User talk:GibsOfficial/privacy in higher education

Gloria's peer review
Your topic is very informative and provides a lot of information regarding privacy in higher education. It is especially helpful for readers with no experience dealing with higher education privacy issue. My suggestion is that maybe you can restructure the sections to make it easier to follow for inexperience reader on this topic. --GloriaGu2018 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for giving my advice on restricting my sections. As you mentioned in class, I will place the history sub-section on top and even make its own section. GibsOfficial (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Peer review
I agree with Gloria that you should restructure the order of the article so it is easier to follow, this can include moving the historically section higher up within the Social networks tab, and creating a subsection called Acts, that includes FERPA, HIPPA, and etc,. I would suggest rewording the first couple of sentences within the Medical records section to fix some grammatical errors, but the preceding section on Loco Parentis is very well written. Overall great work!Class20 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will move the history section up and will make a section of Acts including FERPA, HIPAA, and CMIA. I will also re-word the sentences in the Medical records section, thanks again. GibsOfficial (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your draft! Your topic is very interesting to me. I think you’re doing a great job at adding important information. When I first accessed the article I was a bit thrown off by the headings. All of your headings are bold right after each other and it made it a bit confusing to understand each section. In terms of content, I think your sections are organized correctly. I think just the formatting threw me off a bit. Also, would data breaches and privacy concerns are under a mutual subheading? I don’t know what the correct way to categorize it is but it’s just a thought. Overall I think you have a good set of reliable sources and your article contains neutral content. The biggest thing for me when reading your article was that the formatting of the sections and subsections made it confusing to understand or differentiate different sections. Great job so far! I look forward to reading more of your article!

Jaysdayy (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my article draft! I am working on structuring where my information goes and currently having a bit of trouble as to where things should go and how I should do my headings but I will continue to work on it. Would you have any suggestions on how I should fix my headings to make them more clear? I previously had data breaches and privacy concerns under different headings but changed everything to be under privacy concerns. I will continue working on my format, thanks! GibsOfficial (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Peer Review
First off, your article covers a lot of different areas within your topic which is awesome and deserves respect! Perhaps in the introduction you could mention what other individuals have privacy rights in the education system besides students (because you say "individuals in the education system" in the first sentence - does that include non-students?). Moving on, I feel like "1970s Perspective" is kind of a very specific heading for that section - perhaps you could make it something like "Historical Perspectives" that way you could include some information from studies before or after the 1970s. I like that you include a controversies section at the end; that is a good way to present different points of view without creating bias. I think the way the article is organized, though, could probably be improved a bit. For example, aren't data breaches, medical records, etc. also privacy concerns? They are each their own separate subheading, but they seem related. Also, everything is under the main heading "Privacy in Higher Education" - maybe you could split the article up a bit more. Since you are covering so many different topics, you might want to think about the best way to organize the information so that it makes sense for a reader who has no background knowledge. For instance, it might be useful for a reader to know the details of FERPA before going into the specifics of data breaches and the like. I look forward to learning more about the controversies, especially in the UC Berkeley section! Great job so far!--Prizmic (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review! In the introduction, I am kind of going off of what was already written and think that I am primarily sticking with students because that is the information I have found. Perhaps I will make the introduction more direct and make it about students only for now until someone else comes and perhaps adds more non-student information. Also, I changed my heading to "Historical Perspectives" thank you for that suggestion! I am currently working on the organization of my draft, that is my biggest issue right now but I will look more into it to organize each section where it best belongs. For now, I moved everything under privacy concerns but so far am still debating about where exactly to place data breaches. Also, I will make sure to include FERPA before I delve into information. I am just trying to figure out where to implement it because there is a section that already exists within the article that talks about FERPA. Thanks again for your useful feedback! GibsOfficial (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Newest Review (final version)
Review Below I have provide primarily grammar/sentence structure edits by section, followed by an overview and some ideas for a change in organization.

For the first sentence remove “broad area of”, and the “the” before privacy in education. Revision: The majority of educational privacy concerns revolve around the protection of …etc,. Reword “especially if they are minors”, or exclude it, it makes the sentence wordy.
 * First paragraph**

Change sentence to Since the 1970's, the commonly held perspective was that the right to privacy was an evaluation of individual worth. Remove threatened in second sentence I don’t understand what you are trying to say in the second and third sentence to provide feedback on how to make it more concise Remove “and yet, even in…. onwards” of last sentence
 * Historical perspective**

(facebook) first sentence write informal and formal settings instead of the extra verbiage. Reword second sentence, I am confused as tow whether the students do block instructors? If they do, reword the sentence so that is says “Students in higher education often use Facebook censors to block….”
 * Social Networks**

Very well written and concise 1st and second paragraph. Third paragraph gets a little confusing. For example, in the first sentence of the third paragraph, I don’t understand what you are trying to convey.
 * Learning Analytics**

When you say threaten them, who is them?
 * Data Breaches**

Flawless section, well-written. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) in Higher Education Very well written section (this includes in loco parentis)
 * Preventative Measures**

Within student records there is a “differentiation”…. Remove "is more of a legal concept and"
 * Privacy vs. Confidentiality**

I am confused as to how 9/11 relates to this, go more in-depth into what this entails.
 * Students With Disabilities in Higher Education (under educational records?)**

Well-written section.
 * Foreign Students (under educational records?)**

Put the Other non-governmental acts that protect the right to privacy as bullet points. Otherwise well written, I see you got the grove on the Wikipedia writing style.
 * Privacy Assessment**

First sentence:The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 protects information privacy by protecting data that is …..; this act is legally more restrictive than FERPA in regards to confidentiality.
 * Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996**

They claim that medical records are difficult to access but when they are accessible…., it encourages research opportunities at the risk of privacy and confidentiality infringement.
 * Integration of Mental and Physical Records**

First sentence revision: Since technology continues to revolutionize medical records, electronic health records have become more accessible. Potentially split the last sentence into two sentences to allow for a less abrupt ending of the section.
 * Electronic Health Records**

Revise sentence so it says “and the law was unsuccessful”.. patient refusal to share personal information. The last sentence of the paragraph sounds like you are describing HIPPA, explain how this is this more stringent then HIPPA?
 * Minnesota State Law**

Overview Overall I think that you definitely have all of the information down, and are in the process of refining the writing through grammar, mistakes and maybe a little organizational shift. I have listed some of the grammar mistakes I saw above, but otherwise believe that the article is very well-written. As I noticed you wrote above my suggestions for organization are that:

1Privacy in Higher Education

2.Historical Perspective

3Privacy Concerns 3.1College Dormitory Searches (from existing page)

3.2Social Networks

3.2.1 Facebook

3.3Learning Analytics

3.4Data Breaches

3.4.1Preventative Measures

4 Records in Higher Education

4.1.In Loco Parentis

4.2Privacy vs. Confidentiality

4.3Educational Records in Higher Education

4.3.1Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) in Higher Education

4.4Medical Records in Higher Education

4.4.1Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

4.4.2Integration of Mental and Physical Records

4.4.3Electronic Health Records

5Student and professional Archetypes?

5.1Students With Disabilities in Higher Education (under educational records?)

5.2Foreign Students (under educational records?)

5.3Librarians (under educational records?)

5.3.1Privacy Assessment

5.4 Role of Campus Privacy Officers

6. State law

6.1Minnesota State Law

6.2Massachusetts State Law

7Controversies

7.1 UCB

4.1UC Berkeley (ask Locnahmen or Lisa for PowerPoint)

7.2University of Oregon

7.3Harvard University

8 Refernces Class20 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. I will take your suggestions into consideration and change my annotation and syntax issues. Also, thanks for providing a suggestion on how the structure of my article should be. GibsOfficial (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Peer Review by Jaysdayy
Hi,

It is so exciting to see your article on the mainspace! I like that your section begins with a historical perspective which I think makes an easy transition to the rest of the article. Your section has given me a perspective on privacy and higher education that I have never thought out before! I always noticed the papers that our parents had to sign before school started but I never realized that our records play such a big part on our privacy! I really enjoyed reading your article and I am blown away by this perspective in general. One of the things I noticed is that under the section Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, you hyperlinked two out of three cases but missed the case Shin v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Is there a reason for it? I think for the most part you are all set. I look forward to seeing your presentation!

Jaysdayy (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I hyperlinked the Shin v. Massachusetts case - turns out that page exists already which is super interesting and probably worth checking out. GibsOfficial (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs