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

Abstract

Her research interests include university student and staff experiences with emerging information and communication technologies and their effects on higher education and scholarly communication. AbstractThe 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).

Learning and performance evaluation in distance higher education: a case study during the Covid-19 pandemic

“…As confirmed in the replies to the questionnaire, lecturers indicate that preparing and evaluating alternative tools take a lot of time and effort, for this reason they are more inclined to use tests for online exam practices even though they find traditional exams inadequate in evaluating success and performance. Other studies also come to the same conclusions [39][40], in fact, they underline that while the workload that traditional evaluation brings on lecturers is stable, online evaluation has a fluctuated trend dependent on the complexity and nature of the task.…”

“…As the data demonstrate, most of the lecturers have a positive perception of the effectiveness of alternative assessment methods and believe that they can be useful both in terms of the development of students' learning and competences and in raising quality of distance learning. Almost two thirds of the lecturers who participated in the semistructured interviews believe that the alternative evaluation "makes students active and eager in the learning process" (48); "gives clues about whether learning has been achieved or about the quality of learning" (46); "contributes to students' competence development" (44); "gives students the opportunity to show their competencies and performance in situated contexts" (43), "makes it easier to know how students activate problem solving processes applied to real and authentic situations" (40), "enables assessing students' learning and performance throughout the process of education" (38), "gives students the opportunity to communicate with each other and to cooperate" (37). These statements about alternative evaluation theories are corroborated by other empirical research findings [26][27].…”

Reframing data ethics in research methods education: a pathway to critical data literacy

“…This will lead to actively design fair and less biased research and motivate students to learn, from the very beginning, the value of data protection and data agency. For this, raising awareness of the role of an ethical common ground when conducting research with data considering elements such as empathy, social justice and social good will be critical (Chang & Gray, 2013 ; Eisen & Parker, 2004 ; Stockley & Balkwill, 2013 ; Strohmetz & Skleder, 1992 ).…”

Bridging the Gap between the Research Ethics Board and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

“…Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that there exists a great deal of confusion for researchers around whether and how a SoTL application should be submitted to the REB (Stockley & Balkwill, 2013). This has led to denouncements of the REB process as a "bureaucratic hurdle" that impedes the research project (Chang & Gray, 2013). The danger here is that researchers might decide to pitch their investigations as program evaluation or quality improvement in order to evade the REB approval process as these interventions do not require REB approval.…”