Beyond the use of new technologies in adult distance courses: an ethical approach.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY IN ADULT DISTANCE COURSES AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR PEDAGOGY BASED ON CMC 

Distance Education, as a developing branch of learning, was defined as the delivery of the educational process to persons who were not in proximity of the tutor (Berge & Collins, 1995) and as "a form of education in which students are separated from their instructors by time and/or space" (U.S. Copyright Office, 1999, p. 1). Also in the past, education was delivered at a distance, especially to adult students who could not attend classes. However, now, with their rapid diffusion, "computers and telecommunications have opened the way to formats other than pen-and-paper correspondence courses and allow for a more interactive, integrated learning environment" (Berge & Collins, 1995, p.4).

**********

During the last 10 years universities have begun new educational activities for their students, removing time and space constraints from their instructors. Particularly, in applying the "multimedia model," a combination of print, audio, and video linked with technologies such as the telephone, teleconferencing, and computer conferencing, a new approach to learning was created. Only engineers and military used it at the beginning. Later on, it was made available for faculty, students and general citizens. As a consequence, the use of these new technologies increased the use of distance courses, making them more convenient and better suited to the needs of different people: particularly to adults, older nontraditional students who were often constrained by their work commitments and to students in other countries as well (U.S. Copyright Office, 1999).

One of the main tools used in this respect, was Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): it can be defined as a way of exchanging thoughts, idea, information in a form of asynchronous communication, by way of a computer keyboard and screen connected to other computers. It is possible to transfer text and pictures, as well as sounds, carrying on a conversation without being in the same place, at the same time. Messages can be formulated and received whenever is most suitable for the participants (Berge & Collins, 1995). This new tool of communication allows the access and exchange of a great amount of varies information, both among group works and for home access to library, online source information and new services.

In this study, the use of CMC in distance courses will be considered as a group conference, where a "many-to-many communication" will prevail: messages posted by someone, and stored in a virtual locus, can be read by all the participants of the conversation. It allows people to share works, information, messages, and experiences in a collaborative and cooperative learning situation, where the leader is not the tutor itself but the group of individuals (McConnell, 2000). McConnell conceived this cooperative learning as a public process: "Cooperative learning makes public our own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the group. This making public works as a central process in cooperative learning and confirms its social and democratic nature" (p. 12). The high or low degree of publicity depended on how "blind," "hidden" or "unconscious" it was to the eyes of the participants of the group (McConnell). It meant that the more publicity there was in a work, the less unconscious were participants' behaviour and the less blind and hidden were the "common processes" in respect to the learning situation. Further, users had more control over their interaction: they could access very quickly references, online resources or other people's works, and they could save or print to disk "virtual conversations" in order to better reflect and reconsider them for ongoing debate (Harasim, 1989, p.9). In addition, Internet visitors could join the class discussions, identifying themselves as such. Consequently, the distinction between CMC and a traditional f2f (f2f) class is that the former puts students' thoughts in a concrete, written form and that this written form is the result of a more considered and interactive process than in f2f discussions. Thus, the issue of copyright, which applies to the (written) expression of ideas rather than to the ideas themselves, becomes particularly relevant in a way that doesn't apply to f2f interaction.

Although in the majority of the cases the access to distance courses is under password protection, it is possible to wonder if there are unexpected consequences coming from CMC "publicity" and if people still have enough control of their online works. Further: what could be the implications of a pedagogy based on these New Technologies and particularly based on CMC? Did this sharing, circulation, and easy access to information, still guarantee the respect of the rights of the owners of online works? Did the law that could help and oversee the situation, protect this new and changeable environment? Was the former enough or there were still dilemmas that raised ethical problems that the law was not yet ready to consider and solve?

The application of the copyright law still remains unclear and problematic in respect to what could and what could not be done in the distance education setting. Some guidelines referring to "Fair Use" have been created to help in interpreting and outlining exceptions in applying the copyright law on distance courses. (These concepts will be better expanded and defined in the next section) (Bruwelheide, 1997). However, "the problems are to decide where fair use begins and ends and how to protect rights of distance educators as well as copyright owners. These are not easy tasks since technology continues to become sophisticated and the market for distance education is growing rapidly" (Bruwelheide, p. 42). Moreover, the lack of case law concerning the application of fair use in distance education and the variation of legal opinions on the subject helps to complicate the situation. Hence, in the following section, after a deep analysis of the law, an ethical approach will be taken into consideration in order to deal with the dilemmas that tutors in new technology mediated adult distance education could meet during their teaching. It will particularly refer to situations in which they would have to cope with their students' works or messages sent in a CMC environment.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COPYRIGHT POLICY, AND FAIR USE IN DISTANCE COURSES

Since 1970, in the United States, intellectual property (IP) was based on the thinking that people, who created tangible property through intellectual efforts, owned that property and had the exclusive, monopolistic right to control and dispose of it. Only recently, with the diffusion of computers-based intellectual material, IP has come into more common use everywhere (Tannenbaum, 1998).

The mechanisms for protection of IP, generally consisted of four types: copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets (Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems [CETUS], 1997). However, the attention will be focused on the first of these, as the most significant for multimedia production; in fact it would seem to be the most related to this study.

At the outset, it should be said that there was a lot of U.S. law about copyright than UK law. Hence, the law in the latter case was less developed and this lack could constitute a problem for courts, which had to deal with these kinds of issues. The fact was that copyright law differed from country to country too; so a text might be legally available on an Internet site in the US but illegal to download elsewhere.

In the UK, the Copyright Act (1978) was a law that protected creative works fixed on any tangible medium of expression; it did not protect ideas but it did protect the format of the expression of ideas. This protection began automatically at the moment of creation and ended 70 years after the death of the author, whether registered or not (Bruwelheide, 1997). This meant that the use of copyright material required asking for permission from the copyright owner.

