You are here:

Acceptable Use Policies in Schools: An Initial Study
PROCEEDINGS

, Immaculata University, United States ; , Drexel University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Abstract: This paper will discuss the interim results of an initial study of 7 school districts’ acceptable use policies (AUP) as they relate to markers of sustainability. The study focuses on the development and implementation of district’s AUPs, how changes in technology and society affect a district’s AUP, teachers’, administrators’ and technology directors’ perceived value of technology vis-à-vis learning and culture, and the formal processes that guide the district’s AUP.

Citation

Charnitski, C. & Harvey, F. (2012). Acceptable Use Policies in Schools: An Initial Study. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4808-4813). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Adams, H. (2008). Dusting off the acceptable use policy. School Library Activities Monthly, 25(4), 56-57.
  2. Dhar, V., & Sundararajan, A. (2007). Information technologies in business: A blueprint for education and research. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 125-141.
  3. Erstad, O. (2003). Electracy as empowerment: Student activities in learning environments using technology. Nordic Journal of Youth Research. 11(1), 11-28.
  4. Ferdig, R.E. (2007). When‘ acceptable ’ becomes unacceptable. THE Journal, 34(12), 26-27.
  5. Flowers, B.F. & Rakes, G.C. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the Internet in select K-12 schools. Journal of Computing in Education 32, 351-365.
  6. Friedman, T.L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books.
  7. Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and
  8. Jacobs, H.H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  9. Li, Q. (2006). Computer-Mediated Communication: A Meta-Analysis of Male and Female Attitudes and Behaviors. International Journal of E-Learning, 5, 525-570.
  10. Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P., and Wholey, J.S. (1994). Meeting the need for practical evaluation approaches: An introduction. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, & K.E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 1-10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  11. Pluye, P., Potvin, L., Denis, J.L., & Pelletier, J. (2004). Program sustainability: Focus on organizational routines. Health Promotion International, 19, 489-500.
  12. Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill.
  13. Shi, J.L., Shih, B.J., Shih, C.C., Su, H.Y., & Chuang, C.W. (2010). The influence of collaboration styles to children’ s cognitive performance in digital problem-solving game William Adventure: A comparative case study. Computers and Education, 55, 982-993.
  14. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Elementary and Secondary Education ESEA Reauthorization: A blueprint for reform.
  15. Yin, R.K. (1979) Changing Urban Bureaucracies: How New Practices Become Routinized. Lexington, KY:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.