Ethics In Distance Education:
Examining Social Responsibility And “The Digital Divide”

Introduction: Crucial Decisions ¾ The Times, They Are a’Changing

“At the height of another period of major upheaval, Abraham Lincoln observed, ‘The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present and future. As our circumstances are new, we must think anew, and act anew.’” (Heterick, 1998). Such a statement must be felt from within the heart as well as from the acknowledgement of the actual words. It has been said that “the only thing certain is change.” Yet, today we face an identical stormy present and future … and as we’ve passed from one century into another in a tidal wave of technological changes … it is for absolute certain that we must begin to think and act anew. We must begin, from both conceptual and applied points of view, to understand ANEW, the interaction between education and society, for the Computer Era has forever changed the playing field and the participants.

In the United States today, we have an education system from kindergarten through twelfth grade that supports the ideals of equitable education and access to learning ¾ in theory ¾ but breaks down in achieving them in truth. We can look at results of international assessments, or standardized tests, or performance-based assessments … and our students do not accomplish the high levels of excellence that we’ve been led, over the years, to believe that children in the Unites States achieve. In spite of substantial forward movement over several decades, there continues to be a large separation in accomplishment between young learners from different racial and ethnic groups, and different social classes. (Steinberg, 1995). “For many children, especially children who are poor and belong to racial minorities, both equality and excellence in education remain out of reach. In addition, although our public schools honor diversity and pluralism by bringing together students from many different backgrounds, they simultanously dishonor those values by requiring conformity to state-imposed policies on controversial issues …” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, Pp. 251-252).

The advent of the Internet, if anything, has compounded the problems of equality, with access to technology becoming a critical issue. It also sheds an entirely new light on the concept and “act” of policy-making.

A Changing Base Of Ethics In A Global Setting

The concept of ethics has been around since the civilization process of humankind began. The word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos, which is translated as custom (tradition, ritual) or character (spirit, moral fiber, makeup). (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998, p. 90). The Oxford English Dictionary defines ethics as a set of moral principles. Most would agree that business ethics rotate around an organizations’ conduct codes, as well as concepts of morality or moral judgment. Psychology also includes the cognitive development of the person in the dialogue of ethics. Philosophers tend to add the views of obligation and application. Finally, the legal profession defines ethics as a study of what comprises “right” or “wrong” behavior. (Jentz, Miller, and Cross, 1981, p. 24).” (Bhagwat, 2002). Since education and business have always tended to mirror one another, it is interesting to note that in the last decade, industry and professional assessment centers have begun to give more credence to the matter of ethics. This has been an effort to create a more positive image with shareholders and customers. A similar thread of circumstances has pervaded the educational arena, as schools and universities vie for the “clientele” ¾ the student and their paying parents. Attention to ethics in the business world also promotes increased productivity as well as the quality in outputs ¾ thus providing large overall boosts to product and human productivity. A sound ethics base also helps that company merge smoothly with newly-founded relationships with cultures and countries in our world’s global expansion. This philosophy also helps the business to better adhere to legal guidelines, and decreases the organization’s chance of litigation. (Bhagwat, 2002). Much of this description neatly fits the advanced reasons for adhering to ethically-based outlooks and decisions by the educational world ¾ especially since our modern world seems to have gone “lawsuit-happy.”

For the first time in the span of humanity’s existence, digital prowess has escalated the NEED for sound ethics, both in business and in education … as in, “we must,” rather than, “wouldn’t it be nice?” Because of the global character of Cyberspace, problems connected with ¾ or caused by ¾ computer technology have an actual or at least a potential global disposition. This includes ethical problems. Therefore, computer ethics has to be regarded as global ethics. The very temperament of the “Computer Revolution” indicates that the ethics of the future will be globally-encompassing ¾ in a spatial sense, since these maturing concepts will take in an entire physical world ¾ and also in a more esoteric sense, as they will also address the totality of human actions and relations, from every point of the global reaches. This global computer ethic has been “born” of the Computer Revolution, along with so many other aspects of modern life. It will serve the humanity of a Computer Era. The very tool will bring more tools that will aid in empowering people in a whole new manner. Since this is the case, computer ethics should be considered one of the most important fields of future philosophical exploration. (Gorniak-Kocicowska, 1996/2002). This type of global ethic will transcend locale, race, gender, ethnicity, culture, and age barriers … it has the potential of being a final instrument for providing cohesion and agreement between peoples who were historically separate and even divergent.

But first ¾ we must provide the avenue for equal access to all members of what has come to be known as the Global Village. We MUST find answers for “The Digital Divide.” This goes further than providing access to knowledge to the most disadvantaged of young learners in the United States. Our base of ethics and social responsibility now must stretch to the limits of the planet. The “youth next door” may very well be in Ethiopia or southern New Zealand.

“Social justice has always had a profound connection to education. It has inspired theorists as different as John Dewey (a focus in this writing) Paulo Freire, and Raymond Williams … [W]e need a new language to make youth in all its diversity a central focus for addressing how we take up the relationship between social justice and democracy.” (Giroux, 1998, Pp. 290-291). As modern debate has raged on, concerning education and “rights,” youth have been left out of the dialogue concerning democracy, rights, justice, and compassion. Traditionally, young people are the inheritors of decision ¾ good or bad, right or wrong. As educators in a world now ruled by the speed and even chaos of new technologies, we must learn to construct spaces for young people to speak, to represent themselves ¾ and to organize. This is not only organization of self … it is also organization of groups, of teams, so that they can indeed become a part of this higher order that literally has been shoved on all of humanity. Overall, this means that progressive educators will become more conscientious in connecting the concerns of young people for the learning of skills for fostering a rejuvenation of democratic public life. One of our most essential tools will be … the computer.

The New Playground Is “Ethereal” ¾ Can Policy Be Set In Stone?

It may appear that all we need to do is to apply a mechanical and methodical description of an ethical theory to any given situation, in order to generate a fitting policy. This is usually not possible. What the larger question is: Is this even desirable? Technological events of the past few decades have left us with a very large gap, both in policy and in daily application. It is a digital “black hole,” so to speak. There is a gaping hole … like the black hole of outer space, which also sucks anything near it, into itself … the good, the bad, AND the ugly. A primary difficulty that spans the ages, concerning policy-making is that, along with a policy vacuum, there is most likely a conceptual vacuum as well. Part of the reason for the continued existence of the black hole is that nobody has been able to define the black hole. How can a thing be harnessed if nobody really knows what it is?

When it comes to a problem in computer ethics ¾ “Digital Divide? Well, just BUY COMPUTERS” ¾ the initial concept and solution may seem clear. A bit of soul-searching will reveal a conceptual chaos. What is truly needed is an analysis which will provide a consistent framework of the concepts. From there, a policy for action can be formulated. Our tendencies, as humans, have always been in the variety of “the lemming effect” where we jump first, and hopefully have the opportunity to ask questions later. With the world of computers, so much of technique and policy falls into a “great mandala,” “great circle of life” category, that it would be lethal to ignore the conceptual frameworks for understanding ethical problems involving computer technology. What we consider ethical in the United States today, may have extreme and adverse affects on a child in Somalia, tomorrow. We must scrutinize the great “what goes ‘round, comes ‘round” effect, MUCH more intensely than ever before.

Even within a reasoned conceptual framework, the fabrication of a policy for using computer technology can be difficult! The nature of the technologies is very fluid, changing constantly ¾ and “fluidity” is easy to be interpreted as “inconsistent” when it comes to policy and rules. “As we consider different policies we discover something about what we value, and what we don’t. Because computer technology provides us with new possibilities for acting, new values emerge ... And old values have to be reconsidered.” (Baird et. al., 2002, p. 24). It’s no small wonder that so many are so stunned when considering the impact of ethics in modern education.

Perhaps the most divergent concern raised in the literature, for ethics matters in the business world, was tackling the perception that if ethics are centered around processes and tasks instead of around developing individual self-government and personal ethical values, the rule-governed idea of ethics may undermine the moral nature of the people working within the organization (Bos, 1997).” (Bhagwat, 2002). It is easy to surmise that this same apprehension is strong in academics, where our decisions impact the lives of so many young people.

Many academic administrators ¾ core to the actions of policy-making ¾ act as though new modes of distance learning were their own “field of dreams.” If you construct the distance classrooms and acquire the latest technology, the students will come! What is often forgotten is the training that instructors will need to deliver quality distance learning programs. Herein lies the basis for the ethical crisis. How much do we owe future learners, that we will always keep in mind what is in the best interest of the student, and not let media or marketing hype distort our decisions and pocketbooks, and ultimately, our policy?

“Students do not learn from the technology. They learn from competent instructors who have been trained how to communicate through the technology.

“As distance learning ... proliferates at a dizzying pace in all areas of education and training, the need for instructor training in teaching at a distance will become obvious … [i]t is incumbent on postsecondary administrators as well as corporate, government, and other user groups to provide the needed support and training for instuctors” (Cyrs, 1997, p. 1).

What should the “rules” be, for constructing the rules, the policy? We have a responsibility to recognize the contribution of “history.” We are duty-bound to contribute to the education of youth by supplying them with a setting of coherence, stability, and interconnectedness in their studies, and a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. Only history can provide the central discipline. The central issue of ethics and computer ethics, is to make technology, information, and technological tools of service to human processes and growth. As with ethics throughout the ages, this will include creative, spiritual, emotional, and thinking processes. Part of computer ethics is to learn to “negotiate” intelligently with the technologies, by taking responsibility for our own choices and the consequences ¾ and by knowing what technology can and cannot do. Ironically, it has advanced on us so quickly, that we are learning these things at the same time that we are attempting to define and organize them, as well as teach them to our youth.

Some very strong advice ¾ as well as solutions ¾ have been around for quite some time. “[T]he first stage of contact with any new material, at whatever age of maturity, must inevitably be of the trial and error sort. An individual must actually try, in play or work, to do something with material in carrying out his own impulsive activity, and then note the interaction of his energy and that of the material employed.” (Dewey, 1916, 1994). Part of what we are obligated to do, is to simply provide the experiential means TO DO IT. More than purchasing of equipment, more than training teachers and personnel to teach the new millennium skills, we must realize that the learning scenario has also changed. We not only are obliged to bridge the Digital Divide in the provision of hard elements … we must somehow build into the framework, the responsibility we have for giving learners the chance for experiential learning … UNBRIDLED by excessive policy and restraint. All the while we were sickening of the phrase, “Paradigm Shift,” the paradigm, indeed, shifted. Many are still reeling with that relatively silent impact.

The Real Meaning Of The “Paradigm Shift”

What do we mean, with the term “paradigm”? It is defined as example, model, pattern, prototype. The real essence of the word only comes into play, however, when we consider its further connotations: exemplar, and standard. It isn’t that we are dealing with only a change in the “model” of things … EXEMPLAR cuts to the quick. We are dealing with an absolute change in the STANDARD for education. Moreover … for any hanging back, and for the naysayers, there really is no recourse … this isn’t going to happen, it has happened. Perhaps for this reason alone, those who resist change in educational arenas are having to contend with not only the change, but their feelings of being not just persuaded, but forced by the advent of new technologies, to change. This opens whole new views on what is, or is not, social responsibility toward our youth ¾ it involves the issues of how to ethically deliver substantial content to students, all the while being apprehensive that perhaps we are not ready to do so.

These elements begin to reveal the development of this new paradigm of education. In the online arena, an instructor may continue to define course content and drive the course. New vistas in learning at professional and academic levels now demand a setting of collaborative effort. There is a great deal of room for students to explore the content collaboratively or to pursue their own, related interests. No longer is there a one-way passing on of knowledge by an “expert” on a particular topic. This makes many “experts” extremely nervous.

However, even this endeavor at redefinition leaves out an extremely important element that sets computer-mediated distance learning apart from the traditional classroom setting. This element, in this author’s opinion, is crucial to what sets the modern “paradigm” apart in the area of ethics and our responsibility to ALL youth, in a non-partial manner. It is what has become our obligation ¾ for bringing equal measures to all learners. “Key to the learning process are the interactions among students themselves, the interactions between faculty and students, and the collaboration in learning that results from their interactions. In other words, the formation of a learning community through which knowledge is imparted and meaning is co-created sets the stage for successful learning outcomes.” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, Pp. 4-5).

It has been said, mostly in conjunction with the arena of small business operations, that the Internet is “the great leveller,” bringing opportunity to small business in as equal portions as to the “Big Boys” in commerce. What is core to education is that it has the potential for doing exactly that … it holds the promise for bringing equity in learning settings to all learners, worldwide.

Is It Possible To “Lift All Kids”?

“Where has the technology met the promise of lifting all kids?” (Sanford, 2002, p. 24). It is perhaps surprising, how much unbridled enthusiasm there is for technology in schools, when there truly is a lack of real data to show that technological expenditures actually improve student learning. Much of this is a “time factor,” where the melding of technology and education is still in its infancy, and there simply is not enough historical evidence.

As this writing veers from the problems inherent in policy-making, to the questions of technology and the advancment of improved learning settings, how directly do the policymakers affect the new modes for learning? A better question in this author’s mind is: How strong is the stranglehold? The problems education faces are not so much technological, as cultural. The power given over to the “powers that be,” whether in government or in educational arenas, is a part of the definition of education, for all these years. Will this power be willingly relinquished or altered, for the betterment of learners?

“The Reformer” Has Enemies

A drastic change is on the way! One way to combat the problem of reluctance for having things change ¾ for this indeed will probably eliminate jobs and change the face of “school” ¾ is to create new partnerships between carefully researched “value adders” (software companies, training centers, equipment and service providers) that provide focused, student-centered learning models that utilize information technology.

“However, as Machiavelli observed, ‘There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things, for the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.’” (Heterick, 1994) (CalTech.edu, 2002). There are many who do not welcome school reform, for they truly do profit by the old order of things. Embracing new ideas and new technology can be a costly agenda, whether the “digital divide” resides in the richest or poorest of sectors. Taking on this challenge still necessitates taking funds out of one area, to feed into a more vital area.

“Certain values are paramount to any discussion of education in the United States: equality, excellence, and pluralism. As a nation we support the principle of equality of educational opportunity. We support the principle of educational excellence. Our pursuit of equality and excellence must be joined, because educational opportunity — if equal — should be equal in excellence, not equal in mediocrity. And finally, we support the liberal democratic ideas of diversity and pluralism, for we recognize that in a free society, healthy differences of opinion and practice not only promote progress but are required for it.” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, P. 251).

But, for many who are well-embedded in “traditional school,” this vigorous difference of opinion may very well mean the end of a traditional school job. This, unfortunately, seems to be at the core of many strifes for bridging digital inequalities and providing equal access for all learners.

For all the well-meaning of dedicated educators, there are politics to contend with, at many levels. The following words describe succinctly that a single issue of “ethics” is rarely a solitary, individual issue. We are all part of a larger whole, and crucial decisions are most often NOT made by the ones who will benefit ¾ or suffer ¾ at the outcome of decisions wrongly-made:

“I suggest that the business design of the university is becoming obsolete and that public universities especially are slow to respond. Our customers (students, parents, employers) are looking for cheap private alternatives and are complaining loudly to the political process. The politicians in our state capitals have been reacting by cutting budgets, micromanaging our time (more hours in the classroom), and abolishing tenure (post-tenure review).” (Denning, 1996).

An Educator’s Crisis In Ethics: Taking On The Digital Challenge

Lack Of Infrastructure And Difficulty Of The Tools

“What continues to be lacking is the infrastructure to facilitate technology-mediated learning. This would require the collaboration of institutions of learning, disciplinary societies, scholarly publishers, testing services, and the panoply of communications service providers.” (Heterick, 1994). This is a huge portion on our plate, calling for measures that require new thought and dedication.

There is a harsh reality of the shortcoming in current offerings that really is the failure of application developers to create tools that are uncomplicated enough for teachers to learn and use. After all, within education, we are dealing with the backlash of technology changes at the scientific, engineering, and high-technical professional levels. Neil Bush, son of President George Bush, made that observation, in relation to his work with distance education at Ignite! Learning. “We [at Ignite! Learning] are a curriculum development and delivery system, developing primary source content to be used as an alternative to ¾ or complement ¾ or even one day, a replacement for textbooks.” (Sanford, 2002, p. 24). It is within these words that we see the trepidation of many, for the massive changes in the STANDARD, the old paradigm. We are passing from the long-held tradition of the written word. And it brings fear to many. Underlying that fear, again, is the desire to remain socially responsible to future learners ¾ coupled with a trepidation that we will not be able to deliver. It has come down to not whether we are willing and able to make the shift ¾ but, are we willing to adopt the changes, and also willing to take on the challenge to BECOME ENABLED? How can we embark on a journey to deliver these technologies to those cast on the wrong side of the Digital Divide, when we really are in our own lost labyrinth when it comes to these very offerings?

Drastic Changes In An Educator’s Toolkit

It is meaningful to observe the development of technological alternatives taking place today in education. In many instances, the drive for the technologies can be linked back directly to the traditional classroom. Those who are propelling the technologies often are from the classroom and find it fitting to duplicate the on-ground classroom in the online format. While some value lies in this approach, at least in the initial steps toward “taking content online,” many leaders in online programs are requesting a brand new methodology for providing new technologies. They seek approaches that reinforce a “facilitation process” that is becoming common to online models, as opposed to historical, more common lecture models of the on-ground educational classroom. (Bedore, et. al., 1998, pp. 182-183).

Teaching at a distance is, indeed, quite different from traditional teaching. Many of the skills of excellence in teaching will transfer to a distance learning setting, but there are additional teaching skills that are required. Any instructor who has taught through telephone conferencing, interactive television, on the Internet or World Wide Web, or through desktop television will confirm this. As the Digital Divide is bridged, there will be even more very specialized skills needed, for bringing new learners up to speed.

Some of the difficulties of these early years in education via the Internet have arisen due to too many instructors having been told that there are no differences, or that there are only “minor” adjustments to be made, for distance teaching. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the saddest circumstances in this modular shift is that afore-mentioned situation where many academic institutions have attempted to transport existing lecture-based courses to interactive television, or telephone, or other technologies without any modification or conversion. (Cyrs, 1997, p. 1). And, of course, it hasn’t worked. It particularly will not work on a global scale. Now that we are beyond the “first iteration” of Web-based learning, it has become our responsibility to truly dive into the differences in the models, and learn what really does work.

The true challenge is not the availability of technologies. The true challenge lies in the test we face, for solving the problems that prevent us from assimilating technologies into these learning models in a cost-effective way. (Bedore, et. al., 1998, p. 188).

Drastic Changes In The School Setting

As technology becomes, more and more, the primary motor that drives education and the professions, faculty and students alike are grappling with the changes it is bringing to the academic environment. Certainly, a transition must be made from the typical campus classroom to the classroom in Cyberspace. Teachers and learners really do behave differently in these two models of the classrooms. Learning outcomes are altered, as well. From the providers of the technologies, to the youngest learner on the block ¾ it has been very difficult to keep up.

“Computer-mediated courses and programs have been appearing so rapidly that little thought seems to have been given to the possible impact of the delivery method ¾ either educationally or socially. Nor has much thought been given to the need to modify the educational approach; traditional teaching methods are being attempted in a nontraditional environment.” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, Pp. 4-5). This author believes, however, that this is only a temporary “shifting of the gears,” as we all attempt to gain new knowledge, and begin to implement necessary changes in our own corners of the global classroom. For most cases, it is not that we have been ignoring our obligations for initiating social responsibility and ethical decisions … it has been a matter of slowly “coming up to speed” in order to put these things into motion.

In the same line of thought, some people would have us believe that Internet-based learning will unseat campus-based teaching. It is more likely that the two will coexist, with Web-based learning opening new markets in addressing the life-long learning needs of a 21^st-century workforce. New models in Web-based learning environments will most likely not look like typical courses found on college campuses. They probably won’t even resemble these early years of distance learning. Some programs may even be low-cost or even free, with learners “choosing to use the learning experience as a pointer to other, priced, services (such as competency-based testing, credit banking, credentialing, etc.) available from the provider … The community of learners will be a large one, and lots of people are going to make money servicing it ¾ most likely with far different strategies than those of our historic campus-based institutions.” (Heterick, 1998).

It is almost uncanny that the advance of such high-tech methods has brought with it … a return to times of … the “apprenticeship.” But, this is also a core descriptor for what is needed, if we are to truly bridge the Digital Divide. A refocusing on the needs of community will provide opportunity for all learners to provide essential service to their own communities, working with the details that set each community apart from another and make them unique. This will open doors to the inner-city disadvantaged learner as much as it will for the suburban child with more resources.