The copyright is related to the creation of online works as well, particularly with the new and emerging issues of distance courses. Hence, the law applies also for online materials although, new technology constantly creates, new situations which existing rules cannot always control. Particularly: "the advent of computer-mediated communication has created a new world with new rules. The change in the presentation of information is not superficial but changes the culture and its institutions" (Oberding & Norderhaug, 1997, p.9). For example, there are works as texts, images, diagrams, graphs, presentations, individual and collaborative exercises, simulations and group projects, that in an online environment, can have different creators such as students or instructional designers or multiple independent sources, which further complicate the ability to assert ownership and the possibilities for use as course materials (Twigg, 2000). What is more in this environment, "while very short comments are not considered protectable by copyright, at some ill-defined point contributions remain the property of their authors, unless it is clearly understood that they are dedicated to the public domain" (Kahin, 1992, p.277).

Consequently, there is not a clear policy on reuse of participants' contributions (that should be cited) and on the ownership of interactions in the conference. However, lacking legal clarifications in this respect makes each group conference adopt its own particular strategy and policy.

The unclear situation of the copyright law, in any case, required the creation of some principles, which could better help in interpreting and applying the old rules on new contexts. Hence, the "Fair Use Guidelines," elaborated during the Conference on Fair Use (CONFU, 1996), were conceived as exemption to copyright law, in allowing the use of things such as research and education without asking the auhtor's permission. However, the courts had to decide case by case if the case fell within these guidelines or not: this implied that for each situation there was not a standard and uniform application of the guidelines, which were left to the tutors' interpretation. They varied from country to country as well and had different names and limitations outside the USA (Templeton, 2000). It was from this situation that in the US in October 1998, the Copyright Office initiated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with input and recommendations to facilitate the use of digital technologies in distance education (Harper, 1997a). However, at this stage, many doubts still remain.

In conclusion, Ermann, Williams, and Gutierez (1990) affirmed that; "Judicial decision, especially on matters of high constitutional import, often involves a choice between moral values and the application of some single outstanding moral principle; for it is folly to believe that where the meaning of the law is in doubt, morality always has a clear answer to offer" (p.64). Baase (1997) added that: "Ethics fills the gap between the time when technology creates new problems and the time when reasonable laws are passed and ethics fills the gap between general legal standards that apply to all cases and the particular choices that must be made in a specific case" (p. 340). Hence, since the situation is still unclear among tutors using CMC in distance education courses, an ethical approach for this scenario has been proposed. In the next section, ethics will be correlated with the results of the study, which may give any kind of clarifications and inputs. It is important to be aware of the fact that the findings need to be supported by other studies in order to fill the gap still evident in this field.

THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS, THE RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

The research questions, which were the basis of this study, were as follows:

1. Are there ethical issues for tutors using CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Education Courses? Why?

2. How aware are tutors of the presence of ethical issues using CMC in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Education Courses?

3. What meanings are attached by tutors to the term "Ethics" in relation to CMC in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Education Courses?

These research questions were carefully considered while planning each phase of the study. Indeed, before analysing the results, it is central to make a quick description of the characteristics of the research procedures and methodology used. The mean used to collect qualitative data related to online tutors ethical views on adult distance courses was a questionnaire. This tool was composed of closed and open ended questions, single answer and multiple-choice questions and in the last part of scaled-questions. To avoid the problem of standardised answers, in the central part of the questionnaire, the open ended questions presented three different scenarios in which respondents had to make some personal comments. The goal of the open questions was to determine whether in the tutor's view, common teaching situations could have raised any kind of ethical problems or not. Hence, before the "Scenarios," two open questions were posed to investigate, which was the tutors' personal definition of the word "ethic." These two questions were inserted in order to know the tutors' personal ethical view, for a better interpretation of the answers in the three Scenarios and the following questions. The first and the third section of the questionnaire on the other hand, were devoted respectively, the former to "General Information" about the tutors' work and the use of CMC in Adult Distance Courses, the latter to investigate tutors' thought in respect of more specific statements. This part determined the level of agreement/disagreement with some definitions related to the words "Computer Ethics" and "Ethics and CMC," coming from the more diffused literature on the subject. The aim of this section was to see how tutors related to the more common views since the specific meaning they attributed to the word ethics, was already given. The questionnaire was put in a web format and published on the server of the Department of Adult and Continuing Education of the University of Glasgow. This technique was clearly related to the characteristics of the online reality and it was respectful of the main aim of the work. Hence, tutors teaching in distance courses, coming from different parts of the world, could be easily reached using the same quick and widespread tool of their own work; the new technology. It was indeed decided that for an online research, an online questionnaire would be the best way to communicate. The questionnaire was submitted to hundreds of subscribers of some-mailing lists related to distance learning. These-mailing lists were considered as asynchronous discussion groups on the Web related to teaching in distance courses, which tutors used to exchange ideas, opinions, work experience, and to create a computer conference.

For instance, the analysis of the findings considered both the responses coming from overseas mailing lists (USA, Canada, & Australia) and those coming from UK mailing lists. However, the differences encountered between the two groups did not constitute the main substance of this study.

Finally, the group of answers coming from overseas had been grouped as the non-UK list while those coming from UK were part of the UK list. The lists used to distribute the online questionnaires were as follows:

* DEOS (American)

(http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deos-l/deosl.asp),

* Flexible Learning (UK)

(http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/flexible-learning.html),

* WWWDEV (American)

(http://listserv.unb.ca/archives/wwwdev.html),

* IFETS-DISCUSS (International)

(http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html).

THE RESULTS

A total number of 17 people, 11 of whom were from America and Australia and the other 6 from the UK constituted the final sample of respondents. Both genders were represented in equal proportion. However, before considering the whole results, a premise is due. The number of questionnaires received was very small if compared with the hundreds of messages posted to the lists. This fact implied that it was not possible to generalise these results and that in the same time, these results might have different kinds of trends if related to a bigger number of respondents. This is just an hypothesis, but it still means that the group of interviewed cannot be considered as representative of the whole sample of tutors. Hence the data which follows are just a symbolic and initial tentative to explore ethical problems in adult distance courses. This study can be viewed as a possible reflection on still unclear and unsettled issues. Hence, this work may represent a stimulus and a first step to further deeply research in the field. Further, the low rate of answers had been mainly attributed to the sensible "ethical" content of the questionnaire that could have easily put people off. What was more, the time needed for completion (20-25 minutes) could have had the same effect. Finally, the e-mail delivery did not always assure a great success, mostly because people might not have trusted the lack of "physical" contact that could have been avoided with the use of a traditional letter. On the other hand, since the content of the questionnaires was mainly qualitative, the number of 17 answers was judged as adequate for the subsequent data elaboration. The peculiarity of some reflections, the personal comments made by tutors, the opposite views emerged in some answers, made the whole work worth analysing.

The results obtained from this research were based on tutors aged 46 to 65 years old, half male and half female, with at least an MSc educational level or a PhD. They taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels of college, in a different variety of courses (New Technology, Language, Health Medical, Legal Issues). They were tutors in new technology mediated adult distance education courses and they made a heavy use of CMC during their teaching. Hence, the synchronous communication for non-UK and UK lists, the asynchronous communication and the e-mail, followed the most popular way of interaction with students. Tutors had from few, to more than 10 years of experience in the field and their role was mainly the one of Learning Group Facilitator or Module Leader. In the non-UK list there was also a large number of designers/developers of online courses.

In conclusion, the respondents' characteristics were more or less homogeneous in both of the lists, although some differences between these two might exist.

The next subsections will analyse the results grouped basing on the most interesting answers given in the second and third part of the questionnaire. Hence, while the first section will be related to tutors' general ethical view, the second will refer to the comments posted for the three Scenarios presented. Finally, the last section will describe how respondent reacted to the more specific statements in the questionnaire.

"What is Your Definition of the Word Ethics"

Focusing on the results more in depth, one of the first open ended questions proposed in the questionnaire, was related to the word ethics in general terms. It was: "What is your definition of the word ethics?" It was interesting to observe that seven respondents over 17 answered this question considering ethics as "A system of moral principles or rules of conduct that describe behaviour." This assumption was related to Jarvis' (1997) definition of ethics, which asserted that: "Ethics is concerned with analysing moral values and seeking to understand what people consider to be good, right, just, etc. It is also about what individuals consider, or feel, that they ought to do and about the actual way in which they behave" (p. 15). This implies that, the not easy application of the rules may sometimes produce behaviour which is totally different from the principles in which people believe. Although individuals believe in the same universal principles, they may behave in different ways while coping with the same situation. In other cases, individuals may respect with obsession a series of moral principles without considering the particular characteristics of the context in which a specific situation develops. In this respect it is useful to refer to the "Deontological Theory." This theory asserted that as the basis of moral action was a set of rules irrespective to the consequences of the act that should always be kept, whatever the circumstances. This concept was often associated with the work of Immanuel Kant and with the production of "Codes of Professional Ethics." These mainly tended to protect the interests of a group or organisation by not relying on the groups own beliefs but on the motives and beliefs of others (Jarvis, 1997). It did not consider the differences in particular and complex situations because of the presence of fixed and standard rules. Thus, if on one hand people need to believe in moral principles which guide their behaviour, on the other hand individuals need to be able to act in respect to and in recognition of the differences presented in each specific context.

The previous group of definitions involving general rules, was very different from the following 10, more related to the context in which the question had been presented. For example, one of the new aspects which emerged has been presented in the following definition of the word ethics: "Doing the least harm to the greatest number of beings" or as "Doing something that won't disadvantage or upset anyone." In this case, the definitions referred to the assumption that a behaviour which did not harm people and that did not upset anyone was ethical, whether or not it was based on moral principles. This implies that it is possible to avoid harm to somebody without assuming an ethical or a moral behaviour. If the main goal is to do the least harm to individuals, it does not automatically imply that people will always behave in an ethical and right manner. Thus, each case will depend on a personal interpretation; everything would be relative since the most important thing is to create less harm to everybody. Among all the philosophical theories, the Utilitarianism appears to be the most related to these assumptions. The "Utilitarianism" underlined how people acted to obtain happiness as the main good. This principle stated that all actions should be evaluated in terms of their utility in bringing happiness. "Hence, the right action was the one that produced more happiness than the others" (Johnson, 1994). As a consequence, something, which is right for an individual, may not be for another one. On the other hand Johnson suggested that: "The fact that there is diversity of opinion on right and wrong is not evidence for the claim that there is no universal moral code. A moral code may apply to people even though they fail to recognise it" (p. 20). Thus, ethics conceived as "system of moral principles or rules of conduct" exists, although people may not recognise it or may use personal judgments while distinguishing what is right from what is wrong.

In another group of answers ethics was defined in relation to law as a set of legal principles to refer to. "A set of defined laws, standards, behaviours, policies, or procedures relating to a specific culture or subculture." To be noticed, as in this case, is that the difference among cultures implies that the law, behaviours, and principles may be different from culture to culture and from subculture to subculture. This refers again to the presence of diversity of opinions and thus to the lack of universality in the law.

What is more, it was important to notice how other respondents underlined the law as the first point of reference in relation to people's behaviour: "the norm of high ideals in a profession. Anything that is illegal is also unethical." "Acting in accordance with a set of moral and legal principles." In these cases ethics is more or less linked to law: everything that respects the legal principles is ethically correct. It has been introduced as a new point of reference to distinguish good from bad behaviour, making the situation more complex than it was before. It is not the morality which guides the law, but on the contrary it is the law, which guides morality. Everything is getting more and more subjective.

The last group of definitions is even more related to the specific context of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and thus to adult distance courses. The following are definitions, which refer to both the institution of which the individual was a part and to the students of a course. Hence, ethics was defined as: "Behaving in an open and equitable manner, and acting within the ethical guidelines of the institution," "To respect the wishes of a participant, be open and honest," and finally, "Ensuring that all students have access to the most up-to-date information, the best resources and latest technologies in order to succeed in their course." From these definitions it is possible to notice how everything became even more subjective than before, since the elements mentioned may change from institution to institution and among each individual as well. Who has to decide which institution has good ethical guidelines? Who has to decide or to judge the wishes of a participant? The last of the three above definitions, indeed, represents a clear example on what is ethically good quoting just a few cases, which may become the rule for other situations. In this respect everything that is not included in the above definition is not ethically correct.

On the contrary, it is curious to notice how two answers defined ethics as "a code of rules" to respect and protect. The most important is quoted here: "Ethics is the code which enables us to determine whether an action is right or wrong, something which violates the written law as well as courteous and fair consideration of other people, even though this is not set out within a legal code. We show our implicit code of ethics in our everyday choices and actions." This last definition was very interesting because although it quoted the law as an ethical point of reference, it underlined the presence of a code which did not depend on legal principles but which was the result of the daily behaviour of individuals. Thus, it implies how important it is for ethics, to have its own code of behaviour, although it may be related to the daily choices of each subject, which are inevitably different from each other. However, it is central to notice how among all definitions, these last were those which quoted the word "Code" as something which may collect rules and which may translate the individuals' behaviours into universal principles.

In conclusion, all of these responses may explain why, in spite of the presence of universal ethical principles, people in the same situation, behave and think very differently from each other. This assumption is also valid in trying to interpret the different justifications that tutors give for each scenario in the questionnaire, although some of them have in common the same definition of the word ethics. Hence, it should be observed that there was a big difference between first rules and the way in which they were applied and second, between each person's moral development. Since the word ethics was defined in such a very different way, it was clear that people might behave and think differently although they might have to face the same situation. What was more, while defining ethics, people sometimes referred to moral principles and sometimes to legal ones. There was no unanimity on the kind of system for the basis of ethical judgement, and this was very misleading and confusing when people had to make any kind of decision. Indeed, only a few respondents tried to find universal principles for ethics while others used specific rules to cope with the problem. Only two people found the presence of a "code" which might collect valid universal rules for any situation important. This implies that a "common ethical guide," which may help people in applying the same universal principles in different contexts, is needed.

The Three Scenarios

Focusing the attention on the answers to Scenario A (1) and Scenario B (2), the view of the majority of the participants from the non-UK and UK lists was that both considered the situations as posing ethical problems for tutors, based mainly on the necessity of author's permission and to give credit to the source of the work. With a deeper analysis, it was clear that, although the trend was quite similar for both the lists, it might be argued that with a bigger number of respondents, the trend could have been different. Hence, these results were not absolute but opened to critics and comments.

The results, in relation to Scenario C (3) were, on the contrary, quite different from non-UK and UK lists. In the former, tutors perceived the fact of using papers resulting from CMC course discussion among students as next year course-study-material, not as an ethical problem. However, the reasons seemed to be varied and differed from each other. On the contrary, in the UK list, all the tutors conceived this situation as an ethical issue; the answers were more homogenous and quite different from the previous. It could be argued that the differences between the two cultures could have determined differences in their ethical views or that the lack of clear principles in this specific sector of distance courses could have created opposite and different opinions. The last assumption was also supported by the fact that in both the lists, tutors presented many examples of ethical problems for Scenarios B and C, as situations which still needed a clear specification. A final argument could assert that the law and its interpretation could have been different between the two countries and this may constitute a source of contradiction. However this assumption has still to be proved.

Before taking into consideration the analysis of Scenario C, it may be interesting to notice how tutors answered when, in Scenario B, they were asked to give some other examples of ethical problems. Many of them dealt with students' online behaviour and it might be worth it to quote the most interesting: "Student plagiarizes part of a paper as documented in an automatic search system, and the rest of the paper is original and excellent," "Student confidentiality (private/personal information such as phone numbers & email addresses); students plagiarising web-based data (such as online articles & web pages); students "swapping" essays and so forth; staff intrusion into private areas such as student personal e-mail and student chat rooms," "Students completing online assessment, which is focused on individual results but the students are printing out the tests and passing them around amongst themselves," "There is the digital copying (simple cut and paste) of work, there are collaborative online group projects for which students get graded and someone carries the ball and does the lion's share of the work while the others cruise; there are classes which grade students on the quantitative amount of the responses not the qualitative substance of whether of not they have contributed something original and thought-provoking." These issues seemed to be very diffused among students during an online course. They were varied and faced different kinds of problems, from student plagiarism to student swapping. This is proof that ethical issues and dilemmas in computing are growing and always creating new cases and grey areas that left people unready to cope. Forester and Morrison (1994) argued that: "because computing is a relatively new field, the emerging computer profession has had neither the time nor the organisational capability to establish a binding set of moral rules or ethics." (p. 16)

On the other hand, other situations referred to the tutors' behaviour in online learning environments. They were as follows: "Quoting students' comments without permission using original names so students could be identified," "Tolerating one student flaming another. Accepting plagiarized student work because it's too much hassle to challenge it. Willing fully violating copyright: using software which has not been properly obtained and paid for. Incorporating someone else's course materials without receiving permission to use these. The issue is whether one has asked and received permission of the students to use their materials in ways they were not aware of when they made the contributions. If s/he does not then we have an unethical person. If s/he does, no problem." These issues were more related to the need of asking permission with respect to the use of other people's works. They had also something in common with the comments made by respondents in each scenario. This involves the tutor's responsibility while teaching online and while using copyrighted works or software; a responsibility, which needs to be more valued.

The following quotation was quite curious because it compared the f2f setting with the online setting, affirming that ethics was always ethics whatever context it referred to. "Good heavens! Anything that could be an ethical problem in an f2f class could be a problem in a distance class except possibly indecent exposure (although I have to say--I have been the recipient of unsolicited salacious photographs). Anything that could be an ethical problem in any Internet communication could be an ethical issue in an Internet class! The sky's the limit--whatever the human mind can conceive that could propose an ethical dilemma can be translated to distance learning." This assumption was supported also by the question "What is your definition of the word ethics in relation to CMC?" where tutors asserted that their definition of the word ethics did not change if related to the CMC environment. Indeed, in Scenario C when they were asked, "Has this Scenario changed your idea about ethics in CMC?" both of the groups of tutors affirmed that their previous idea of ethics did not change at all in relation to CMC. Thus, although each individual may have a different ethical conception, it does not change if related to the online environment. However, while this may be a strength, on the other hand it does not consider that in Distance Learning, new issues and problems, other than those present in an f2f setting, may arise. This is mainly because there are new and different variables that in a traditional class are not present and that need to be taken into consideration. However, Johnson (1994) pointed out that there were new species and old issues at the same time: this meant that computers were used in a wide variety of contexts (home, business, educational institutions) and that the rules created depended on the kind of environment in which the computers were being used (1994). This assumption can be stated in this work as well, although very few respondents gave a definition clearly related to the online context in which ethics has to operate.

At this point, it may be worth considering the answers to the question in Scenario C. It was interesting to analyse the answers according to the different lists involved. For instance, in analysing the non-UK list the main trend observed was that tutors did not consider Scenario C as a cause of ethical issues. However, they mentioned some conditions. Here following are some of the most significant. "Not so much an ethical issue (assuming all the students were recognised as the authors), but it might constrain the creativity of the next class who could be funnelled into a narrow line of thinking based on what they read, rather than exercising their own creativity in writing their own papers. A synopsis (with appropriate student credit) might serve the same goal giving ideas, and attempting to stimulate thinking for the next class to build on the efforts of the current class."

It has to be pointed out how this ethical issue is also linked to the importance of the development of students' creativity. Other people's work should be considered as stimulus for our own thinking. It is not worth using other works without any kind of intellectual effort in creating something new. "I don't know from the information as presented whether the students own the content of the papers or the university owns it. That would have to be established by law or, failing a legal framework, by a published university policy. I do know that in courses I have taken through the Internet that involved the creation of a web page, the university provided the assignment and the server space and used the web pages in future classes. I found nothing wrong with that." In this answer the respondent's position is clear. It has been asserted that computers and technologies make working collaboratively, copying, revising, and destroying information easy; hence it is often difficult to determine who is the author and who should have ownership rights to it (Sivin & Bialo, 1992). In the mean time, the respondent would agree if the university owns students' works; tutors did not mention, in any case, if permission had to be given or not. However, something more has been added; the need of a law or of a published university policy which establishes who is the owner of the content of a paper. This assumption is key, because other respondents proposed the same issue in the very last open ended question. This is a symptom of a general need of guidance and support when dealing with other people's online works. "No, if he intends to link it and thus provide acknowledgment that it is the work of someone else."

"I think this is OK. I think it would be a good idea to tell the students he would be using their papers as a resource for his next class, and they should be specifically labelled as so in the next course, but I think this sharing of information is good use." It has to be noticed, in more than one answer, the main condition posed was the need "to give credit to the source quoted." Indeed, Sudweeks and Rafaeli (1996) saw author permission and acknowledgement as important in the online learning context, as well as the need of professional and academic guidelines. What is more, it should be underlined how the issue of sharing of information was considered central and important for the success of an online distance course.

Turning to the analysis of the UK list; there was much more material which causes ethical problems, relative to Scenario C than in the previous. Since the answers in this case were more or less the same, it might be best to quote just the most representational. "yes, permission and acknowledgement required. My understanding in most universities is that students and the university share intellectual property rights."; "yes, one should not use students' material without asking permission."; "... private communication should never be made public without approval from the writers to use it in any way whatsoever." It is evident that the main reason quoted as justification for their answers was the need to ask for student's permission and approval for the use of their works. The first respondent underlined how in some universities intellectual property rights were shared by the university and the students but what about other universities? And what is more, have only some people created this rule? There is the suspicion that each institution may have its own principles created for their own personal convenience, mostly because they do not have a code of practice to which to refer.

In conclusion, tutors assumed different positions with respect to the same scenario and this might be attributed to the different ethical views they might have, as stated before. If this was their daily behaviour, it should be claimed that in front of the same course and the same situation, different tutors might make different decisions, sometimes in favour of the students, sometimes against. These situations might create inequalities and might support negative behaviour among tutors. What is more, the fact that Scenario A and B produced the same kind of answers, while Scenario C did not, might be partly due to the "unknown" online learning environment as compared to the f2f environment.

Finally, another example of ethical problems in CMC given by a respondent in Scenario C has been quoted here to help clarify the situation. "We are trying to write an intellectual property policy at our school for online courses. I feel like people should be paid for there time in writing the course, and the university should then own the course, so other teachers in new semesters can use the course without weeks of preparation time. We should share knowledge. But others see courses as a book that is published, that the faculty member owns. So this is a very popular debate all over right now." Although this statement does not involve students' works, it may reproduce the same situation described in Scenario C however, between academics and universities. The problem was the same, only the actors changed and this is once more proof that this is a quite urgent and important problem that needed to be faced. However, since the law is too far away to solve it, it may become an ethical issue requiring further attention. The main problem is if an online course has to be considered as a published book or not, and if so who owns it?

"Computer Ethics" and "Ethics and CMC"

The last part of the questionnaire was dedicated to scaled-questions addressing the issue of "Computer Ethics." and "Ethics and CMC." As pointed out before, since this study suffered from a lack of research, it has chosen to refer to the discipline with which more than others, it shared common views. Hence, the attention was focused on a more specific and deeply developed concept: the definition of "Computer Ethics." Coined by Maner, (as cited in Kesar & Rogerson, 1997) it referred to the study of ethical problems transformed by computer technology. Indeed, Johnson (1994) suggested taking into consideration, the "Analogy Principle" in order to fill in the vacuum of policies and rules surrounding computers. It allowed considering situations with which we were familiar in helping to see the rules that might be relevant in the computer situation. The point here is that it was necessary to recognise real similarities and important differences (Johnson). In respect to the definitions given of "Computer Ethics," both in the non-UK and UK list, tutors appeared to have a common view although in the non-UK list there was a little bit more varied vision. In both the cases people agreed that "Computer Ethics" was part of the general ethics and it was not a new and unique area with its own "ethical principles." This helped create some necessary boundaries around a concept, which was often misleading because of its width. Indeed, Gotterbarn (1992) defined computer ethics as, "ethical rules and judgements applied in a computing context based on professional standards and a concern for the user of the computing product" (p.5). This assumption is very important, although it may depend on the definition that each individual give for the word "ethics." In this case, tutors were aware of general issues such as privacy, as the presence of ethical principles in the computer practice and as the importance of considering the basic and general principles of ethics. On the contrary, they were a bit confused and uncertain as to if they had the responsibility in the practice of their craft to exercise their own judgements, guided by their own values, until standard principles of computer ethics were agreed upon. This statement raised the more controversial answers, as though a clear idea on how to behave in relation to computer ethics was not yet present.

Tutors had common views on privacy, proprietary control, and ownership of online works or material in relation to CMC. However, for both the lists, a bit of controversy and perplexity emerged with respect to the publicity of discourses on CMC and of the need of all the students' approval in order to permit a guest to visit the course site. Sudweeks and Rafaeli (1996) who carried out research concerning ethical issues on CMC found that people considered public posts like private messages, with an expectation of privacy. These issues revealed a common situation of unsurety since tutors had opposite opinions. Hence, tutors might apply different behaviours depending on their personal views. Indeed, some problems on CMC are not clearly regulated by law or by a set of moral principles known by everybody, thus, tutors may assume a behaviour, during their online teaching, which is not respectful of their students' rights.

Further, at the end of the questionnaire some tutors quoted other issues related to this study, that were worth considering for a present and future analysis. The most interesting follow.

* "Courses have observers in face-to-face delivery. It is equally reasonable to expect observers in online delivery of a course. The students must be made aware of the public versus private communication forums and be informed of the possible visitors to the class" (female, non-UK)

* "All institutions offering CMC should get together to devise a Code of Good Practice which underpin activities. These should be subject to accreditation/validation by ILT or QAA" (male, UK)

* "The issue of archiving CMC materials for long term research was not broached in this study. It will (is) become and important issue!" (male, non-UK)

All of these and other final suggestions has been taken into consideration as useful comments to underline a further research directive on CMC.

DISCUSSION

At the end of this analysis, it is possible to claim that tutors teaching using CMC in distance courses did have clear in their mind what they meant by ethics. Respondents of both lists referred to the need of moral principles and rules of conduct, although they proposed different positions in this respect. What is more, their definition did not change if related to CMC; it needed some specifications but the main meaning remained the same. This was a meaningful result, because people usually believe that ethics involves different meanings depending on the field of study to which it referred. It was not considered as a group of principles as part of general ethics (Gotterbarn, 1992). Gotterbarn (1990) for example, in his article quoted the characteristics of newness and uniqueness referring to the term "Computer Ethics." However, tutors in the study demonstrated the ability to recognise this bias and to consider "Computer Ethics" as part of general ethics, applying this definition to the field of university teaching.

In conclusion, it could be claimed that this study clearly underlined how there was the presence of ethical issues that could arise for tutors in CMC in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Education Courses. This assumption could be justified by the lack in copyright law and Fair Use Guidelines, which leaves problems to be solved by tutors personal interpretation and choice. Since the new technology world is in rapid and continuing change, there are not immediate solutions for new dilemmas. Respondents perceived the use by tutors of some postgraduate students' "Collaborative Study Project" as part of an article published on the Web, as an ethical problem; and this was clear both for the non-UK and UK lists. Tutors listed other important ethical problems involving the use of CMC such as: students' plagiarism, students' confidentiality, students' privacy, students' swapping, copyright violation, using a work as a beginning from which to develop a new one, establishing ownership of course material in distance courses and students using other people's previous works as original contributions. Holt (1996), in her article, underlined how "adult educators in cyberspace" had to cope with ethical issues attached to instructional technology such as: confidentiality, manipulation, privacy, intellectual property rights, and copyright. Hence, she wondered if the electronic talk was public or private, if it was protected or not, and who owned the data. Cahoon (1998) cited the same issues adding that, "cut-and-paste editing makes it easier for those less ethically inclined to take information out of context and manipulate other people's work. Links to or attributions of original sources are frequently deleted or omitted by Internet plagiarists" (p.65). He also claimed that educators had a big responsibility in reflecting upon ethical and moral issues around technology.

Hence, many and varied are the ethical problems that could emerge in distance courses with the use of CMC. However, there was sometimes a general confusion on what constituted ethical problems. The possibility of the use of papers resulting from CMC discussion of postgraduate students as next year tutor's course-study material raised the biggest number of perplexities among the participants of the non-UK and UK lists. This situation could be attributed both to the recent and new issue of using CMC in online courses and the different cultural context of countries. America and UK are an example, although a study of the ethical reasoning abilities of accounting students from Ireland and the United States affirmed the contrary (Eynon, Hill, Stevens, & Clarke, 1996). It is possible to claim that the first option appears to be the more probable of the two, because it involves the differences in the application and interpretation of the law, as underlined before. Since this is a new and recent area of study, and changing continuously, it was difficult for tutors to recognise, in this scenario, ethical problems. In this case they did not seem to be very aware of the situation and they did not know how to cope with it. Other issues, such as the publicity of CMC, student approval to have guests visit the course site and the tutors' responsibility to use their own judgements and values in making decisions during practice, followed the same trend. Indeed, in Canada, in a computer-based course, students were automatically monitored in all their online activities as experimental subjects used to develop further online courses (Noble, 1997). Noble wondered who would own students' online contributions, who had access to students' communications and what rights did students have to privacy and proprietary control of their works. On the other hand, issues related to privacy, proprietary, and copyright control appeared to be clearer to the tutors. However, since standard principles of computer ethics are not yet agreed upon, tutors of both lists were very confused when they had to decide if they had responsibility in using their own judgements and values during their practice. The main implications here seems to be the need, claimed also by tutors, of a set of principles or rules which could guide people during their online teaching in CMC. As a consequence, although the Computer Ethics Institute developed "Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics" some years ago, (Goldsborough, 2000) there was still the need to apply general rules to each specific computer context. As each field of study has his own "Code of Ethics," (i.e., law, medicine) in the same way, it may be needed for tutors teaching distance courses, particularly with the use of CMC.

Tutors felt a lack of guidance with respect to the emerging ethical dilemmas; they had new situations to cope with for which there were not yet clear solutions. The copyright law was not the same in each country and its principles were not specific enough to be applied to this new and dynamic context. Hence, some tutors raised the possibility of the creation of a university policy or a law, that would establish whether the university owned students' works or not, or that would specify principles of behaviour with relation to CMC. Respondents suggested also, a regulation about the issue of archiving CMC materials for long-term research. The University of Michigan, for example, established a policy named "The Proper Use of Information Resources" and it tried to stimulate discussion related to ethics and new technology, in order to encourage responsible use in the whole community (Rezmierski, 1992). What is more, according to Gordon and Sork's (2001) research on ethical issues related to Adult Education Practitioners, the main problems dealt with student's confidentiality, ownership of instructional materials and copyright infringement. As a consequence, authors such as Sivin and Bialo stated the necessity of institution policies, which could provide a model to follow for ethical issues in the use of new technologies. For example, some universities might define whether certain writings are to be "off limits" to teachers without student permission; hence, the students should be informed about who will have access to their files. On the other hand the authors also claimed that tutors should decide the implementation of new rules: "Ideally, the teachers most involved in technology use should from the start, play an active role in formulating policy-helping to define the problem areas and arrive at realistic solutions" (p.10).

Last but not least, it was very interesting to notice how, more than one tutor, felt the need to have a valid Code of Good Practice for CMC in all institutions. This was a very important issue, because as Reed and Sork (1990) pointed out: "if a code of ethics does not exist as in distance education, for example, then practice is governed by the sanctions that are a usual part of organisational life and by whatever personal code of conduct guides the actions of the distance education practitioner" (p.30). Hence, the individual is protected only to the extent to which the tutors or the organisation has a kind of "ethical sensitivity" (a person's awareness that something he or she was doing could affect the others) in making decisions. Thus, tutors had the duty to responsibly exercise the practice of finding common agreements and consensus. Woodbury (1997) pointed out how some tutors had a personal ethical policy for handling class privacy: they believed in student's privacy in distance courses as well as in the need of having student permission to permit a guest to "visit" the course site. However, there are not yet standard principles related to these issues, hence tutors behaved according to their personal values. This implication was the most interesting and also the most discussed in the literature. Wood (1996), for example, wondered if a code of ethics related to the adult education sector was needed and if it needed specification in respect to each particular field of study. Gordon and Sork (2001) in their research found that adult educators required the presence of a code of ethics, even though sometimes it enforced bureaucracy and it required a continuing dialogue about the ethics of practice. As stated before, starting from a common definition of ethics, it would be possible to create agreeable rules and principles that could help with dilemmas, making tutors more aware of their responsibility and duty in online teaching.

The biggest limitation of this study was the lack of research in the field. It should be assumed that studies on ethical issues about tutors using CMC in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Education Courses were practically nonexistent. This did not allow making any kind of general statement and comparison with other studies in the field. It was only possible to compare research with general ethics and adult education or with computer ethics.

Secondly, the qualitative data has been classified and categorised, although it was not always easy to understand people. Hence, this process could have influenced the results, although the former has been done in the most objective way possible. What is more, the data was based only on a sample of 17 respondents; hence, further research is needed to analyse the answers of a bigger sample of respondents and to make any kind of statistical correlation between ethics and gender (Adam, 2000), between ethics and educational level (Gordon & Sork, 2001), or the years of peoples experience. Further research is also required to support these results and to criticise them more in depth. It could be worth focusing the attention on some of the many ethical issues which emerged in this study.

