Barb+Kerdolff

media type="custom" key="11537756"

Hello to all,

I teach math and science at Cincinnati Public Schools. I enjoy sharing environmental science with students and have been enticing students to area streams to do water quality monitoring for close to 20 years. Formerly, I worked at an environmental agency and had the pleasure of working with numerous area industries with a pollution prevention focus. I don't miss the 2:00 am odor complaint calls!

When not working, I enjoy kayaking, biking and travel. It's great fun to learn about new cultures. Occasionally, I find new recipes to share with my cooking group. Did I mention zip-lining is fun too?

When I want to relax, I play my dulcimer, Native American flute, recorders or autoharp. You have to be in the moment to play well (or even not so well) so there's no place for concerns.

One of the web sites I like for online academics is www.khanacademy.org. The author may well be a genius.

Be well,

Barb Kerdolff

- Review of [] David H. Jonassen’s Article: “** Objectivism versus Constructivism: **
 * Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?” **

//Summary of Learning for Barbara Kerdolff//

Most of this article contained information that was new to me. A summary of those new concepts follows, beginning with a main idea that Jonassen believes there has been a shift in thinking from objectivistic to more constructivistic concepts, while a corresponding shift for Instructional Systems Technology (IST) is lacking.

Historical information in the article reveals that since the 1950’s and 1960’s, using behavioral responses as indicators of learning (objectivism) has been challenged by cognitive models of learning. “The exclusion of the mind from the learning process by behavioral laws was a primary theoretical cause of the paradigm shift in learning psychology…Unlike the behaviorists, who were only concerned with what learners do, cognitive psychologists are interested in what learners know and how they come to acquire it.” (Jonassen, 1991,6). So I learned constructivists are, therefore, interested in the functions and processes of the mind while objectivists evaluate what the learner does.

Jonassen contends that IST was initially influenced by behavioral psychology as evidenced by the use of task analysis, behavioral objectives, and reinforcement of desired learning outcomes. I learned in reading this article that Winn was a leader in the transition to cognitive psychology. Jonassen says that Winn proposed a more holistic view of the learner by defining the learner as “one who interacts with the environment and acquires knowledge, skills, and competence from it.”(Jonassen, 1991, 6).

It is interesting that even with the current knowledge of both objectivistic and constructivistic concepts, Jonassen maintains that most constructivists do not have a comprehensive picture of how the human mind works to acquire skills, knowledge and concepts relative to IST. Jonassen says many constructivists lack consistent criteria to study the mind, since some believe the mind is of the body (material) and some believe the mind is spiritual in nature.

To remedy this inconsistency among constructivists, Jonassen states that per revolutionary constructivists like Churchman, Goodman and Bruner, each learner mentally reproduces real-world events and objects according to each learner’s unique perception of reality. “The new cognitive revolution…conceives the proper study of man through a more interpretive approach to cognition concerned with “meaning-making” (Bruner, 1990)”(Jonassen, 1991, 7).

Comparing and contrasting objectivism and constructivism throughout this article and in “Table 1 Assumptions Inherent in Objectivism and Constructivism” (Jonassen, 1991, 9) was helpful in clarifying these two concepts. For example, Jonassen states that in objective reality, the role of education is to tell students about the structure of the real world. Students are expected to replicate the structure and content of the world they are taught. Student perceptions are discouraged. By contrast, this article reveals that constructivism says the learner constructs their own knowledge of the world, taking into account prior experiences and beliefs. Kant is an example of someone who believed that each of us constructs our own reality through our interaction with and mental interpretations of the real world.

For me. one important message of this article is educators need to provide tools and the appropriate environment so that learners can assimilate multiple interpretations and formulate their own world-view. Environments should be designed to engage learners in formulating meaning.

