Playing with Fire or Playing it Safe: Insights into Cybercrime and Higher Education

                 The increasing use of digital technologies in every aspect of our lives has brought about an increase in cybercrime, which is by no means an invisible fallacy, but real criminal activities effected digitally and with real consequences in the physical world.  To be considered are the real dangers posed by such games as the blue whale challenge (Rossow, 2018) or the feelings of sadness, anger and depression suffered by victims of cyberbulling (McQuade III, 2007).  In a bid to educate the masses, the Police department in Malta has been engaging in televised exposure about internet safety.  Terms such as cyberoffence, cyberstalking or cyberbullying and other terminology that are oftentimes mentioned in relation to cybercrime, including harassment and online threats, identity theft and violation of privacy, piracy, academic dishonesty, trafficking in child pornography and intellectual property (Dennis, 2023; McQuade III, 2007), have become the order of the day.  With the permeation of digital technologies in the educational field, a discussion of improving digital literacies will by default entail an increased awareness of the challenges and risks posed by the digital, not least the various forms of cybercrime that may affect academic institutions.

Photo by FLY:D on Unsplash

            As students and educators make increasing use of the internet for sourcing information for research and educational purposes as well as for everyday engagement via emails, forums, wikis, social media platforms, learning management systems (LMSs) and virtual learning environments (VLEs), a significant amount of data, “some of which might be personal, protected or confidential in nature, is then continuously exposed to security threats because e-Learning systems are open, distributed and interconnected” (Bandara et al., 2014, p. 728).  Such security threats may target the huge repositories of personal information that are held by higher education (HE) institutions about their staff and student populations as well as research data (Al-Alawi et al., 2020).  As such higher education nowadays must have cybersecurity measures in place that clarify how such information is being stored and adequately protect the said information.  Since certain information must necessarily be submitted to the educational institution, then it is the latter’s responsibility to ensure that they process such information securely and ethically.  Oftentimes we submit such information subject to terms and conditions that are put forward in tiny script and difficult wording; another step to get through in the process, but what exactly are we subscribing to when we insert that minor tick on the screen?  It is perhaps also the responsibility of the HE institution to provide clear and accurate guidelines about cybersecurity measures utilised and in so doing, increase awareness and educate all users, especially in view of the fact that “questions remain about whether existing cybersecurity systems are appropriately implemented to protect their assets, and to what extent various security provisions are commonly used” (Back and LaPrade, 2020, p. 26).  The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides a legal framework regulating the processing of data; however, the document is long and not exactly the kind of bedtime read that many of us would look forward to.  On a positive note, it is beneficial that instructors and students are increasingly aware of data protection issues.  As Bandara et al. (2014, p. 732) aptly state, “[p]rinciples, heads of schools/departments, all the academic staff and the IT support group in the Higher Education establishment should be clear about their own responsibilities and stay alert to the emerging and evolving threats and risks to data users”.

            In addition to the above, HE plays a vital role in putting forward cybercrime related knowledge and awareness since pedagogical activities are ongoingly mediated to one extent or another by digital technologies.  Evolution of digital literacies entails the need for such knowledge.  In the same way that it would be unthinkable for a pilot to fly a plane without knowledge of its safety features, it should be unthinkable that we navigate the digital without exploring issues of safety in this realm.  As such, HE institutions should encourage research related to cybercrime within academic organisations (especially in contexts where there is a gap in the knowledge) (Back & LaPrade, 2020, p. 26), promote computer literacy by embedding it in its syllabi, provide ongoing training to their teaching staff so that they in turn can be knowledgeable and supportive in their activities with students, as well as engage in related outreach programs that would benefit society at large (McQuade III, 2007).  The Internet itself provides endless and very useful sources of information about the subject at hand which educators and students alike could easily access.  Consider such an article as the one by McCabe (2023) which offers some valuable safety tips, but what a more holistic experience would HE be, if in dealing with a variety of subject areas, educators were simultaneously to promote an awareness of cybercrime and cybersecurity issues.  As McQuade III (2007) queries, “Where is it documented, after all, that cybersafety and cyberethics cannot be covered in English, history, health, or mathematics courses?”  Not to mention, that in using the myriad digital technologies throughout the educational journey, instructors and students alike should be aware of the reality of surveillance.  Every written email, every shared post and every digitally submitted assignment, is documented and stored, with little or no knowledge on the part of users as to how such information is being studied and used.  Whilst not denying the fruitfulness of collaboration enabled by digital technologies, “computer networks are enabling surveillance and control of individuals and society” (Harasim, 2017, p. 108).  We should be concerned about what we know about the repercussions of this, if at all.

              In sum, it would seem that all stakeholders involved in HE have a vested interest in promoting increased awareness of cybercrime and cybersecurity issues in education, not least because of all the information that is collected by the institutions themselves as well as that which is ongoingly shared in the educational process.  For this reason, pedagogies must necessarily concern themselves with the very means that ubiquitously inform the educational journey.  HE institutions should take the lead in promoting good habits by offering clarity enabled via adequate training and information sessions to their staff.  McQuade III (2007) insightfully mentions that “[e]ducators rightfully worry about another topic being heaped onto their pile of things to teach, especially when many of them are themselves unfamiliar with computer technology and the danger it poses”.  In truth however, this can be an opportunity for empowering teachers in their uptake of technology-enhanced education, so that in turn it is the students that can be equally empowered.  Is not this after all the primary concern of education?

References:

Al-Alawi, A. I., Mehrotra, A. & Abdulrahman Al-Bassam, S. (2020). Cybersecurity: Cybercrime Prevention in Higher Learning Institutions. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339665070_Cybersecurity_Cybercrime_Prevention_in_Higher_Learning_Institutions

Back, S. & LaPrade, J. (2020). Cyber-situational crime prevention and the breadth of cybercrimes among higher education institutions. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime, 3(2), 25-47. https://www.doi.org/10.52306/RGWS2555

Bandara, I., Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber Security Concerns In E-Learning Education. ICERI2014 Conference, 728–734.

Dennis, M. A. (2023, March 6). cybercrime. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cybercrime

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

McCabe, G. (2023, January 9). 11 tips to stay safe online. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/11-tips-stay-safe-online

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg.

Rossow, A. (2018, February 28). Cyberbullying Taken to a Whole New Level: Enter The ‘Blue Whale Challenge. Forbes. Cyberbullying Taken To A Whole New Level: Enter The 'Blue Whale Challenge' (forbes.com)
 

For the Love of Education: Of People and Machines

The digital has permeated our lives to such an extent, that oftentimes we stand unaware of the implications that this may have on our most mundane of activities.  In the educational discourse however, it becomes increasingly necessary to take a reflective stance when it comes to the inclusion of the digital, especially since the ultimate purpose of education is quite simply, to be truly educational.  In a post-digital world, I here adopt Jandric et al.’s (2018) definition of the post-digital with reference to the way pedagogical approaches in education may be considered when they become mediated by digital technologies.  We could strive for:

a ‘holding-to-account’ of the digital that seeks to look beyond the promises of instrumental efficiencies, not to call for their end, but rather to establish a critical understanding of the very real influence of these technologies as they increasingly pervade social life. (p. 895)

This has not been less so in the educational field, especially with the shift in practices marked by Web 2.0 technologies, changing the internet from a flat repository of information to a dynamic space allowing users to participate, collaborate and create content themselves (Conole, 2013, pp. 50-51; Nations, 2022; O’Reilly, 2005).  In view of this, it makes sense that Harasim (2017, p. 111) calls for the need of “a theory or strategy to assist teachers and guide the pedgogical transformations required”.

Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash

A deterministic discourse assuming that digital technologies are inherently beneficial to teaching and learning would be naïve.  Such discourse taking forward the idea that digital technologies automatically enhance education, “on the assumption that it will cause improvements in learning outcomes and teaching efficiency” (Cuban, 2002, as cited in Oliver, 2011, p. 376), should be critically evaluated.  Delivering a synchronous session via Teams or Zoom does not necessarily improve the educational experience, unless the session is designed thoughtfully in advance with considerations of purpose and the specifics of subject content and cohort amongst others.  Suffice to recall here Bayne et al.’s description of “the flat spaces of videoconferencing environments, which tend to replicate classroom practice in their foregrounding of content and teacher over student participation” (2020, p. 9).   On the other hand, educational approaches and methods that completely ignore the existence of the digital means, would not befit the 21^st century, since the digital is currently such an ingrained part of our social landscape.  Could we, in taking forward online education, disregard the usefulness of such videoconferencing platforms as Teams and Zoom in connecting users across time and space?  The undoing of certain boundaries is a positive that cannot be ignored. 

Fawns (2022) rightfully discusses the possibilities of an entangled pedagogy, one which is not biased in favour of either one or the other of the above stances.  It is not a technology-first or a pedagogy-first perspective, rather offering the perception that:

“Actual educational activity is always a complex entanglement of factors, iteratively and mutually shaping each other…[in] an entangled view…pedagogy is constituted not just by methods and technology, but also the purposes, contexts and values of teachers, students and other stakeholders” (p. 714).

This brings in the importance of purposes, contexts and values, which are vital in the way they inform the pedagogies and technologies that are opted for in the educational journey.

            I will relate the latter to the use of plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin, or AI tools such as the more recent ChatGPT.  Amongst a number of benefits mentioned, the first caption which features on the Turnitin website, is: “Empower students to do their best, original work”.  In relation to ChatGPT, OpenAI opens their site with the following statement: “Creating safe artificial general intelligence that benefits all of humanity”.  The overarching aims of both digital technologies claim various positives.  In contrast, Turnitin however can also be viewed as a software that foregrounds an element of mistrust in the relationship between students and educators (Wright, 2022).  With regards to ChatGPT, recent informal discussions amongst lecturers at the institute where I work, focused on the tool exacerbating cheating and plagiarism.  All insights are valuable, but even more valuable are the values that are being promoted in education.  If we fear so much the misuse of certain tools such as ChatGPT, I ask therefore whether education is doing enough in fostering learners who do not feel the need to cheat and plagiarise.  To what extent are tools such as Turnitin necessary?  Really and truly, a quotation that is cited, as well as references will appear as a percentage of copying on Turnitin, and therefore academic judgement remains the prerogative of the human in this case. 

If the ultimate aim of education is that of fostering a love for learning, and not for the mere acquisition of qualifications to enhance employability, we should trust that the process is enabling trustworthy learners who, as John Warner claims, have the genuine aim of educating themselves (Alexander, 2022).  Therefore, education should be fostering students that feel compelled to have their own say, especially in higher education, without resorting to AI-generated content.   This, in relation to Jandric et al.’s definition stated earlier in the introduction, requires a holding-to-account of not solely the digital, but of the pedagogy and the digital technologies utilised, vis-a-vis the purposes, contexts and values.  If education explains and encourages good practices, I feel it is the time to enquire into why and how this may (or may not) be enough.  With this in mind, I hope that the technology remains at the service of the human, trusting that the latter has better agency, much as in the example of Turnitin above.  In pursuing the uses of the digital in terms of educational purposes, the human should never be reduced to another piece of technology, because as Siemens (2015) states:

So much of learning involves decision making, developing meta-cognitive skills, exploring, finding passion, taking peripheral paths.  Automation treats the person as an object to which things are done.  There is no reason to think, no reason to go through the valuable confusion process of learning, no need to be a human.  Simply consume. Simply consume.  Click and be knowledgeable. (as cited in Harasim, 2017, p. 103)

I hope that education continues to foster critical minds that would be able to make sound critiques of AI-generated content such as that produced by ChatGPT, and not accept it blindly at face value, whilst also taking it up for all the good that it may offer; critical minds that find solutions to the barriers that may hinder accessibility and inclusivity in open education, whilst extending the open education project; critical minds that can prosper by the possibilities enabled by the digital.  “[T]he internet revolution has the potential to emphasize, extend and leverage our mental capabilities” (Harasim, 2017, p. 113).

References:

Alexander, B. [Bryan Alexander]. (2022, Dec 16). What might ChatGPT mean for Higher Education? [video]. Youtube. What might ChatGPT mean for higher education? - YouTube

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Conole, G. (2013). Designing for Learning in an Open World. Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy-Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2022(4), 711-728. An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy | SpringerLink

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

Nations, D. (2022). What is Web 2.0? The internet revolution that placed humans into the internet. Lifewire – Tech for Humans. https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-web-2-0-p2-3486624

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011(27), 373-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly. What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media (oreilly.com)

Wright, J. D. (2022). TEACHING AT PITT. Turnitin pros, cons and best practices. University of Pittsburgh. TEACHING AT PITT: Turnitin pros, cons and best practices | University Times | University of Pittsburgh