Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 147–165 | Cite as

Ethics of research into learning and teaching with Web 2.0: reflections on eight case studies

  • Rosemary L. Chang
  • Kathleen Gray
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The unique features and educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologies pose new challenges for conducting learning and teaching research in ways that adequately address ethical issues of informed consent, beneficence, respect, justice, research merit and integrity. This paper reviews these conceptual bases of human research ethics and gives examples of their consideration in the literature of research into learning and teaching with Web 2.0. The paper goes on to give an account of reflective practice by two academic developers in relation to ethical issues they encountered, considered and addressed in eight case studies, which were part of a larger multi-university Australian study into learning and teaching with Web 2.0. The paper concludes that the human research ethics approval process needs to be understood as a series of measures that are important to protect not only the students but also the teacher-researchers and their institutions when doing learning and teaching research with Web 2.0. This understanding is important for educators and as well for educational developers, educational technologists and human research ethics review committees (also known as institutional review boards).

Keywords

Web 2.0 technologies Human research ethics Scholarship of teaching and learning Academic development Reflective practice 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge advice from Dr Llew Mann and Dr Mark Schier and the Engineering and Science Education Research Group, Swinburne University; and Ms Cathy Schapper, and the journal’s reviewers. Support for the original work was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd.

References

  1. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32–44. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615. Accessed March 1, 2010.
  2. Bakardjieva, M. (2008). Ethics 2.0: Balancing privacy, publicity and prudence. Paper presented at the Virtual Knowledge Studio, Amsterdam, Netherlands. http://virtualknowledgestudio.nl/events/lecture-by-maria-bakardjieva/. Accessed March 1, 2010.
  3. Block, J. J. (2008). Issue for DSM-V: Internet addiction. American Journal of Psychiatry. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101556 http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/3/306. Accessed April 12, 2010.
  4. Boud, D., Keogh, R., &Walker, D. (1985).Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  5. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, E. A. (2009). Internet research ethics: Past, present, and future. In R. Burnett, M. Consalvo, & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of internet studies (pp. 83–108). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, E. A., & Hvizdak, E. E. (2009). Online survey tools: Ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(2), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byun, S., Ruffini, C., Mills, J., Douglas, A., Niang, M., Stepchenkova, S., et al. (2009). Internet addiction: Metasynthesis of 1996–2006 quantitative research. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, R. L, Gray, K., Polus, B. & Radloff, A. (2005). Scholarly teaching practice: Ethics issues and responses in research into teaching in tertiary education. In A. Brew & C. Asmar (Eds.), HERDSA Vol. 28. Higher education in a changing world (pp. 93–100). Sydney: HERDSA. Available online: http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/refereed/paper_284.pd.
  10. Cherry, N. (2010). Doing qualitative research in the white spaces. In J. Higgs, N. Cherry, R. Macklin, & R. Ajjawi (Eds.), Researching practice: A discourse on qualitative methodologies (pp. 9–17). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Cho, C. (1999). Internet addiction in Taiwan. National Science Council Project, under Project no. NSC 87-2511-S-009-013-N.Google Scholar
  12. Chou, C., Condron, L., & Bellard, J. (2005). A review of the research in internet addiction. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 363–388. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-8138-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clegg, S. (2009). Forms of knowing and academic development practice. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 403–416. doi: 10.1080/03075070902771937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunliffe, A. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm. Accessed April 1, 2008.
  16. Del Carlo, D., Hinkhouse, H., & Isbell, L. (2010). Developing a reflective practitioner through the connection between education research and reflective practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 343–363. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8.
  18. dsm5.org. (2012). Substance-related disorders. http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevisions/pages/substance-relateddisorders.aspx. Accessed April 3, 2012.
  19. Duihua.org. (2007). Police document sheds additional light on Shi Tao case. http://www.duihua.org/2007/07/police-document-sheds-additional-light.html. Accessed April 12, 2010.
  20. The Economist. (2011). Addicted? Really? Technology Quarterly (Q1). http://www.economist.com/18304258. Accessed April 3, 2012.
  21. Fendler, L. (2011). Web 2.0 and the future of educational research: pedagogical, political and epistemological implications. In D. Trohler & R. Barbu, (Eds.). Education Systems in Historical, Cultural, and Sociological Perspectives (pp. 124–141). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-827-8_9.
  22. Fitzpatrick, J. (2009). Five best video sharing sites. http://lifehacker.com/5343601/five-best-video+sharing-sites. Accessed April 1, 2010.
  23. Fowler, J., Gudmundsson, A., & Whicker, L. (2006). Group work: A guide to working in groups. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. JISC Report. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2008.
  25. Gilson, D. (2010). WikiLeaks gets a facelift. San Francisco: Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/wikileaks-assange-returns. Accessed June 17, 2010.
  26. Gray, K. (2008). Educational technology practitioner-research ethics. In M. Quigley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information ethics and security (pp. 164–169). Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Gray, K., Kennedy, G., Waycott, J., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Chang, R., et al. (2009). Educating the net generation: A toolkit of resources for educators in Australian Universities. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/toolkit.html.
  28. Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., Clerehan, R., & Hamilton, M. (2010).Students as Web 2.0 authors: Implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105–122.Google Scholar
  29. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671.
  30. Hutchings, P. (2002). Ethics and aspiration in the scholarship of teaching and learning. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menola Park: Carnegie Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Hutchings, P. (2003). Competing goods: Ethical issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Change. September/October, 27–33.Google Scholar
  32. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), Article 2. http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/6_2/kanuka.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2009.
  33. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray K., Waycott, J., Judd, T. et al. (2009). Educating the net generation: A handbook of findings for practice and policy. http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/handbook/Sec6PolicyGuidelines.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2012.
  34. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring the characteristics of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindorff, M. (2010). Ethics, ethical human research and human ethics committees. Australian Universities Review, 52(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
  36. Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). Avoiding Internet addiction when integrating digital games into teaching. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(10), 1325–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning. London: Routledge Farmer.Google Scholar
  38. Moreno, M., Fost, N., & Chritakis, D. (2008). Research ethics in the myspace era. Pediatrics, 121(1), 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moschini, E. (2008). The second life researcher toolkit—An exploration of in-world tools, methods and approaches for researching educational projects in second life. In ReLive08: Researching Learning in Virtual Environments Conference, 20–21 November 2008 (pp. 237–245). Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. http://www.open.ac.uk/relive08/documents/ReLIVE08_conference_proceedings_Lo.pdf#page=237. Accessed January 21, 2009.
  40. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/Australian Research Council/Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Australian Government. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/ethics/2007_humans/contents.htm. Accessed August 13, 2010.
  41. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Race, P. (2001). The lecturers’ toolkit: A resource for developing learning, teaching and assessment (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFarmer.Google Scholar
  43. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sachs, B. (2010). The exceptional ethics of the investigator-subject relationship. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhp055.
  46. Schön, D. A. (1983). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Tiropanis, T., Davis, H., Millard, D.,& Weal. M. (2009). Semantic technologies for learning and teaching in the Web 2.0 era. Intelligent systems, IEEE, 24(6), 49–53. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268429/1/ieee-is-tiropanis-etal-2009.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2012.
  48. Vavoula, G.N., & Sharples, M. (2008). Challenges in evaluating mobile learning. In Traxler, J., Riordan, B., & Dennett, C. (Eds.).Proceedings of the mLearn 2008 conference: The bridge from text to context, 7–10 October 2009 (pp. 296–303). Wolverhampton, UK: University of Wolverhampton, School of Computing and Information Technology. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/brendan/mLearn2008.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2009.
  49. Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waycott, J., Gray, K., Clerehan, R., Hamilton, M., Richardson, J., Sheard, J., & Thompson, C. (2010). Implications for academic integrity of using web2.0 for teaching, learning and assessment inhigher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(2), 8–18. Available online at: http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/. Accessed December 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  52. Young, K. S. &Nabuco de Abreu, C. (Eds.). (2011) Internet addiction, a handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences and Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options