LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,235
تعداد مقالات11,256
تعداد مشاهده مقاله79,312,343
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله112,393,937
Mehrfar, Abdollah, Zolfaghari, Zahra, Hejazi, Yamin, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid. (1402). Ethical Principles in E-Learning; Investigating Key Issues in Instructional Design and Teaching Methods: A Narrative Review. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(4), 251-262. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2023.100458.1261
Abdollah Mehrfar; Zahra Zolfaghari; Yamin Hejazi; Nahid Zarifsanaiey. "Ethical Principles in E-Learning; Investigating Key Issues in Instructional Design and Teaching Methods: A Narrative Review". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14, 4, 1402, 251-262. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2023.100458.1261
Mehrfar, Abdollah, Zolfaghari, Zahra, Hejazi, Yamin, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid. (1402). 'Ethical Principles in E-Learning; Investigating Key Issues in Instructional Design and Teaching Methods: A Narrative Review', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(4), pp. 251-262. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2023.100458.1261
Mehrfar, Abdollah, Zolfaghari, Zahra, Hejazi, Yamin, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid. Ethical Principles in E-Learning; Investigating Key Issues in Instructional Design and Teaching Methods: A Narrative Review. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1402; 14(4): 251-262. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2023.100458.1261

Ethical Principles in E-Learning; Investigating Key Issues in Instructional Design and Teaching Methods: A Narrative Review

Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences
مقاله 1، دوره 14، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 55، اسفند 2023، صفحه 251-262    اصل مقاله (623.01 K)
نوع مقاله: Review Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijvlms.2023.100458.1261
نویسندگان
Abdollah Mehrfar1؛ Zahra Zolfaghari* 1، 2؛ Yamin Hejazi1؛ Nahid Zarifsanaiey1
1Virtual School, Comprehensive Center of Excellence for E_ Learning in Medical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده
Background: The expansion of E-learning has brought about new ethical challenges concerning academic integrity, privacy, inclusivity, technological impacts, and power dynamics, necessitating careful examination. This article reviews the literature related to ethical issues in online education to prioritize considerations for instructors and educators.
Methods:  A narrative review of 49 articles on E-learning ethics published during 2005-2022 was conducted. The inclusion criteria focused on full-text English-language publications in the field of higher education published in peer-reviewed academic journals or conference proceedings. Studies without empirical or theoretical analysis were excluded. Manuscripts were retrieved via Google Scholar, ERIC, and Education Source databases utilizing “online learning ethics,” “e-learning ethics,” “academic integrity,” and “learner privacy” keywords. The articles were analyzed using qualitative synthesis. The articles' quality was evaluated using the SANRA checklist.
Results: Among the 273 articles identified, 49 were finally selected for the analysis. The study highlights five main ethical priorities: maintaining academic integrity through comprehensive policies, safeguarding learner privacy via data security mechanisms, enhancing inclusivity through design considerations, evaluating technological impacts, and exercising responsible instructor power.
Conclusion: Actively addressing ethical complexities enhances academic integrity in digital classrooms, but sustainable engagement with the evolution of e-learning requires continuous participation. The findings shed light on the responsibilities of online educators in empowering diverse learners.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Distance؛ Education؛ Ethics؛ Academic Integrity؛ Learner Privacy؛ Inclusivity
مراجع
  1. Bower BL, Hardy KP. From correspondence to cyberspace: changes and challenges in distance education. New Dir Community Coll. 2004;(128):5-12. doi: 10.1002/cc.169.
  2. Casey DM. A journey to legitimacy: the historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends. 2008;52(2):42-51. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z.
  3. Peters O. Distance education in transition: developments and issues. 5th ed. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ; 2010.
  4. Kentnor HE. Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curric Teach Dialogue. 2015;17(1):21-34.
  5. Larreamendy-Joerns J, Leinhardt G. Going the distance with online education. Rev Educ Res. 2006;76(4):567-605. doi: 10.3102/00346543076004567.
  6. Harasim L. Learning theory and online technologies. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315716831.
  7. Dhawan S. Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. J Educ Technol Syst. 2020;49(1):5-22. doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018.
  8. Ali W. Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: a necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. High Educ Stud. 2020;10(3):16-25. doi: 10.5539/hes.v10n3p16.
  9. Sangrà A, Vlachopoulos D, Cabrera N. Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: an approach to the conceptual framework. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2012;13(2):145-59. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161.
  10. Rapanta C, Botturi L, Goodyear P, Guàrdia L, Koole M. Online University Teaching during and after the Covid-19 Crisis: refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigit Sci Educ. 2020;2(3):923-45. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
  11. Hodges CB, Moore S, Lockee BB, Trust T, Bond MA. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review; 2020 March 27. [Cited 2023 July 29]. Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
  12. Ossiannilsson E, Landgren L. Quality in e-learning–a conceptual framework based on experiences from three international benchmarking projects. J Comput Assist Learn. 2012;28(1):42-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00439.x.
  13. Kennedy K, Nowak S, Raghuraman R, Thomas J, Davis SF. Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. Coll Stud J. 2000;34(2):309-14.
  14. Ifenthaler D, Schumacher C. Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2016;64(5):923-38. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9477-y.
  15. Butcher N. Basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning (COL) & UNESCO; 2015. doi: 10.56059/11599/36.
  16. Sutherland-Smith W. The tangled web: internet plagiarism and international students’ academic writing. J Asian Pac Commun. 2005;15(1):15-29. doi: 10.1075/japc.15.1.04sut.
  17. Levmore SX, Nussbaum MC. The offensive Internet: privacy, speech, and reputation. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2011.
  18. Morgan H. Online instruction and virtual schools for middle and high school students: twenty-first-century fads or progressive teaching methods for today’s pupils? Clearing House. 2015;88(2):72-6. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2015.1007909.
  19. Muilenburg LY, Berge ZL. Student barriers to online learning: a factor analytic study. Distance Educ. 2005;26(1):29-48. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081269.
  20. Gikas J, Grant MM. Mobile computing devices in higher education: student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet High Educ. 2013;19:18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002.
  21. Dixson MD. Creating effective student engagement in online courses: what do students find engaging? J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2010;10(2):1-13.
  22. O’Rourke J. Tutoring in open and distance learning: a handbook for tutors. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning; 2003.
  23. Darabi AA, Sikorski EG, Harvey RB. Validated competencies for distance teaching. Distance Educ. 2006;27(1):105-22. doi: 10.1080/01587910600654809.
  24. Baran E, Correia A-P, Thompson A. Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Educ. 2011;32(3):421-39. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610293.
  25. Rogerson AM, Basanta G. Peer-to-peer file sharing and academic integrity in the internet age. In: Bretag T, editor. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer; 2016. p. 273-85. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55.
  26. Esposito A. Research ethics in emerging forms of online learning: issues arising from a hypothetical study on a MOOC. Electron J e-Learn. 2012;10(3):286-96.
  27. Anderson B, Simpson M. Ethical issues in online education. Open Learn. 2007;22(2):129-38. doi: 10.1080/02680510701306673.
  28. Toprak E, Ozkanal B, Aydin S, Kaya S. Ethics in E-learning. Turk Online J Educ Technol. 2010;9(2):78-86.
  29. Tzimas D, Demetriadis S. Ethical issues in learning analytics: a review of the field. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2021;69(2):1101-33. doi: 10.1007/s11423-021-09977-4.
  30. Eaton SE. Academic integrity during COVID-19: reflections from the University of Calgary. Int Stud Educ Adm. 2020;48(1):80-5.
  31. Harmon OR, Lambrinos J. Are online exams an invitation to cheat? J Econ Educ. 2008;39(2):116-25. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.2.116-125.
  32. Watson GR, Sottile J. Cheating in the digital age: do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2010;13(1).
  33. Moten Jr J, Fitterer A, Brazier E, Leonard J, Brown A. Examining online college cyber cheating methods and prevention measures. Electron J e-Learn. 2013;11(2):139-46.
  34. Eaton SE. Plagiarism in higher education: tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Santa Barbara (CA): Bloomsbury Collections, ABC-CLIO; 2021. doi: 10.5040/9798400697142.
  35. Lee-Post A, Hapke H. Online learning integrity approaches: current practices and future solutions. Online Learn. 2017;21(1):135-45. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i1.843.
  36. Coren A. Turning a blind eye: faculty who ignore student cheating. J Acad Ethics. 2011;9(4):291-305. doi: 10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y.
  37. Dee TS, Jacob BA. Rational ignorance in education: a field experiment in student plagiarism. J Hum Resour. 2012;47(2):397-434.
  38. Youmans RJ. Does the adoption of plagiarism-detection software in higher education reduce plagiarism? Stud High Educ. 2011;36(7):749-61. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.523457.
  39. Rolfe V. Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):701-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01091.x.
  40. Ladyshewsky RK. Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assess Eval High Educ. 2015;40(7):883-97. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.956683.
  41. Fask A, Englander F, Wang Z. Do online exams facilitate cheating? An experiment designed to separate possible cheating from the effect of the online test taking environment. J Acad Ethics. 2014;12(2):101-12. doi: 10.1007/s10805-014-9207-1.
  42. Crews KD. Copyright law for librarians and educators: creative strategies and practical solutions. Chicago (IL): ALA Editions; 2020.
  43. Guibault L, Angelopoulos C. Open content licensing: from theory to practice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2011.
  44. Bissell AN. Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open Learn. 2009;24(1):97-106. doi: 10.1080/02680510802627886.
  45. Elander J, Pittam G, Lusher J, Fox P, Payne N. Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010;35(2):157-71. doi: 10.1080/02602930802687745.
  46. Gullifer JM, Tyson GA. Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students’ understanding of plagiarism. Stud High Educ. 2014;39(7):1202-18. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.777412.