//Applying this article to teaching//:

In applying constructivism to learners, Jonassen suggests instructors are encouraged to provide real world contexts for learners where learners solve real-world problems. I participated in a summer program last year where we did exactly that. The group visited local companies, where students were given background information and then asked to solve a current company problem. Some case studies involved the development of a prototype device. My group developed a software program to assist physically challenged children in expressing their wants and needs. The students were engaged throughout the process and during their presentation to parents and Stepping Stone employees. By contrast, my students who largely receive information through objectivistic methods, often lack enthusiasm for the content.

This year in my science classes we are planning a science fair based on real world issues. Students are challenged to invent a device that would be useful to the population of a country. Students choose which country they will study and develop a model of the device. Solutions can be low tech or include software and technical devices. Presentations can be on traditional tri-fold boards, via PowerPoint, or both. In this manner, NETS criteria to “1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity and Design and 2. Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments” are incorporated into the learning environment.

Further practice with real-world problem solving can be done with water quality monitoring. I have taken students to water quality monitoring events where the data collected by students is incorporated into a real-world data base that analyzes trends. Students are encouraged to report any anomalies they find to the Environmental Protection Agency and local communities. This is also an opportunity for students to use software to graph the collected data and analyze the data..

Last year at the high school we set up Skype sessions with the University of Cincinnati so students could see real-world technology (e.g. electron microscopes and electrophoresis) in use and talk to graduate students. We wanted students to picture themselves in a college setting to make it a more meaningful goal. This year the algebra class will exchange presentations with another school via Skype. These projects incorporate NETS concepts, including categories 1., 2., and “3. Model Digital-Age Work and Learning.”

To study forces and enforce math calculations, one of my schools is building bridges after a bridge tour of Cincinnati. Math calculations of the cost of the bridge materials are part of the project. Advanced students will be challenged to use computer software to design bridges. I find project based learning of real-world situations to be fun.

According to cognitive flexibility theory, learners should receive multiple perspectives in case-based instruction. Part of the high-school curricula where I work is the use of seminars. This is a forum where I can encourage students to give their opinions, based on facts and to elicit multiple perspectives. Venues to elicit multiple student perspectives could be art, books, news articles, video clips, guest speakers, poetry and articles on the ethical use of technology. Again, this is an opportunity to incorporate NETS in both the delivery of the information and as a subject of analysis.

Jonassen suggests that educators help students create their own meaningful representation of the real world. To this end, I have students add a section to all science experiment reports that relates how the experiment relates to their personal experience. I think asking students the relevance of the material they are learning is essential.

Jonassen predicts resulting changes from applying constructivist concepts are:

Negotiable goals and objectives with self-evaluation reports, Tasks could be less sequenced and more focused on multiple interpretations, Learners work with ‘tool kits’ to assist with mental constructions in relevant environments. Evaluations that have a wider response option, which takes into account the different perspectives of each student.

To manifest these goals, I would envision using more rubrics for student projects that incorporate self-evaluation and more project-based learning that includes technology.

//Validity and Quality of the Author’s Information://

Although I am not familiar with many of the other researchers that were quoted in this article, I assume that the 30 references given in this article represent a large body of knowledge. I am impressed that Jonassen would attempt to synthesize the research and concepts of all of the referenced authors. I thought he did a respectable job of clarifying terminology, presenting a history of objectivism and constructivism, and presenting current constructivist thinking.

I concur with Jonassen’s assessment that “since learning obviously entails constructivistic and objectivistic activities, the most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these positions.” (Jonassen, 1991,13) At this point in the schools I work in, constructivist methods could be used more in combination with objectivist approaches that determine what content should be learned and how the content will be acquired by the learner. Objectivism is the approach most often used to prepare students for the Ohio Academic Assessment (OAA) and the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). I have found software programs that are good for review of math and science content in the OGT. These programs are examples of objectivism.

Based on this article, I don’t see objectivism and constructivism as opposites, but rather parts of the whole learning experience. I think they can work well in tandem. For example: an introduction of new concepts could be done using objectivistic methods for vocabulary and background information; then the concepts could be elaborated upon using constructivistic real-world approaches.