Authenticity in Learning:
Experential Settings Are A Social Responsibility

One major descriptor of the shift in educational model, has been the return to earlier thought on experiential learning … career-related learning experiences. After all, equity in education means little if it doesn’t translate into equity in the workplace. In this author’s opinion, this is precisely where we’ve seen the shortcomings of 20^th century education. It just has not provided the necessary tools. Today, we now have opportunities for working with community technology centers nationwide (and eventually, globally), to improve programs, support community development, and eliminate the Digital Divide. The method for delivery of learning also is the primary set of tools in modern workplaces. John Dewey, in almost a prophecy of our new millennium situation, stated:

“Hence the first approach to any subject in school, if thought is to be aroused and not words acquired, should be as unscholastic as possible. To realize what an experience, or empirical situation, means, we have to call to mind the sort of situation that presents itself outside of school; the sort of occupations that interest and engage activity in ordinary life. And careful inspection of methods which are permanently successful in formal education, whether in arithmetic or learning to read, or studying geography, or learning physics or a foreign language, will reveal that they depend for their efficiency upon the fact that they go back to the type of the situation which causes reflection out of school in ordinary life. They give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections; learning naturally results.” (Dewey, 1916, 1994).

View From A Scientific Standpoint

“The American Psychological Association set forth six guiding ethical principles in 1992 dealing with: competency, integrity, professional, social and scientific responsibility, respect of individuals’ rights and dignity, and concern for others’ welfare (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998). Most of these principles are relatively straightforward. Competency and integrity refer to appropriate education and training, and the practitioners’ honesty and fairness. Professional and scientific responsibility encompasses the psychologist taking responsibility for the assessment process, results, and testing procedures utilized, as well as, their commitment to only enlist the services of qualified individuals for the assessment center. Social responsibility refers to the practitioner abiding by laws and understanding the social contexts. (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998). Concern for other’s welfare and respect for peoples’ rights and dignity deal with the ideas that assessment centers should keep in mind individual differences, confidentiality, privacy and be sensitive to the assessee’s needs and concerns regarding the interpretation of the assessment results and the feedback phase (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998). In the professional world, confidentiality and feedback ethics revolve around:

· Informing the client of exactly who will receive a copy of the assessment results,

· Protection of results from third parties,

· How results are recorded and stored,

· Who will provide the feedback,

· When and if feedback will be provided, and,

· The simplicity of the feedback information
(Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998).” (Bhagwat, 2002)

It is clear that these are excellent guidelines for education, as well.

A Highway Toward Social Responsibility?

“The community builders I’ve worked with have often found it useful to refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs when trying to clarify their goals and prioritize their feature list.” (Kim, 2000, p. 8). The Hierarchy of Needs (see Appendix A) is the inspired invention of Abraham Maslow, one of the founding fathers of humanistic psychology. He promoted the concept that people are literally driven by the urge to satisfy needs that range from basic survival to high forms of self-fulfillment, but that they don’t seek to fill the higher-level needs until the lower-level ones are satisfied. Although this may be pushing the envelope a bit, this author sees that in modern society, there are many levels of “survival.” If basic survival rests in the ability to “forage in the forest” of a highly competitive workplace, then arriving at a level of skills necessary to compete is as real as learning the skills of hunting and killing ¾ the “technical skills” of early humankind. In order to take one’s place in this competitive market, our youth need to gain a certain level of self-realization, just in order to learn and maintain the “survival skills.” In this manner, modern society has begun to see that a certain level of self-fulfillment is part and parcel with the actions needed for mere survival.

How do we begin to measure the steps needed for self-fulfillment that lead to establishing the skills necessary for modern survival? We must first find that level in our own lives, to impart it to the youth we work with. There is emerging, a dominant principle: Our responsibility to students is directly related to our understanding of our own ethical self, and the first step in establishing that ethical identity is self-reflection. By teaching ethically, faculty members model and advocate appropriate behavior to students in a “visible voice” that is more effective than any verbal proclamation or recounting of the “should’s and should not’s.” This public evidence of ethics in teaching also answers the calls for accountability from the public, the press, and politicians. Overall, teaching ethically requires revolution of structures, attitudes, and persons ¾ in educators as well as learners ¾ if faculty are to meet fully their responsibilities to themselves, much less to their students and to society. (Fisch, 1996). The modular shift has called for a higher form of dedication.

