mLearning and Creative Practices: a Public Challenge?

mLearning and Creative Practices: a Public Challenge?

Laurent Antonczak (COLAB, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand), Helen Keegan (University of Salford, Salford, UK) and Thomas Cochrane (Centre for Learning and Teaching, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
Copyright: © 2016 |Pages: 10
DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2016100103
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

The ethos of open sharing of experiences and user generated content enabled by Mobile social media can be problematic in some cases (politics, gender, minorities), and it is not fully understood within the creative and academic sector. Creative people, students, and lecturers can misconceive the value and issues around open and public access to their work online, which include: professionalism, Intellectual Property (IP), collaboration (Gayeski, 2002; Londsdale, Baber, Sharples, & Arvanitis, 2003), peer esteem VS individualism, amateurism, and paranoia. Collectively the authors of this paper have accrued a wide portfolio of experiences in global educational collaboration and practice-based research and, in this position paper, they highlight some of the key ethical challenges that they have found need to be negotiated within global mobile social media education (Andrews, Dyson, Smyth, & Wallace, 2011) and mobile media production (i.e.: photography and video – Wishart & Green, 2010). In order to ground this reflective discussion, the authors use Heutagogy as the learning and teaching framework to guide the qualitative analysis of a specific case study which is built upon the scenario-based approach utilised by Andrews et al., (2013).
Article Preview

Literature Review

Online, the concepts of public and private are much more complex than in a traditional face-to-face situation. The increasing rise of the social web as well as the ubiquitous technologies open up issues around privacy, tracking via geolocation data, a potentially global audience for critique, and IP and copyrights questions, without mentioning the myriad legal complexities given jurisdictional differences in data laws. Furthermore, research that analyses the use of digital technology for learning from an individual perspective (Buckingham and Willet, forthcoming; Crook & Harrison, 2008; Sharples et. al., 2009), and research on the how digital technologies can be used across different system for education (Vavoula et al., 2007), highlights new ethical issues also defined as “new species of generic moral problems” (Johnson, 1997, p. 61). Based on the principles of the work of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and in anticipation of this chaotic situation, a general overview of ethics on the Internet was defined in 1989 by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)2: the IAB made a few recommendations3 focussing mainly on: resources access (utilitarianism), users privacy (deontology) and fraud (consequentialism). However, due to the mobile affordances and proliferation within the last five years, it is more and more difficult to address the questions related to Informed Consent and Confidentiality, for instance. In fact, Ling and Donner (2009) well analysed the behaviour tension created by this fast increase, and more specifically within a creative environment, Winters (2006) argues that it is almost impossible to make the distinction between “tracking” VS “privacy”.

The authors argue that, because of this identified dilemma (Winters) and based on a substantial increase of Ethics Association since 2001, there is a recurring tension between the notion of “this is mine / this is my genius idea” VS “this is yours / I am ready to share” amongst the creative people, which requires a precise understanding of a foundation of trust, ethics and best practices in general. Furthermore, in “Supporting Practitioners in Implementing Mobile Learning and Overcoming Ethical Concerns: A Scenario Based Approach”, Andrews et al., demonstrate that teachers and academics competencies can be supported by four ethical scenarios. During #moco360 collaboration, “Scenario 4: Whose Content is it?” and “Scenario 2: Where do You Stop?” were mainly and unconsciously used by participants.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Open Access Articles: Forthcoming
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2018): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2009)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing