Massive Omission of Consent (MOOC): Ethical Research in Educational Big Data Studies

E. Costello, James Brunton, R. Bolger, Tiziana Soverino, Clément Juillerac
{"title":"Massive Omission of Consent (MOOC): Ethical Research in Educational Big Data Studies","authors":"E. Costello, James Brunton, R. Bolger, Tiziana Soverino, Clément Juillerac","doi":"10.24059/olj.v27i2.3759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ethical reviews of research plans function as a cornerstone of good research practice in order that no harm should come to participants. Ethical concerns have taken on a new salience in a digital world where data can be generated at scale. Big data research has grown rapidly, raising increased ethical concerns. Several intersecting areas of big data research exist within educational research, such as learning analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In the current study, an investigation was made of peer-reviewed papers on MOOC teaching and learning to determine if they explicitly refer to (a) ethical considerations in their studies, and (b) obtaining formal ethical approval for their research. This investigation was accomplished through a review of MOOC-related, English-language papers available in Scopus database, over the course of a year. The review produced a total of 1,249 articles, of which, 826 articles related to empirical studies involving human participants where full text of the articles could be obtained. The string “ethic” was searched for within these articles, and resulting articles analyzed, which found that a small fraction, 42 articles (5.08%), mention ethics in relation to the study presented in the article, and only 13 articles (1.57%) explicitly mention obtaining formal ethical approval for the research. The findings show a lack of transparency in reporting on and/or engagement with ethical considerations in MOOC teaching and learning research. These findings indicate the need for further stakeholder engagement and sectoral dialogue in relation to ethics education and training for researchers; consideration of ethics in big data studies in education; and norms/policies in academic publishing for authors to report how ethical issues have been considered.","PeriodicalId":93037,"journal":{"name":"Online learning : the official journal of the Online Learning Consortium","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online learning : the official journal of the Online Learning Consortium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3759","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ethical reviews of research plans function as a cornerstone of good research practice in order that no harm should come to participants. Ethical concerns have taken on a new salience in a digital world where data can be generated at scale. Big data research has grown rapidly, raising increased ethical concerns. Several intersecting areas of big data research exist within educational research, such as learning analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In the current study, an investigation was made of peer-reviewed papers on MOOC teaching and learning to determine if they explicitly refer to (a) ethical considerations in their studies, and (b) obtaining formal ethical approval for their research. This investigation was accomplished through a review of MOOC-related, English-language papers available in Scopus database, over the course of a year. The review produced a total of 1,249 articles, of which, 826 articles related to empirical studies involving human participants where full text of the articles could be obtained. The string “ethic” was searched for within these articles, and resulting articles analyzed, which found that a small fraction, 42 articles (5.08%), mention ethics in relation to the study presented in the article, and only 13 articles (1.57%) explicitly mention obtaining formal ethical approval for the research. The findings show a lack of transparency in reporting on and/or engagement with ethical considerations in MOOC teaching and learning research. These findings indicate the need for further stakeholder engagement and sectoral dialogue in relation to ethics education and training for researchers; consideration of ethics in big data studies in education; and norms/policies in academic publishing for authors to report how ethical issues have been considered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大规模省略同意(MOOC):教育大数据研究中的伦理研究
研究计划的伦理审查是良好研究实践的基石,目的是不让参与者受到伤害。在一个数据可以大规模产生的数字世界里,伦理问题变得更加突出。大数据研究发展迅速,引发了越来越多的伦理担忧。在教育研究中存在几个交叉的大数据研究领域,如学习分析、人工智能(AI)和大规模开放在线课程(MOOCs)。在本研究中,我们调查了关于MOOC教学和学习的同行评议论文,以确定它们是否明确提及(a)研究中的伦理考虑,以及(b)他们的研究是否获得了正式的伦理批准。这项调查是通过对Scopus数据库中与mooc相关的英语论文进行一年的审查来完成的。本次审查共产生1249篇文章,其中826篇与人类参与的实证研究相关,可获得全文。在这些文章中搜索字符串“伦理”,并分析得到的文章,发现一小部分,42篇(5.08%)提到了与文章中提出的研究相关的伦理,只有13篇(1.57%)明确提到了为研究获得正式的伦理批准。调查结果显示,在MOOC教学和学习研究中,报告和/或参与伦理考虑方面缺乏透明度。这些发现表明,有必要在研究人员的道德教育和培训方面进一步加强利益相关者的参与和部门对话;教育大数据研究中的伦理学思考以及学术出版规范/政策,让作者报告如何考虑伦理问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Refugees and Online Engagement in Higher Education: A Capabilitarian Model Student Attitudes Towards Distance Learning at a Large Urban Public College Building a Digital Educational Escape Room Using an Online Design-Thinking Process Adaptation of Activity Theory Framework for Effective Online Learning Experiences: Bringing Cognitive Presence with Teaching and Social Presences in Online Courses A Comparison of Cognitive and Social Presence in Online Graduate Courses: Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Modalities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1