I agree with Janassen that “the nature of the learning and the context in which it will occur should be considered before committing to one theory or the other.”(Jonassen, 1991, 13) For example, I would think firemen and tax examiners would benefit from objectivistic methods. It makes sense to agree with Jonassen that each instructional design needs to take into account the context of the learner, which in turn will determine whether instruction is more objectivist or constructivist.

The one concept that was not new in this article is that environments should be designed to engage learners in formulating meaning. Given some of the apathy I see in my students, education has yet to explore the limits of this idea.

//Reference//

Jonassen, D. H. (1991, April). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? ETR&D, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 5-14 ISSN 1042-1629.

//Questions for discussion//:

I would want to interview teachers who teach special education self-contained classes to see if their students respond more readily to objectivistic or constructivistic methods of instructional design.

I would also like to compare different age groups to see if students respond more readily to objectivistic or constructivistic methods of instructional design at different ages.





A Review of American University, Center for Social Media articles: “**The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education**” (2011, article one**)** and
 * “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy**” (2007, article two)

//Summary of Learning for Barbara Kerdolff//

The titles of the two articles evoked my first question – what is media literacy? “The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education,” (AUSOC, 2011) defined media literacy as “ the capacity to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms,” which includes receptive interactions like watching a movie to productive interactions like making a digital video.

Both articles, “The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education,” (AUSOC, 2011) and “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy,” (AUSOC, 2007) agreed that the role of media literacy in education is to improve students’ critical thinking and communication skills. The second article documents issues related to misunderstandings about ‘fair use’ concepts among educators, while “The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education” supplies clarity for educators by supplying best practice guidelines.

In a research study, the second article (AUSOC, 2007), gives web sites, conferences, films, librarians, FBI warnings on videos, books, institutional policies, and colleagues as sources of misinformation on fair use rules. Further obstacles to teacher understanding of fair use materials are the roadblocks encountered when seeking permission for use of media materials. To remedy a lack of good information on copyright use for educators, the second article, The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy,” offers a solution. The writers provide five guiding principles and myths and facts about fair use materials. The writers also suggest educators share knowledge about fair use practices among peers and advocate that educators develop more specific guidelines similar to those developed by filmmakers.

When analyzing media, “The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education,” article reminded me to account for the fact that media messages are constructed for a particular purpose with a specific point of view. Further, the article says the reader derives their own meanings (constructivist thinking) from media messages, which in turn can affect the reader’s attitudes and behaviors. The second article agrees with these concepts and broadens the context of media literacy, on page four, by stating “media messages, media industries, and technologies of communication exist within a larger aesthetic, cultural, historical, political, economic, and regulatory framework.” (AUSOC, 2007). All of these statements emphasized to me how powerful media messages can be and how important media literacy is.

Prior to The Code of Best Practices article, I would not have connected copyright law to “fostering the creation of culture.” or considered that fair use principles keep “copyright from violating the First Amendment.” (AUSOC, 2011). So fair use principles play a democratic role in society by balancing cultural benefits and the rights of users with the economic impact to copyright owners.

From both articles, I learned that in judging whether a use of copyright material is fair use or not, you need to consider: 1) how the material is used, 2) what material is used, 3) the extent of use, 4) the economic effect of using the material, 5) was the material used for a different purpose than the original, i.e., was it transformative, 6) whether the user acted reasonably and in good faith, and 7) whether the material used is appropriate for the purposes of teaching.