  47. Rubel A, Jones KM. Student privacy in learning analytics: an information ethics perspective. Inf Soc. 2016;32(2):143-59. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2016.1130502.
  48. Prinsloo P, Slade S. Student privacy self-management: implications for learning analytics. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge; 2015 March 16-20; Poughkeepsie, New York. New York, United States: Association for Computing Machinery; 2015. doi: 10.1145/2723576.2723585.
  49. Drachsler H, Greller W. Privacy and analytics: it’s a DELICATE issue a checklist for trusted learning analytics. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge. 2016 April 25-29; Edinburgh, United Kingdom. New York, United States: Association for Computing Machinery; 2016. doi: 10.1145/2883851.2883893.
  50. Burgstahler S. Universal design of distance learning. Inf Technol Disabil. 2002;8(1).
  51. Dolan R, Hall TE, Banerjee M, Chun E, Strangman N. Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: the effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. J Technol Learn Assess. 2005;3(7):1-33. Available from: https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1660.
  52. Schelly CL, Davies PL, Spooner CL. Student perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for learning. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2011;24(1):17-30.
  53. McGuire JM, Scott SS, Shaw SF. Universal design for instruction: the paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2003;17(1):11-21.
  54. Glazier RA. Building rapport to improve retention and success in online classes. J Political Sci Educ. 2016;12(4):1-20. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2016.1155994.
  55. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung TS. Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(1-2):31-6. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
  56. Coy K, Marino MT, Serianni B. Using universal design for learning in synchronous online instruction. J Spec Educ Technol. 2014;29(1):63-74. doi: 10.1177/016264341402900105.
  57. Fichten CS, Ferraro V, Asuncion JV, Chwojka C, Barile M, Nguyen MN, et al. Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: an exploratory study. J Educ Technol Soc. 2009;12(4):241-56.
  58. Luckin R, Holmes W. Intelligence unleashed: an argument for AI in education. London, UK: UCL Knowledge Lab; 2016.
  59. Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R. Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2015;37(3):308-19. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424.
  60. Mikropoulos TA, Natsis A. Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Comput Educ. 2011;56(3):769-80. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020.
  61. Bayne S. Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching. Teach High Educ. 2015;20(4):455-67. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1020783.
  62. Goel A, Polepeddi L. Jill Watson: A Virtual Teaching Assistant for Online Education. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Tech Library. [Preprint] doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11070.
  63. Fadel C, Holmes W, Bialik M. Artificial intelligence in education: promises and implications for teaching and learning. Boston, USA: Center for Curriculum Redesign; 2019.
  64. Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput Educ. 2020;147:103778. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778.
  65. Roberts LD, Howell JA, Seaman K. Give me a customizable dashboard: personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technol Knowl Learn. 2017;22(3):317-33. doi: 10.1007/s10758-017-9316-1.
  66. Macfadyen LP, Dawson S, Pardo A, Gaševic D. Embracing big data in complex educational systems: the learning analytics imperative and the policy challenge. Res Pract Assess. 2014;9:17-28.
  67. Natale SM, Doran C. Marketization of education: an ethical dilemma. J Bus Ethics. 2012;105(2):187-96. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y.
  68. Dixson MD, Greenwell MR, Rogers-Stacy C, Weister T, Lauer S. Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Commun Educ. 2017;66(1):1-17. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222.
  69. Baker JD. An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. Internet High Educ. 2004;7(1):1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.006.
  70. Vallade JI, Kaufmann R. Investigating instructor misbehaviors in the online classroom. Commun Educ. 2018;67(3):363-81. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2018.1467027.
  71. Lapadat JC. Written interaction: a key component in online learning. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2002;7(4):JCMC742. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00158.x.
  72. Wise A, Chang J, Duffy T, Del Valle R. The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. In: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 569-75.
  73. Collis B. Tele-learning in a digital world: the future of distance learning. London: Kogan Page; 1996.
  74. Jaggars SS, Xu D. How do online course design features influence student performance? Comput Educ. 2016;95:270-84. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014.
  75. Bali S, Liu M, editors. Students’ perceptions toward online learning and face-to-face learning courses. J Phys Conf Ser. 2018;1108(1):012094. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012094.
  76. Suskie L. Assessing student learning: a common sense guide. 2nd ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 2018.
  77. Bearman M, Dawson P, Boud D, Bennett S, Hall M, Molloy E. Support for assessment practice: developing the Assessment Design Decisions Framework. Teach High Educ. 2016;21(5):545-56. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1160217.
  78. Sclater N. Developing a code of practice for learning analytics. J Learn Anal. 2016;3(1):16-42. doi: 10.18608/jla.2016.31.3.
  79. Jaggars SS. Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: community college student voices. Am J Distance Educ. 2014;28(1):27-38. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2014.867697.
  80. McCroskey JC, Richmond VP. Power in the classroom I: teacher and student perceptions. Commun Educ. 1983;32(2):175-84. doi: 10.1080/03634528309384387.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 516
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 833


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب