E-Ethical-Learning: Principles and guidelines for ethical digital learning in higher education

The implementation of “ethical education” and “e-learning” requires the active participation of all stakeholders within higher education institutions. This is essential to foster dialogue on the conceptualization and reflection of diverse digital learners and perspectives within the curriculum and assess the environmental impact of their academic pursuits [1]. Based on Van Aardt's, analysis of the implementation of ethical education and e-learning [1], I assert the notion that a distinct form of ethical education is required within the domain of online education. The implementation should consider the diverse student population and their digital literacy skills. For instance, previous studies by Kim, Monroe, and Lee [2], and Mears and Clough [3], have concentrated on the equity of online curriculums, specifically examining the role of accessibility. I would like to highlight the concept of “labels” of digital natives and immigrants that persists in higher education, based on students' digital literacy. According to Prensky, the labels “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” were introduced to distinguish individuals born after the 1980s (during the digital age) as digital natives, and those born before the 1980s as digital immigrants [4]. Prensky’s work further explains that these terms were developed to establish a distinction between generations, as digital natives began to familiarize themselves with and incorporate new technology into their academic and personal lives.

Barkaskas and Gladwin, explore the notion of ethical online education, specifically its connection to the utilization of “official” languages by higher education institutions [5]. The assumptions regarding digital immigrants and digital natives serve as the basis for these languages. There are some (for example, Autry and Berge [6], as well as Hsu, Wang, and Hamilton [7]) who argue students born after 1980, commonly referred to as digital natives, possess the ability to effortlessly navigate online education. Owing to their birth in an era characterized by the presence of these technologies [3, 8]. In accordance with Prensky's definition, individuals born before 1980, identified as digital immigrants, encounter difficulties in adjusting to online education when contrasted with digital natives. However, the pre-established assumptions identified by Prensky, form the basis for my argument in this article: Advocating for an emancipatory initiative to promote equity in online learning curriculums.

The core objective of this initiative is to interrogate the underlying labels and preconceptions commonly attributed to digital natives and immigrants. For example, the daily routines of numerous individuals who grew up with technology are centered around the casual utilization of contemporary digital tools [2]. A significant number of individuals born in the digital age lack the necessary digital literacy skills to effectively utilize technical devices for educational purposes. As an illustration, individuals exclusively utilize laptops for socializing on platforms like Facebook in their everyday routines [9]. Scholars Bennett and Maton argue the belief that individuals born in the digital age have superior technological skills compared to those from previous generations has led to a call for the rejection of such categorizations [10]. The recent terms “visitor mode” and “resident mode” introduced by White and Le Cornu [11], provide a more straightforward approach to describing online engagement, aiming to eliminate the stereotypes associated with digital natives and immigrants. In visitor mode, learners have the option to choose their desired task online and, upon completion, they can either disconnect or proceed to another task. Resident mode pertains to the utilization of social platforms for the primary aim of socializing and connecting with others online.

Despite the attempt made by White and Le Cornu to introduce the visitor and resident model as an alternative to the previously assumed labels of digital natives and immigrants, it does not sufficiently warrant the equity of these terms in online education curriculums. Along with Lestari and Puspitasari [12], and Sánchez et al. [13]. I argue the terms digital natives and digital immigrants should be eliminated and replaced with the single, generic term noted as “digital learners.” Considering this, I propose a set of ethical principles and practical guidelines, under the term “e-ethical-learning.” My primary objective in introducing the concept of e-ethical-learning is to foster fairness in online learning curricula and establish a platform for digital learners, thereby eradicating the distinction between digital natives and immigrants.

Examining and Alleviating Unfairness in Digital Education: E-Ethical-Learning

E-ethical-learning is a measure of the degree of ethical unfairness inflicted upon a student participating in an e-learning (online educational setting) or a technologically advanced environment, e.g., a computer laboratory session. I coined the term e-ethical-learning by combining ethical education and e-learning. I specifically emphasize the term e-ethical-learning, which denotes a thorough framework of ethical principles and practical guidelines that I have also developed, in conjunction with an analysis of how online education, as evidenced by prior research (discussed extensively in this article), influences the educational environment for students. In accordance with the principles of e-ethical-learning ethical conduct, digital natives and immigrants are regarded as equally proficient digital learners, irrespective of their birth year. The following presents a comprehensive set of guidelines I have established concerning ethical behavior in e-ethical-learning.

Ethical Principles and Practical Guidelines

1. Educators should refrain from making any assumptions about students' technical abilities, including digital literacy, and should only refer to them as digital learners, rather than digital natives/immigrants.
2. It is imperative that educators refrain from categorizing students as digital natives solely based on their age (born after 1980) and should not anticipate these students to conform to the generalized characteristics of digital natives.
3. Educators should avoid classifying students born prior to 1980 as digital immigrants, insinuating their lesser proficiency in employing information and communications technologies (ICT) in comparison to students born after 1980.
4. It is critical that higher education institutions prioritize the professional development needs of educators in terms of digital literacy. This includes not assuming that they already possess the necessary digital literacy to effectively teach online and utilize AI-based tools.

My contention is that, considering the concept of e-ethical-learning, it is possible to view the act of presuming a student's digital literacy as a form of misconduct. Pre-judging students as digital natives and digital immigrants based on their technical skills creates an impression of incompetence in these students and leads to a digital divide [14]. Therefore, I propose the promotion of the integration of digital learners without categorization, through the concept of e-ethical-learning. The pre-judgment of students' digital literacy skills contributes to an unfavorable higher education environment, undermining their expectations, particularly when they are classified as digital natives who are expected to possess specific digital literacy skills they hope to acquire during their education [15]. For example, the technical ability to use online applications, such as Moodle, a virtual learning platform [16].

Conclusion

As a result, the implementation of e-ethical-learning in conjunction with its encompassing ethical principles and practical guidelines will enable the emergence of digital learners. This will ultimately achieve ethical equivalence in online curricula and eliminate the implied classifications of digital natives and immigrants introduced by Prensky. I emphasize the crucial importance of integrating the term e-ethical-learning, which I have introduced, with the ethical principles and practical guidelines I have formulated to encompass it. This is essential to foster an ethical and justified learning environment for online learners in the realm of online education. In addition, educators have a responsibility to maintain fairness and ethical standards throughout all educational sessions.

References

About the Author

Dr. Asegul Hulus is an assistant professor and lecturer in computing and a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). She is a S.T.E.A.M researcher,  author, and member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). She is also a graphic, video and audio designer, and a video game expert. Dr. Hulus is also a founding leader and serves as an editor & peer reviewer for various journals.