For several decades, it has been clear that a college education is seen as a crucial credential for a good job. Many people now prefer to earn certificates of competence in a part-time program, while remaining employed full-time. Many people want learning services that are customer-oriented and non-bureaucratic, and which present a good value for the money. What we see currently with all of this going on, is the federal government planning to freeze or sever research dollars and student-aid grants. The triumphant educational organization of the 21st century is going to have to be in perfect timing with these changes in order to attract students and their parents or employers as customers. The primary characteristics of the new model will undoubtedly include things like the diminishing of the traditional classroom to intermittent use, and a profound use of technologies for research and for performance of learning scenarios and of projects. It will usher in an upsurge of programs that provide certification more often than those with traditional, “scholarly” applications. It will be a situation brought to fruition, where academic collaboration reigns, rather than strictly daily life via “administration.” See Appendix B.

Emerging media — highly interactive media — now challenges the evaluation of instructional products and the learning that happens with the use of those products. Hypermedia provides learners with access to vast and varied content, and a control over the process of learning. Students are given the potential for collaboration with both the delivery system and with other people. The use of strict, predefined goals is no longer in keeping with the goals of modern learners. This empowerment of learners compels the evaluator to assume a much more broad-based set of techniques and standards. Only this modification to the evaluation process will accommodate self-directed learning! (Jonassen & Mandl: Marchionini, 1989, p. 368).

Whatever else is determined, the evaluation of students interacting with instructional environments must be conducted. Part of our duty, our ethical standard, will be to provide the data that gives proof that we are on the right track. One thing remains true — that, wherever it can be done, evaluations should connect instructor-designated goals to the outcomes. In the currently unknown arenas of new technologies that will create yet-unanticipated cases, we will have to take on the challenges of assessing both the process and the products of learning that will be consistent with goals set by the 21^st century learner. (Marchionini, 1989, p. 359. As cited in Jonassen & Mandl). To this end, each project will carry a heavy incentive to approach analysis at each and every step of the product. Cursory attempts at review will undoubtedly produce failure.

The final assessor of the product will be … the learner. For all the yet-unfilled gaps of time in the remaining stages of the paradigm shift, for the analyzing agents ¾ whether subject matter experts, teachers, or administrators ¾ the last determinant for product success will be the user who uses the tool. This could be defined as learners on both sides of the Digital Divide, as well as the conglomerate group, once basic equality has been met. It is EVER-changing.

Cross-Cultural Concerns: Meeting Future Needs

“Cross-cultural concerns are also beginning to bring up new issues regarding business ethics. The increase of companies expanding into previously unfamiliar cultures has illuminated several ethical concerns for organizations. One primary cross-cultural concern is that it is extremely difficult to successfully mingle with predominate, non-western cultures when setting up business operations. Traditionally, western companies have expected the host countries to adapt to the organization, but recently other ideas have been proposed for creating an ethical and respectful code of conduct. Managers of global companies are finding it is wise to learn international codes of business ethics.” (Frazee, 1993, p. 6).” (Bhagwat, 1998). In our search for ethical ways of delivering new technologies, it becomes clear that the ideal is another portion of the modular shift ¾ we are forever veering away from the foundation that has been primarily “Western Civilization” in nature. We are adopting an entirely new set of values that will be the TRUE melting pot of the world.

Transformation Within Popular Cultural Spheres

Currently, in 2002, learners of all topical areas are obtaining the pertinent knowledge and “transformative skills” in new media skills, both in educational and professional settings. They are getting training for cooperative work settings, in interdisciplinary projects. They are dynamic participants in the evolution of teaching and learning at least at the post-secondary level, and in particular, the university. This has offered many students of the past decade a rather decided advantage, and a focused authorization to be a part of what dozens of entities have labelled the “dream team.” (Perelman, 2001). But, this opportunity has not been across-the-board. Settings are different, from privileged college campus, to the streets of the urban under-served. The differences escalate rapidly when we visit third-world countries, or even advanced countries still struggling with a technology crunch.

“Crucial here is the ongoing necessity of understanding how youth are being transformed within popular cultural spheres structured by the new technologies of images, sounds, and print. Schools need to connect with popular culture so as to both affirm the cultures that shape everyday life and engage them as an important site for learning.” (Giroux, 1998, P. 291).

This writer came upon a research example that distinctly lays the problem of “vision” at the feet of policymakers. “On February 15, 1994, Secretary of Education Richard Riley delivered a speech at Georgetown University on the state of American education, in which he noted, ‘Some schools are excellent, some are improving, some have the remarkable capacity to change for the better, and some should never be called schools at all.” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, P. 252). (Dept. of Education, 1994).

