eng102hybrid

Friday, December 7, 2007

D#16 Reflection

This is not a required post, but I wanted to thank everyone for their good spirits throughout this semester. Some of the deadlines were pretty challenging, and sometimes didn't seem worth the effort for just a few homework points. Everyone that is still in the class pulled through, and I can tell we all improved our writing skills. I can honestly say, finishing this class is a big load off my mind! I have one final to complete next week for another class, and a project for my Library Tech program, and then I am going to kick back and take it easy. It will be great to have my weekends free again (until next semester begins).
All of you maintained great attitudes, and it seemed we all were able to help each other when needed. Thank you for that. Sometimes the discourse can get a little strained, but I never sensed any of that from you.
I hope you all have restful Holidays.
Peace.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

D#16,WP#4 Final Cover Letter

Kathy Lacey
WP#4 Final
Devon C. Adams
ENG 102-7891
6 Dec. 2007

Reflective Cover Letter

Well, looking back at the course information presented in the syllabus, I truly believe each of the writing projects has helped me to improve my writing. It has been many years since I was enrolled in any kind of formal writing instruction class. The techniques and strategies I discovered this semester will no doubt be useful in any future writing that I undertake, whether for school, work, or personal pleasure. Even though I did not anticipate the online component of the class, I enjoyed the flexibility it gave me with assignments and deadlines. The Course Competencies listed in the syllabus identify the specific skills targeted in this class.
Competency #1 deals with writing for specific rhetorical contexts. That was not a term I really understood before reading the text chapters and reviewing the linked Web pages. The Rodrigo tutorial was most effective for me. The homework assignments for deadline #3 (D#3,HW#2 Research Question, D#3,HW#4 Who should read...?, D#3,HW#5 Audience analysis, D#3,HW#6 Rhetorical situation ) required a basic understanding of audience identification and the rhetorical situation. Homework #6 asked that we analyze the rhetorical situation of our research project and of the proposal composed for Writing Project #1. Completing that activity made me aware of the importance of writing to a specific audience, about an interesting topic, and within an identified context. Completing the Research Proposal (D#6,HW#2 Final WP#1) was most helpful to me later on, when I needed to narrow my topic and focus my research. As I investigated new sources of information, I was able to note how the evidence presented could be used to support or refute my argument. Chapter 5 in Everything's an Argument also offered a good checklist for "Composing a Rhetorical Analysis," which helped me analyze the Pareles essay about Coldplay (D#8,HW#4 Essay Analysis). My WP#1 Reflection (D#6,HW#3 WP#1 Reflection) details more of the specific skills I worked on. One thing I need to strive to improve in this area is developing a better understanding of the cultural implications of my writing. I am familiar enough with ethical and political implications, but don't always see the "big picture" when I am drafting an essay or a research paper. Writing for a specific rhetorical context will help me draft many types of writing necessary for the work I hope to continue to do in a library setting.
Competency #2 concerns organization of writing to support a central idea. Logical progression of ideas has always been my preferred method of writing, and one of my stronger skills. The problems I had in the past were with unity and coherence. One of the grammar exercises I completed (D#10,HW#6 Grammar) dealt with transitions, one area that I felt needed improvement. Another grammar assignment helped with developing a strong thesis statement (D#13,HW#1 Grammar Assignment), which clarified what I needed to improve in the introduction of my Writing Project #3. The assignments that covered outlining (D#9,HW#6 Outline, D#9,HW#4 Toulmin outline) helped me organize my research, and kept my focus on the main topic. The Toulmin method will be useful for any future argumentative writing that I attempt.
Competency #3 has to do with using consistent tone, voice, diction, grammar, and mechanics. Grammar has always been one of my strong qualities, but there was definitely room for improvement. The Bedford textbook, chapter 12, offered a good review of tone and style. The homework assignments for deadline #11 (D#11,HW#2 Intros/Conclusions) were very beneficial for improving my introduction and conclusion for WP#3. The revisions of the WP#3 draft required for deadline#12 (D#12,HW#2 Revision/Draft2, D#12,HW#3 Revision/Draft#3, D#12,HW#4 Style) made me aware of some problems with the mechanics of the original draft. Other grammar assignments and activities that I completed (D#4, HW#2 Grammar Assignment #1, D#6,HW#7 Grammar, D#8,HW#5 Grammar Assignment) were a great source of review, and helped me polish some "rusty" habits I had developed over the years. The online resources linked for us in the syllabus (especially the Paradigm and OWL sites) contained some of the best presentations of the materials that I have seen, and I enjoyed completing some of the grammar exercises. I will continue to attempt to improve my writing style, and will definitely make further use of the mentioned text and Web sites for new writing that I do.
Competency #4 refers to online and print sources of information. The recent Library Tech classes that I have completed have been extremely helpful to me in this area. We are required to become experienced in the use of all types of resources to be able to assist library patrons doing different types of research. The homework assignment that called for a thorough analysis of one of our sources (D#6,HW#6 Evaluate) allowed me to utilize some of those skills. Every day at work I see students working on assigned research projects, and I try to teach them to do more than just "Google" a topic. Locating credible sources of information is definitely a skill that requires practice, especially with the rapidly changing nature of electronic access. The Annotated Bibliography assignments (D#2,HW#6 Annotated Bib for Internet, D#4,HW#5 Annotated Bib.x4, D#5,HW#4 Annotated Bib X 3, D#7,HW#2 Annotated Bib X 3) required us to investigate several different online and print sources. My successful completion of those assignments and the Annotated Bibliography Writing Project (WP#2 Final) are evidence of my use of different sources.
Competency #5 deals with the integration of sources into our writing, while avoiding any instances of plagiarism. It is important to be able to properly summarize, paraphrase, or quote information gathered from an outside source. Several of my reading reflections (D#8,HW#1 Reading Reflection, D#9,HW#1 Reading Reflection) contain references to information found in the text, and I named the source, but did not follow MLA format for page numbers. In any future formal writing, I now know how to cite within the text, as I tried to do in my Researched Argument (WP#3). There were no mistakes pointed out in my final paper, which leads me to assume that I was able to format my in-text citations correctly ().
Competency #6 covers the documentation style used in our writing projects, which was expected to be Modern Language Association (MLA). There were some tricks to learn in order to get things to show up correctly in the blogs, but I think I mastered it. The Annotated Bibliography homework assignments (D#4,HW#5 Annotated Bib.x4) helped me practice, but none of them were graded. Peer reviews of Writing Project #2 helped. The instructor comments indicate that I utilized proper MLA format in my final Annotated Bibliography (link above).
Competency #7 refers to feedback and peer review of writing. This was the first time I had experienced a formal peer review process, and I found it to be especially helpful. Having other people read and suggest improvements for my writing made me look at what impact that writing had on my audience. It is great to get a fresh perspective. Reading through the Web sites that covered peer editing also helped me look for more than just grammatical errors in other writing. I learned to look at content, and to try to analyze the context and intended audience of the compositions I was reviewing. As a result, I have been able to do a better job when helping students at the high school and middle school levels with their essays. The actual peer review homework assignments that I completed (D#8,HW#2 Peer Reviews, D#5,HW#2 Peer Review) helped me to realize the importance of having someone else review all writing.
Competency #8 states that we should be able to assess our own writing through various processes. The deadline reflections (D#6,HW#8 Deadline Reflection, D#7,HW#5 Deadline reflection, D#12,HW#9 Deadline Reflection) and writing project reflections (D#6,HW#3 WP#1 Reflection, D#9,HW#3 WP2 Reflection, D#13,HW#3 Writing Project #3 Reflection) were one way I learned how to evaluate my strengths and identify things that needed improvement. The comments posted in reply to my blogs also helped. The instructor's comments posted on my writing projects were a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of my writing style and effectiveness. All of these things will combine to assure that I will be able to complete any future writing that I do with confidence.
Competency #9 was the one I was most worried about. When I took English 101, there were no electronic resources or methods of delivery. I try to learn new things, and actually enrolled in a couple of Library Tech classes online with WebCT. I managed to complete both of them successfully, but never felt comfortable with the technology. Part of my frustration might have been our dial-up service at home. It was aggravating to have to wait for things to load, and I had a hard time maintaining focus. This class required so much time online that I had no choice but to learn how to post, reply, share, edit, and set up accounts to help manage all of the information. The online Bedford Bibliographer (Bedford Login Page) was one of the most useful resources, and one that I will definitely make use of in the future. The fact that I posted every homework blog entry, on time, and submitted the required papers to Turnitin.com within the deadline, is evidence of some proficiency in the use of appropriate technologies. Much of what I learned has helped me relate better to what some of the students are doing and their preferred methods of communication. I am confident that I can continue to adapt my archaic methods to the latest innovations and electronic information access formats. All that, and I managed to improve my writing skills, too!

D#16, WP#3 Revisions

Revisions to WP#3:

Using the notes posted by Devon, there were a few minor details that needed to be corrected, and a few paragraphs that had bigger problems. One of them did not clearly relate to the thesis, and I just deleted it. Inclusion didn’t really help my argument. The other paragraphs had too many facts and not enough personal commentary. The revised versions of those paragraphs follow. (Highlighted text is what I changed from the original WP#3 Final that I submitted). These revisions show that I was able to achieve the course competencies dealing with organization, using feedback, and identifying strategies for improvement.

The ALA has continued to voice their opinions against the use of filtering, and their policies have a great deal of influence in public and school libraries. Library professionals place a high value on any recommendations made by the ALA, especially in public libraries. Robert Peters cites the ALA "Library Bill of Rights" as the reason many public libraries choose not to install filtering software (qtd. in Opposing Viewpoints). In the ALA "Core Values of Librarianship" statement they address the topic of access, stating that "[a]ll information resources that are provided directly or indirectly by the library, regardless of technology, format, or methods of delivery, should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users" (ala.org: Core Values). They make no distinction regarding the age of the library user, and recommend that libraries apply the lowest level of filtering possible to conform to CIPA guidelines (ala.org: Toolkit). They truly believe that educating users offers sufficient protection. One of the "Key Messages" in the ALA Internet Toolkit states: "The only lifelong Internet protection for children is to teach them to use the Internet properly and to teach them to be information literate, so they can make informed choices" (ala.org). That is a lofty goal, but in reality, children are not mature enough to surf the Internet with no boundaries in place. Parents and teachers have enough experience with children’s Internet use to understand the need for additional measures to safeguard both the users and the institutions that provide access.

Rapid advances in technology and information access via the World Wide Web almost guarantee that filtering will continue to be a controversial topic. Parents and teachers need to feel confident that children will be exposed to a minimal amount of inappropriate material when using the Internet for research or pleasure. The current laws must be changed to address that need. One way to ensure children’s safety is to effectively filter or block the “bad” sites, and to do it uniformly on all publicly accessible computers. The greatest obstacle may be the fact that opinions can vary widely about what constitutes "bad" material. Using the definitions that have been provided in legal rulings should reduce the number of challenges and protests. Admittedly, no filter will be one hundred percent effective. Teaching children to use safe techniques for all aspects of Internet activity, including social networking, doing research, or just “surfing the Web” for pleasure, must remain a high priority in schools and libraries. Most librarians are careful about the print resources they make available for children, and should be just as concerned about electronic resources. Electronically accessed items should not be treated any differently than print materials that are excluded from a library's collection because they are considered to be too graphic or even pornographic. If close to ninety percent of pornography can be blocked by filters, then filters are a worthy investment. As adults, one of our goals should be to do whatever we can to make access to information safer for children. Technology may change the situation, but for right now, changing the law to require effective filtering, applied uniformly, is one way to achieve that goal.

The full text of my final WP#3 follows.

Kathy Lacey

WP#3 Final

Eng 102-7891

Devon C. Adams

6 Dec. 2007

Children and the Internet

The teacher and librarian were both shocked when they discovered a third-grade student using a computer to play games on Playboy.com. They had mistakenly assumed that the Internet filter would automatically block access to the site. Many people think that there are laws in place that will protect children surfing the Internet at the library. Parents and teachers want to know that children will not be exposed to things such as graphic violence and pornography when accessing information on the World Wide Web. Unfortunately, the current law, known as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), does not pertain to all libraries, and the specific content that must be filtered or blocked is limited (Bocher 36). That means children could be exposed to sites or information that is intended for a more mature audience. To better protect children, the federal law governing Internet access in public and school libraries should be changed.
The law that governs the use of filtering software in libraries was passed by Congress in December of 2000. Soon after passage, the American Library Association (ALA) filed suit in federal District Court, claiming that the Act violated the First Amendment. The District Court ruled in favor of the ALA in 2002, finding the Act to be unconstitutional (Carson 248). The government appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling, finding CIPA to be constitutional in 2003 (Hansen). All of the provisions outlined in the act are now in effect, but that does not guarantee that all libraries provide filtered Internet access for children. The result is that children are not as safe as many parents and teachers have been led to believe.

According to CIPA, filtering is only mandated for computers in libraries receiving two types of federal funds: E-rate and Library Services Technology Act (LSTA). E-rate funds are awarded in the form of discounts for Internet service (Carson 247). LSTA provides funds for Internet access or for the purchase of computers used for that access (Bocher 36). Libraries that do not receive either type of funding are not required to comply with CIPA provisions. In fact, some libraries have actually made the decision to withdraw from federal funding programs in order to remain exempt from CIPA constraints, citing the added financial burden or their reluctance to restrict free information access (Bocher 36). Patrons must investigate library policies to be able to determine what can be accessed on the public computers at that particular library.
Technology consultant Bob Bocher explains that specific content that must be blocked under CIPA is limited to "visual depictions that 1) are obscene, 2) contain child pornography, or 3) are harmful to minors" (36). These terms (“obscene,” “child pornography,” and “harmful to minors”) are defined in CIPA or other federal statutes. Interpretation of the terms requires legal expertise, and the fact that the law addresses only images means that children may still be exposed to text that would be included in the above categories. Choosing filtering software that performs the desired functions requires a fairly thorough investigation by library personnel. Internet filtering or blocking software used in libraries has some key differences in the technical approach used. As explained in an article on WebJunction.org:

Filtering software denies access to a website based on its content, while blocking software denies access based on the offending site’s URL [Uniform Resource Locator]. [...] A drawback to blocking software is that a contentious URL has to be inserted into the software, which cannot be done until the vendors have viewed the site. Most vendors update their lists of prohibited URL’s regularly, but there is still a delay in getting new URL’s included. Filtering denies access to sites based on keywords, such as common profanities and slang terms for genitalia or sex acts as well as proper clinical terms, but it is far from perfect for its intended purpose (Faulkner).

The inadvertent blocking of legitimate information (overblocking) is a major drawback. After an exhaustive review of large studies and separate tests of commercially available blocking software, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law issued a public policy report detailing their findings. The revised second edition, published in 2006, concluded: "Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way" (Heins ii). According to a recent article in School Library Journal, “Dozens of organizations have studies proving that filters block massive amounts of crucial information related to religion, health, politics, and other important subjects” (Bell). This may be a result of keyword blocking, but it also might be intentional. A filter can only block what the software designers tell it to, and they might have an agenda of their own. Filtering decisions that satisfy the ALA would no doubt be much less stringent than those preferred by Focus on the Family or Morality in Media. Developing a set of standards for filtering software developers to follow would help reduce this potential problem.

The ALA has continued to voice their opinions against the use of filtering, and their policies have a great deal of influence in public and school libraries. Library professionals place a high value on any recommendations made by the ALA, especially in public libraries. Robert Peters cites the ALA "Library Bill of Rights" as the reason many public libraries choose not to install filtering software (qtd. in Opposing Viewpoints). In the ALA "Core Values of Librarianship" statement they address the topic of access, stating that "[a]ll information resources that are provided directly or indirectly by the library, regardless of technology, format, or methods of delivery, should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users" (ala.org: Core Values). They make no distinction regarding the age of the library user, and recommend that libraries apply the lowest level of filtering possible to conform to CIPA guidelines (ala.org: Toolkit). They truly believe that educating users offers sufficient protection. One of the "Key Messages" in the ALA Internet Toolkit states: "The only lifelong Internet protection for children is to teach them to use the Internet properly and to teach them to be information literate, so they can make informed choices" (ala.org). That is a lofty goal, but in reality, children are not mature enough to surf the Internet with no boundaries in place. Parents and teachers have enough experience with children's Internet use to understand the need for additional measures to safeguard both the users and the institutions that provide access.

School libraries answer to their school board members and parents, and frequently come under fire for underblocking, or not preventing access to inappropriate materials, and also for overblocking, or preventing access to sites with genuine research value (Johnson 40). More and more librarians, as well as teachers, have begun to realize that filtering software is not able to block all inappropriate content, and is just as likely to prevent access to material that should not have been blocked at all. A survey conducted by Ann Curry and Ken Haycock for School Library Journal in 2001 concluded that librarians' main reasons for filtering included "the role of the school library, uneasiness about personal liability, frustration with the amount of time they were spending monitoring students' Web searching, and concerns about student safety" (Curry 42). Those are all valid concerns, and rapidly changing technology makes it imperative that libraries continue to review the use and reliability of the software they choose. Establishing uniform standards or criteria for identifying materials that should be blocked would help relieve some of the librarians’ stated concerns.

The effectiveness of filters is improving, but their use continues to be hotly debated. One of the conclusions reached by the authors of the Brennan Public Policy Report is that "Internet filters are powerful, often irrational, censorship tools" (Heins 73). Many librarians cringe at the mention of censorship, but most agree that children must be protected against exposure to inappropriate materials. Selection policies for libraries determine what items will or will not be included in the library collection. Filtering attempts to do the same thing. According to Mark Smith in his Internet Policy Handbook for Libraries, "Selection is about deciding what goes into the library, filtering is the process of deciding what stays out of the library" (79). Librarians are generally not making those decisions. Developers of filtering software are marketing to libraries everywhere, and the filters are not able to evaluate sites or information. They can only mechanically search for keywords, phrases, images, or site addresses, and will block everything conforming to the criteria built into the software application. Web pages are created at a phenomenal rate, and no software provider has the time or resources to evaluate every single one. Parents, teachers, and librarians have no way of knowing in advance if a child is going to have a positive experience when using the Internet.

Two steps should be taken to improve the situation. First, legislation should be drafted that will expand CIPA to include all public and school libraries; they should all conform to the same laws, regardless of the source of their funding. Second, filtering requirements should be standardized for public and school libraries to reassure parents and teachers that children will be protected when accessing information on public computers. As outspoken as the ALA has been on the subject of freedom of access to information, they admit the need for additional measures to protect children, and their "Internet Toolkit" includes several pages of recommendations to help libraries deal with the issue (ala.org: Toolkit 6-9). Consumer Reports testing in 2005 showed that even a poor filter successfully blocked eighty-eight percent of the access to pornography (qtd. in Faulkner). That seems worth the effort.

Annotated Bibliography:

Bell, Mary Ann. "The Elephant in the Room: School Districts Nationwide Are Voluntarily Filtering the Filters--And No One Is Talking About It." School Library Journal 53.1 (2007). ERIC. EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 1 Oct. 2007 < http://ezp.mc.maricopa.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ755241&site=ehost-live >.

Informal surveys conducted by the author are the basis of this article. Her surveys were conducted in 2006, and the participants were subscribers to an online discussion group for media specialists. The issue centers on Internet access policies in school districts across the United States. Specific examples of some policies are detailed, along with the results of the enforcement of those policies. The author is an associate professor at a Texas university, and her views reflect her experience. Her argument is not against filtering per se, but rather the censorship happening in school districts through the use of filtering and blocking techniques. She emphasizes the importance of information literacy and the ability to apply effective online search methods. The article concludes with six steps that libraries can take to deal with the issue of filtering. The information will help me document some specific instances of the research process being hindered by filtering software.

Bocher, Bob. "A CIPA Toolkit." Library Journal 128.13 (2003): 36-37. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 17 Sept. 2007 < http://ezp.mc.maricopa.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10566884&site=ehost-live >.

This article addresses a variety of issues associated with the Supreme Court ruling in 2003, which determined that the filtering requirements of CIPA are constitutional. Specific programs covered by the ruling are explained, and key issues of each aspect are identified. One section emphasizes the handling of unblocking requests made by adult patrons. Another section deals with possible actions against a library for perceived filter failure, and the handling of complaints through the use of written library policies. The author is a technology consultant for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, State Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning, and served as Chief Council of the State School Officers’ State E-Rate Coordinators’ Alliance. The information helped me understand the scope of the CIPA ruling and its effect on many public libraries. The specific details will help me explain the different ways that libraries choose to comply with the requirements, and the associated consequences of non-compliance.

Carson, Bryan. The Law of Libraries and Archives. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007. 247-260.

This book contains a chapter pertaining to the provisions of the CIPA, the court challenge by the American Library Association (ALA), and the subsequent Supreme Court decision. The result of the ruling is summarized, along with an explanation of the plurality opinion that determined that ruling. The author presents his interpretation along with actual text from the written opinion submitted by each Supreme Court Justice. Key elements of each opinion help explain the final ruling. There is also a section that expresses the need for library policies that cover all aspects of filtering, including the requests from adult patrons to unblock access or turn filtering off. The author is an associate professor at Western Kentucky University, a member of the bar, and Coordinator of Reference and Instructional Services for their Library Media Education Program. The information will provide a perspective on the legal ramifications of filtering, and will help stress the importance of having thorough written policies covering the use and requests for non-use of filters.

"Core Values of Librarianship." ala.org. 29 June 2004. American Library Association. 30 Oct. 2007 < http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/corevaluesstatement/corevalues.htm >.

The American Library Association identifies this set of policy statements as essential for professional librarianship. They use excerpts from the ALA Policy Manual to cover eleven areas that they want librarians to embrace, including free access to information, intellectual freedom, and social responsibility. Links are provided for other ALA statements that offer more detailed explanations of their official position. The excerpts help show how adamantly against filtering the ALA is in many of their policies.

Curry, Ann, and Ken Haycock. "Filtered or Unfiltered?" School Library Journal 47.1 (2001): 42-42. ERIC.EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 12 Sept. 2007 < http://ezp.mc.maricopa.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ625144&site=ehost-live>.

The authors present the results of a survey of School Library Journal subscribers, conducted prior to final passage of CIPA. The survey responses are given separately for public and school libraries, along with a basic analysis of key issues. The authors are academic professionals in the field of Information Studies at the University of British Columbia. They list three things to consider for libraries facing filtering decisions. The information is presented in a factual manner, with no apparent bias. The statistics and analysis will be useful for explaining overall satisfaction with filtering decisions made in school libraries nationwide.

Faulkner, Marcel. "Filter Schmilter: Libraries and Internet Filtering Software." WebJunction. 6 Dec. 2006. Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. 5 Dec. 2007 < http://az.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=14621 >.

The first section of this article gives a brief summary of the Internet and its increasing importance as a research tool in schools and libraries. Another section reviews the traditional role of librarians in the selection of materials deemed appropriate for the collection. The terms “filtering” and “blocking” are explained, as well as some of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Statistics are presented that detail the results of tests conducted to evaluate the level of effectiveness of different software, most recently in 2005. The last half of the article addresses some arguments against filtering, and stresses freedom of access to information. The author concludes that libraries should resist pressure to implement filtering unless required by law. He is a Librarian Assistant at Hamilton Public Library in Hamilton, Ontario. The article is written for library professionals in Canada and the United States. The information will be used to present evidence about the ineffectiveness of current filtering laws.

Hansen, Chris, and Ann Beeson. "Library Filtering After US v. ALA: What Does it All Mean and What Should We Do." aclu.org. 1 Aug. 2003. American Civil Liberties Union. 5 Oct. 2007 < http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14938res20030801.html >.

This memorandum was written after the Supreme Court issued their decision concerning CIPA. The authors are lawyers, writing on behalf of the ACLU, and the information presented is meant to offer guidance to any libraries faced with mandatory CIPA compliance. The ACLU suggests that libraries should give up federal monies that link them to CIPA regulations as a way to exempt themselves from the provisions. The article lists seven recommended steps for libraries to take, and offers interpretations of key points of the Act. The bias of the authors and the ACLU is evident throughout the article. Their anti-filtering stance provides support in opposition to my thesis.

Heins, Marjorie, Christina Cho, and Ariel Feldman. "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report." 2nd ed. 2006. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 5 Oct. 2007 < http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2.pdf >.

This lengthy report is an updated version of a 2001 publication written as a summary of the major studies of filtering effectiveness conducted up to that time. The 2006 edition includes results of more recent surveys and more background information on all aspects of the filtering debate. The majority of the statistics presented deal with overblocking and underblocking by the most prominent filtering software applications. The conclusions reached by the authors, based on all of the studies they reference, point to the overall failure of filtering performance. Recommendations are offered to help libraries increase safe use of the Internet while complying with CIPA requirements. The authors work for the Free Expression Policy Project, a research and advocacy group that is now part of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University (NYU) School of Law. The bias of the authors against filtering is evident, but the detailed examples will provide further evidence in support of my thesis.

Johnson, Doug. "Maintaining Intellectual Freedom in a Filtered World." Learning and Leading with Technology 32.8 (2005): 39. ERIC.EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 1 Oct. 2007 < http://ezp.mc.maricopa.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ697382&site=ehost-live >.

This article presents a logical process employed in a Minnesota school district to determine the best way to implement Internet filtering while protecting the intellectual freedom of the staff and students. The author describes his reservations and fears associated with blocking of Internet access to some sites. He also lists ways that students can make the filters ineffective. Four main courses of action are described to minimize problems associated with student online access, concluding with a list of steps that teachers and library staff can take to ensure proper use of the Internet. The author is Director of Media and Technology for the Mankato (Minnesota) Area Public Schools, and serves on the Board of Directors for the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The rational approach to filtering he describes best mirrors my own feelings on the issue, and will be used as evidence in support of my position.

"Libraries & the Internet Toolkit." ala.org. 9 Dec. 2003. American Library Association. 30 Oct. 2007 < http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/internettoolkit.html >.

The ALA drafted this lengthy document to address the issue of children’s Internet access as well as privacy. It covers CIPA, filtering in general, Internet use policies, and recommended responses to filtering questions. Five pages of links to resources are included for those who are interested in locating more information. The position of the ALA concerning all Internet use in libraries is clarified point-by-point, along with their reasons behind that position. It provides several “Key Messages” that will be helpful in explaining the strong anti-filtering stance of the ALA.

"Libraries Should Use Software Filters to Censor Internet Pornography." Contemporary Issues Companion: Censorship (2004). Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 17 Sept. 2007 < http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010266212&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0 >.

This author has a strong bias toward filtering. He was the president of Morality in Media, an organization that monitors obscenity and violence, when the article was written. The author blames the ALA for the anti-filtering policies in libraries, citing a section of the Library Bill of Rights (published by the ALA). There are strong assertions having to do with children’s exposure to pornography, but not many facts to back them up. Several perceived problems with filtering arguments are addressed. It gives me a good idea about the opinions of the strongly pro-filtering element of society.

Smith, Mark. "Filtering Considerations." Neal-Schuman Internet Policy Handbook for Libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1999. 75-98.

This book devotes a chapter to the positive and negative aspects of filtering. The information presented is meant to provide beneficial details for library staff members facing a decision about whether or not to filter their Internet access. There is good coverage of the ALA position and policy statements regarding filtering, and a brief reference to anti-obscenity statutes. The author presents a thorough explanation of the difference between material selection and content filtering in libraries. Another section of the chapter is devoted to the variety of choices available concerning filtering, as well as the way most of the software operates and the major vendors. Several alternatives to filtering are explained, accompanied by sample library policy statements. The final part of the chapter offers five case histories that will help me describe types of challenges that occur as a result of filtering or not filtering. The bias-free presentation of the material in this book will allow me to offer facts and statements that pertain to both sides of the filtering debate.

D#16,WP#2 Revisions

Revisions to WP#2:

This was my most successful writing project of the semester. The only revision suggested for the final draft was to add an anecdote to the beginning for a better introduction. This helped me achieve course outcomes dealing with context, source selection and evaluation, using appropriate technologies, and documentation style. The revised intro paragraph follows, with changes highlighted in blue. (Devon, yes you have my permission to use it in the future).

