Acceptable Use Policy

What is an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)?

An acceptable use policy is a protocol for the use of computers, network systems, emails and social networks for the students, staff, parents and community. It may even go as far as to include netiquette and digital citizenship.

What should be included in it?

Based on reading Roblyer (2016) I would include “safety and privacy issues” of sales pitches, spamming, access for people outside the school, identification and cyberbullying. Common Sense Education (n.d.) has a list of suggestions which include starting with a “philosophy or vision to frame it, defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior and a legal disclaimer”.

For this course, I am working on technology integration in a dual enrollment course that has 11 and 12 grade students taking a introduction to marketing course at a community college. Students in this course will be using the community college email, learning management system and network. I am comparing the AUP at four community colleges.

Institutional Examples:

Front Range Community College
Front Range Community College’s Computer Use Procedure and Electronic Communication Policy begins with a statement on the necessity of all students having access to computers with Internet access to complete assignments, do research and function as a college student. The second paragraph explains that the policy contains the philosophy for faculty, student and staff use. The third paragraph is statement on how computer labs are susceptible to viruses and how the college is not liable if you contract a virus. It then directs the reader to look at the policy in full. When you click on that link, this is the screen you are directed to:


The next paragraph covers P2P file sharing and directs you to an EDUCAUSE site with free and legal entertainment. This was the only community college policy site I saw that directed users to options for free videos and music. This intrigued me so I clicked on the link for rationale.  EDUCAUSE (2013) stated “the Higher Education Opportunity Act requires all colleges and universities to offer legal alternatives to unauthorized downloading”. The link sent me to a 404 message. Common Sense (n.d.) did suggest establishing a review and update schedule for AUPs.


The last portion of the policy page is three paragraphs discussing copyright laws with links to which are actually very informative.

Iowa Lakes Community College

Iowa Lakes AUP starts with what could be a philosophy statement on how usage should be consistent the college’s mission. I do appreciate that in expectations it mentions “free flow of information and does not condone censorship”.  It does refer to its student handbook and federal, state and local laws. It has sections on individual responsibilities and prohibited conduct which are similar to the “Do’s and Don’ts” suggested by Common Sense Education (n.d.). It also lists a number of services where it may limit bandwith. This list includes games, MySpace, social network sites and P2P sharing. It ends with a paragraph on systems monitoring and how it “reserves the right to restrict all accounts for cause or convenience at any time” (Acceptable Use Policy, n.d.)

Hillsborough Community College

Hillsborough’s AUP has an initial posting date of 2019 and lists a revision date in 2010. It divides the AUP into two portions, purpose which is a one sentence section and second section which is policy. The second section starts with access (section 2.1) which is a mission statement on college sanctioned activities. Unlike Front Range and Iowa Lakes, Hillsborough’s AUP focuses on data and network security. The largest section 2.4 Network and System Integrity is devoted to worms, viruses, denials of service and hacking either the system or hacking using the system. There are also sections on fraud, political activities and harassment. The last section of the AUP encourages everyone to report irresponsible or inappropriate use to the Vice President of Information Technology.

Sandhills Community College

More than the other three community college AUP sites, Sandhills looks more like a terms of service or a TOS. It makes no reference to the Student Code of Conduct and reads like the person who wrote it might have experience more with software users than students. It has five sections: Purpose, Definition, Use Agreement, User Responsibilities and Establishing Procedures. I don’t find fault with it being concise. I just wonder if it this was the work of a committee of stakeholders as suggested by Common Sense Media (n.d.) or if one individual from the office of information technology wrote it.


1-to-1 Essentials – Acceptable Use Policies (n.d.). Common Sense Education. Retrieved from

Acceptable Use Policy (n.d.). Iowa Lakes Community College. Retrieved from (n.d.) U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved from

Frequently asked questions about copyright. (n.d.) U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved from

Legal sources of online content. (2013, May 16) EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology Into Technology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.



Video Integration

Video Integration Vlog

If you are interested feel free to also take a look at these also.

Video Library

Video Enhanced Lesson Plan


Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Chee, Y. S. (1995). Cognitive apprenticeship and its application to the teaching of Smalltalk in a multimedia interactive learning environment. Instructional Science, 23, 133–161.

Gladwell, M. (2004, February). Choice, happiness and spaghetti sauce. Ted. [YouTube Video] Retrieved from

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., and Weigel, M. (2006) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved

Office of Educational Technology, U.S Department of Education (2016). Future ready learning: Reimaging the role of technology in education. Retrieved from


Defending the Basic Suite

According to Roblyer (2016) “three of the most widely used software support tools are word processing, spreadsheet and presentation programs”. This isn’t only education, you’ll also find the basic suite listed as a required skill on most electronic job posting.

Looking at the 2016 National Education Plan, these foundational tools are not mentioned but “engaging and empowering through technology” (Office of Educational Technology, p. 7) is put forward as the goal. Students will need to be fluent with these three tools before they move on to more advanced programs. This would be aided by having the teachers also fluent in these three tools.

The two basic suites I see used in education and the workplace are Microsoft Office and Google Documents or Apps (Bradley, n.d.). Most of the instructors while not necessarily fluent in these three production tools, do use them and have their students use them for assignments. While Roblyer (2016) writes that all basic suite tools provide “support for interaction and collaboration” I have preferences when using these tools and as have also seen brand loyalty among my college’s faculty and instructors. Microsoft Office is the official software of our community college system. Google Apps is being used by some early adopters but there has also been resistance. Having to create a gmail account to access google has been considered an impediment to using Google documents. There is also a belief that on a collaborative Google document that someone may go in and erase all material. Google Apps not being officially approved by the systems IT is also a reason often cited in committee meetings.

I do believe our instructors and our students should be able to move between these two popular basic suites. This includes being able to use these production tools on mobile apps. Microsoft Office is now available on mobile (Ravencraft, 2014) and compares favorably to Google Drive. This basic suite is the foundation for our students to go on to more creative and complex tools in and out of the classroom.


Bradley, T. (n.d.) Office 365 vs. Google Docs showdown: Feature by Feature. Retrieved from

Office of Educational Technology, U.S Department of Education (2016). Future ready learning: Reimaging the role of technology in education. Retrieved from

Ravenscraft, E. (2014, November 14). Battle of the mobile office suites: Microsoft Office vs. Google Docs. Retrieved from

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology Into Technology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

5 Types of Software

Integrating instructional software in a Principles of Marketing curriculum has given me the opportunity to investigate the five categories of software from Roblyer (2016).

Drill and Practice

Drill and practice software allows student to repeat tasks, procedures and even vocabulary until the skill or knowledge is internalized. It is a behaviorist approach to learning but it is useful for what Gagné and Bloom call “automacity or automatic recall of prerequisite skills” (as cited in Roblyer, 2016, p. 80).

Example: Kahoot
For marketing classes, I have found Kahoot can provide a flash card activity in a game show format that quizzes student. While the company that created Kahoot recommends that the questions been done in a group creating a campfire environment, it can be used for individual students. I can easily load up vocabulary words and concepts in question format and add relevant pictures and screenshots.

Relative Advantage

Three of the benefits of this Drill and Practice software is “immediate feedback, increased motivation and that it can save the teacher time” (Roblyer, 2016, p. 80).  It does provide the student with individual feedback. I don’t have to grade basic vocabulary and concepts. In my class, I have seen students prefer this to other paper and pencil short classroom assessment techniques. The additional advantage of using Kahoot is introducing marketing students to a software that could be used during marketing event for gamification or as a motivator.


Tutorials provide step by step instructions with screenshots, audio and video. The ability to go through the process at your own pace and rewind make tutorials ideal for self-learning. Video tutorials have become popular with the flipped classroom learning strategy (Roblyer, 2016, p. 86).

Example: Survey Monkey

Survey Monkey is survey software that regularly produces new tutorial videos and even has its own YouTube Channel. Three videos I have assigned to my students have been the following:

One Minute Demo to Start in Survey Monkey

How to Create Ranking Questions in Survey Monkey

How to Embed Video in Your Survey

Relative Advantage

In marketing, professional continually use tutorial both corporate created and used created to learn how to use new software and social media. Using tutorials in the classroom is an opportunity for students to become familiar with a learning tool that they will use throughout their career. The relative advantages of tutorials is that the “learner can do these at their own pace, structure their own and the tutorials are available even if the teacher isn’t (Roblyer, 2016, p. 86).

Problem-Solving Software

Problem solving software may be difficult to describe for most content but you as a teacher will know it when you see it. For marketing much like mathematics (Roblyer, 2016, p. 97). there is a problem of visualization.

I use which is a mind mapping tool. In marketing, students need to be able to create supply chains graphics, price point visuals and illustrate the marketing mix. provides a way to create a parent, child and branching visual that can easily be saved as a JPEG.

Relative Advantage

The advantages that provides is that it does provide a visualization. The graphics and colors are pleasant and create interest. It goes beyond declarative knowledge to allow students to understand concepts and sketch them out. Since every one of our students is a consumer, they often think that they are experts in marketing. Mind maps allow them to actually piece out the process and see how the different components of the marketing mix are related.