How can anyone read words such as this reference to schools that “should never be called schools at all,” and not come away scathed in the spirit? What form of ethics or social vision, could form these words? Who attends these schools? Most likely, these students are African-American and Hispanic and a dozen other careworn, ethnic groups … “chances are they are from very poor families, in which a single parent is struggling to make ends meet. These are the children who are compelled to attend schools that most teachers shun, if they can, in neighborhoods that people of means avoid, if possible.” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, P. 252).

We have an ethical duty to level the playing field in the game of Digital Divide. Not everyone has had these unrivaled dimensions for new systems and new products. Current learners will take these concepts into future careers. In turn, they will hopefully elevate other systems of design and evaluation, expanding upon present discoveries. This is the only solution to the problems of inequitable resources and skill-building experienced by most modern schools. (Perelman, 2001). But, first, we must dispel utter negativity in its tracks.

Distilling A Code Of Ethics

Planning personal requirments for ethical solutions in your work life isn’t all that difficult, at least in understanding the simple elements. There are basically four standards to follow in your day-to-day ethical practices: honesty, keeping your word, respect for others, and fairness. These are as old as the need for ethics or social responsibility has been around. The primary difficulties arise in implementing them in a consistent manner. These are practices for both instructors and learners in distance education. They are part of the “golden rule” for both classroom and distance course behavior. And, they improve with time and practice. It is also good to keep these in mind:

· In a distance program, we must first develop a “good practices” guideline. On the Web, many models used by universities and accrediting agencies alike, can be found, for use as a beneficial pattern. The good practices will serve as an ethical guideline for working with faculty and learners.

· Create new policies when there are no current policies. Keep in mind the diverse populations you work with in distance education. Then, make these policies accessible to ALL distance students.

· Providing information to the learners, over and over again, is critical. Once is never enough, especially when Web courses are “living” entities, always changing.

· Finally, never think you are finished. Keeping policy ethical and current is a never-ending process.

In the book, Ethical Dimensions of College and University Teaching: Understanding and Honoring the Special Relationship Between Teachers and Students, edited by Linc. Fisch, the issues of ethics and responsibilities in education can be distilled to nine principles. It is interesting to note that this list is extremely comprehensive, covering everything from competency in content and pedagogy; to sensitivity and confidentiality of content and personal data; to the teacher-student relationship as it affects the development of a learner; validity in the assessment process … and finally, respect for both colleagues AND the Institution we serve. (Fisch, 1996). The “layers” of our duties toward individual and toward society, are now more detailed.

Yet, in the defining of these “codes of ethics,” we can derive a level of satisfaction knowing that it IS possible to achieve a working set of “rules” or “policies,” concerning our steps toward ethics in education in our modern world of distance learning and global community.

There are answers to how we can equitably and ethically bring learning to students, across the Digital Divide. The answers may lie outside of traditional “school solutions.” For instance, finding the funds to carry out a curriculum transformation project is not always easy. Some type of special funding is generally required either to buy faculty production time, or to offer stipends, or to purchase needed hardware. So, the grant-writing process is part of the plan. “It’s more work than most faculty are aware of. Sometimes, administrators may off-handedly assign grant-getting to faculty who have never done such a thing, and faculty members may get frustrated with the time-consuming process, write a poor grant that might have been funded if developed with more expertise, and get discouraged.” (Coulter, 1998). Add to our list of ethical considerations, a mighty dose of how to locate funding sources, and the nitty-gritty of writing proposals and putting together a budget.

Conclusion

The times, indeed, are a’changing. The greatest knowledge we can take away from any discussion on our obligation toward ethics and distance education ¾ or for ALL education, for that matter ¾ is that we face a challenge for reforming the settings for learning, teaching and evaluation.

All the items under consideration for revision hold the core for offering solutions for meeting our altered hierarchy of needs. Indeed, the skills for “survival of the fittest” for our new century are on the brink of being made available to everyone. Efforts in bridging the gaps of the Digital Divide will become paramount in the writing of these pages in educational history. Reform in school will have brought renewed commitment to a new order of global ethics.

“Dewey was right: what the best and wisest parents want for their children is what the community should want for all its children. “Not the promise of good education someday, maybe, but the reality of good education today.” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, P. 253). Delivered without bias, to all learners, everywhere.

ED852: Ethics And Social Responsibility
In Distance Education
Course Tutor: Dr. Walt Coker

Abstract