Emerging Trends in Cyber Ethics and Education

(1)

(2)

Emerging Trends in Cyber Ethics and Education

Ashley Blackburn

University of Houston – Downtown, USA Irene Linlin Chen

University of Houston – Downtown, USA Rebecca Pfeffer

University of Houston – Downtown, USA

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series

(3)

IGI Global

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue

Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2019 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material.

The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Names: Blackburn, Ashley, 1979- editor. | Chen, Irene Linlin, 1961- editor. | Pfeffer, Rebecca, 1983- editor.

Title: Emerging trends in cyber ethics and education / Ashley Blackburn, Irene Linlin Chen, and Rebecca Pfeffer, editors.

Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017060869| ISBN 9781522559337 (h/c) | ISBN 9781522559344 (eISBN)

Subjects: LCSH: Internet in education. | Internet in education--Moral and ethical aspects. | Computer-assisted instruction. | Computer-assisted instruction--Moral and ethical aspects.

Classification: LCC LB1044.87 .E546 2019 | DDC 371.33/4--dc23 LC record available at https://

lccn.loc.gov/2017060869

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)

(4)

Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design

(AETID) Book Series

Editor-in-Chief: Lawrence A. Tomei, Robert Morris University, USA

Mission

ISSN:2326-8905 EISSN:2326-8913

Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and distributed to both child and adult learners. From distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of the educational experience and is also affecting the way educators communicate information to students.

The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series is a resource where researchers, students, administrators, and educators alike can find the most updated research and theories regarding technology’s integration within education and its effect on teaching as a practice.

• Social Media Effects on Education

• Virtual School Environments

• Higher Education Technologies

• Collaboration Tools

• Curriculum Development

• E-Learning

• Hybrid Learning

• Online Media in Classrooms

• Bring-Your-Own-Device

• Instructional Design Coverage

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances- educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. ©© 2019 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

(5)

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com Digital Technologies and Instructional Design for Personalized Learning Robert Zheng (University of Utah, USA)

Jessica Cannaday (Azusa Pacific University, USA)

Semire Dikli (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) Brian Etheridge (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) and Richard Rawls (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA)

Bin Zou (Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China) and Michael Thomas (University of Central Lancashire, UK)

Andrew Borchers (Lipscomb University, USA)

Prathiba Nagabhushan (St. Mary MacKillop College, Australia)

Manoj Kumar Singh (Mekelle University, Ethiopia) Zenawi Zerihun (Mekelle University, Ethiopia) and Neerja Singh (Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, India)

For an entire list of titles in this series, please visit:

https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678 For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit:

https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678

(6)

List of Reviewers

Franklin Allaire, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Matthew Fugate, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Shohreh Hashemi, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Yu-Han Hung, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Zhi Liu, Central China Normal University, China

Richard Alan McMahon, University of Houston – Downtown, USA Joseph O’Brien, University of Kansas, USA

Lorayne Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Ash Tiwari, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Tom Winn, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

(7)

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface...xiii Acknowledgment...xxi Chapter 1

Ethical.Dimensions.of.the.Increasing.Usage.of.New.Technologies.in.Virtual.

Education...1 John Nnaji, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

The. interactivity,. flexibility,. and. convenience. offered. by. information. and.

communication.technologies.have.led.to.an.educational.paradigm.shift.from.teacher- centered.model.to.learner-centered.whereby.computers.and.the.internet.allow.for.

active.involvement.of.all.participants.in.the.learning.process..However,.the.unbridled.

dynamics.in.the.growth.and.features.of.these.technologies.poses.several.ethical.

challenges.in.their.use.in.administering.the.essential.goal.of.education,.which.is.

to.foster.a.balanced.development.of.the.individual.through.appropriate.knowledge.

acquisition.and.experience..This.chapter.examines.various.ethical.conflicts.involved.in.

the.prevalent.usage.of.new.technologies.in.virtual.education..It.argues.that.technology.

is.malleable.by.nature..Therefore,.fomenting.mechanisms.that.promote.transmission.

of.socio-cultural.and.academic.values.would.serve.as.a.viable.approach.to.resolving.

peculiar.challenges.constantly.emanating.from.the.use.of.technology.in.education.

Chapter 2

Teachers.as.Models.of.Internet.Use...22 Thanh Trúc T. Nguyễn, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA

As.the.use.of.computers.increases.in.schools,.students’.primary.role.models.in.

computer.use.and.the.internet.are.their.teachers..However,.teachers.themselves.

are.still.learning.their.way.through.technology.in.education.and.how.to.best.use.

technology.to.support.student.learning..This.chapter.discusses.seven.issue.areas.in.

relation.to.cyber.ethics.and.decision.making.online.that.go.beyond.the.pedagogy.of.

technology.in.learning.contexts..In.particular,.the.chapter.is.focused.on.how.teachers.

(10)

can.model.and.conduct.best.practices.in.digital.copyright,.student.privacy,.student.

access,.digital.citizenship,.digital.communication,.social.media.and.empathy,.and.

digital.literacy.

Chapter 3

Moving.Urban.Students.Beyond.Online.Public.Voices.to.Digital.Participatory.

Politics:.A.Teacher’s.Journey.Shifts.Direction...40 Nicholas Lawrence, East Bronx Academy, USA

Joseph O’Brien, University of Kansas, USA Brian Bechard, Mission Trail Middle School, USA Ed Finney, Maple High School, USA

Kimberly Gilman, Hocker Grove Middle School, USA

The.authors.explore.a.teacher’s.10-year.journey.to.foster.his.urban.middle.school.

students’.public.voice.and.then.their.ability.to.engage.in.participatory.politics..

The.authors.first.provide.a.conceptual.and.experiential.context.for.how.the.teacher.

came.to.question.whether.cultivating.8th.grade.students’.online.public.voice.in.a.