A simulation is the creation of a “real or imaginary environment or system” (Rieber, 1996). Alessi and Trollip based on interactions divide simulations into “physical simulations, iterative simulation, procedural simulations and situational simulations  (as cited in Roblyer, 2016, p. 87 -88).

Example: MixPro
MixPro is a proprietary simulation that has students take on the role of a junior brand manager. While it was designed for MBAs and for executive training I have used it for undergraduate students and for State FFA marketing plan classes.

Relative Advantage

MixPro is a situational simulation “where students are presented with problems and asked to react”(Roblyer, 2016, p. 88). For marketing students it does have the student role play in what is close to a real activity. The relative advantages are that “provides a safe environment, it compresses time and allows students access to a learning environment not possible in real life” (Roblyer, 2016, p. 89 – 90). Playing a business simulation gives students a systems view of an organization.

Instructional Games

According to Roblyer (2016) instructional games can “replace worksheets and exercises, be uses as a reward, teach non-cognitive skills and teach cooperative group skills” (p. 96). I find this to be a limited view of the potential for games to teach content and bridge the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains proposed by Bloom (1956). For marketing games can be used for advertising, creativity and even ethics.

Example: McDonald’s Video Game
McDonald’s Video Game is not for children. I would recommend it for grades 11 and 12 as well as undergraduate courses in marketing. In this instructional, students not only have the opportunity to play different roles in the food supply chain for McDonald’s but also to think about the environmental impact and how McDonald’s treats it workers.

Relative Advantage

The advantages for using this game is that the students are able to look at both a supply chain and how it fits into the marketing mix while in an “intrinsically motivating learning environment” (Rieber, 1996). Malone and Lepper consider these “intrinsically motivating characteristics to be challenge, curiosity, fantasy and control” (as cited in Roblyer, 2016, p. 80).  Students receive a richer look at conditions and issues with industry supply chains.


Image Credit: McDonald’s Videogame by Molleindustria – Some rights reserved CC 2006


Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc

Kahoot. (n.d.) Retrieved from

Molleindustria. (n.d.) Retrieved from

Pedercini, P. (2006). McDonald’s Videogame. [Video game]. Italy: Molleindustria.

Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational technology research and development, 44 (2), 43-58.

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology Into Technology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Slack. (n.d.) Retrieved from

Stratx. (n.d.) MixPro. Retrieved from

[Survey Monkey]. (2012, December 12).  How to Create Ranking Questions in Survey Monkey. [Video File]. Retrieved from

[Survey Monkey]. (2013, March 13). How to Embed Video in Your Survey. [Video File]. Retrieved from

[Survey Monkey]. (2011, December 5). One Minute Demo to Start in Survey Monkey. [Video File]. Retrieved from


Vision Statement

Technology as a new literacy.

Technology is the new literacy for students. It is a broad statement but technology fluency on the part of the learner and seamless integration of technology by the teacher is the overriding goal of technology in my teaching and learning environment. I want to close the digital use divide gap. I would like my students to fully participate as global citizens who are to contribute, create and lead.

The U.S. Office of Educational Technology in the Department of Education reports on a “digital use divide gap” (2016, p. 5) in the 2016 National Education Technology Plan. The divide is between learners who use technology for passive consumption and learners who use technology actively and creatively (U.S. Office of Education Technology, 2016, p. 5).

The goal for the use of education technology is to have students develop skills in this new literacy. These skills are not as simple as using Microsoft, Excel and safely surfing the Internet. Students should be able to be active global citizens. Our students should be able to connect to information and people around the world. Their voice should be heard and their access to people, information and knowledge should not be limited because of their geographic location. These skills were outlined in Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture (Jenkins et al., 2006), an occasional paper written for the MacArthur Foundation.


Image 1. New Media Skills from Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. (Jenkins et al., 2006).

While none of these skills specifically mention a technology, all of these skills require a fluency that allows the learner to seamlessly navigate from platform to platform and use technology as a creator and not just a consumer. Teachers need to also develop the skill set to allow them to seamlessly integrate technology into their classroom. Our teachers who may have learned a behaviorist or constructivist based pedagogy will need to learn how to use a connectivist pedagogy.


Image 2. Principles of Connectivism from Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. (Siemens, 2004)

Connectivist (Siemens, 2004) is an educational theory that takes into account that our students will be learning for the rest of their lives and allows teachers to integrate critical thinking, exploration and creativity in student use of technology. In the end, technology may not be a new literacy for our students but also for our teachers.

Vision Slides


2016 National Educational Technology Plan (2016). Office of Educational Technology.

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., and Weigel, M. (2006) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved

Office of Educational Technology, U.S Department of Education (2016). Future ready learning: Reimaging the role of technology in education. Retrieved from