The argument here (8 page PDF), as summarized by Alastair Creelman, is essentially that "as the power and sophistication of educational technology has increased so we see new inequalities and biases appearing," and so "institutions need to develop better platform literacy and be more able to demand safeguards from technology providers." As I reads it, Laura Czerniewicz is also clear that where there are not solutions to these inequities and biases, the technology in question should not be used at all. This makes sense in cases where technology causes harm, but if the issue of equity is lack of access to, say, electricity or data, does this mean nobody should use computers until everybody can use computers? None of this is simple, and the complexity is magnified in a world where for so many people these are not ethical issues at all.
Tony Bates comments on 'How Dare They Peep into My Private Life?' (107 page PDF), a report from Human Rights Watch that "observed 146 EdTech products directly sending or granting access to children's personal data to 199 AdTech companies." Because, of course they did. "These products monitored or had the capacity to monitor children, in most cases secretly and without the consent of children or their parents, in many cases harvesting data on who they are, where they are, what they do in the classroom, who their family and friends are, and what kind of device their families could afford for them to use." Bates responds, "I was shocked and disgusted when I read the media reports of this study. I felt about the same to these allegations as I would to the accusation of child pornography. It would certainly appear on the surface that children's (and parents') privacy rights are being violated on a massive scale, for purely commercial purposes." Canadian readers might want to look at the case study of CBC Kids, starting on page 73.
The summary description in this article is probably sufficient for most readers. Two major findings are reported: first, "distance or online learning enrolment remained stable across the country, with many jurisdictions reporting an increase in the number of students enrolled in programs," and second, "what occurred in most jurisdictions when school closures were required was still remote learning – and not online learning – because it was still viewed as temporary in nature. It remained an attempt to project a classroom instructional model to students at a distance with limited success." The report (40 page PDF) addresses changes that occurred in the last year, while full provincial profiles remain available on the website.
This is a three-part series from Christina Hendricks introducing ed tech ethics. Part One outlines the Association of Learning Technology's (ALT) Framework for Ethical Learning Technology (FELT), and offers some useful commentary. Part Two looks at two sets of rubrics for evaluating ed tech, one from Morris and Stommel, the other from Autumn Caines. Finally, Part Three describes Per Axbom's Elements of Digital Ethics. I find most discussions of ed tech ethics very prescriptive, and in many cases, focused on preventing wrongs. Where I see a lack of commonality (if ever it would be possible) is in the aspirations of ed tech - why are we doing this, and what is our definition of what's right and good in our field, and what is this definition based on?
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2022 Stephen Downes Contact: email@example.comThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.