U.S..history.was.enough..Second,.they.discuss.how.two.teachers.created.online.

interschool.deliberations.about.contemporary.issues.and.how.a.third.teacher.used.

low.and.high.tech.to.enable.her.students.to.take.civic.action..Third,.they.discuss.the.

essential.elements.of.an.online.participatory.learning.space..Fourth,.they.address.

the.challenges.of.integrating.digital.deliberations.about.contemporary.public.issues.

and.online.civic.action.into.a.U.S..history.curriculum..Finally,.they.present.how.they.

adapted.a.site.devoted.to.deliberations.about.just.war.in.the.context.of.U.S..history.

to.a.focus.on.just.action.in.a.contemporary.setting.

Chapter 4

Cyberbullying:.Safety.and.Ethical.Issues.Facing.K-12.Digital.Citizens...65 Terry Diamanduros, Georgia Southern University, USA

Elizabeth Downs, Georgia Southern University, USA

This.chapter.describes.cyberbullying.with.a.focus.on.K-12.students..Cyberbullying.

has.evolved.with.the.increased.use.of.information.and.communication.technology..

As.electronic.information.becomes.more.a.part.of.everyday.life,.there.has.been.

a.negative.aspect.to.the.use.of.computers.and.mobile.technology..Cyberbullying.

presents.a.complex.set.of.issues.that.can.negatively.impact.students’.safety.and.

wellbeing..Cyberbullying.includes.many.of.the.same.issues.as.traditional.bullying.

but. extends. the. aggression. beyond. the. physical. schoolyard.. In. addition. to. the.

cyberbully.perpetrator,.these.aggressive.acts.include.cybervictims.and.often.find.

the.cyberbully-victims.who.move.from.victim.to.perpetrator..This.chapter.explores.

the.safety.and.ethical.issues.facing.K-12.schools.and.the.challenges.associated.with.

this.electronic.form.of.aggression.

(11)

Chapter 5

Cybercitizens.at.Schools...91 Irene Linlin Chen, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Libi Shen, University of Phoenix, USA

In.recent.decades,.cyberethics,.cybersecurity,.and.cybersafety.have.been.the.center.

of.interest.at.schools..This.chapter.uses.a.case.study.approach.to.describe.the.issue.of.

cyberethics,.cybersafety,.and.cybersecurity.(3Cs).as.well.as.how.problems.of.these.

three.Cs.are.intermingled.to.become.general.cyberethics.issues.for.the.society..The.

chapter.also.promotes.good.cybercitizens.at.schools.because.it.is.of.great.importance.

for.the.school.districts.to.take.some.measures.to.improve.students’.knowledge.and.

awareness.of.cyberethics,.cybersafety,.and.cybersecurity,.to.enhance.the.safety.and.

security.of.school.infrastructure,.to.avoid.cyberbullying,.to.ensure.students.are.good.

cybercitizens,.and.to.help.train.teachers.to.be.cyber.professionals.

Chapter 6

Intentionally.Secure:.Teaching.Students.to.Become.Responsible.and.Ethical.

Users...118 Judith L. Lewandowski, Purdue University, USA

This.chapter.focuses.upon.the.need.to.intentionally.incorporate.the.principles.of.

digital.citizenship.as.an.integrated.curriculum.element..Specifically,.the.infusion.of.

information.security.and.cyberethics.principles.should.occur.at.the.same.time.and.

rate.as.the.use.of.technology.within.the.educational.setting..Through.the.development.

of.a.universal.curriculum.set,.the.author.provides.a.content.list.and.sample.strategies.

for.making.these.issues.a.natural.part.of.the.curricular.goals.of.these.courses.

Chapter 7

Learner-Developed.Case.Studies.on.Ethics:.Collaborative.Reflection.Between.

School.Librarians.and.Education.Technology.Learners...131 Lesley Farmer, California State University – Long Beach, USA

This.chapter.explains.how.case.studies.can.be.used.successfully.in.higher.education.

to.provide.an.authentic,.interactive.way.to.teach.ethical.behavior.through.critical.

analysis.and.decision.making.while.addressing.ethical.standards.and.theories..The.

creation.and.choice.of.case.studies.is.key.for.optimum.learning,.and.can.reflect.both.

the.instructor’s.and.learners’.knowledge.base..The.process.for.using.this.approach.

is. explained,. and. examples. are. provided.. As. a. result. of. such. practice,. learners.

support.each.other.as.they.come.to.a.deeper,.co-constructed.understanding.of.ethical.

behavior,.and.they.make.more.links.between.coursework.and.professional.lives..

The.instructor.reviews.the.students’.work.to.determine.the.degree.of.understanding.

and.internalization.of.ethical.concepts/applications,.and.to.identify.areas.that.need.

further.instruction.

(12)

Chapter 8

Student.Perceptions.of.Online.vs..Face-to-Face.Learning.in.Criminal.Justice:.

Considering.the.Ethical.Implications.of.Disparities...164 Alicia Marie Godoy, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

Rebecca Pfeffer, University of Houston – Downtown, USA

This.chapter.provides.an.overview.of.the.findings.from.a.study.of.students.at.a.four- year.university.who.were.surveyed.about.their.experiences.learning.in.both.online.

and.face-to-face.modalities..While.some.students.reported.perceived.equitableness.

between. their. experiences. in. online. and. face-to-face. classes,. there. were. some.

findings.that.demonstrated.the.need.for.further.inquiry..Of.note,.the.majority.(61%).

of.students.indicated.that.they.learned.more.or.much.more.in.face-to-face.classes.

than.online..Students.in.online.classes.were.also.much.less.likely.to.make.use.of.

faculty.office.hours.or,.in.some.cases,.to.even.have.contact.with.their.professors.at.

all..This.chapter.concludes.with.a.discussion.of.the.ethical.issues.corresponding.to.

the.disparity.between.online.and.traditional.learning.modalities.

Chapter 9

Learning.Behavioral.Differences.Among.Students.and.Ethical.Issues.in.a.

University.Cloud.Classroom.System...183 Zhi Liu, Central China Normal University, China

Hai Liu, Central China Normal University, China Hao Zhang, Central China Normal University, China Sannyuya Liu, Central China Normal University, China

In.a.private.learning.environment,.each.learner’s.interactions.with.course.contents.

are.treasured.clues.for.educators.to.understand.the.individual.and.collective.learning.

process..To.provide.educators.with.evidence-based.insights,.this.chapter.intends.to.

adopt.sequential.analysis.method.to.unfold.learning.behavioral.differences.among.

different.groups.of.students.(grade,.subject,.and.registration.type).in.a.university.

cloud.classroom.system..Experimental.results.indicate.that.sophomores.undertake.

more.learning.tasks.than.other.grades..There.are.significant.differences.in.task-related.

and.self-monitoring.behaviors.between.liberal.arts.and.science.learners..Registered.

learners.have.higher.participation.levels.than.non-registered.ones..Meanwhile,.a.

user.study.aiming.to.analyze.students’.learning.feelings.indicates.that.a.fraction.of.

students.have.dishonest.behaviors.for.achieving.a.good.online.performance..Finally,.

this.study.discusses.behavioral.ethical.issues.emerged.in.cloud.classroom,.which.

deserve.the.attention.of.educators.for.regulating.and.optimizing.the.online.learning.

process.of.students.

(13)

Chapter 10

Cybernetics,.Cyberethics,.and.Technologically.Enhanced.Learning...215 Howard A. Doughty, Seneca College, Canada

Cybernetics.is.the.science.of.communications.and.control..It.has.been.applied.to.

everything.from.household.thermostats.to.non-verbal.communication..Ethics.is.

the.study.of.beliefs.about.right.and.wrong.thought.and.behavior..The.synthetic.

subfield.of.cyberethics.deals.with.the.application.of.ethics.to.the.technologies.and.

practices.of.cybernetics..This.chapter.will.explore.a.definition.of.cybernetics.that.

goes.beyond.its.association.with.computers,.information.networks,.and.the.rights,.

roles,.and.responsibilities.of.people.involved.in.information.technology..This.more.

adventuresome.approach.will.embrace.broader.themes.in.education.and.offer.insights.

into.the.“box”.outside.of.which.we.are.relentlessly.being.told.to.think.

Chapter 11

Digital.Privacy.Across.Borders:.Canadian.and.American.Perspectives...234 Lorayne P. Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,

Canada

Heather Leatham, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada James Robertson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Bill Muirhead, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

This.chapter.examines.digital.privacy.and.key.terminology.associated.with.the.

protection. of. online. personal. information. across. two. countries. and. through. an.

education.lens..The.authors.raise.awareness.of.the.identified.risks.for.students.as.their.

online.presence.grows..The.authors.highlight.some.of.the.potential.consequences.

of.a.lack.of.awareness.of.the.risks.associated.with.sharing.information.online..They.

outline.the.obligations.of.multiple.parties.(from.the.vendor.to.the.end.user).when.

students.use.online.apps,.including.the.teachers.and.parents.who.want.to.protect.

students’.digital.privacy..Employing.policy.analysis.and.a.comparative.approach,.

they.examine.federal,.national,.and.local.legislation,.as.well.as.curriculum.responses.

to.this.issue.in.the.USA.and.Canada..When.the.authors.compare.federal.policy.

responses.from.these.two.countries,.they.find.that.they.differ.in.instructive.ways..

The.chapter.concludes.with.a.focus.on.risk.abatement,.including.solutions.and.

recommendations.

Compilation of References... 259 About the Contributors... 300 Index... 306

(14)

Preface

Most students today, whether in elementary schools, secondary schools, or post- secondary colleges or universities, have grown up with ample access to technology, both in their personal lives and as an integrated part of their learning (Taylor &

Steele, 2014). While the integration of technology in classrooms adds new dimension to both teaching and learning, it has another very important function: creating a foundation of knowledge of technology-based skills that will be imperative for students’ future participation in workplaces that are increasingly digital. With the rapid increase in the use of digital technologies in classrooms and workplaces worldwide, it is important that part of the training that takes place for students is how to be good cyber citizens, who are ethical in the decisions that they make and in their interactions with others across digital platforms.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of what is wrong and what is right and how we ought to live (Banks, 2017). Ethics help to form the moral principles that people in society utilize to make decisions about behavior. Cyber ethics, then, is a branch of ethics concerned with behavior in an online environment. Topics of particular concern related to cyber ethics in a school setting include plagiarism or any other appropriation of other people’s intellectual property (Baum, 2005), cyber bullying (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008) or any other use of a computer to harm others, and the use of technology to access resources that one should not access, such as the answer key to a textbook. These same concerns apply to the framework of cyber ethics outside of an educational setting, where there are additional concerns such as interfering with other people’s online work or computer files, accessing other people’s computer files or email without permission, or any other general use of computers or the Internet in ways that do not show respect for other people.

Concern about moral behavior in the digital sphere permeate most institutions with a presence online. As a result, it is increasingly common for individuals and organizations to develop and circulate standards for ethical digital behavior (Herschel

& Andrews, 1997). One such set of standards that has been widely adopted and adapted is “The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics,” developed by the Computer Ethics Institute (1996). These guidelines are as follows:

(15)

1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.

2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work.

3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people’s computer files.

4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.

6. Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid.

7. Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization or proper compensation.

8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people’s intellectual output.

9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing.

10. Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your fellow humans.

In this digital age, professions and academic disciplines alike have developed codes of ethics that guide professional decision-making and behavior. Harshman and colleagues (2005) explored how standards for technology-related professional practice have been adapted and implemented and how professions have dealt with the impact the Internet has had on the ability to abide by these standards and keep

“professional imposters” from harming the public. To this point, while codes of ethics, and even, to an extent, training on ethics, may exist in schools and the workplace, they are at times not enough to stop someone who is likely to behave in an immoral way. In addition, some may argue that the use of technology-enhanced learning can be in itself unethical.