The teacher and librarian were both shocked to discover a third-grade student playing games on Playboy.com. They had no idea that the filtering software being used would allow student access to the site. Internet filtering software has been in use for many years, and the level of filtering varies a great deal. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires some libraries to install filtering software (filters) on any computers designated for public use and accessible by children. Advocates of free access to information are decidedly against the use of filters, while parents and others want filters to prevent accidental viewing of inappropriate images and text. This controversy has led to court challenges as well as numerous complaints in various libraries. The issue continues to be widely discussed among library professionals, especially in schools. Media Specialists in the schools are challenged to provide adequate research tools for students, while ensuring that students are protected from pornography, violence, and foul or hateful language. Filters are designed to address the potential problem by blocking access to certain Web sites or images. The effectiveness of filtering software and the laws governing the use of that software are points of controversy. Current laws only pertain to certain libraries, and do not adequately address the problem. The laws need to be changed to better reflect current technology. The following sources provide information related to the issue.

The full text of my final WP#2 follows, but I am not sure how much of the formatting will transfer.

Kathy Lacey
WP#2 Final
Devon C. Adams
Eng 102-7891
6 Dec. 2007

Internet Filtering: An Annotated Bibliography

Bocher, Bob. "A CIPA Toolkit." Library Journal 128.13 (2003): 36-37. Education Research Complete.EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib. 17 Sept. 2007 .

Carson, Bryan. The Law of Libraries and Archives. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007. 247-260.

This book contains a chapter pertaining to the provisions of the CIPA, the court challenge by the American Library Association (ALA), and the subsequent Supreme Court decision. The result of the ruling is summarized, along with an explanation of the plurality opinion that determined that ruling. The author presents his interpretation along with actual text from the written opinion submitted by each Supreme Court Justice. Key elements of each opinion help explain the final ruling. There is also a section that expresses the need for library policies that cover all aspects of filtering, including the requests from adult patrons to unblock access or turn filtering off. The author is an associate professor at Western Kentucky University, a member of the bar, and Coordinator of Reference and Instructional Services for their Library Media Education Program. The information will provide a perspective on the legal ramifications of filtering, as well as stressing the importance of having thorough written policies covering the use and requests for non-use of filters.

Faulkner, Marcel. "Filter Schmilter: Libraries and Internet Filtering Software." WebJunction. 6 Dec. 2006. Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. 5 Dec. 2007 .

Heins, Marjorie, Christina Cho, and Ariel Feldman. "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report." 2nd ed. 2006. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 5 Oct. 2007 .

This lengthy report is an updated version of a 2001 publication written as a summary of the major studies of filtering effectiveness conducted up to that time. The 2006 edition includes results of more recent surveys and more background information on all aspects of the filtering debate. The majority of the statistics presented deal with over blocking and under blocking by the most prominent filtering software applications. The conclusions reached by the authors, based on all of the studies they reference, point to the overall failure of filtering performance. Recommendations are offered to help libraries increase safe use of the Internet while complying with CIPA requirements. The authors work for the Free Expression Policy Project, a research and advocacy group that is now part of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University (NYU) School of Law. The bias of the authors against filtering is evident, but the detailed examples will provide further evidence in support of my thesis.

"Libraries Should Use Software Filters to Censor Internet Pornography." Contemporary Issues Companion: Censorship (2004). Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 17 Sept. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010266212&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0>.

The contents of this article were excerpted from a speech given by Robert Peters in 2003. Peters was speaking as the president of Morality in Media, a watchdog organization that fights obscenity and graphic violence on the Internet. One section discusses the traditional role of librarians in the selection of materials for libraries. Another part covers tactics pornographers use to circumvent filtering applications. Several anti-filtering arguments are addressed, and the author offers a refutation of each one. The author concludes that filtering is essential, even with its flaws. The information will be useful in explaining the sentiments of groups seeking to expand the use of filtering in libraries and schools, and the pro-filtering stance in general. The author wrote the article before CIPA was passed, but the information is still fairly accurate and reflects current opinion on the issue.

Meeder, Rebecca. "Access Denied: Internet Filtering Software in K-12 Classrooms." TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 49.6 (2005): 56-78. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Mesa Community Coll., Paul A. Elsner Lib., Mesa, AZ. 12 Sept. 2007 .

Teaching students to use technology responsibly is the recommendation of this author. Filtering software is explained, with emphasis on computer access in K-12 schools. Typical problems with filtering technology are discussed, including improper blocking of valuable research and educational sites. The balance of the article elaborates on things that educators can do to help students use the Internet, with filtering software in place, to conduct research. Five steps are suggested to assist teachers and technology staff members in monitoring student access. The author was a graduate assistant at the University of Hawaii when the article was published, and was working toward a Master’s degree in the educational technology program. The information is presented in a well-balanced way, with no obvious bias. It will help me present the point of view of educators in the filtering debate, as well as some strategies for teaching safe Internet use in schools.

Smith, Mark. Neal-Schuman Internet Policy Handbook for Libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1999. 75-98.

Looking at the different perspectives on this issue has helped me to understand the strong positions held by segments of the population that I do not ordinarily deal with on a regular basis. Some groups that I thought would be very much against filtering seem to understand the need to protect children, and have found ways to work around the filtering requirements. Much of the research has made me aware of the variety of software programs in use, and the approaches taken by different libraries to address this issue. As I develop the outline for the research paper, I may need to locate additional sources for the pro-filtering component. The anti-filtering literature is abundant, with special insight for the school aspect. The resources located will help to present the information in an interesting (and persuasive) manner for the audience.

D#16,WP#1Revisions

WP#1 Revisions:

My research proposal required minor corrections to the header, as well as a few grammatical issues. The paragraph including the topic sentence had to be changed to better reflect the point of my research. That resulted in more changes throughout the body of the text. The revisions highlighted here are changes to the original WP#1 Final that I submitted.

For my specific research question, I will ask, “Are current laws governing the use of Internet filtering in libraries effectively protecting children?” Working with students of all ages has made me aware of inconsistencies in the application of filtering software at different libraries. I have observed students accessing sites that I would have expected to be blocked. There have also been situations in which students were denied access to legitimate research information. I have witnessed several instances when instructors compiled lesson plans on their home computers, complete with links, only to find those links forbidden by filtering software at school. This is frustrating for everyone involved, and the issue needs to be addressed.

Therefore, my research will focus on presenting documentation to reinforce the opinion that current laws are not effectively protecting children, and need to be changed. Evidence will need to be presented that explains deficiencies in the law, current technology available, and information from professionals involved with filtering decisions. The audience includes any parents, teachers, or students involved in Internet access at school or in public libraries. The desired result of this research is to convince the audience that current laws do not protect children who access the Internet in public and school libraries. The information and statistics in my writing project will offer support for my position.

The complete text of the final WP#1 follows.

Kathy Lacey
WP#1 Final
Eng 102-7891
6 Dec. 2007
Internet Filtering

Internet filtering software has been installed on many public access and school computers in order to comply with the provisions of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Strong opinions about filtering are held by different segments of the population. There are groups at one end of the spectrum that want all filtering software removed from public computers, and groups at the other extreme that want filtering software installed on all public and school computers. My experience working in a public charter school setting has influenced my opinion about the issue, and I would like to know more.

For my specific research question, I will ask, “Are current laws governing the use of Internet filtering in libraries effectively protecting children?” Working with students of all ages has made me aware of inconsistencies in the application of filtering software at different libraries. I have observed students accessing sites that I would have expected to be blocked. There have also been situations in which students were denied access to legitimate research information. In addition, I have witnessed several instances when instructors compiled lesson plans on their home computers, complete with links, only to find those links forbidden by filtering software at school. This is frustrating for everyone involved, and the issue needs to be addressed.

Therefore, my research will focus on presenting documentation to reinforce the opinion that current laws are not effectively protecting children, and need to be changed. Evidence will need to be presented that explains deficiencies in the law, current technology available, and information from professionals involved with filtering decisions. The audience includes any parents, teachers, or students involved in Internet access at school or in public libraries. The desired result of this research is to convince the audience that current laws do not protect children who access the Internet in public and school libraries. The information and statistics in my writing project will offer support for my position.

Sources that will be used for this research include journal articles found on electronic databases and in current periodicals, recent books written about the topic, and professional Web pages hosted by education and library organizations. I will review the pros and cons presented by groups addressing the topic, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), and the National Education Association (NEA). The audience will need facts, examples, and the testimony of professionals in order to be convinced to believe as I do. The evidence presented will address that need.

Finally, the timeline for this project covers the next twelve weeks. The final research proposal will be submitted within three weeks. The annotated bibliography is due three weeks after that. Next, it will be necessary to outline and write the research paper, with revisions completed by November 21st. The final weeks will be spent preparing a portfolio to evaluate and reflect on the entire process. Completing all of the weekly assignments will be essential for the writing projects ahead, and will facilitate the completion of a well-researched argument.

Monday, December 3, 2007

D#15,HW#2 Peer Review Reflection

I tried to read through all of the cover letters posted this week. The two that I peer reviewed were:

AlexWilliamsWP4Draft

MikeWhippleWP4Draft

Both of them did a thorough job detailing their experiences this semester, and are providing links to the homework assignments that back up each course outcome. Most of the letters are more personal than mine, and I will take Stephann's advice to revise mine. Mine is more of a list than a letter, and I need to tweak it a bit.

Jared also peer reviewed mine, and I thank him for the compliments. It was challenging at times being the first to post, but I had to work around my full time employment and other classes. I am glad it was helpful to others. It would have been much more helpful to have some input from the instructor within the blogging environment, but it looks like we all managed to learn a few things. I know the things that I had to learn or figure out on my own will stay with me longer than if I had just heard it in a lecture format. I guess I am grateful for that.

Touching up the first three WPs for the final portfolio will be a matter of reading through the peer review comments on my drafts and Devon's notations on my finals and then making the recommended changes. Some things I may defend as they stand, but I will at least consider seeing things from their point of view...after all, that was one thing we all had to learn to do. It was definitely a useful lesson.