//Applying this article to teaching//:

A few years ago I helped with science curriculum development for Cincinnati Public Schools. These two articles help explain why we curriculum writers were told not to use any copyrighted materials, although I now know some materials I used would have been acceptable based on the following definition of “fair use:”


 * Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances—especially when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant. It is a general right that applies even in situations where the law provides no specific authorization for the use in question—as it does for certain narrowly defined classroom activities. (AUSOC, 2011). **

I think there was a lack of clarity on fair use rules and just as “The Code of Best Practices…” article says, a ‘lack of clarity reduces learning and limits the ability to use digital tools.” **(AUSOC, 2011). At the time I was unaware that “materials on copyright for the educational community tend to overstate the risk of educators being sued for copyright infringement.” It is noted that this statement, found in the section entitled “The Tyranny of Guidelines and Experts” (AUSOC, 2011) is presented more as opinion without a supportive survey of educators. However, the basis for the quote is supported by examples and a research study in “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy.”(AUSOC, 2007).**

An appealing statement in the first article is “making media and sharing it with listeners, readers, and viewers is essential to the development of critical thinking and communication skills.” To follow through on this statement in practice, during one of the seminars we have at my high school, instead of using an article or book as the basis of the debate, the seminar process could be improved by using media created by the students as the basis of debate.

The second article quotes a teacher as saying popular culture media helps students to make connections between school and their life experiences. I think this is reason enough to use more fair use material in classrooms. An added bonus according to the article (AUSOC, 2007), is the students enjoy formulating and presenting their own viewpoint.

Based on teacher interviews in the second article, using ‘fair use’ materials would reinforce NETS guidelines one to three, which state, respectively, that

Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments

Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Teachers transfer current knowledge to new technologies and situations.

The last guideline encompasses the transformative concept in fair use of materials.

By becoming more familiar with best practices of ‘fair use’ materials, teachers can be more comfortable in implementing the fourth NETS guideline –

Teachers advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources.

//Validity and Quality of the Author’s Information://

Since “The Code of Best Practice in Fair Use for Media Literacy” (AUSOC, 2011) article was “reviewed by a committee of legal scholars and lawyers expert in copyright and fair use,” representing more than 150 educational associations, I conclude the information is a major effort to provide accurate information on fair use of copyrighted materials for educators. A best practices code for fair use information is timely and useful.

The outline for the five principles in article one included descriptions, principles, and limitations. I also liked the section at the end of article one (AUSOC, 2011), where the authors have myth and truth statements about fair use of materials. I thought these approaches helped clarify ‘fair use’ principles.

While the first article comments on “The Tyranny of Guidelines and Experts,” The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy” (AUSOC, 2007) article gives credence to the statements made in the first article about how most educators are confused about ‘fair use’ principles by supplying numerous quotes from teachers in a research study.

In the second article, an in-depth discussion on the range of teacher ‘fair use’ ignorance is helpful, and I acknowledge the thoroughness of the research study. However, I thought the more important part of the second article was the costs to education in terms of less effective teaching materials and recommendations. Some of the recommendations include increasing educator awareness about the “exemption in the Copyright Act for the use of audiovisual materials in the course of “face-to-face” teaching. “ (AUSOC, 2007). Another recommendation for a code of practice manifested in the “The Code of Best Practice in Fair Use for Media Literacy” (AUSOC, 2011).

//Reference// Hobbs, R., Jaszi, P., & Aufderheide, P. (2007, September).  //The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy.// Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media at American University School of Communication newsletter. Retrieved October, 2011 from centerforsocialmedia.org/medialiteracy. The Media Education Lab. The Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, The Center for Social Media, (2011). //The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education.// Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: School of Communications and Theater at Temple University in and Washington, D.C.: The School of Communication, at American University in Washington, D.C. Retrieved October, 2011 from centerforsocialmedia.org/medialiteracy.

//Questions for discussion//:

I noticed that recent queries on fair use of materials were posted on the American University Center for Social Media website. Would it make sense to set up a hot-line telephone center to answer questions or make referrals on fair use of materials? This implies the staff would be experts, perhaps on a rotating volunteer basis.

Could teacher unions be a source for disseminating ‘fair use’ best practice guidelines and reliable web sites? This wouldn’t require expertise.


