By: Dr. Farzaneh Razzaghi, Ms. Janette Garc\u00eda, and \u00a0Ms. Kelly Leu — University of Texas, Pan American<\/p>\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n Intellectual property issues are increasingly important in today\u2019s technology oriented society.\u00a0 These issues have significant relevance to the academic community, but are not usually taught to students on a broad or systematic basis.\u00a0 As a result, students are often unfamiliar intellectual property topics such as copyright and patents resulting in a knowledge gap.\u00a0 This paper describes our experiences with developing and implementing an online workshop that teaches copyright and patent basics to students, a project that can be considered a best practice for a number of reasons. Given the success experienced by two institutions which both successfully implemented this program, we believe that it can be adopted by other institutions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Introduction\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In February 2009, The University of Texas Pan American University Library (UTPA) was invited by the Michigan Technology University Library (MTU) to partner with them on a proposal for an Ethics Education in Science & Engineering NSF grant, called\u00a0Ethics Education 2.0<\/em>.\u00a0 This grant emphasized the significant need for students in the STEM disciplines to understand intellectual property rights and how this relates to responsible conduct of research when using the work of others in their own research.\u00a0 Ethical use of intellectual property is growing in importance, yet students are often not as familiar with these issues as they should be.\u00a0 In addition, there are few opportunities for students to receive training on this topic in their normal coursework.\u00a0 The main objective of the NSF grant project was to develop and test a replicable and sustainable, online program to educate STEM graduate students about intellectual property, specifically copyright and patents.<\/p>\n UTPA was selected as a partner by MTU because we had everything that was required to implement the grant proposal including a strong graduate science and engineering program (STEM), an intellectual property office, and a high-quality library that includes a Copyright Librarian on staff.\u00a0 UTPA, a midsized institution with approximately 20,000 students, has been recognized as the best Hispanic Serving Institution in the United States by the National Hispanic Institute.\u00a0 Over 90% of our student population is Hispanic, 68% are first generation, and 93% live in the surrounding four counties.\u00a0 Located near the Mexican border, UTPA is an integral part of a bilingual, bicultural community.\u00a0 The University Library holdings include close to a million items, including books, journals and electronic databases.\u00a0 Services offered include one-on-one information consultations, group instruction, and virtual reference via chat, texting and email.\u00a0 On average the library see about 2,000 visitors each day.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n MTU completed the initial design and testing of a system to deliver online instruction using Web 2.0 technologies and UTPA tested the replicability and sustainability of this model.\u00a0 The result of the grant, which was completed in 2012, was a twelve week course on copyright and patents which was offered on a no-credit, no-cost basis.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Both institutions have continued to offer and refine the workshop after the completion of the official grant as a result of ongoing interest from the campus community.\u00a0 The resulting workshop presents a unique opportunity to develop practical skills and knowledge that contributes to students\u2019 academic and professional success.\u00a0 The success of the intellectual property program on both campuses demonstrates the viability of duplicating this program at other campuses.\u00a0 This paper will describe UTPA\u2019s experiences with the program and why we believe this program is a best practice.<\/p>\n Why Intellectual Property?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ethical use of information has always been an important issue in academia and is considered a core competency for information literacy for all students.\u00a0 In fact, the Association for College and Research Libraries\u2019 Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education and for Science and Engineering\/Technology, specifically refer to legal and ethical issues related to plagiarism, copyright, and patent law.\u00a0 An understanding of patent literature and patent searching skills are particularly necessary for science and technology students as they engage in research projects.\u00a0 (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000; ALA\/ACRL\/STS Task Force on Information Literacy for Science and Technology, 2006)<\/p>\n The way we access, share, and communicate information has changed significantly with the development of new technologies which facilitates these activities.\u00a0 The rise of the \u201cremix culture\u201d which encourages the sharing and reuse of information means that students are becoming accustomed to habits which could inadvertently expose them to infringement (Koman, 2005).