There have been numerous recent examples of cyber and white-collar crimes nationwide and across our global society, as the Internet knows no borders. One of the more common forms of these crimes is using someone else’s personal information for profit. This could be a credit card number, a social security number, passwords, or other information offenders can use to “steal” another’s identity for financial gain. Phishing schemes and hacking into the servers of large corporations or data management systems allow offenders access to such information. As described by Harshman and colleagues (2005), offenders can also use the Internet to pose as a professional consultant and provide illegitimate services to unwitting victims. Like educators and educational administrators, legislators have had a difficult time keeping pace with this ever-changing landscape of criminality, especially that which happens on the “dark web.” The profession of security management, for which there are now undergraduate and graduate programs, is an example of how society has adapted to cyber and other white-collar criminals. Not only should students be aware of crimes, such as identity theft and fraud, in academic settings, they should also be taught that these acts are unethical, harmful, and can potentially lead them to involvement with

(16)

the criminal justice system. After all, it may be the academic setting where they are learning what may ultimately be used as the “tools of the cyber criminal trade,” such as coding, online systems management, or other technology-based skills.

Cyberbullying has also recently made news, especially when such acts end in the victim committing suicide. In 2010, Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge in New York after a roommate posted private behavior recorded by web cam on Twitter without Mr.

Clementi’s consent (The New York Times, 2012). Often, it is only after the suicide that loved ones find out how bad online bullying had been for the victim. Social media provides 24-hour access and the Internet can provide the anonymity needed for someone to commit acts of harassment and bullying with little chance of negative repercussions. These acts can even happen within the online learning environment as students have access to and can comment on one another’s ideas or works in progress. Ultimately, anyone can be a victim of this crime and while nearly all states have laws against bullying, not all have specific language regarding cyberbullying.

Here again, the law has yet to keep up with the reality of online social interaction.

Cyber ethical frameworks can and should be a growing part of knowledge acquisition at every level of educational attainment. The more sophisticated the environment, the more complex issues of cyber ethics, teaching cyber ethics, and the consequences of immoral online behavior can be discussed. These discussions should no longer be optional. Instead, given that our students are now digital natives, educators across the globe should spend time teaching their students about cybercitizenship, netiquette, and how we can make the online environment a safer place for all.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTENT IN THIS BOOK

Even in education, too often, we are seeing students as well as adults, including educators, misusing and abusing technology. Because so many events are recorded online, trust and norms are becoming of great importance for technology users.

The role of cyber ethics starts as soon as one clicks on the Internet. Cyber ethics, sometimes called “digital wellness” or “digital citizenship,” is important not only in the United States but all around the world. Several education associations have started to see the problems associated with cyber ethics and the needs to update the curriculum for the sake of preventive education to raise public awareness. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is the most commonly referred to in schools and colleges across the United States and even worldwide for technology curriculum. The latest addition to the ISTE Standards for Students (2016) describes the expectation for the Digital Citizen as follows:

(17)

Students recognize the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living, learning and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal and ethical.

The ISTE Standards for Educators (2017) has the following new expectation for teachers:

Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world. Educators:

3a. Create experiences for learners to make positive, socially responsible contributions and exhibit empathetic behavior online that build relationships and community.

3b. Establish a learning culture that promotes curiosity and critical examination of online resources and fosters digital literacy and media fluency.

3c. Mentor students in safe, legal and ethical practices with digital tools and the protection of intellectual rights and property.

3d. Model and promote management of personal data and digital identity and protect student data privacy.

The interactivity, flexibility, and convenience offered by information and communication technologies have led to an educational paradigm shift from a teacher-centered model to one that is learner-centered whereby computers and the Internet allow for active involvement of all participants in the learning process.

However, the unbridled dynamics in the growth and features of these technologies pose several ethical challenges in their use in administering the essential goal of education, which is to foster a balanced development of the individual through appropriate knowledge acquisition and experience. In the beginning chapter of the book, “Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies in Virtual Education,” Nnaji examines various ethical conflicts involved in the prevalent usage of new technologies in virtual education. He argues that technology is malleable by nature and that fomenting mechanisms that promote transmission of socio-cultural and academic values serve as viable approaches to resolving peculiar challenges constantly emanating from the use of technology in education.

This beginning chapter on the ethical dimensions of the increasing usage of new technologies is followed by a number of chapters regarding cyber ethics in K-12 education settings. Being responsible and respectful when using the Internet is

(18)

important for all teachers and students at schools as teachers play a critical role in prevention education. As the use of computers increases in schools, students’ primary role models in computer and Internet usage are their teachers. However, teachers themselves are still learning how to best implement technology in education and how best to use technology to support student learning. In the chapter, “Teachers as Models of Internet Use,” Nguyễn, an educator at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, discusses seven areas in relation to cyber ethics and decision-making online that go beyond the pedagogy of technology in learning contexts. In particular, Nguyễn’s chapter is focused on how teachers can model and conduct best practices in educating students about digital copyright, student privacy, student access, digital citizenship, digital communication, social media and empathy, and digital literacy.

The authors, including one university faculty member and four education practitioners, of the chapter “Moving Urban Students Beyond Online Public Voices to Digital Participatory Politics: A Teacher’s Journey Shifts Direction” explore a teacher’s ten-year journey to foster his urban middle school students’ public voice and then their ability to engage in participatory politics. The authors first provide a conceptual and experiential context for how the teacher came to question whether cultivating 8th grade students’ online public voice in a U.S. history course was enough.

Second, they discuss how two teachers created online interschool deliberations about contemporary issues and how a third teacher used low- and high-tech practices to enable her students to take civic action. The authors then discuss the essential elements of an online participatory learning space and address the challenges of integrating digital deliberations about contemporary public issues and online civic action into a U.S. history curriculum. Finally, the authors present how they adapted a site devoted to deliberations about just war in the context of U.S. history to a focus on just action in a contemporary setting.

Cyberbullying arises when a student is threatened, humiliated, harassed, embarrassed, or targeted by another student. The chapter, “Cyberbullying: Safety and Ethical Issues Facing K-12 Digital Citizens,” written by Diamanduros and Downs describes cyberbullying with a focus on K-12 students. Cyberbullying has evolved with the increased use of information and communication technology. As electronic information becomes more a part of everyday life, negative consequences accompany the positive and useful advantages of computers and mobile technology.

Cyberbullying presents a complex set of issues that can negatively impact students’

safety and well-being. Cyberbullying includes many of the same issues as traditional bullying but extends the aggression beyond the physical schoolyard. As we find with other crimes types, unfortunately, in some circumstances, cybervictims may, in turn, become cyberbullies themselves. This chapter explores the safety and ethical issues facing K-12 schools and the challenges associated with this electronic form of aggression.

(19)

In recent decades, cyberethics, cybersecurity, and cybersafety have been the center of interest at schools. Chen and Shen’s chapter, “Cybercitizens at Schools,”

uses a case study approach to describe the issue of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity (3Cs) as well as how problems related to these 3Cs are intermingled to become general cyberethics issues for society. The chapter also promotes good cybercitizenship at schools because it is of great importance for school districts to take measures to improve students’ knowledge and awareness of cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity, to enhance the safety and security of school infrastructure, to avoid cyberbullying, to ensure students are good cybercitizens, and to help train teachers to be cyber professionals.

Lewandowski of Purdue University echoes Chen and Shen’s call for cybercitizenship education in the K-12 context in her chapter, “Intentionally Secure: Teaching Students to Become Responsible and Ethical Users,” which focuses upon the need to intentionally incorporate the principles of digital citizenship as an integrated curriculum element. She proposes that specifically, the infusion of information security and cyberethics principles should occur at the same time and rate as the use of technology within the educational setting. Through the development of a Universal Curriculum Set, the author provides a content list and sample strategies for making these issues a natural part of the curricular goals of these courses.

Moving forward from the K-12 setting to the university setting, in “Learner- Developed Case Studies on Ethics: Collaborative Reflection Between School Librarians and Education Technology Learners,” Farmer explains how case studies can be used successfully in higher education to provide an authentic, interactive way to teach ethical behavior through critical analysis and decision-making while addressing ethical standards and theories. Numerous case study examples are provided throughout the chapter.

Following, Godoy and Pfeffer’s chapter, “Student Perceptions of Online vs.

Face-to-Face Learning in Criminal Justice: Considering the Ethical Implications of Disparities,” provides an overview of the findings from an empirical study of students at a four-year university who were surveyed about their experiences learning in both online and face-to-face modalities. While some students reported perceived equitableness between their experiences in online and face-to-face classes, there were some findings that demonstrated the need for further inquiry. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the ethical issues corresponding to the disparity between online and traditional learning modalities.

Due to their dynamic nature, cyber ethics issues transcend age groups, national borders, and geographical barriers. Continuing on the university level, in the chapter titled, “Learning Behavioral Differences Among Students and Ethical Issues in a University Cloud Classroom System,” Liu and colleagues describe how, in a private

(20)

learning environment, each learner’s interactions with course content are treasured clues for educators to understand individual and collective learning processes. To provide educators with evidence-based insights, the authors adopt a sequential analysis method to unfold learning behavioral differences among different groups of students in a university Cloud Classroom system. The authors further discuss behavioral ethical issues emerging in the Cloud Classroom, which deserve attention of educators for purposes of regulating and optimizing the process of online learning among university students.

Doughty’s chapter, “Cybernetics, Cyberethics, and Technologically Mediated Learning,” examines cyber ethics through the lens of a social scientist. He explores not only what lies behind the theory and practice of cybernetics as a mode of communication, but also how to understand larger questions of systems theory that bind ethical systems to one another and cybernetics to other fields. The chapter inquiries into how cybernetics relates to learning theory and technologically mediated learning practices and how universities can best serve their students through the use of technology.

In the final chapter of the book, “Digital Privacy Across Borders: Canadian and American Perspectives,” Roberson and colleagues examine digital privacy and key terminology associated with the protection of online personal information across two countries and through an educational lens. The authors raise awareness of the identified risks for students as their online presence grows. They outline the obligations of multiple parties from the vendor to the end user when students use online applications, and include perspectives of the teachers and parents who want to protect students’ digital privacy. Employing policy analysis and a comparative approach, they examine federal, national, and local legislation, as well as curriculum responses to this issue in the USA and Canada. When the authors compare federal policy responses from these two countries, they find that they differ in instructive ways. The chapter concludes with a focus on risk abatement, including solutions and recommendations. This chapter serves the purpose of eloquently wrapping up this text by highlighting the potential consequences of a lack of awareness and the threats associated with cyber ethics which result from users’ information sharing and other online behaviors.

REFERENCES

Banks, C. (2017). Criminal Justice Ethics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Baum, J. J. (2005). Cyberethics: The new frontier. TechTrends, 49(6), 54–55.

doi:10.1007/BF02763731

(21)

Computer Ethics Institute. (1996). The ten commandments of computer ethics.

Computer Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cpsr.org/dox/cei.html DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217–223. doi:10.1089/

cpb.2007.0008 PMID:18422417

Harshman, E., Gilsinan, J., Fisher, J., & Yeager, F. (2005). Professional ethics in a virtual world: The impact of the Internet on traditional notions of professionalism.

Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 227–236. doi:10.100710551-005-1417-4 Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H. (1997). Ethical implications of technological advances on business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 160–170. doi:10.1177/002194369703400203

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). National education technology standards and performance indicators for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). National education technology standards and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators

Taylor, J., & Steele, R. (2014). Impact and evolution of technology in college unions.

New Directions for Student Services, 145(145), 57–68. doi:10.1002s.20080 The New York Times. (2012). Tyler Clementi. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.

com/topic/person/tyler-clementi

(22)

Acknowledgment

First, the editors would like to thank each one of the chapter authors for their unique and important contributions to this text. We appreciate their expertise and the time they dedicated to this project.

Second, the editors would like to acknowledge each of the content reviewers for the valuable feedback they provided, enhancing the quality and coherence of each chapter. Some of the referees reviewed more than one chapter and some of our authors also served as referees. We especially thank them for taking on these dual roles in the preparation of this text.

