Activity 4: Legal & Ethical Contexts in My Digital Practice
The ethics of
digital collaboration/collusion has been an evolving field of inquiry
throughout the MindLab course - personally.
Digital 1 explored scaffolding academic writing through the lens of
knowledge construction. Digital 2
considered the issue of collaboration and collusion by asking, “Am I
consciously/unconsciously engaging in it with my students?” The Literature Review explored how teachers
can navigate the murky waters of digital collaboration and collusion in high
stakes student academic writing. The TAI
assignment looked at putting into practice the learning from the three previous
assignments.
This blog
considers it from an ethical point of view.
In Scholarship PE,
students complete a 30-page portfolio on an issue of their choosing. It requires a high level of academic
writing. Informed by previous
assignments, the process for knowledge construction with respect to academic
writing is well established. Digital
collaboration is used to develop understanding with the expectation that this
does not cross the line and become collusion.
Yet the seeds of
ethical tension have been sown.
The combination
of poor writing skills and confidence, panic, pressure, high stakes assessment,
access to information technology and collaborative practices, teacher culture
of caring, student understanding of unethical behaviour, and power boundaries/imbalance
between student and teacher, can lead to well-intentioned collaboration - to
improve the quality of academic writing - becoming illegitimate collusion. These risk factors are further compounded by
a general sense of confusion as to where collaboration ends and collusion begins
and, indeed, if collusion is necessarily unethical when trying to raise student
achievement with respect to academic writing.
A teacher colluding with a student (consciously or unconsciously) on
their portfolio can ethically justify it to themselves within a culture of
caring as, “helping”, “improving understanding”, or “facilitating learning. Because of the power imbalance that operates
between teacher and student (reward power, coercive
power, legitimate power, referent power
and expert power Schrodt, Witt
& Turman, 2007), students may not necessarily recognise they are colluding
with the teacher.
Consequently, I face an ethical tension between
wanting students to do well and experience success on one hand, and clear
authenticity procedures from NZQA on the other.
The consequentialist (link for more) in me ethically rationalizes
my choices as a product of the outcome.
If students do well, and pass, and no one is the wiser for my collusion,
then ethically the outcome justifies the “rightness” of my decision. This is taking a very egocentric approach in
that the end justifies the means without any consideration of the student or
wider school.
The non-consequentialist ethically rationalizes the
choices not in terms of outcomes, but the processes that are in place to guide
my actions. There are clears policies,
directives, school expectations, and professional ethics in place – which Elrich, Kimber, Millwater & Cranston (2011) describes as, “competing forces” (p.178) – to filter any decision
made with respect to the extent of my collaboration with students (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Finally, the virtuist ethically bases any decision
around the concept of “ethics of care” (Schwimmer & Maxwell, 2017,
p.4). I hold personal values, morals,
beliefs and ethics that make me a good teacher.
I instill those in my students because I have a professional
responsibility to do so. It is my moral character
and not wanting to compromise neither myself nor my students that ultimately
guides my decision making in this respect.
Elrich et al’s (2011)
model serves as a useful tool for reflecting on the nature of the action, the
ethical dilemma, considering the potential implications to myself, students and
the wider school. As a result the
ethical decision is ultimately based on an amalgam of consequentialist,
non-consequentialist, and virtuist reflection.
References:
Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.539794
Lineham, C. (2018). The
Complexity of Ethics in Education. Retrieved 21 March 2018, from
http://mindlabpracticeclineham.blogspot.co.nz/2018/02/the-complexity-of-ethics-in-education.html
Schwimmer, M., & Maxwell, B. (2017). Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy. Ethics and Education, 12(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1287495
Hi Craig
ReplyDeleteI teach at Primary level and have never really considered how much ethics play a role in secondary teaching when it comes to grading for NCEA. In all areas of education - Mindlab included - we are embracing collaboration amongst learners as it can be such an important factor in the workforce - but I agree with you it can easily cross the line and become collusion - I guess almost like teaching to the test - which is not something a teacher who is ethical would be doing. Your explanation based on the amalgam of consequentialist, non-consequentialist, and virtuist reflection is very clear and easy to understand. Thanks for sharing.
Good point. Colluding with students exists along aacontinuum of perceived severity from telling them a Euston that may be in an assessmenta through to writing sections of high stake assessment for them. When cross marking betwenb teachers it is not uncommon for the teacher (who has an understandably vested interest in the student doing well) to say, "I know whatvthey are trying to say". They read between the lines and infer understanding. It may be at the lower end of colluding bjt it remains unethical if that is not being applied equitably to all students. I suppose it is akin to the idea of "favourites" in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting points Craig and Wendy. At primary and secondary level there are always teachers who go that extra mile for students. We all have students who have an unfortunate backstory that we want to help more than others. Each teacher brings their own code of ethics formed from their life experiences. I have witnessed this favouritism when moderating writing samples with other teachers. You are right Craig when you say some teachers May unintentionally collude with a student or mark with More subjectivity than objectivity. Teachers are humans, we are not all the same and neither are children. We do our best but carry an unconscious bias, whether we are too soft and kind or suffer from deficit thinking. It is amazing how much our ethics influence what we do. Whether we see it or not!
ReplyDeleteAs is often the case, this opens a can of multi-flavour worms. As teacher we have the tension built into our system that demands high performance from our students, but bars us from creating the performance. This leads to us having to walk a very narrow tightrope between being approachable so that the students can get feedback and feedforward during the process of assessment, without guiding them in such a way that an excelence grade is a foregone conclusion. If you throw group assessment into the mix, it becomes even more contentious. The requirements to be professional, approachable, guiding, fair strict and transparent is quite a minefield to navigate. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors)
ReplyDelete