I ICALLY SPEAKINC

Defining the Boundaries of Classrooms without Walls (Part I) by Erin Edwards

The AECT Code of Ethics, Section 1, Commitment to Individuals, urges us in our design or selection of

educational products to protect individual rights of access

to materials with varying points of view (1:2 ) without

promoting discriminatory, harassing, insensitive, or

offensive behavior (1: 9). These values are part of the

basic foundation of education, yet in the context of emerging virtual classrooms, they may be difficult to

enforce. The following two-part article written by Erin

Edwards discusses the chameleon-like nature of student

behaviors and shifting outcomes in virtual realities.

Vicki Napper, Column Editor

T raditional university classes are held in classrooms with solid

walls and scheduled meeting times. Students and instructors understand that when the instructor enters the classroom, it is the instructor's respon- sibility to run the class. Regardless of whether the instructor chooses to maintain a student-centered class or an instructor-centered class, the class- room is ultimately under the instructor's charge. The physical class- room and set class time vest the in- structor with responsibility. Though there are always power negotiations between students and the instructor, the instructor is recognized as being ultimately responsible for what hap- pens within the confines of a class- room.

Online classes have no such boundaries to define the role of the

instructor. It is that lack of boundaries in the online environment that pro- vides one of the strengths of the Internet environment. Students have the luxury of logging into class sites any time, day or night, with valuable links to external sites to enhance les- sons. The missing boundaries are what make online classes flexible and excit- ing. An instructor can create links to Web sites all around the world to aug- ment the course textbooks, to link to the campus library, or to link to The New York Times in order to allow stu- dents to jump from the class site to another site and back again with a few mouse clicks. Because the online class site is so boundless, we should ask where and what is the authority and responsibility of the online instructor.

Due to an U.S. Supreme Court rul- ing, instructors are now responsible for

maintaining classrooms free of sexual harassment. The ruling in the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Edu- cation states that "[I]nstitutions can be required to pay damages under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972" for not maintaining a classroom in which students are free from harass- ment by other students (Williams, 1999). The ruling sets the precedent that instructors must act to halt sexual harassment if it occurs in their class- rooms. This ruling only addresses an instructor's responsibilities within the traditional classroom by stating that the instructor is only responsible for conduct he or she observes. In other words, an instructor would be respon- sible if he or she heard a male student making lewd comments to a female student in the classroom during class time, but would not be responsible for the same behavior if it occurred in the hallway moments before class started. The responsibility to maintain a class free from sexual harassment will most likely be applied to online courses as well. It will, however, be harder to de- fine the jurisdiction of the instructor due to the nature of online classes but potentially easier to hold an instructor accountable because student interac- tions are more likely to be documented in written form.

Unlike traditional classrooms that have a set time to meet and a clearly contained space, online classrooms have no such constraints. Because the boundaries of an online class are harder to define, we must ask how will the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education affect online instructors.

Clearly there are differences be- tween an online class environment and a traditional environment. Rather than

Volume 45, Issue 5 TechTrends 7

waiting for the courts to define the boundaries of online classes, those in- volved with online instruction should begin to explore the reasonable juris- diction of online instructors. Because of the fuzzy boundaries of online courses, this may not be easy to do. For example, does the instructor's authority extend to course-supported e-mail?

Most major online course systems have a built-in student e-mail option. E-mail options may be self-contained (allowing mail only to other students or the instructor in the class) or not contained (allowing students to e- mail anyone).

It is also possible in some online courses for the e-mail students send from within the course to be moni- tored. Because the option to monitor exists, should e-mail sent between stu- dents from an online class site be de- fined as part of the class and, therefore, within the instructor's do- main of responsibility as defined in the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education?

The instructor's jurisdiction over students' e-mail in an online course may be influenced by the role e-mail plays in the instruction. Instructors may activate an e-mail tool to facili- tate informal student discussions, to require students to send e-mail as part of an assignment, to allow collabora- tion, or to provide e-mail to students just because it is an available tool. It may be that having the ability to monitor student's e-mail activity con- fers an obligation on the part of the instructor to monitor the messages sent by students. There are several de- grees of monitoring that are available to online instructors, and again, in some cases the degree to which an in- structor can monitor messages is de- pendent upon the administration system, technical skills of the instruc- tor, and where the server is located.

Should e-mail be considered as a pe- ripheral activity more like two students chatting in the hall, or should it be con- sidered within the boundaries of the online class? The answer to this ques- tion may be hard to determine and may

in fact be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such questions must be clarified in order to generalize the answers to dif- ferent instructional situations.

Part II of this article provides fur- ther discussion of free speech, moni- toring of e-mail, and control of potentially harassing remarks between students within a virtual classroom.

REFERENCE Williams, Verna L. (1999, June 18).

"A New Harassment Ruling: Impli- cations for Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education, A56.

This column is coordi- nated by Vicki Napper. Dr. Napper is the technol- ogy director for the

Teacher Education Program at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah and a member of the Pro- fessional Ethic Committee. Ques- tions and suggestions for topics are welcome. Write to Ethically Speaking, TechTrends, 313 Armstrong, Minnesota State Uni- versity, Mankato, MN 56001.

ErJn Edwards is entering her second year as a Ph.D. student at Utah State University's Department of In- structional Technology. Her research interests include the role of play in instruction, expert-learner interac- tions, and human technologies such as cognitive ap- prenticeship. �9

Reach leaders in the field of education technology.

ADVERTISE IN TECHTRENDS

To learn more about showcasing your product or service, contact AECT at

812-335-7675 or email us at �9

t e c h t r e n d s @ a e c t , o r g . �9

@ � 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9 1 4 9

8 TechTrends Volume 45, Issue 5