or in the

lack of laws, or even in the not up to date laws, everything is open to abuse because in just a click,

especially if unguarded, many things will happen, which if given proper accord this could be prevented

and protected.

III. Ownership and Control of Online Materials: Issue on Creative Commons

With the generating interest in the issue of intellectual property in the information age, “Creative

Commons has provided institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to

experiment with culture more freely” (Berry, 2005)

Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative

works available for others to build upon legally and to share. The organization has released

several copyright-licenses known as Creative Commons licenses free of charge to the public. These

licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the

benefit of recipients or other creators. An easy-to-understand one-page explanation of rights, with

associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons license. Creative Commons

licenses do not replace copyright, but are based upon it. They replace individual negotiations for specific

rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, which are necessary under an "all rights reserved"

copyright management, with a "some rights reserved" management employing standardized licenses for

re-use cases where no commercial compensation is sought by the copyright owner. The result is an agile,

low-overhead and low-cost copyright-management regime, profiting both copyright owners and licensees

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons).

Nothing is absolute, and thus, nothing is perfect. No one can just claim the one is better than the

other or the other is better than the one. In a game of chess, while it is the player who sets the rule but it

is the rule that sets the game. In like manner, what we want is the best choice of all alternatives because

what we choose is the best and what we don’t choose do not negate their importance. Critics are fearful

on the participation of Creative Commons in this information age, to quote some criticisms:

“Critics feared that Creative Commons could erode the copyright system over time or allow "some of our most precious resources — the creativity of individuals — to be simply tossed into the commons to be exploited by whomever has spare time and a magic marker."

Mako Hill asserted that Creative Commons fails to establish a "base level of freedom" that all Creative Commons licenses must meet, and with which all licensors and users must comply. "By failing to take any firm ethical position and draw any line in the sand, CC is a missed opportunity.... CC has replaced what could have been a call for a world where 'essential rights are unreservable' with the relatively hollow call for 'some rights reserved.'" He also argued that Creative

Commons worsens license proliferation, by providing multiple licenses that are incompatible.

Richard Stallman of the FSF stated in 2005 that he couldn’t support Creative Commons as an activity because "it adopted some additional licenses which do not give everyone that minimum freedom", that freedom being "the freedom to share, non-commercially, any published work"

Although Creative Commons offers multiple licenses for different uses, some critics suggested that the licenses still do not address the differences among the media or among the various concerns that different authors have”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons).

However, Lessig amidst this criticism pointed out that aim of Creative Commons it to provide middle

to two extreme views of copyright protection- one demanding that all rights be controlled, and the other

arguing that none should be controlled. Thus, Creative Commons provides a third option that allows

authors to pick and choose which rights they want to control and which they want to grant to others. The

multitude of licenses reflects the multitude of rights that can be passed on to subsequent creators

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons).

In a complex world, especially now that in a blink of an eye changes occurred which was

unimaginable prior to renaissance, and even before the first printing press was invented, no can doubt

how technology and cyber space shape the lives of people. Along with this undeniable fact is the

emergence of rights, which call for recognition and protection.

What we have is the best alternatives to recognize these rights that sought protection. While it is true

that Creative Commons has weaknesses but its aim has something to do with the call of recognition and

protection. Never that it undermines the role of copyright law but it helps copyright law to protect which

copyright law fails to recognize and protect.

Copyright law while essential does not determine the totally of things because copyright law alone

does not determine the recognition and protection of certain rights. Thus, in this fast changing world the

importance of “aggiornamento” has to be placed especially in the information age. Because while we are

amazed with the gigantic changes in technology we failed to forget that technology alone does not

determine a human being. It is very basic that man is the beginning and man is the end, without

discrediting the Being in which no other great being can ever be conceived.

IV. Academic Freedom and Integrity Issues

Online learning raises special concerns with academic freedom and educational quality, for example,

individuals who create original course materials are not involved at all in the use of those materials and

do not interact with students. Thus, their ideas are left in the hands of others to interpret and revise. It is

a clear principle in Hermeneutics that “the individuals who are responsible for the delivery of the course

may not have the same expertise or training as the creators.”

Now, the issues on integrity have yet to be answered in this rapidly changing environment. Reports

on online learning, concluded that the standardization of online education based on a business model can

rob students of the diversity of knowledge that individual professors bring to the classroom. This arises

from the fact of seeking revenues, thus, institutions must be especially careful to consider questions of

how various types of online learning courses and programs reflect and further their core educational

missions (American Federation of teachers: “A Virtual Revolution: Trends in the Expansion of Distance

Education”, 2001).

In the light of the rapid development in technology and learners choose, instead, to engage in an

online educational learning, the following questions sought answers, “Who is responsible for deciding

when permission should be sought, and from whom? Who is responsible for the following through with

these clearances if necessary?”

V. Conclusion

The lack of measures to guide the complexities of the cyber space and the information affect not only

the online educational learning but also the building of foundations which this learning should rest. And

because of these complexities, the failure to describe in sufficient poses problem that threatened not only

the arena of space but the whole environment. “This not only impacts the evaluation of such learning

experiences but also the future of successfully delivered distance learning events.” This paper shows great

differences in the meaning of the foundation of online educational learning, which is guided by different

laws, but also provides implications for the sharing, and collaboration of results in the cyber space.

Online learning: What next?

I predict that the day will soon come when we will not distinguish courses by their teaching

modality and employers and others will not ask whether the program was on-line or in person. On-line

courses will continue to expand access to education to those without the time or money to attend a

traditional on-the-ground class as well as well as to those who prefer this modality. This shall be guided

by laws so that rights are protected where abuse and exploitation have no place.

References

Alger, J. (2001). Legal Issues in the the “E-Learning Business”. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0105.pdf

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. TheInternet and Higher Education, 2(1–2), 41−61, doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learningand the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59−64,doi:10.1145/1089107.1089139

Lapovsky, L. (2015). Online Learning: What Next? Retrieved from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lucielapovsky/2015/05/26/online-learning-what-next/2/

Moore, J., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2010). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?. Retrieved fron. file:///C:/Users/Cel/Desktop/online%20learning/e-Learning+Scott+Midkiff.pdf

Moore, M. G. (1990). Background and overview of contemporary American distanceeducation. Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. xii−xxvi). NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE.Retrieved from. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_ Commons