A cautionary approach should be taken where there is a significant likelihood of the harm occurring or the nature of the harm is potentially serious. At this point the practitioner may wish to postpone their proposed intervention until the risks can be minimised or eliminated, at least to the level of the option to continue with the status quo. However, there may still be a case to proceed, for example in order to gain more knowledge about the risks. In such cases there may be strategies available to the practitioner that allow for on-going evaluation. For example, the practitioner may involve the learners with the decision about whether to proceed, or not, whilst ensuring that the intervention can be halted if learners are being harmed in any way.

The four authors utilised the framework on the following scenarios and shared their appraisals via a 'Googledoc'.

Preliminary findings and discussion

Using the framework on scenarios sometimes raised further questions due to the hypothetical nature of the situation. However, overall, the framework was viewed positively, given the early stage of its development. The initial framework assumed that the tutor was the producer, which was not always the case. Furthermore, there was an emphasis placed on more formal learning activities, which did not provide a representative view of the vast range of uses for this media. This may reflect the lack of experience, by the initial framework designer, of using digital media.

From the scenario evaluation, the issue of public access, implied in some of the scenarios, caused most concern. Comments such as 'the public nature of this innovation is where the main risk lies' appeared against several scenario evaluations. The notion of broad access to ideas, conversations and presentations was planted in several scenarios with the intention that pedagogic benefits would be found in the authenticity of audiences for student work. However, reviewers were concerned about the dubious necessity to publish and share content in some cases and the benefits, at least as they were described in the scenarios, did not seem to justify the inherent risk of losing control over the media due to its downloadable nature. Some scenarios revealed how easily willingness to participate could be inhibited and how this could adversely affect learning. Publishing digital placement stories to YouTube, for example, compromised an otherwise valuable activity. The potential harms to learning that were identified with increased access included reducing learner participation, strategic absenteeism and creating unease or discomfort, particularly for those who may be considered shy or lacking in confidence.

There were a number of issues raised by appeal to the principle of fairness or justice. These related to ensuring equity for all learners, primarily in terms of the distribution of resources and the ability to use them effectively. For some learners the challenges of the technology could detract from the content of the learning. The appraisal also indicated the possibility of certain groups of learners being disadvantaged. However, it was also apparent that risks, identified by appeal to this principle, appeared straightforward to address by offering alternatives, as is true more generally when making practice more inclusive.

Related to the benefit of offering alternatives, is the issue of 'opt-out'. Where individuals objected to being recorded, or having that recording made publicly available, the reviewers seemed to be in agreement that an 'opt-out' would be regarded as reasonable. However, the practicalities of operationalising such an 'opt-out' were acknowledged to be challenging. This was particularly true in situations where the general public or those outside the 'learning community' were being included in the recording. Gaining a thorough knowledge of how to use public spaces with appropriate security levels can take a considerable investment of time. The framework was considered very useful in highlighting potential ethical sensitivities, for which user development and guidance would be needed.

Limitations of the framework

One of the areas which need reviewing is the principle of 'respect for individual learners'. It is clear from the scenarios that there are other stakeholders whose autonomy may be compromised. Also, it is not clear whether stipulating the components of this principle is helpful, or not, as there was a mixed response to this. There may also be scope for reducing the number of prompts in this section. The main issues relating to respect for individuals were identified by all reviewers. This was generally done by appeal to the overall principle and collectively discussed under one subheading. The other response boxes were then redundant and reviewers simply referred the reader to the one completed section for that principle.

Some of the terminology used was off-putting to users less familiar with the discipline of ethics. There were also some different interpretations of non-ethical terminology. For example some reviewers found the term 'current approach' problematic. There was a concern that it indicated that 'current approach' was synonymous for 'traditional, non-technological approach'. One way of looking at whether risks are reasonable, or not, is to examine the choice options available (Rescher 1983). One choice option is always to do nothing and maintain the status quo. It is that choice option which has been expressed as 'current approach' in the framework. The appraiser is asked to consider the risks and benefits of doing nothing. There is, of course, risks attached to such an option, for example the risk of not benefiting from the proposed innovation.

If the framework is to prove helpful for users in all disciplines, the language used must not act as a barrier. The term 'harm', for example was considered to be a very strong term. Although ethicists argue about a precise definition of harm, the term itself has a broad use in that discipline. However, in common parlance that term might be connected to a deliberate act of injuring another person. Clearly practitioners would not wish to identify themselves with an action falling into that category, and may therefore not consider the possibility of negative outcomes, albeit as a result of a well-meaning action.

Reviewers, most familiar with the use of digital audio, were concerned that the framework did not adequately represent a potential loss of benefit as a risk in its own right. One reviewer commented that the framework did not effectively communicate the ethical concern that not taking action may result in a student experience that is undemanding and disengaging; with some tutors being in denial about the potential for enhancing learning through the use of digital audio. It can be very easy for sceptics to focus on the risks and not give due consideration to the possible benefits. It is also true that some people are simply more risk averse when it comes to innovations or changes in practice, outside their comfort zone. Again, clear articulation of the potential benefits will play an important part of any appraisal.

Arriving at different conclusions is neither unexpected nor undesirable in ethical appraisal. However, this was not made clear in the guidance for using the framework. Once all the reviewers had completed their ethical evaluations of the scenarios, their evaluations were shared. It was quickly noted that there were differing conclusions drawn about the ethical implications in some of the scenarios. Some differences arose because of difference in approach to the task; for example whether, or not, the underpinning pedagogy was included in the appraisal. However, some simply arose because when four reviewers undertake an ethical review, four perspectives are given. This is what adds richness to collaborative ethical review, and underpins approaches to ethical reviews in other areas such as research and medicine. Ethical reviews, in those contexts, are undertaken by groups, or committees, in an attempt to take account of all perspectives. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that a collaborative approach is taken to ethically evaluating innovative approaches to learning and teaching, regardless of whether new technologies are being utilised.

Further work and conclusions

Further development of the framework will include: recognising the learner as producer (not just staff); taking more account of less formal learning situations; reviewing the terminology; reducing prompts and clarifying the extent to which users should consider the pedagogic underpinning.

Consideration needs to be given to development of both students and staff in order to raise awareness of the potential ethical issues inherent in the educational use of locally produced digital media. Risk is considerably reduced if learners have information and guidance at the earliest opportunity, especially in situations where digital media is integral to the proposed pedagogy. The use of module handbooks was identified as a mechanism to clearly set out the intention to use digital media and its associated implications. We would also suggest that verbal discussion of ethical issues and responsibilities be part of the preparation for undertaking the digital media learning task. In addition there may need to be opportunities, built in to the task, for monitoring, further guidance and/or supervision.

The study concluded that, whilst academic staff and their students are being innovative in using digital media, there is the potential to expose themselves and others to ethical risk without being aware of it. Institutions, academics, and students must recognise and understand their ethical responsibilities. Generally speaking, ethics is not well covered in university education, despite some very good reasons why it ought to be (Escámez, López and Jover, 2008). There is a need for more development and education in this area, particularly in discipline areas not naturally associated with ethics.

Despite the need for caution, this paper has begun to identify several areas of important work that, when completed, could be of value in promoting ethically responsible innovations in the use of digital media-enhanced learning. As with many other aspects of academic life, mechanisms to facilitate ethical appraisal of proposed innovations provide time and space to consider alternative perspectives. This framework, with further development, may provide such a mechanism for appraising the innovative use of technologies in learning and teaching.

References

• Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6^th edition. New York: Oxford University Press
• Darwell, S.L. (2003) Theories of ethics. Chapter 2 in Frey RG and Wellman CH (eds.) A Companion to Applied Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Escámez, J., López, R. G., Y Jover, G. (2008) Restructuring university degree programmes: a new opportunity for ethics education? Journal of Moral Education 37(1): 41-53.
• Hargreaves, J. (2008) Risk: the ethics of a creative curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Aug 2008, 45(3), 227
• Rescher, N. (1983) Risk: A philosophical introduction to the theory of risk evaluation and risk management. Washington: University Press of America
• Singer, P. (ed). (1993) A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell