Instructor's Privacy in Distance (Online) Teaching: Where Do You Draw the Line?

The exponential growth of distance learning provision in the past forty years poses pertinent and critical ethical issues. Students participating in distance education via an online course are required to recognize and resolve various ethical issues, some of which focus on the instructor's actions. The university, too, as it supports students and instructors, is ethically involved in the process. As the number of online classes continues to grow, an increasing number of articles are being written about student and program integrity but there is a notable absence of articles or research focusing on the emerging issue of institutional integrity in relation to instructors. The ideology of New DEEL’s (Democratic Ethical Educational Leadership) speaks to the ethical basis of online teaching and this paper delineates an authentic ethical dilemma for which a universalized and generalized ethical model is proposed to be usefully applied to all issues involving privacy of participants. All names are fictitious. Distance education is a discipline that subsumes the knowledge and practice of pedagogy, of psychology and sociology, of economics and business, of production and technology. (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004, Athabasca University, Canada’s Open University) There can be no doubt that much good practice has evolved in the field already, largely organically, and there are as yet few comprehensive guides available for any university or college in the United Kingdom or elsewhere venturing into the open and distance learning market. This is in stark contrast to many other professions—the practices of law and medicine, for instance, both of which are governed by explicitly formulated ethical principles (Gourley, 2007 Vice-Chancellor of the Open University, UK). Introduction A university instructor has a moral imperative to provide his or her students with a professional model of integrity that can be absorbed and reproduced in their own organizational context. Such a professional model should incorporate actions and behavior of the head, hand, and heart (Sergiovanni, 2006); thereby ensuring intellectual and ethical integrity. Though signature pedagogies may vary from one university to another and from one program to another there is an agreed understanding as to how instructors’ communicate this professional model to their students. In the university setting, educational leadership programs are slowly being affected by the wind of change. Institutions that previously frowned on distance learning and technology mediated instruction are now implementing this mode of teaching delivery, and experimenting with online pedagogy to reach new students in new modalities. The number of students taking at least one online course has expanded at a rate far in excess of the growth of overall higher education enrollments. The most recent estimate, for fall 2006, places this number at 3.48 million online students, an increase of 9.7 percent over the previous year. The number of online students has more than doubled in the four years since the implementation of a national survey according to “Online Nation, Five Years of Growth in Online Learning” 2007 published by The Sloan Consortium . In their sample of all active, degree-granting institutions of higher education in the US open to the public The Sloan Consortium found a compound annual growth rate of 21.5 per cent i.e. from 1.6 million students taking at least one online course in fall 2002 to the 3.48 million for fall 2006. The size of the entire higher education student body has grown at an annual rate of around 1.5 percent during this same period (from 16.6 million in fall 2002 to 17.6 million for fall 2006 Projections of Education Statistics to 2015, National Center for Education Statistics). Students taking at least one online course now represent almost 20 percent of total enrollments in higher education. Predictions are for continued growth which suggests that online enrollment has not yet reached a plateau. Figure 1. Institutions with online offerings expecting their online enrollments to increase-Fall 2002-Fall 2006 Source: Report from the Sloan Consortium. Online Nation, Five Years of Growth in Online Learning, 2007, p.14. This exponential growth of online and distance learning provision in the past forty years, is itself a “response to ethical concerns about access to education”, and has “inevitably posed other pertinent and critical ethical issues. These include an ongoing concern with how equality of access is achieved, digital divide issues, equitability of service and resource provision, quality control, ownership of courses and materials—to name but a few” (Gourley, 2007, p. 105). The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for educational instructors involved in the delivery of online learning programs. The paper is informed by a multiple paradigm approach (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p.7) i.e. the ethic of justice, profession, critique, and care with New DEEL ideology at the core. New DEEL is a movement that promotes democratic action using a moral framework focusing on leadership in schools, in higher education, and in the wider community (Shapiro, 2006). While New DEEL does not refer to a specific policy or reform, but rather to an ideology . It demands that individual values and beliefs are questioned (Storey & Beeman, 2006). The paper explores whether there is an agreed common set of ethical guidelines at the organizational level. And asks, “How does an online coordinator manage when personal concerns conflict with organizational concerns? ” Online Instructor Responsibilities Instructors have a key responsibility both for and to learners (Haughey, 2007). The responsibility of presenting students in educational leadership programs with a professional model remains a core constant, yet the relationship between the instructor and the student in an online class differs markedly from the traditional on ground model. Shapiro & Stefkovich multiple paradigm approach serves to guide educators in designing online instruction that strives to provide an ideal ethical environment. The Ethic of Justice The ethic of justice deals with policies, rights and law and is part of a liberal democratic tradition that, according to Delgado (1995), “is characterized by incrementalism, faith in the legal system and hope for progress” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p.11). The democratic aspect implies “procedures for making decisions that respect the equal sovereignty of the people” (Strike, 1991, p.415). The 1974 Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) mandates that universities are required to protect the confidentiality of basic student records and data. In technology mediated distance learning/online learning, electronic communication and especially the internet tend to be public mediums and universities warn users that it is virtually impossible to guarantee privacy. Faculty should clearly exercise considerable caution. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse document “Privacy in Cyberspace: Rules of the Road for the Information Superhighway” states: There are virtually no online activities or services that guarantee an absolute right of privacy. The Ethic of Critique The ethic of critique requires that we go beyond “questioning and critical analysis to examine and grapple” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p.16) to identify the existence of social inequities. Entering the classroom of any colleague whether on ground or on line is a privilege. Entering a classroom without the instructor’s acquiescence or knowledge is an abuse of such a privilege. The university should not take preemptive action based on the complaint of one student although it may seem diligently responsible. An alternative view is that all instructors are aware of the fact that their class will be regularly observed during the semester and that instructor actions will be rigorously examined (Appendix 1 Online Classroom Observation Worksheet). Figure 3. Extracts from the Online Classroom Observation Worksheet. 6 The instructor facilitates the class discussions by asking well-designed questions that keep students topic-focused. 7 The instructor is present in the threaded discussions at least 3 times per week and comments frequently to students. 10 Throughout the threaded discussions, the instructor displays knowledge of the course material and responds to students in a positive and encouraging manner. 14 The classroom is user friendly and the instructor maintains a comfortable learning environment. 15 The instructor actively encourages students to participate in the learning process. 19 The instructor posts grades in the grade book in a timely manner. 20 The instructor posts comments clarifying and explaining grades to students. It is also important that the gatekeepers in the institutions’ hierarchical structure carefully consider their actions and follow thoughtfully created policy. The Ethic of Care Viewing an ethical dilemma through this paradigm requires an individual to “grapple with values such as loyalty and trust.and will reflect solutions that show a concern for others as part of the decision making process” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p.18). But occasionally the experiential context determines that the desired altruistic behavior is subsumed by the needs of the individual i.e. human nature will place self first depending on the circumstances. If we accept that the university has a ‘duty of care,’ an ‘ethical responsibility’ towards instructors engaged in fostering a learning community then Starratt’s second guiding virtue of authenticity provides a framework for developing and supporting the online learning community. The instructor has an ethical duty to live out their own authenticity. So for the members of the distance learning community—instructor, institution and professional colleagues—it clearly constitutes an applied ethical issue that they are obliged to confront. It challenges universities