Ashley Blackburn

University of Houston – Downtown, USA Irene Linlin Chen

University of Houston – Downtown, USA Rebecca Pfeffer

University of Houston – Downtown, USA

(23)

Chapter 1

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5933-7.ch001

ABSTRACT

The interactivity, flexibility, and convenience offered by information and communication technologies have led to an educational paradigm shift from teacher-centered model to learner-centered whereby computers and the internet allow for active involvement of all participants in the learning process. However, the unbridled dynamics in the growth and features of these technologies poses several ethical challenges in their use in administering the essential goal of education, which is to foster a balanced development of the individual through appropriate knowledge acquisition and experience. This chapter examines various ethical conflicts involved in the prevalent usage of new technologies in virtual education.

It argues that technology is malleable by nature. Therefore, fomenting mechanisms that promote transmission of socio-cultural and academic values would serve as a viable approach to resolving peculiar challenges constantly emanating from the use of technology in education.

Ethical Dimensions of the Increasing Usage of New Technologies

in Virtual Education

John Nnaji

University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

(24)

INTRODUCTION

One of the major areas where modern educational technologies have brought tremendous transformation is in the area of virtual education, also known as distance learning. Virtual education is the process whereby student learning processes occur in circumstances where the educator and the student are geographically separated, and the communication across this distance is accomplished by one or more forms of technology (Loane, 2001). Web and computer innovations have created increased opportunities in distance learning. Innovations such as Web 2.0 have largely been assimilated into the educational settings due to its ability to promote a more collaborative education whereby students could have a public space to interact with one another and content of the class. Recent years have witnessed enormous increase in its use and application for course work and academic purposes (Brown, 2012). Web 2.0 has been efficient in fostering learning habits like engagement, encouragement of autonomy, intentionality, reflection and community among students (Chen, Lambert

& Guidry, 2010; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009). Studies have shown that it not only helps in fostering student learning but it also enhances academic performance and teacher-student interaction (Hrastinski & Aghaee, 2012; Junco Heiberger & Loken, 2011; Mazman & Usluel, 2010).

However, the growing influx of new technologies in virtual education has generated new dimensions to the ethical challenges witnessed in integrating technology into the learning process and achieving desired outcome. There are issues relating to identity and confidentiality, surveillance and plagiarism etc. A representative national sample of 2,142 adults aged 18 years or older surveyed in the United States showed that only 29% agree that a course taken only online provides an equal educational value compared with a course taken in person in a classroom. The remaining sixty percent disapproved online taught courses as having equal educational value as physical classroom taught courses (Parker et al., 2011, 11). More still, roughly nine out of ten presidents of colleges (89%) believe that computers and the internet have played a major role in the increase in plagiarism on papers over the past decade (Parker, Lenhart & Moore, 2011, 17). Unlike the cheating systems prior to the advent of the internet, facilities provided by internet and computer technologies have made cheating much easier in online courses (Chiesl, 2007; Young, 2010). Other ethical challenges concern big data, whereby data mining is used as a tool for surveillance and control. Regrettably, not many students know that once any data is put on the internet it stays permanently regardless of the effects it might have on the subject of the data. One of the major ethical challenges with data mining in higher education is that it mostly analyses students as a collective and hardly recognizes that they are unique individuals engaging in the learning process. Likewise, the complex algorithms developed by scientists to mine data are uncritically accepted as fact just

(25)

because they were developed by them without considering the ethical challenges and burden such practice has on the learning process (Johnson, 2014). Besides, research has shown that most of the data clustering algorithms used in data mining are uncertainty-based and are not effective in big data (Tripathy, Seetha, & Murty, 2018, 1). Most privacy issues in online education are directly linked to big data.

Hence, these ethical challenges created by prevalent usage of new technologies in online education requires perennial mechanisms on situating the desirable balance between the social surround and digital surround in education (Nnaji, 2012, 45).

This chapter examines ethical issues such as digital plagiarism, illegal copying of copyrighted media, accuracy of information, breaches of informational privacy and confidentiality in the use of new technologies in virtual education. It argues that though these technologies have the potential for promoting collaborative learning and enhancing academic performance, such potentials would hardly be realised without sufficient ongoing professional development of teachers’ and instructors’

ICT skills on best ways to integrate them into teaching and administration. If teachers are not equipped with the required skills to effectively integrate the capabilities of the new technologies into their teaching methods the learning process will be adversely affected in two significant ways. Firstly, these technologies would remain underutilized. Secondly, their misuse will promote plagiarism, property right infringement and predatory behaviours among students thereby undermining the transmission of genuine academic and socio-cultural values.

Finally, the chapter commences with an explanation of distance learning and the modes of technology usage in learning. It continues with an illustration of the expansion of ´new technologies´ in distance learning, using the term ´new technologies´ to refer to web and computer technological innovations simultaneously.

Ethical issues concerning their increased use in learning are analysed. Also, how challenges in virtual education contribute to techno-ethical issues are highlighted.

Then, the importance of readjusting the objectives of learning technologies and understanding that technologies are mere tools incapable of taking the place of teachers and students in the learning process is discussed.

E-Learning

Even though formal university-based distance education started over a century ago with the establishment of the Correspondence University in 1882 by Cornell University, it was not until the 1990´s that the emergence of technology-enhanced distance education emerged. Correspondence courses are characterized as one or more courses in which the institution provides instructional materials and examinations are issued via mail to students who are separated from the instructor. However, with the expansion of computer and web technologies, e-learning has become the most recent

(26)

trend in technology-mediated education. Learning program and materials are hosted and available online, allowing students to learn, interact, and even earn degrees in the comfort of their own homes (Chapman, 2009, 1280). The integration of computers and web technologies into the learning system has allowed teachers and students to have access to a large world of information and experience beyond the classroom.

It opens up great opportunities for learning by enabling learners to access, extend, transform and share ideas and information in multi-modal communication styles and format. Clark and Mayer (2011) define e-learning as instruction delivered by any technological mode intended to promote learning. They state that, “e-learning courses include both content (that is, information) and instructional methods (that is, techniques) that help people learn the content,” (p. 9).

The use of technology in distance education tends to foster four major objectives which include: intensification of the educational process; increasing the efficiency of education, i.e, the criteria of evaluating results; facilitating access to quality education; and provision of additional skills unavailable through traditional methods.

The achievement of these objectives has invariably determined the modes of use of technology in online education. These technologies are used as communication, archival, expository and exploratory medium respectively.

As communication medium, they provide the facility for communications that could be both one-to-one and/or one-to-many, both synchronous and/or asynchronous.

They guarantee free and rapid dissemination of ideas and information. Advancement of the internet and spread of personal computers have made individuals to become active disseminators of information. It is a development that has created a profound shift in the control of information sharing in a society, which used to be the sole right of governments, schools and organisations. Hence, students can readily access any kind of information with just a click on the internet. However, there are ethical concerns regarding the type of information, not just the enormity of information the internet makes available to students, and how such information contributes to their intellectual and personal development.

As archival medium, these technologies offer the ability to search multivariate data rapidly and efficiently. It is now relatively easy to collect and compile data of all sorts very readily. However, as archival medium, they generate diverse ethical dilemmas regarding intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is the term used to describe works of the mind such as art, books, films, formulas, inventions, music and processes which are distinct, owned or created by a single person or group. It is protected through copyright, patent and trade secret laws. Before the advent of the internet, a student might painfully copy a paragraph or two from any reference book or works of authors while writing an essay or term-paper. But now all software tools for writing offer the user the ability to cut, copy, and paste whole blocks of text from essentially any source that can be displayed on a computer screen. Such development

(27)

breaches the sort of academic integrity and values genuine education should uphold.

These are values that are essential for the development of the individual and include honesty, objectivity, fairness, trust, collegiality, respect, accuracy, thoroughness, independence, openness, curiosity and responsibility (Brey, 2006, 92).

As expository medium, they present curricular materials to the user-learner, and try to assess how well the presented materials have been absorbed and understood.

The motive for this kind of use derives from the assumption that computers and internet can deliver instruction to students at their own pace and in a way that reflects their idiosyncratic needs and backgrounds. But how does their use as didactic device delivering instruction impact better values than the grouping of students such that they interact socially with one another? Would not a profound learning experience, which includes the transmission of academic, cultural and social values, require real-world settings in which people engage in face-to-face interaction? Dreyfus (2001, 32) illustrated that “the American Federation of Teachers ….critical of the sterility of distance learning, noted, ´All our experience as educators tells us that teaching and learning in the shared human spaces of a campus are essential to the undergraduate experience.”

As exploratory medium, the new technologies help the users to explore the breadth and depth of their own understanding of a subject. Appropriately crafted software environments that allow students to make and explore conjectures can lead to profoundly different views of the subject. Such unguided exposure could undermine the authority of the teacher as an educator. Hence, the question remains what authority would a teacher have when such exploratory tools make it possible for students to generate knowledge for themselves, possibly even knowledge that is new to the teacher?

In addition to the ethical challenges mentioned, a new cluster of issues relating to the increase in proliferation of learning management systems and lack of professional use of these technologies have expanded the scope of research on ethical issues of distance learning. Therefore, there is need for an active and continuous response to what values these learning technologies should embody or promote. Who should have access? What social or personal interests should the electronic connections they allow serve (Johnson & Nissenbaum, 1995, 531)?

Influx of Learning Technologies

A 2014 market report on the learning management systems (LMS) market showed how the industry has grown rapidly over short period. The same year, the market grew by over 21% and was made up of at least 350 systems worth over $2.5 billion.

Most learning management systems were 4-7 years old and 61% of companies planned on replacing their learning platforms in a short period of time (Bersin, 2014).

(28)

An LMS is a software application used to plan, implement, and assess specific learning process. It helps teachers to deliver content, administer tests, monitor student participation, track student progress, evaluate student performance, and manage records. According to Chapman (2009, 1280), “A learning management system (LMS) is Web-based software solution to simplify the administration of learning programs.”

LMSs provide each student with a portal so that the student receives curriculum information aimed directly at him or her. Most learning programs now hosted or made available online are mainly conducted on these popular LMS softwares such as Moodle, Edmodo, Blackboard, SkillSoft, Schoology, Cornerstone, Instructure, Collaborize Classroom, D2L, SuccessFactors (SAP), Litmos, DigitalChalk, Interactyx, Docebo, Meridian Knowledge Solutions, Latitude Learning, Educadium, Rcampus, eLogic Learning and BIS Training Solutions. Even though the characteristics of good LMSs like the first four mentioned above might differ, they make planning of courses easier, bring digital communication between students and teachers into one easy platform, and allow teachers to incorporate any form of media they want into each class and assignment.

A recent report by TMR Research shows that LMSs have increased from 350 they used to be in 2014 to 600 LMSs in 2017. “Each system possesses unique features to meet the needs of a number of educational and training programs,” (TMR, 2017, para 4.).

An increase in LMS usage in institutions and e-learning platforms is not the only force behind this market growth. Rapid advancements in wearable e-learning technologies and gadgets are also playing very pivotal role. The proliferation of mobile devices such as tablets, smartphones, and laptops has further facilitated the incorporation of learning management systems in schools and distance learning programs due to their capability to make access to the systems easier and unlimited.

Mobile technology possesses great potential in offering rich multimedia experiences and resources of a varied nature while enabling students to learn without being restricted by time or location in both formal and informal educational settings (Lam, Yau, & Cheung, 2010; Milrad, et al., 2013). However, while utilization of mobile LMSs in tertiary education is still in its early state (Park, 2011; Cheon et Table 1. Upward trend in LMS market growth

Year No. of LMSs Growth rate in 3 years (%) Estimated number of LMSs in 2020 by 71% rate

2014 350

71% 1,026

2017 600

(29)

al., 2012), its effectiveness in supplementing formal learning still remain an issue (Gikas & Grant, 2013).

With the overwhelming increase in the number of LMSs and their use in education it would be expected that the role of the teacher as a monitor to digital classroom becomes easier and better. However, there is no evidence that shows commensurate growth in teachers’ ability to use them and also act as mentors in ensuring adequate individual consumption of content by students from vast digital curricula resources available. Therefore, the enormous challenges in coping with the influx of LMSs in distance learning have little to do with the immensity of content sources they provide than the changing role of the teacher in relation to administering these contents. Mostly, the gap between incessant expansion of these technologies and the lack of teachers´ proficiency in administering learning through them provides space for digital plagiarism and property right infringement to flourish. In addition to the challenges teachers have to deal with in mastering the LMS is the increasing dynamics in the development and improvement of the features of the LMSs. In 2010, Moodle lunched its Joule 2.0 platform which includes collaborative tools and social networking that exists outside of Facebook (i.e plagiarism checker, outcome- based student evaluations etc). Its third-party plug-ins like web conferencing and e-portfolios are much like the features of web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 will be explained briefly to illustrate its features and highlight the ethical challenges their usage in distance learning pose.

Web 2.0 Technologies

The term Web 2.0 emerged as a result of new ideas in web-related technologies and website services. It refers to an interactive and social web facilitating collaboration between people. According to Tim O´Reilly who popularised it in 2004, it indicates a strategic positioning of the web as ‘platform’ whereby users control their own data, allowing for remixable data source and data transformations, harnessing collective intelligence, creating services rather than packaged software and serving as architecture of participation (O´Reilly, 2005). This change in the use of World Wide Web technology has led to the development and evolution of Web-based communities and hosted services such as social-networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), wikis, blogs, etc. Rather than a change in technical specifications, Web 2.0 is an evolution of web use from passive viewing of content to more active participation, creation and sharing of content by users.

Its incorporation in learning has greatly led to a shift from the traditional role of teachers as transmitters of knowledge and experts to facilitators of knowledge and collaborators. Likewise, its social aspects of easy communication, coordination and online self-expression make it quite appealing to young learners. It synchronises

(30)

well with required learning delivery and curricula in virtual education. Its features like folksonomy (free classification of information), authoring, easy search, and extensions allow for open/flexible delivery and inquiry based curricula unlike the rigid delivery (fixed time and space) and facts cramming phenomenon traditional classroom imposes. Greenhow and Robelia (2009) describe how the use of MySpace gave students the feeling that their creative work had been validated and appreciated, and that they were supported by peer alumni and encouraged in class related tasks.

Principally, Web 2.0 offers students new opportunities to take more control of their learning and create customized information, resources tools, and services. Web 2.0 technologies like weblogs and wikis give teachers and students a public space to interact with one another or add to the information published there (Richardson, 2010, 9). However, the joint production of text that Web 2.0 facilitates do generate ethical conflicts regarding privacy, accuracy and intellectual property right.

Privacy

Trust forms the basis of privacy and is the prized currency of social media. However, it is mostly violated. Construction of text on social media such as Facebook or MySpace is usually meant for different purposes and audiences than the classroom.

Hence, serious privacy issue arises when texts students access or bring to class are an assemblage of texts from authors that include different people in different discussion settings who have not provided permission for their texts to be disclosed in a classroom environment. Besides, “Many adolescents who use personal journal sites like Xanga and MySpace include full names, addresses, and provocative pictures of themselves, behaviour that can only increase their chances of getting into trouble,” (Richardson, 2010, 12).

There is hardly clear distinction between what private data is and what is public with regard to the social media. What is often perceived as public by participants in a social network could be different from what is publicly available on the internet (Rosenberg, 2010). Big data gives permanent status to any information put on the internet and students do not fully understand the conditions of information they share online nor the long-term implications of posting certain information to social media. The very nature of the social media continuously decontextualises and recontextualises personal information, leaving it “out of context” and available to misinterpretation (Mayer-Schönberger, 2009, 13). Hence, there is a serious ethical challenge in maintaining a balance between the benefits of students taking ownership of the work they publish online and their privacy.

Privacy issues have been a prevalent factor hindering the acceptance and use of the social media in education by many institutions. A 2013 report on a ¨Social Media in Higher Education¨ survey conducted by Pearson Learning Solutions in collaboration

(31)

with Babson Survey Research Group showed that most faculty participants indicated privacy and the integrity of student submissions as the major barriers to faculty use of social media in teaching. It states, “Over 72 percent report that ¨lack of integrity of student submissions¨ is an ¨important¨ or ¨very important¨ barrier, and 63 percent say ¨privacy concerns¨ are an ¨important¨ or ¨very important¨ barrier,” (Seaman &

Tinti-Kane, 2013, 16). This concern indicates that the integrity of an academic work which accords it appropriate authority is not adequately guaranteed by the social media. The reason is that there is no paramount trust on such media capability to ensure the privacy of users and authenticity of information generated.

Intellectual Property Right

Web 2.0 is a wide participation platform, which allows for user-generated content, whereby a community of people share common interests, ideas and information over the internet. However, it does not have required mechanism for sufficient acknowledgement of owners of the information and ideas shared. The identity of the owner of the information or idea is mostly lost in the common identity of

‘content creators.’ There is not sufficient information on who owns materials placed in social media. Besides, accrediting ideas on social media can be very difficult.

These challenges explain why accidental misuse of information and inadvertent plagiarism on social media could easily be forgiven than in academic journals and books. However, such permissiveness questions the essence of incorporating the social media in the classroom in the first place when there is not a common and grounded trust on the integrity of its content.

Accuracy

The era of Web 2.0 technology has witnessed unprecedented proliferation of ‘fake information’ as a result of the anonymity it mostly accords its contributors. Due to its speed and easy access, inaccurate contents generated through it are easily shared and received before they are detected or corrected. Just as the internet has become a mass medium and searching the Web a daily activity for everyone from children to research scientists, the availability of online material that is unreliable, unproven, or incomplete has burgeoned (Marchionini, 2006, 41). Invariably, such trend vitiates the trust on the authority and authenticity of information they contain. The basis of authority of an information lies on the trust on its authenticity. If the mechanisms of these new technologies undermine this trust, there is need to reconsider the extent and their mode of deployment in distance learning.

The anonymity these technologies offer their users create serious identity conflicts which further complicates the issue of trust on the accuracy of information. For