平台、感知和隐私:学生对教育技术的融合的伦理含义

IF 1.6 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Information and Learning Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1108/ils-03-2023-0030
Spencer P. Greenhalgh, Daniela K. DiGiacomo, Sarah Barriage
{"title":"平台、感知和隐私:学生对教育技术的融合的伦理含义","authors":"Spencer P. Greenhalgh, Daniela K. DiGiacomo, Sarah Barriage","doi":"10.1108/ils-03-2023-0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how higher education students think about educational technologies they have previously used – and the implications of this understanding for their awareness of datafication and privacy issues in a postsecondary context. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two surveys about students’ experience with the ClassDojo platform during their secondary education. In both surveys, the authors included a question asking students to identify which ClassDojo-like platform they used in school. For this study, the authors examined responses to these screening questions, identifying the technologies that responses referred to and sorting technologies into categories. Findings Students identified a wide range of technologies when prompted to identify a technology similar to ClassDojo. Many responses suggested students have a broad, monolithic understanding of educational technology. This suggests the prevalence of a utilitarian tool perspective (rather than a platform perspective) that may be entrenched by the time that students reach higher education, hampering efforts to inform and educate them in that context. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are few studies of students’ conflation of educational technologies in the extant literature. Furthermore, the platform perspective emphasized in this manuscript remains relatively rare in many fields associated with educational technology.","PeriodicalId":44588,"journal":{"name":"Information and Learning Sciences","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platforms, perceptions, and privacy: ethical implications of student conflation of educational technologies\",\"authors\":\"Spencer P. Greenhalgh, Daniela K. DiGiacomo, Sarah Barriage\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ils-03-2023-0030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how higher education students think about educational technologies they have previously used – and the implications of this understanding for their awareness of datafication and privacy issues in a postsecondary context. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two surveys about students’ experience with the ClassDojo platform during their secondary education. In both surveys, the authors included a question asking students to identify which ClassDojo-like platform they used in school. For this study, the authors examined responses to these screening questions, identifying the technologies that responses referred to and sorting technologies into categories. Findings Students identified a wide range of technologies when prompted to identify a technology similar to ClassDojo. Many responses suggested students have a broad, monolithic understanding of educational technology. This suggests the prevalence of a utilitarian tool perspective (rather than a platform perspective) that may be entrenched by the time that students reach higher education, hampering efforts to inform and educate them in that context. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are few studies of students’ conflation of educational technologies in the extant literature. Furthermore, the platform perspective emphasized in this manuscript remains relatively rare in many fields associated with educational technology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information and Learning Sciences\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information and Learning Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-03-2023-0030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-03-2023-0030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是研究高等教育学生如何看待他们以前使用的教育技术,以及这种理解对他们在高等教育背景下对数据化和隐私问题的认识的影响。设计/方法/方法作者对学生在中学教育期间使用ClassDojo平台的经历进行了两次调查。在这两项调查中,作者都提出了一个问题,要求学生确定他们在学校使用的是哪种类classdojo平台。在这项研究中,作者检查了对这些筛选问题的回答,确定了回答所涉及的技术,并将技术分类。当提示学生识别类似于ClassDojo的技术时,他们识别了广泛的技术。许多回应表明,学生对教育技术的理解是广泛而单一的。这表明功利主义工具视角(而不是平台视角)的盛行可能会在学生接受高等教育时根深蒂固,阻碍了在这种背景下告知和教育他们的努力。就笔者所知,现有文献中很少有关于学生对教育技术的融合的研究。此外,本文强调的平台视角在许多与教育技术相关的领域中仍然相对罕见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Platforms, perceptions, and privacy: ethical implications of student conflation of educational technologies
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how higher education students think about educational technologies they have previously used – and the implications of this understanding for their awareness of datafication and privacy issues in a postsecondary context. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two surveys about students’ experience with the ClassDojo platform during their secondary education. In both surveys, the authors included a question asking students to identify which ClassDojo-like platform they used in school. For this study, the authors examined responses to these screening questions, identifying the technologies that responses referred to and sorting technologies into categories. Findings Students identified a wide range of technologies when prompted to identify a technology similar to ClassDojo. Many responses suggested students have a broad, monolithic understanding of educational technology. This suggests the prevalence of a utilitarian tool perspective (rather than a platform perspective) that may be entrenched by the time that students reach higher education, hampering efforts to inform and educate them in that context. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are few studies of students’ conflation of educational technologies in the extant literature. Furthermore, the platform perspective emphasized in this manuscript remains relatively rare in many fields associated with educational technology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Information and Learning Sciences
Information and Learning Sciences INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Information and Learning Sciences advances inter-disciplinary research that explores scholarly intersections shared within 2 key fields: information science and the learning sciences / education sciences. The journal provides a publication venue for work that strengthens our scholarly understanding of human inquiry and learning phenomena, especially as they relate to design and uses of information and e-learning systems innovations.
期刊最新文献
A critical (theory) data literacy: tales from the field Toward a new framework for teaching algorithmic literacy Promoting students’ informal inferential reasoning through arts-integrated data literacy education The data awareness framework as part of data literacies in K-12 education Learning experience network analysis for design-based research
×
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