Anecdotal evidence suggests that this proviso is variously interpreted and applied by colleges and universities and their IRBs, and could lead, in some cases, to relaxed standards or less rigorous review of pedagogic research involving human subjects. For this reason and others, including the vulnerability of students as a population, the fiduciary relationship between faculty members and the students they teach and the likelihood that some pedagogic researchers lack primary expertise in this type of research, we would like to propose the usefulness and need for an ethical review process (ERP) for pedagogical research, separate from and in addition to the IRB.  

As the rapidly growing literature on action/practitioner research and pedagogic ethics clearly shows, pedagogic ethics has become a central element in the debates over effective teaching. Leading scholars and proponents of SOTL, (including the Carnegie Institute and others) have recognized the importance of and need for an ethical review process for informal pedagogic research. Our proposal is to extend this conversation to include the recognition and embrace of some normative ethical principals applicable to pedagogic research and to formalize the ethical review of pedagogic research through a process of ethical review.  

Institutional Review Boards and the Process of Ethical Review  

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) exist to minimize or eliminate avoidable harm to humans who are the subjects of research. These boards require that researchers consider the potential harms to which they may expose their subjects and make every effort to eliminate those harms. Risks are to be minimized and any remaining risks must be shown to be reasonable in relation to their potential benefits. Informed consent is required to respect and protect the autonomy of those involved.

While these regulations, and the training that accompanies them within most institutions, do identify some of the basic ethical principles of human subject research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice they also delineate the distinction between practice and research, and further identify the types of research subject to IRB review. This latter distinction is especially important in the context of pedagogic research. While recognizing the need to distinguish between formal research and variations in standard clinical practice and while identifying what is “experimental” in both, only formal research demands IRB review. Further governmental agencies do not include much of pedagogic research with other forms of research that are subject to IRB review. Why not? Informal experimentation/research in the classroom regarding methodologies and curricula appears to be exempt from federally mandated IRB review. Indeed, as the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, 2001 states that “research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices…” is not required to submit to IRB review.  

This type of exempted (informal) pedagogical experimentation and research includes evaluation of instructional strategies, instructional techniques, educational testing, and even the collection of existing data (provided that subject confidentiality is maintained). Yet if the basic ethical principles underlying the need for and operation of Institutional Review Board supervision are to be taken seriously they would indicate a need to have them considered in the design and conduct of any pedagogic research whether formal or informal, whether major studies or small changes in clinical practice. The exemptions or waivers form the submission of research proposals to an IRB for informal educational experimentation/research does not absolve researchers from preceding ethically, a basic fact rightly recognized by Schulman and Hutchings. (Shulman, 2003, Hutchings, 1993)  

Currently, the only ethical review of pedagogical research proposals is conducted through IRBs, and there is a need on the part of the profession of post-secondary education to establish the need for any and all pedagogic research to be submitted to an informal ethical review process, one which is not “institutional” per se, but which derives from the professional responsibilities of all educators as fiduciaries to cause benefit and to minimize avoidable harms.  

We believe that the lack of IRB review makes the awareness of the ethical issues inherent in classroom experimentation even more important. As the rapidly growing literature on action/practitioner research and pedagogic ethics shows, pedagogic ethics has become a central element in the debates concerning teaching effectiveness and informal pedagogical assessment.  

An ethics of pedagogic research demands we pay attention to the underlying ethical principles of the professional obligations of faculty members as both teachers and researchers. And in this sense, it is the construction of a context-sensitive yet normatively significant framework of ethical guidelines that becomes the crucial next step in the growing field of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Normative discourse is possible once post-secondary educators realize that they voluntarily assumed a dual set of responsibilities when they entered the profession of education and decided to perform research in both their respective disciplines and with regards to their teaching.  Therefore, all post-secondary educators have both the fiduciary responsibilities towards their learners to benefit them, and the basic responsibility of a human subject researcher to cause no harm. Within this framework of dual responsibilities, we can better understand the ethics of pedagogic experimentation.  

Students as a Vulnerable Category and the Potential for Harm  

The concept of harm in pedagogy has received little attention, yet it is one of the most significant issues relating to the ethics of education. There are a wide variety of potential ways educators can and do cause significant harm to their students. Because student success is partially dependent on decisions faculty members make regarding instructional design, course assignments, assessments and grading (among others) there is always the risk that their academic achievements and success could be negatively impacted by these decisions. This is the case whether or not a pedagogical experiment is being conducted, which is why we refer to the teacher/student relationship as fiduciary. The entire teaching profession operates on the assumption that teachers will make decisions of the sort described above that are in the best interests of their students. When pedagogic research is involved, the stakes are even higher because the research may be intended, in part, to further the career of the teacher/researcher by generating publications or conference presentations.  

Yet even if the research or experimentation does not fall under the auspices of IRB review, the ethical dilemmas remain.  Suppose there is a change in a pedagogic technique (research-experiment) or a new instructional design utilized by an educator, these changes could result in some learners not doing as well as they may have had the change not been made. Not doing as well as one could have constitutes a harm to the learner and it can be manifested in a variety of ways.  

Suppose a faculty member has been offering instruction with a common instructional design for class that incorporates the basic lecture format with a traditional short answer objective items form of assessment. Now the faculty member (with encouragement from the university administration) wants to introduce a change to determine what the difference might be in terms of learning objective outcomes. The change involves having the students make individual presentations in class and a greater emphasis on working in small groups. Some of the members of class have problems working in groups, others have performance anxieties and find it very difficult to speak before others, even in the smallest groups. These learners do very poorly on the new assignments and as a result receive poor grades and their final grades are less than they generally get in classes using the more common lecture format. These learners have thus suffered a lower grade, a lowering of their GPA. Some withdrew from the class rather than needing to experience speaking before a group. Those that withdrew will need to take the class at another time with another instructor and they have hade their progress to graduation impeded. So something so simple as having students speak in class or work in small groups can produce ill effects.  

Because the subject of the potential harms to students is not explored extensively in the existing literature on the ethics of pedagogic research we offer here a partial list of potential harms:

 

Academic

            • --a decline in completion and retention rates  

            • --a decline in success rates/GPA  

            • --the inability to perform at the next level of study

            • --the inability to develop and use skills that are needed beyond the            classroom  

Intellectual

            • --a failure to develop critical thinking skills

                                • --a failure to develop information processing skills

                • --a failure to acquire new knowledge

Social

            • -- the inability to function as a fully educated member of a democratic      society

            • --the inability to realize socio-economic goals (career, etc…)

Psychological

            • --a decrease in self esteem

            • --an increase in hostility towards the educator/institution

            • --a negative impact on future educational success (self-efficacy)

Economic

            • --loss of time

            • --loss of tuition

            • --student loans  

Pedagogical Ethics: A Guide for Practical Action  

Given these potential harms to learners, what is required of professional educators regarding their educational practice and pedagogical experimentation? First, it means that each and every educator “come to terms” with inherently ethical dimensions of their practice, and that each one be willing to engage in the difficult process of ethical evaluation and decision-making.  

Second, this process of decision-making and evaluation need not take place in a vacuum. And while what follows is far from a comprehensive listing of the decision-making process and principles at work in pedagogical ethics, it can be seen as a rudimentary guide by which to navigate the processes of ethical review.  

A Design for Ethical Review of Pedagogic Research Involving Human Subjects  

In any pedagogical experiment, the first step is to determine whether or not the experiment is likely to cause harm to the human subjects involved. There are several things an educator can do to reach a determination as to the possibility or degree of potential harm. The most direct is to rethink the proposed experiment from the perspective of the student and consider the possible impact of the experiment or the changes in pedagogic method or materials on the learner and the learning. If there appear to be significant risks of impeding the learning process for some students or the risk of discouragement or the inducement to withdraw from the learning or the class itself then the project would need to be seriously reconsidered if not abandoned altogether if the risks were high and the probability of harm was high. This would be the case regardless of the potential value of what might be learned. If the risks were not high and the probability of harm was low then they would be weighed against the potential value of what might be learned.  