\u00a0 In fact, encountering intellectual property issues in the course of daily work is practically inevitable for most of us.\u00a0 For example, digital technology has made the copying of a picture from a website and sharing it with others by posting it in a blog or on Facebook virtually effortless.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, student awareness of these topics is vague and intellectual property concepts are often confused.\u00a0 While plagiarism receives a lot of attention in educational programs, opportunities for students to learn about copyright and patent law are not as readily available.\u00a0 For example, at UTPA students can learn about plagiarism from their professors, via an online tutorial available from the Library\u2019s website, by attending an on campus study skills workshop, or via a library information literacy lesson given during class.\u00a0 Students might also be able to receive instruction on copyright during a specific course if instructors request that the Copyright Librarian provide a one-hour presentation on copyright and fair use.\u00a0 Patent law may be addressed by an instructor as a unit in a specific course.\u00a0 Beyond this, there are no independent workshops or courses dedicated to copyright or patents that are open to anyone regardless of discipline or course enrollment.\u00a0 A dedicated workshop series of this type represents a unique opportunity for students, to gain a more in-depth look into the issues surrounding both copyright and patent law outside their regular coursework.\u00a0 Because it is open to all students, anyone with an interest may have the opportunity to participate making this is a unique opportunity that, as one student pointed out it, \u201cwould be difficult to obtain \u2026 [and] harder to grasp \u2026 on one\u2019s own.\u201d\u00a0 (A. M. Garcia, personal communication, November 29, 2011.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Learning Outcomes<\/strong><\/p>\n The goal of the series is to provide students with basic theoretical knowledge about copyright and patent law as well as practical skills that will allow them to successfully navigate these issues when engaged in research and scholarship.\u00a0 Students who successfully complete this series should be able to accurately distinguish between plagiarism, copyright, and patents.\u00a0\u00a0 They should also be able to identify specific owner\u2019s rights as well as what copyright or patent law actually protects, and discuss the various limitations that the law places on these rights.\u00a0 Practical skills that students gain include the ability to determine whether a work is protected by copyright or patent law, how to identify inventors, and how to locate a copyright owner.\u00a0 They also gain a better understanding about what their obligations are when they need to use a protected work (The University of Texas Pan American University Library, 2014).\u00a0 For example, students learn how to apply the fair use exception in an assignment, and then are expected to accurately apply it as part of their final challenge.\u00a0 They are also expected to know when asking for permission to use copyrighted or patented material might be the most appropriate option.<\/p>\n Course structure<\/strong><\/p>\n Each module is divided into four one-week units for instruction, concluded by a fifth week in which students complete a final challenge assignment.\u00a0 At the beginning of each week online readings are made available through Blackboard.\u00a0 Questions about the readings are asked in a discussion forum, and students are given deadlines to respond to the questions.\u00a0 A quiz is due at the end of each week and an online chat session is held to discuss the topics studied during the week.\u00a0 The discussion questions and chats comprise the bulk of the grade and are evaluated based on participation and understanding.\u00a0 Points are also awarded for including citations, and for meeting deadlines, this as an incentive to maintain momentum and consistent participation throughout course.<\/p>\n The discussion forum allows students to develop their understanding of concepts.\u00a0 Starting with a student\u2019s initial response to a question, instructors provide input encouraging students to explore topics in more detail, and provide specific examples to illustrate their understanding of the topic.\u00a0 Encouraging the students to go beyond the general, \u201ctextbook\u201d definitions is helpful with identifying key areas of misunderstanding.\u00a0 Live chat sessions are used to follow-up with any lingering questions or misunderstandings.\u00a0 Instructor feedback and mediation during the discussion forums and chat session is a particularly important part of the class, especially in the absence of a traditional lecture component.\u00a0 This helps to provide clarification and prevent the development and spread of misunderstandings among the participants.\u00a0 The final challenge, assigned during the final week, presents the students with a hypothetical situation concerning infringement, and requires that the students draw upon what they had learned over the previous four weeks.\u00a0 Challenge responses are expected to include a review of copyright or patent rights, and to evaluate whether or not the hypothetical situation really infringed on those rights.<\/p>\n Pre- and Post-Tests are conducted with blind grading to determine how well the participants understanding of copyright and patents improved upon completion of the workshop.\u00a0 These tests confirmed what was observed throughout the class, that at the end of the workshop participants had a much more informed understanding of copyright and patents than before they started.<\/p>\n Course Content<\/strong><\/p>\n When the course was being developed, the designers chose to utilize freely accessible online sources with the intention of increasing the transferability of this workshop to other institutions.\u00a0 Using freely available material did present some challenges, both in quality of the source and suitability of the material for our audience.\u00a0 This is a significant concern since the course is not lecture-based and the assigned readings are the main source of exposure that students will get to the concepts.\u00a0 In some instances, we found it necessary to select from the library\u2019s materials, such as journals and encyclopedias, for more suitable material.<\/p>\n Accuracy of the content is a primary concern, especially when accessing free resources on the Internet.\u00a0 While there are several good websites available, there are many others with inaccurate and misleading information.\u00a0 For example, one of our students cited a questionable website that was not part of an assigned reading.\u00a0 This particular site was problematic due to the inaccuracy of the information provided.\u00a0 Most significantly, the site discussed plagiarism and copyright interchangeably furthering common misconceptions that result from confusing these two concepts.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 We quickly pointed out the issues with this source in the discussion forum and this experience served as an important lesson to the students about quality of information found on the Internet (Turnitin, 2005).\u00a0 Inaccuracies in websites can sometimes be much more subtle than the preceding example.\u00a0 Most of the information presented might be accurate and complete with the exception of a single statement or two that are incorrect or outdated.\u00a0 When using freely accessible material from the Internet it is always important to carefully review sources for accuracy and quality.<\/p>\n Student comprehension<\/strong><\/p>\n We noticed that the students\u2019 comprehension of the subject matter could be problematic as unfamiliar legal and technical language can present a barrier to understanding the topics.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Addressing abstract concepts was particularly challenging since finding sources that explain these concepts adequately can be difficult.\u00a0 Some sources might do a very good job addressing a concept, but are addressed to an expert audience using discipline specific language that makes it difficult for novices to understand.\u00a0 Other sources may do a better job of presenting the topic in layman\u2019s terms, but only provide a vague definition that is not detailed enough to help the students understand how the concept plays out in the real world.\u00a0[2]<\/a>\u00a0In general, reliable sources of copyright information directed to the non-expert are readily available on the Internet.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>For example, sources like Stanford University\u2019s Copyright & Fair Use (2014) website and Columbia University\u2019s Copyright Advisory Office (2014, January 15) are particularly helpful with making the subject matter more accessible to students.\u00a0\u00a0 Both of these sites provide very good plain language explanations for the various aspects of the copyright law. \u00a0This was not the case for patents where much of the material was focused on an expert audience.\u00a0 Finally, some websites that did provide some good plain language explanations on patent law were commercial sites that were marketing patent services, and from an ethical standpoint we were uncertain about appearing to promote one service over another by sending students to these sites.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Student difficulty with the reading content was revealed during the discussion forum, quizzes, and live chat sessions.\u00a0 Instructors noticed that while\u00a0<\/strong>students could often repeat basic definitions of concepts accurately,\u00a0<\/strong>they sometimes had difficulty providing examples and expressing concepts in their own words.\u00a0 Students also often start out the workshop with misconceptions about copyright or patents.\u00a0 They might ask about \u201ccopyrighting\u201d mechanical devices during the Copyright and Fair Use session or confuse copyright and plagiarism.\u00a0[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Conversely, during a Patent Basics class, a student asked about patenting a song.\u00a0 In anticipation of some common misconceptions and confusion, we assign readings during the first week that addressed those most commonly confused topics.<\/p>\n Some topics and assumptions dominate even when the proposed question does not really relate to a topic.\u00a0 This is particularly true for concepts like fair use or the belief that having a patent granted will result in making a lot of money.\u00a0 For example, we often find that discussions about copyright ownership, descriptions of specific rights, and copyright duration, can be overshadowed by student concerns about fair use.\u00a0 Likewise, questions and concerns about how to patent one\u2019s own work dominate early in the patent session.\u00a0 In fact, it is fairly common for students to enter the workshop from the perspective of personal ownership, students want to know how to protect their own work.\u00a0 While we address these questions as they arise, the workshop focus is from the perspective of the researcher\u2019s responsibilities when using the work of others.<\/p>\n Tools<\/strong><\/p>\n The goal of the NSF grant was to use Web 2.0 technologies to take advantage of online collaboration and flexibility.\u00a0 Each institution worked with their distance learning departments to employ technological tools and platforms already in use at their institutions.\u00a0 Initial planning called for the use of RSS feeds, chats, blogs, wikis, and document sharing software to facilitate asynchronous and synchronous delivery.\u00a0 In fact, different tools were used on each campus throughout the course of the testing and development of the workshop which demonstrates how easily the workshop can be modified to suit the needs of various institutions.<\/p>\n At UTPA Blackboard 8.0 was used the first year in 2011, and Blackboard 9.0 in 2012 for course delivery.\u00a0 UTPA has since refined the use of tools to include Blackboard\u2019s discussion boards, chat, and test functions.\u00a0 Wikis were used the first year at UTPA, however it was determined that there was generally very unequal participation.\u00a0 Some students completed an overwhelming amount of the work in the wikis while others contributed very little, yet each student had to be individually graded.\u00a0 Discussion boards have replaced wikis at UTPA.\u00a0 Questions relating to each week\u2019s topics are established as threads, and students are given deadlines to answer the questions.\u00a0 Discussion boards allow students time to formulate their thoughts and responses.\u00a0 Chat sessions allow the instructors to review that week\u2019s topics, lead synchronous discussions, and provide students with an easy way to ask any remaining questions.\u00a0 Quizzes are another method to determine whether the students understand the topics.\u00a0 Standard email and the use of Blackboard\u2019s RSS-like functions to push announcements and feedback to students are also important for course communication and maintaining momentum and student interest.<\/p>\n Student Participation<\/strong><\/p>\n MTU and UTPA have many similarities in student participation.\u00a0 Both institutions have strong STEM graduate programs, and a significant student population for whom English is not the dominant language.\u00a0 The grant was initially written in order to test how using web 2.0 technologies will help assist in teaching complex intellectual property topics under those conditions.\u00a0 Variations in course design, however, evolved because of other differences in student culture.\u00a0 As a largely residential campus, MTU found that their students requested more face-to-face interaction.\u00a0 At UTPA, which is a largely commuter campus in which many students also work, students preferred fewer face-to-face meetings, and more online interactions which they could complete at work or at home.<\/p>\n MTU had designed the workshop for graduate STEM students. The first semester the workshop was offered at UTPA we advertised for graduate STEM students, but immediately had requests from undergraduates and non-STEM students to participate.\u00a0 As a result, the workshop was opened to all students.\u00a0\u00a0 Based on further demand, we have since opened the workshop to anyone associated with the university, including faculty and staff.\u00a0 People have indicated different motivations for participating.\u00a0 Because this is an extended workshop requiring an average of 3 to 4 hours per week, motivation is one of the keys to success.\u00a0 One of the most common reasons participants enrolled was for personal interest.\u00a0 Some of the participants were creators, authors, or inventors, and wanted to learn more about how to protect their creations. We made sure that this workshop was designed to not only provide information on how to protect your own intellectual property, but how you should properly and legally use others creations.\u00a0 Another common motivation was for occupational reasons, for example, they were pre-law, or were interested in working for the patent office, or just wanted to learn more about copyright and patents.\u00a0 We have found that because of varying demands on student\u2019s time it is very helpful to have the support of faculty.\u00a0 We have had several students who would sign up for the workshop, get busy with their other classes, and drop, only to sign up again.\u00a0 In a sense, our workshop may be compared to MOOCS (Massive Open Online Courses).\u00a0 Even though it isn\u2019t available to the whole web community, the motivations for people who sign up are similar to MOOCS participants.\u00a0 Some participants are \u201ccommitted learners\u201d and others are simply \u201cbrowsers,\u201d people who are interesting in seeing what the class is all about but who do not follow through by actively participating (Koller, Ng, Do, & Chen, 2013).\u00a0\u00a0 Also, like MOOCS, we have faced attrition (Rayyan, Seaton, Belcher, Pritchard, & Chuang, 2013) which, according to the student feedback we received, occurs when the time and effort to complete the workshop conflicts with other personal obligations[4]<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n This workshop series on copyright and patents can be considered a best practice for a number of reasons.\u00a0 This workshop series helps fill a knowledge gap by providing students with an opportunity to study patent and copyright in detail.\u00a0 Participant feedback has been overwhelmingly positive both during the workshop and in response to our requests for feedback after course completion.\u00a0 Although retention and follow-through by registrants present challenges, participants who do complete the workshop show a dramatic increase in understanding of the topics.\u00a0 The online format and use of Web 2.0 technologies for course delivery provided students with the flexibility to work around demanding schedules of classes, work, and other obligations making the workshop more convenient than if they had to travel to a physical class.\u00a0 In addition, with the use of resources already in use by the University such as technological platforms, like Blackboard, Library subscription databases, and openly accessible Internet resources, the workshop did not present a significant financial investment beyond staff time required for instruction.\u00a0\u00a0 This project has proven to be replicable by being implemented successfully on two different campuses and operated by different staff.\u00a0 Both MTU and UTPA continue to offer the program on their respective campuses, revised and refined according to each institution\u2019s unique needs. As a result, we are now able to offer an adaptable model to provide basic introductions to these topics.\u00a0 Given the success experienced by MTU and UTPA we believe that this program can successfully be adopted by other institutions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0The student used this website to support his assertion that one can be sued for plagiarism. This is not an accurate assumption, since plagiarism is not governed by copyright law but is rather an ethical norm that is a part of academic culture.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0Discussing the difference between transformative and derivative works is often very difficult as the concept is very abstract.\u00a0 The copyright law provides a definition for derivative works, but there is no official legal definition for transformative works.\u00a0 Instead, transformativeness is defined on a case by case basis and is based on interpretations made by the courts in copyright infringement cases.\u00a0 Concepts that are open to this type of interpretation are often very difficult to explain without relying on court opinions, which of course, rely on understanding legal phraseology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0One common confusion is that citing a quoted source will protect oneself from committing infringement, however citing sources only helps one avoid plagiarism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0When students drop, the most frequent reason given is that they are too busy to take on work in addition to their credit-based coursework.\u00a0 Many of these students request to be notified the next time the course is offered.<\/p>\n Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).\u00a0 (2000).\u00a0\u00a0Information literacy competency standards for higher education<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ala.org\/acrl\/standards\/informationliteracycompetency<\/a>.<\/p>\n ALA\/ACRL\/STS Task Force on Information Literacy for Science and Technology.\u00a0 (2006).\u00a0\u00a0Information literacy standards for science and engineering\/technology<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ala.org\/acrl\/standards\/infolitscitech<\/a>.<\/p>\n Crews, K.\u00a0 (2014, January 15).\u00a0\u00a0Columbia copyright advisory office: Copyright, fair use, and education<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/copyright.columbia.edu\/copyright\/<\/a><\/p>\n Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C. & Chen, Z.\u00a0 (2013).\u00a0 Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth.\u00a0EDUCAUSE review online<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.educause.edu\/ero\/article\/retention-and-intention-massive-open-online-courses-depth-0<\/a><\/p>\n Koman, R. (2005, February 24).\u00a0 Remixing culture: An interview with Lawrence Lessig.\u00a0\u00a0O\u2019Reilly policy development center<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.oreillynet.com\/pub\/a\/policy\/2005\/02\/24\/lessig.html<\/a><\/p>\n Rayyan, S., Seaton, D.T., Belcher, J., Pritchard, D.E.,\u00a0 & Chuang, I.\u00a0 (2013, October 11).\u00a0\u00a0Participation and performance in 8.02x electricity and magnetism: The first physics MOOC from MITx.\u00a0 arXiv<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved fromhttp:\/\/arxiv.org\/pdf\/1310.3173v1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Stanford University Libraries. (2014).\u00a0Copyright & fair use<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/fairuse.stanford.edu<\/a><\/p>\n Turnitin.\u00a0 (2005).\u00a0\u00a0Plagiarism<\/em>:\u00a0Plagiarism FAQ<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ysu.edu\/maag\/find\/plagiarism.html<\/a><\/p>\n