M. David Merrill
Homepage of M. David Merrill, instructional effectiveness consultant and and emeritus professor: http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/index.htm
Delivery of distance education and social responsibility
The Internet certainly has made possible some revolutionary educational opportunities (Chute, Sayers, & Gardner, 1997; McGreal, 1997). Both instructors and students do have certain social responsibilities within the online educational experience (Keith-Spiegel, Whitley Jr., Balogh, Perkins, & Wittig, 2002). The instructor has a responsibility to provide learners with clear expectations as well as timely feedback and support (Palloff & Pratt, 2002). Students need to provide original work, follow academic integrity policies, and do their best to meet the course requirements.
Social responsibility doctrines for face-to-face learning can and do apply to the online learning environment. In effect, the same social and ethical expectations of students in a face-to-face environment can be projected upon online students. While some may claim that the inherent anonymity afforded users of the Internet may make it possible for students to participate anonymously (Keith-Spiegel et al., 2002), the online learning environment can be as collaborative, engaging, and personal as any face-to-face experience.
One common social and ethical issue often cited in both virtual and face-to-face learning environments today is academic dishonesty. Electronic environments and tools available today make it much easier for students to engage in academic dishonest behavior than in any time in the history of education. In the past, students had to put forth considerable effort to cheat. Collaborating with a peer in order to share work or to use someone else’s work and claim it as their own was a rather arduous process. Today, a student can very quickly purchase a pre-written paper online, copy & paste from an electronic source, or share work virtually effortlessly with the ease of the Internet.
While some may attempt to blame the Internet or online education as the catalyst for academic dishonesty, any such claims neglect many of the foundational issues of academic dishonesty: accepted morals and values, student carelessness, procrastination, laziness, and ignorance – to name a few. And, while the available technology makes it much easier for one to engage in academic dishonesty today than fifty years ago, the fact remains that ultimately it’s the student who chooses to engage in such behavior – it’s not the “technology’s fault†that such behavior exists.
Therefore, since online students need to abide by the same ethical and social standards as students in a face-to-face course, it can be argued that they must do so no matter what format or context the learning is to take place.
References:
Chute, A. G., Sayers, P. K., & Gardner, R. P. (1997). Networked learning environments. Teaching and Learning at a Distance, 71, 75-84.
Keith-Spiegel, P., Whitley Jr., B. E., Balogh, D. W., Perkins, D. V., & Wittig, A. F. (2002). The ethics of teaching: A casebook (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGreal, R. (1997). The internet: A learning environment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 67-74.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Beyond the looking glass: What faculty and students need to be successful online. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ethical issues related to virtual delivery systems
When considering ethical issues pertaining to the delivery of virtual education, the specific delivery format is much less a factor than many might perceive. In fact, more ethical commonalities exist than differences among the various available delivery media.
CD-ROM media is reproducible, in which it is difficult to control whether or not a student who attains a CD of instruction makes a copy of that instruction and distributes to others. Also, developers must consider the permanence factor of CD or DVD instruction, as updates can not be easily made to content on these fixed media formats once released to students. Video conferencing and other streaming media technologies, while more controllable as far as who receives access, does require a broadband Internet connection and brings with it some other considerable pedagogical issues associated with synchronous computer-mediated communication. Other online formats of instruction utilizing course management systems such as Blackboard, WebCT, or other open source applications provide a secure and ever-increasingly accessible means of both delivering instructional content and facilitating various communications and activities .
Many commonalities exist among suggested pedagogical and ethical considerations of delivery systems. All modes of information delivery and computer-mediated communication must consider important ethical issues of security, privacy, accessibility, intellectual freedom, and universal design (Spinello & Tavani, 2004). The educational environment needs to protect the needs and interests of both students and instructors as well as comply with the institutional and legal requirements for equal access, privacy, and intellectual property rights.
Therefore, the ethical issues pertaining to the delivery of virtual education is more rooted in the nature of computer-mediated communication and the environment in which it exists than any one delivery medium.
Reference:
Spinello, R. A., & Tavani, H. T. (Eds.). (2004). Readings in cyberethics (2nd ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Distance Education Clearinghouse
The Distance Education Clearinghouse is a comprehensive and widely recognized Web site bringing together distance education information from Wisconsin, national, and international sources. New information and resources are being added to the Distance Education Clearinghouse on a continual basis.
The Clearinghouse is managed and maintained by the University of Wisconsin-Extension, in cooperation with its partners and other University of Wisconsin institutions.