Another indispensable and invaluable part of the process of determining risk is to conduct a search of the literature to determine if the experiment has already been performed and if so, what were the outcomes. This sort of thing is common place in medical research, a field that should provide several paradigms for pedagogic research. This literature search would include a search for similar experiments with similar groups of learners (subjects). If it has already been done and there were harmful outcomes then the repetition of the experiment would be professionally suspect. If it has already been done and there were little or no reported harmful outcomes then a repetition of the experiment to confirm the findings would be ethically condoned. If it has already been done and there were little or no reported harmful outcomes, then the educator proposing the project would need to reexamine the need for doing the research and instead consider adopting the pedagogic innovation previously tested and proven to be both effective and safe.  

The second step in preparing for a pedagogic experiment with human subjects is to determine whether or not the experiment is subject to institutional review. Also important are the policies and procedures unique to each institution. And if the experiment does indeed fall under the purview of IRB review, the next step lies in contacting the board itself. They will then conduct a thorough review of the proposed experiment.  

However, the real work of pedagogical ethics begins with the review of the proposal for potential harms even if an experiment in the classroom does not need IRB approval. For too long, educators have “quarantined” the ethics of education in the IRB office. Yet the ethics of pedagogical experimentation involves some tough questions beyond the legalistic concerns of institutions. Am I causing harm to any of my students? How can I minimize the risk of harming my students?  Do the potential pedagogical benefits justify the potential risks to my students? Does the proposed experiment maintain or strengthen my professional obligations and commitments?  

On these grounds, another important part of the ethical review process (ERP) involves investigation and communication with colleagues. There is a huge growth in literature on pedagogy, and researching the topic is relatively painless, given the advances in internet technology.  With colleagues, the question becomes “have you tried this?” Colleagues owe it to their fellow teachers/researchers to make known the results, whether successful or otherwise, of their experiments, large and small, formal and informal, funded and unfunded. When communicating and disseminating the results of this type of pedagogical experimentation, college and university professors begin to fulfill their professional obligations as educators. With the results widely disseminated, educators can have more fruitful searches of the literature to better determine both the safety and efficacy of the pedagogic techniques and materials they were thinking of using in their own experiments.

A Design for the Ethical Review of Informal Pedagogic Research Involving Human Subjects

As previously mentioned, the IRB has very explicit guidelines in the principal investigator (PI) manuals they provide to researchers regarding certain issues pertaining to the protection of human subjects. Those guidelines that are most usually and readily applied to pedagogic research include the necessity of informed consent and associated specifics about what goes on the consent form. These details include the reading level/comprehensibility of the language used and the administration of informed consent including who, when and how it is administered. The IRB requirements for human subjects research are also very specific about the need to avoid coercion when soliciting student participation and about the need to insure confidentiality and privacy through the proper handling of any and all student information that is collected in conjunction with pedagogic research.

It is our contention that other aspects of this type of research can and should be more carefully constructed and reviewed in order to avoid potential harms to students, like those listed above. To this end we propose an Ethical Review Process (ERP) comprised specifically to heighten awareness of fundamental ethical issues and to assist pedagogic researchers in the design of projects that will protect students (as human subjects) from the kinds of harms that are particular to the educational environment.

What follows is a list of potential principles and guidelines for the Ethical Review Process we propose:

 1. The ERP should precede (and coincide, where applicable) review by the        IRB, as the ethical review process should help to refine the research             proposal and ultimately expedite the proposals smooth passage  through the IRB.

 2.  The ERP is not intended to function as a barrier to pedagogic research,        but is rather intended to facilitate and support research that will provide       the greatest benefits to students and to the profession while avoiding  potential harms.

 3.  The ERP is not intended to substitute for IRBs and all research that is   required by law to be submitted to the IRB should pass through that    process regardless of ERP review. Equally, the ERP is not intended to     protect colleges and universities from litigation, but solely to emphasize      the ethical dimensions of pedagogic research in a given community, to provide knowledge-rich support for      potential faculty researchers and  most of all to provide an additional layer of protection for students..

4. The ERP should include people with expertise in educational theory and         practice, pedagogy and pedagogic research. Their work should be understood by them and by the college or university as a crucial contribution to a community of pedagogic practice and inquiry.