 * Review of three articles byRosen, Nelson, Wang, Hsua, Ikpeze, Boyd****:**


 * “Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education” (Rosen, Nelson, 2008)**
 * “Reflections on Using blogs to Expand In-class Discussion” (Wang, Hsua, 2008)**
 * “Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests” (Ikpeze, Boyd, 2007)**

//Summary of Learning for Barbara Kerdolff – Week 5//

These three articles are helping to answer a question I had about technology after reading our first two articles for week one. The question is - How do you use technology to achieve constructivist learning?

Rosen and Nelson (Rosen & Nelson, 2008) remind us that the Internet generation we teach does not just receive information on the Web, but also creates and disseminates information. Many of our students are part of social-networking Internet communities like Facebook. Based on the information in this article, which compares Web. 1.0 educators with Web 2.0 students, it is concluded that part of our challenge as educators is to bridge the gap between students with skills in using information and communication tools (ICT) and educational frameworks that don’t use ICT. An underlying goal is to increase critical thinking. Critical thinking can be achieved by means of constructivist methods.

Table 1. Comparison of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Applications (Rosen & Nelson, p. 214) emphasizes the changes on the Internet from a medium for users to receive information to a large scale interactive platform. This was a useful synopsis of Web changes and gives the reader an idea of where to begin bridging the technology gap between students and educators.

The Wang and Hsua article offers more specific information on Web 2.0 technology by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of discussion boards and blogs. While discussion boards are shut down at the end of the class, blogs can potentially, be broadcast. This brings up privacy and potential fair use issues for educators, who need to closely monitor access to weblogs. I would have missed the following cautions without this article:

The instructor should inform participants as to whether or not a blog is private or restricted. No matter what the privacy setting is, contributors should not reveal their real names if sensitive content might be mentioned. They could use only their first name or alias on the blog. The instructor should advise them not to reveal the names of other students, teachers, or institutions in the field. (Wang, 2008)

It will be helpful in the classroom to have “a blogging tool that meets instructional needs [,which] should enable multiple authors to contribute to the blog, make the blog invisible to the public, and categorize the articles.” (Wang, 2008). The authors relay their research with a suggestion for three possible sites that meet these criteria (Wang & Hsua, p. 83). Without these suggestions and the suggestion to use a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) news feeder for updated information, I would have been reticent to use a blog in the classroom. I can see the efficiency in using a blog to promote student conversations that would contribute to the creation of their own knowledge. In this way, a blog helps to answer my question about how a blog could beconstructivistic. Wang and Hsua followed constructivistic thinking, by including reflections at the end of their article.

Rosen and Nelson explain how people can come to a higher level of thinking given the presence of “diversity of opinions, independence of opinion, decentralization of information and a mechanism for aggregating the information.” (Rosen & Nelson, p.217). In addition to meeting these criteria, wikis offer collaborative authoring, provide open writing and editing, allow for the use of hyperlinks, and have discussion areas for why edits are being made. I didn’t know there was a WikiBooks as well.

Prior to reading the Ikpeze and Boyd article, I wasn’t aware that the components of a WebQuest, include: “ an introduction, a task or tasks, a list of resources for learners, the process that they would go through to accomplish the task, a criteria or rubric to evaluate learning, and a conclusion.” (Ikpeze & Boyd, p.645). It was interesting to find out that WebQuests could be short term or long term (4-12 weeks) and thus support project-based learning..

//Applying this article to teaching//:

I liked the example of the Earth Science Teaching Resource group (Rosen & Nelson, p.215), where photos and discussion comments are pooled via Flickr. I could see Flickr as a way of sharing information among schools that are all doing the same project like stream monitoring or collecting information on local frogs, wild flowers, or fossils. Several schools could do the same science experiment and compare results. All participants would need to be aware of fair use guidelines prior to submitting photos, audio, and video materials to the site.

Wang and Hsua (2008, p. 82) suggest using a blog to create a classroom newsletter. This is an idea I’d like to replicate, since it can promote collaboration and critical thinking, and submittals could be archived and categorized. However, having read “Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education” (Rosen & Nelson, 2008), I think I would opt to use a wiki for the newsletter to better facilitate editing and to enable tracking of student progress. A discussion board would not work as well as a blog or wiki, since you usually don’t embed multimedia materials.

An advantage of a blog, discussion board, or wiki that is appealing is the potential for introverted students to increase class participation and for all students to have an additional opportunity to reflect on class concepts. Another reason I would use a wiki is the discussions which give the rationale for an edit to an entry. Reading why people make edits has the potential to increase learner knowledge and critical thinking skills. This gives another avenue for constructivist learning.

While I agree with the Ikpeze article (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2008) that a WebQuest, via integrated tasks, can add real-world context to knowledge and that they are an opportunity for collaboration and constructing new knowledge, I think those outcomes are predicated on the design of the WebQuest. Some of my students are often intimidated by a lot of text. Their response is “that’s too much.” When this happens their social interactions are something less than constructivist and they may stray to other websites. So information overload and fatigue are definite obstacles to be avoided with careful procedures. To help promote focus, I would relate one or more activities to their lives as a real-world outcome. A necessary pre-WebQuest activity for students would be a lesson on navigating the Internet to also lesson off-task Web surfing.

These three articles, through examples for educators on how to use Weblogs, wikis, and WebQuests, support NETS under part one, subparts a.–d. listed below:

a. promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness b. engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources. Examples were environmental projects and newpapers; c. promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal knowledge and d. model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues, and others in face-to-face and virtual environments.

Weblogs, wikis, and WebQuests also support NETS part 2.a. which challenges educators to “design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity.” These ICTs would also facilitate a teacher’s ability to “collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation,” as stated in NETS part 3.b.

Since blog and wiki information could be disseminated worldwide, teachers need to help students learn NETS part 4.a. and 4.c. Part 4.a. suggests that teachers “advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources.” Part 4.c. states that teachers should “promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information.”

//Validity and Quality of the Author’s Information://

Rosen and Nelson cite 35 references from 1966 to 2008, with the majority of the references being in the three years prior to publishing their article. Of the three articles, Rosen and Nelson offered the best overview of ICTs and they outlined research challenges. This was high quality, useful information.

Wang and Hsua cite 21 references from 1996 to 2007, with the majority of the references being in the three years prior to publishing. This was good, more specific information on the advantages and disadvantages of blogging based on recent research.

Ikpeze and Boyd cite 22 references including the International Society for Technology in Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Education Association. These references are mostly from 2000 to 2002. The in-depth case study was valuable in modeling a WebQuest. The outlined disadvantages and advantages of WebQuest help teacher’s refine WebQuest design.

Questions: Can comments on a blog/wiki be copyrighted by the author of the comments? **It is automatically copyrighted. - JZ** Does credit for a quote from a blog/wiki need to be cited? **- Absolutely need to cite it. - JZ**

Can privacy be effectively protected on social networking Web sites? Was privacy for email, weblogs, etc. protected during ‘Arab spring’ events?

I question how many of my students are actually ICT savvy, given that some don’t have access at home to a personal computer.

//References//

Ikpeze, C., Boyd, F. (2007, April).Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. //The Reading Teacher//. International Reading Association. Vol. 60, No. 7, pp. 644-654.

Rosen, D., Nelson, C. (2008).Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education. //Computers in the Schools//, Vol. 25 (3-4) online at http://www.haworthpress.com The Haworth Press.

Wang, S., Hsua, H. (2008, May/June). Reflections on Using blogs to Expand In-class Discussion. //Techtrends.// Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 81-85.

Questions: Can comments on a blog/wiki be copyrighted by the author of the comments? Does credit for a quote from a blog/wiki need to be cited?

Can privacy be effectively protected on social networking Web sites? Was privacy for email, weblogs, etc. protected during ‘Arab spring’ events?

I question how many of my students are actually ICT savvy, given that some don’t have access at home to a personal computer. What would be the criteria to determine whether a student was a Web 2.0 student?