Research Article

The problem of the web: Can we prioritize both participatory practices and privacy?

Bonnie E. Stewart 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, CANADA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(1), January 2023, ep402, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12668
Published Online: 24 November 2022, Published: 01 January 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1358 Views   1073 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)
This article belongs to the special issue: “No way back: from naive social media practices to committed approaches”

ABSTRACT

This paper is a critical case study tracing the professional history of a self-professed open educator over more than two decades. It frames the narrative of an individual as a window on the broader arc of the field, from early open learning as a means of widening participation, through the rise of the participatory web at scale, to the current datafied and extractive infrastructure of higher education. It outlines how the field of online education has changed, as the web and the social and societal forces shaping use of the web have shifted. Through these lenses of change, the case study explores the dilemma facing open and participatory education at this juncture: that the current structure of the web threatens privacy, higher education governance structures, and the spirit of open, participatory sharing. The paper explores the problem of the web as one without direct solutions but does consider ways that educators might mitigate their open practice in more critical directions.
Keywords: open education, participatory learning, teacher education, digital literacies, data literacies, the web

CITATION (APA)

Stewart, B. E. (2023). The problem of the web: Can we prioritize both participatory practices and privacy?. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(1), ep402. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12668

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, T. (2009). Open scholarship [Paper presentation]. Open Access Week 2009, Athabasca University.
  2. Bali, M. (2016). Knowing the difference between digital skills and digital literacies, and teaching both. Literacy Now. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-now/2016/02/03/knowing-the-difference-between-digital-skills-and-digital-literacies-and-teaching-both
  3. Bali, M. (2017). Curation of posts on open pedagogy. https://blog.mahabali.me/whyopen/curation-of-posts-on-open-pedagogy-yearofopen
  4. Bates, T. (2022). The perversion of the Internet: Scraping and selling children’s data from ed tech tools. https://www.tonybates.ca/2022/05/29/the-perversion-of-the-internet-scraping-and-selling-childrens-data-from-ed-tech-tools/
  5. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz162
  6. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Olcott Jr., D., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez Jr., A. V., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ..., & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126.
  7. Bruns, A. (2007). Produsage: Towards a broader framework for user-led content creation. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 99-106). https://doi.org/10.1145/1254960.1254975
  8. Business Wire. (2022). The worldwide online proctoring industry is projected to reach 1.5 billion by 2028. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220623005577/en/The-Worldwide-Online-Exam-Proctoring-Industry-is-Projected-to-Reach-1.5-Billion-by-2028---ResearchAndMarkets.com
  9. Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y
  10. Castañeda, L., & Williamson, B. (2021). Assembling new toolboxes of methods and theories for innovative critical research on educational technology. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.703
  11. Cormier, D. (2010). Community as curriculum. In D. Araya, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Education in the creative economy: Knowledge and learning in the age of innovation (pp. 511-524). Peter Lang.
  12. Couros, A., & Hildebrandt, K. (2016). Designing for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (pp. 143-162). Athabasca University Press.
  13. Cronin, C., & MacLaren, I. (2018). Conceptualizing OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in open educational practices. Open Praxis, 10(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.825
  14. DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2015). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/11/pedagogytechnology-and-the-example-of-open-educational-resources
  15. Downes, S. (2012). cMOOCs. https://www.downes.ca/post/58676
  16. Erickson, K. (2018). The future of network effects: Tokenization and the end of extraction. Medium. https://medium.com/public-market/the-future-of-network-effects-tokenization-and-the-end-of-extraction-a0f895639ffb
  17. Eye, G. G. (1974). As far as eye can see: Knowledge abundance in an environment of scarcity. The Journal of Educational Research, 67(10), 445-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1974.10884676
  18. Fraser, S., & Deane, E. (1997). Why open learning? Australian Universities’ Review, 40(1), 25-31.
  19. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  20. Graves, D. H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Heinemann.
  21. Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S. M., & Hill, J. R. (1994). Learning in open environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(8), 48-55.
  22. Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-182). Routledge.
  23. Hess, C., & Ostrum, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6980.001.0001
  24. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2006/10/confronting_the_challenges_of.html
  25. Johnston, S., & Stewart, B. (2020). The Open Page: A case study of partnership as open pedagogy. International Journal of Students as Partners, 4(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i2.4182
  26. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). New literacies: Changing knowledge & classroom learning. Open University Press.
  27. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328
  28. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here. Allen Lane.
  29. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.mmj.3
  30. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
  31. Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html
  32. Perrotta, C., & Williamson, B. (2018). The social life of learning analytics: Cluster analysis and the ‘performance’ of algorithmic education. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1182927
  33. Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention and other 21st century social media literacies. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/10/attention-and-other-21stcentury-social-media-literacies
  34. Shilova, M. (2017). The concept of datafication: Definitions and examples. Apiumhub. https://apiumhub.com/tech-blog-barcelona/datafication-examples/
  35. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu.com
  36. Stang, G. (2013). Global commons: Between cooperation and competition. European Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief_17.pdf
  37. Stewart, B. (2010). How not to do a Web 2.0 project. Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 7(2), 47-50.
  38. Stewart, B. (2013, April 10). How NOT to teach online: A story in two parts. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/how-not-to-teach-online-a-story-in-two-parts/
  39. Stewart, B. (2015, April 13). In public: The shifting consequences of Twitter scholarship. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/in-public-the-shifting-consequences-of-twitter-scholarship/
  40. Stewart, B. (2018). Identity at the core: Open and digital scholarly leadership. In A. Zorn, J. Haywood, & J. M. Glachant (Eds.), Higher education in a digital age (pp. 139-156). Edward Elgar.
  41. Stewart, B. (2020a, November 10). Why higher education needs data ethics. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university-venus/why-higher-ed-needs-data-ethics
  42. Stewart, B. (2020b). The Open Page project: Putting digital learning principles into practice for pre-service educators. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.22329/JTL.V14I1.6265
  43. Stewart, B., & Lyons, E. (2021). When the classroom becomes datafied: A baseline for building data ethics policy and data literacies across higher education. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1203
  44. Thompson, A. (2021). Academic publishing is broken. Scientists for labor. https://www.scientistsforlabour.org.uk/post/academic-publishing-is-broken
  45. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: How social media changed protest forever. Yale University Press.
  46. UNESCO. (2002). Open educational resources. https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information/open-solutions/open-educational-resources
  47. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001
  48. Watters, A. (2013). Coursera, Chegg, and the education enclosure movement. http://hackeducation.com/2013/05/08/coursera-chegg
  49. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849666275
  50. Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bam
  51. Williamson, B., Bayne, S., & Shay, S. (2020). The datafication of teaching in higher education: Critical issues and perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811
  52. Wray, E. (2011). RISE model. http://www.emilywray.com/rise-model
  53. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5