Even though the small number of tutor respondents teaching in New Technology Mediated Adult Distance Courses, the qualitative issues which emerged were significant and important. The presence of ethical problems in new technology and distance teaching should not be undervalued, because it is a sign that a better and agreed upon practice among tutors is required and possible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Dr. Alexander MacKinnon, my course tutor and my supervisor in the work, who supported me every time with his guidance and advice. My acknowledgements are also for the mailing list owners who gave me the permission to send the questionnaire to their subscribers. I finally thank the 17 respondents that patiently answered my questions sharing with me their thoughts and their precious experience crucial for this study.

NOTES: (1) "In a f2f postgraduate course a student writes an essay and the tutor thinks; this is really good work: I will use it as part of the book I am going to publish."

(2) "In another postgraduate course in which New Technology plays an important role, the tutor found that part of a "collaborative study project" made by some postgraduate students. using CMC, was very interesting, he decided to use it for his/her own research and made it available in his/her new article which was going to be published very soon on the Web."

(3) "In a postgraduate course making heavy use of new technology, the tutor found that many papers resulting from CMC discussion among postgraduate students, were very Interesting. He decided to use them as course-study-material available on the Web for the next year's postgraduate students, who were supposed to attend this course."

REFERENCES

Adam, A. (2000). Gender and computer ethics. Computers and Society, 30(4), 17-24.

Baase, S. (1997). A gift of fire. Social, legal and ethical issues in computing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berge L.Z., & Collins, M.P. (Eds.) (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. Volume three: Distance learning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bruwelheide, J.H. (1997). Copyright and distance education. Practice & Theory, 21(1), 41-51.

Cahoon, B. (Ed.) (1998). Adult learning and the internet. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conference On Fair Use. (1996). Educational Fair Use Guidelines For Distance Learning. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/distguid.htm

Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems. (1997). Ownership of new works at the university: Unbundling of rights and the pursuit of higher learning. California: California State University. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.cetus.org/ownership.pdf

Eynon, G., Hill, T. N., Stevens, T. K., & Clarke, P. (1996). An international comparison of ethical reasoning abilities: Accounting students from lreland and the United States. Journal of Accounting Education, 14(4), 477-492.

Ermann, M.D., Williams, M.B., & Gutierez, C. (Eds.) (1990). Computers, ethics and society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Forester, T., & Morrison, P. (1994). Computer ethics. Cautionary tales and ethical dilemmas in computing, (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goldsborough, R.. (2000). Personal computing. Computers and ethics. Link-Up, 17(1), 9.

Gordon, W., & Sork, T. (2001). Ethical issues and codes of ethics: Views of adult education practitioners in Canada and the United States. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3), 202-218.

Gotterbarn, D. (1990). Ethics and the computer professional. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www-cs.etsu.edu/gotterbarn/artpp3.htm

Gotterbarn, D. (1992). Computer ethics: Responsibility regained. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www-cs.etsu.edu/gotterbarn/artpp1.htm

Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye. (Eds.), Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/mindweave/chap4.html

Harper, G. (1997a). Copyright law in cyberspace. University of Texas System, Office of General Counsel. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/distance.htm

Holt, M.E. (1996). Adult educators in cyberspace. Adult Learning, 8(2), 15-16, 25.

Jarvis, P. (1997). Ethics and education for adults in a late modern society. Leicester, UK: NIACE.

Johnson, D.G. (1994). Computer ethics. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kahin, B. (1992). Scholarly communication in the network environment: Issues of principle, policy and practice. The Electronic Library, 10(5), 275-286.

Kesar, S. & Rogerson, S. (1997). Developing ethical practices to minimise computer misuse. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Technology and Society Glasgow, pp.219-225.

McConnell, D. (2000.) Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Noble, D.F. (1997). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. Toronto, Canada: York University. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http//www.uwo.ca/uwofa/articles/noble.html

Oberding, J.M., & Norderhaug, T. (1997). A separate jurisdiction for cyberspace? Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue1/juris.html

Reed, D., & Sork, T.J. (1990). Ethical considerations in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 30-41.

Rezmierski, V.E. (1992). Ethical dilemmas in information technology use: Opportunity bumps on the road to civilization. Educom Review, 27(4), 22-26.

Sivin, J.P., & Bialo, E.R.. (1992). Ethical use of information technologies in education: Important issues for America's schools. U.S. Department of Justice.

Sudweeks, F., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). How do you get a hundred strangers to agree? In T. Harrison & T. Stephen (Eds.) Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty first century university. State University of New York Press.

Tannenbaum, R.S. (1998, July/August). Legal and societal issues related to multimedia. Educom Review, 48-55. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.educaude.edu/ir/library/html/erm9847.html

Templeton, B. (2000). 10 big myths about copyright explained. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Twigg, C.A. (2000). Who owns online course and course materials? Intellectual property policies for a new learning environment. Pittsburgh, PA: Centre for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono2.html

U.S. Copyright Office. (1999). Policy makers: New media, distance learning copyright issues. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.distance-educator.com/portals/policy_copyright.html

Wood, G.S. (1996). A code of ethics for all adult educators? Adult Learning, 8(2), 13, 14.

Woodbury, M. (1997). Summary of the discussion on ethics and privacy and ALN. ALN Magazine, 1(2), 1-6. Retrieved July, 2001 from: http://www.aln.org/alnWeb/magazine/issue2/woodbury_alntalk.html

LUCILLA CROSTA, UNIVERSITA CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE, ITALY E-MAIL: [e-mail]