• Macro-level (n=9). They mostly focus on the importance of developing or improving national or regional guidelines, policy, and legal frameworks to ensure that ethical issues in the educational use of technology are covered. Other aspects concern the creation of an observatory, adopting and using the Ethical Context Continuum, developing and distributing a supranational code of technoethics, and recognizing technologically responsible teaching centers and attitudes.

• Meso-level (n=32). At the institutional level, the set-up of different kinds of privacy mechanisms is the most common recommendation (n=9), along with the development of institutional policies (n=5). Other recommendations are: reduced and restricted access, measures to avoid some ethical concerns, transparency, organizational measures, providing resources to students from the library, establishing partnerships/teamwork between different institutional members and units, availability of technologies, cultivating learning communities for teacher educators and psychological intervention.

• Micro-level (n=46). At this level, the most popular statements are regarding the educator’s preparation or training (n=15), including educators of all levels, and students’ training (n=14). Others include establishing a set of norms, promoting reflective processes, considering how technology is used by educators, explaining some processes to the students, or having exemplary behavior as an educator. Also, 2 articles mentioned the importance of conducting further research regarding educators’ and students’ attitudes toward different ethical issues.

4. Discussion

Ethical concerns in the context of educational technology that have been historically reviewed are diverse and include different social and technological dimensions and may have various pedagogical implications. For instance, copyright, learner privacy, and accessibility (Lin, 2007; Lucey & Grant, 2009), the digital divide (Aissaoui, 2021), the netiquette (Soler-Costa et al., 2021) or the cross-cultural competence / the considerations of language and culture (Moore & Ellsworth, 2014) are present in the literature. From Lucey and Grant’s (2009) conceptual framework, the moral dimensions of property, accessibility, privacy, and accuracy were identified in the study, in different education settings. However, in our study we also identified topics that were almost nonexistent so far, but are starting to gain attention, such as the considerations of environmental issues and health and digital well-being that go beyond instructional technology but also affect (and have impact on) educational contexts and actors.

This study shows that ethical issues related to the use of technology in education settings receive greater attention by research since 2005, when the development of social media originated a dramatic change of roles in the Internet, allowing users to become creators rather than only consumers of knowledge (Weller, 2020). Likewise, our findings show an important uptick of research addressing educational technoethics since 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic took place and all the topics seemed to experience greater attention (Williamson et al., 2020).

Data privacy/confidentiality was the most prominent topic in our study, especially with regards to students’ data privacy and the central role of the teacher or educator with this respect (Marín & Tur, 2023). Concerns about ethical issues with students’ data have always been present, but paper-based information was kept in the educational institutions (Alier et al., 2021) and only accessible for some close staff, which involved limited danger of improper usage by third parties. Technology-generated data has introduced new actors who have interests, both from economic and ideological approaches, as spotted by recent research from critical approaches (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018; Kühn Hildebrandt, 2019; Williamson & Hogan, 2020). This concern is not purely a technological and societal consideration but also a pedagogical one when considering learning analytics for learner monitoring and evaluation, for example.

Concerning social and communicational aspects and related to cultural contexts in their treatment, this study has also shown an important concern about the dishonest use of information and software along with plagiarism practices, often unintentional due to a lack of awareness about intellectual property issues (Kim & Uysal, 2021; Mâță et al., 2022). It has experienced a long trajectory since early times, with an uptick in 2006 when social media were consolidated, and recently reached a new one in research interest during the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic. The parallel increase of the issue Content accuracy, closely related to information literacy and academic honesty, but also to the current reality of fake news (Soler-Costa et al., 2021), makes evident that these concerns are still relevant. They seem to partially be moving towards practice, too, despite the considerable presence of connections to legal issues in the sample regarding academic honesty and intellectual property (Moore & Ellsworth, 2014).

Such diverse types of issues, like digital well-being from a more individual and social point of view, but also more technology-focused topics such as algorithmic decision-making and surveillance, especially emerged during the second decade of the 21st century. However, while surveillance received balanced attention after 2020, digital well-being does not seem to receive such attention. Also, it is remarkable the balanced attention to the digital divide topic since 2005 and the notable decrease after 2020, especially considering the three levels of inequalities in terms of access and use of technologies (Aissaoui, 2021) and that not only include a technological dimension (access) but also pedagogical ones (use and performance).

Furthermore, two topics present a divergent trend of consideration: netiquette and environmental issues. The former involves a clear communication dimension and was quite explored during the first years of social media growth, defined as the “social code of the Internet [...] (and) includes how we communicate, treat others, describe and protect ourselves online related to ethical issues” (Sari et al., 2020, p. 84). However, it quickly seemed to lose such interest in the second decade of this century, despite its relevance in the current reality of trolls, social media haters, and so on (Soler-Costa et al., 2021).

Environmental issues directly related to technological use have received little attention over the decades, even though it is implicit in some digital competence frameworks, and only recently, it is getting greater attention, which might be aligned with the current global awareness towards climate change. It is worth highlighting that the DigComp framework mentions these issues in its safety competence area (European Commission. Joint Research Centre, 2022).

This scoping review shows the substantial attention to students’ privacy issues along with their academic honesty in higher education, apart from the fact that most of the studies are not contextualized in any specific level. This may reveal the limited interest of ethical issues in educational technology outside academia. It is also surprising the lack of studies in teacher education and the difficulties to educate for responsible use (Caena & Redecker, 2019; Marín et al., 2021).

Even though there are some reserves due to limitations regarding languages and databases used, the findings about topics and territories reveal some gaps in the international research context. Thus, the growing interest above over ethical issues such as data privacy, surveillance, digital well-being, and environmental challenges is rather circumscribed to the northern hemisphere. Studies located in the Global South seem to have more to do with the digital divide and cultural and language issues, which is somehow aligned with the claim of digital colonialism and epistemic bias of international research in Educational Technology (see, for example, the work by Adam, 2019). This scarce presence has also been mirrored in other literature reviews (Bond et al., 2021).

Also, the fact that most studies have a general approach, without tackling a particular technology or issue in any concrete context, and the important number of studies with a specific topic, is aligned with the finding that most of the studies are theoretical essays based on conceptual frameworks, but without the support of an empirical inquiry that can help in showing successful practices. The philosophical underpinning background helps in conceptualizing ethical issues and exploring their impact on education and the future of educational technology, but also empirical research based on practices is needed to address those issues; this seems still to be a long-standing issue (Moore & Ellsworth, 2014).

The study also aimed to collect data on recommendations for further educational practice. From a pragmatic perspective, there are different strategies to carry out at the different levels, including pedagogical and organizational ones, which teachers and other staff can mostly address at the meso and micro levels. Therefore, instructional design with technology will also be paramount regarding ethical issues, which should be addressed as an inherent aspect, like the “ethics as design” principle claimed by Whitebeck (1996), cited in (Moore & Ellsworth, 2014. It is necessary to keep the spotlight on the teachers’ role to take care of ethical issues emerging in the use of technology in their classrooms; however, teachers also should put the focus on students’ lifelong learning skills and provide the individual, relational and contextual opportunities for students to enact their agency (Castañeda & Tur, 2020; Marín et al., 2020) regarding these ethical issues.

5. Limitations

One of the study’s main limitations that needs to be acknowledged is the decision on the keywords of the search strings used. We are aware that this choice, especially concerning the “ethics” part of the string, may have impacted the results obtained. However, due to the nature of a scoping review of providing an overview, we did not want to limit the possible ethical issues related to educational technology that may emerge, so using specific terms would have brought only some topics but perhaps not others that came up in this study. Considering a broader search string, including keywords for the different ethical topics, would be necessary to undertake the next step: systematic reviews on some of those topics.

Also, even though we did not restrict the search to English and Spanish language publications, using keywords in the search strings in those languages may have limited the procurement of records in other languages. Therefore, we may have missed relevant literature on the object of this study. The use of keywords in search strings in other languages and databases for articles published in other languages should be considered for further review.

Concerning the data analysis, we acknowledge that some coding schemes would need further validation rounds, especially the topic classification. Finally, we would like to note the difficulties of conceptualizations of the topics due to differences in understandings and nuances.

6. Conclusions

Ethics in educational technologies has been acknowledged since long ago, and early work demonstrates the need to question naive beliefs about the values behind technology (Yeoman et al., 1994). Despite the penetration of technology in education has brought a new perspective into ethical issues, these are still under-studied (Kimmons, 2020; Moore & Ellsworth, 2014).

With this study, we aimed to contribute to the gap in the ethical issues that technology has brought into education and raise research and practice attention within the field. It also expands the view on further and nuanced ethical topics in Educational Technology beyond previous conceptualizations, e.g. (Lucey & Grant, 2009; Moore & Ellsworth, 2014). The wide period that the literature review covers enables us to observe some patterns and, simultaneously, encourages us to strengthen lines of work for further educational research and practice.

Although our findings give evidence of a relevant research strand, this needs to be seen in context under the light of the global research in educational technology. The vast development of Educational Technology in the 21st century does not show the same progress in the ethical aspects, especially from a more applied perspective. Also, the lack of references to them in some recent literature reviews makes evident that in pedagogical designs that include social media use (for example), ethical issues have not been an element of design (Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Otchie & Pedaste, 2020; Zachos et al., 2018). This is changing, and the ethical approach is nowadays a key element to master and design by any citizen and requires further research to enhance it.

Future research will focus on educators’ perspectives about these topics and their strategies to deal with them, as well as on validating the topic classification generated in this scoping review.

Funding

Grant RYC2019-028398-I funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and “ESF Investing in your future.”

Authors’ contribution

Victoria I. Marín: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Research, Methodology, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

Gemma Tur: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Research, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

References

Adam, T. (2019). Digital neocolonialism and massive open online courses (MOOCs): Colonial pasts and neoliberal futures. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1640740

Aissaoui, N. (2021). The digital divide: A literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2020-0075

Alier, M., Casañ Guerrero, M. J., Amo, D., Severance, C., & Fonseca, D. (2021). Privacy and e-learning: A pending task. Sustainability, 13(16), 9206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169206

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x

Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345

Carrera Farran, F. X., González Martínez, J., & Coiduras Rodríguez, J. L. (2016). Ética e investigación en Tecnología Educativa: Necesidad, oportunidades y retos. Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, (0). https://doi.org/10.6018/riite2016/261081

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(1), 22, s41239-018-0109-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

Castañeda, L., & Tur, G. (2020). Resources and Opportunities for Agency in PLE- Related Pedagogical Designs: A Literature Exploration. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 45, 50–68. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-002

Cortés Pascual, P. A. (2006). Un análisis de la orientación profesional desde la tecnoética educativa. REOP - Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 17(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.17.num.2.2006.11345

Ely, D., & Plomp, T. (1996). Classic writings on instructional technology. Libraries Unlimited.

European Commission. Joint Research Centre (2022). DigComp 2.2, The Digital Competence framework for citizens: With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Publications Office. https://d66z.short.gy/IDBM2j

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: A typology of reviews, Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Greenhow, C., & Askari, E. (2017). Learning and teaching with social network sites: A decade of research in K-12 related education. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 623–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9446-9

Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2021). Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Kim, H. J., & Uysal, H. (2021). Shifting the discourse of plagiarism and ethics: A cultural opportunity in higher education. International Journal of Ethics Education, 6(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-020-00113-z

Kimmons, R. (2020). Current Trends (and Missing Links) in Educational Technology Research and Practice. TechTrends, 64(6), 803–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00549-6

Kimmons, R., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2022). Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition. TechTrends, 66(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0

Krutka, D. G., Heath, M. K., & Smit, R. M. (2022). Toward a Civics of Technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(2), 229–237.

Kühn Hildebrandt, C. (2019). Whose interest is educational technology serving? Who is included and who is excluded? RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 22(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.22.1.22293

Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9029-y

Lucey, T. A., & Grant, M. M. (2009). Ethical issues in instructional technology: An exploratory framework. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 3(3), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/17504970910984871

Luppicini, R. (2010). Educational and Professional Technoethics. In Technoethics and the Evolving Knowledge Society: Ethical Issues in Technological Design, Research, Development, and Innovation (pp. 163-180). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-952-6.ch009

Marín, V. I., de Benito, B., & Darder, A. (2020). Technology-Enhanced Learning for Student Agency in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 45, 15–49. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-001

Marín, V. I., Carpenter, J. P., & Tur, G. (2021). Pre‐service teachers’ perceptions of social media data privacy policies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13035

Marín, V. I., & Tur, G. (2023). La privacidad de los datos en Tecnología Educativa: resultados de una revisión de alcance. Edutec. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (83), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2701

Mason, R. O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/248873

Mâță, L., Poenaru, A.-G., & Boghian, I. (2022). Current Issues of Ethical Use of Information Technology from the Perspective of University Teachers. EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing, 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1951-9_11

Moore, S. L., & Ellsworth, J. B. (2014). Ethics of Educational Technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 113–127). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_10

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Olcott Jr., D., Carrera Farran, X., Gallardo Echenique, E. E., & González Martínez, J. (2015). Ethics and education in the digital age: Global perspectives and strategies for local transformation in Catalonia. RUSC Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(2), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i2.2455

Otchie, W. O., & Pedaste, M. (2020). Using Social Media for Learning in High Schools: A Systematic Literature Review. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.889

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Peace, A. G., & Hartzel, K. S. (2002). Ethical Concerns Raised by the Use of the Internet in Academia. Journal of Information Ethics, 11(2), 17-32.

Sari, D. I., Rejekiningsih, T., & Muchtarom, M. (2020). Students’ digital ethics profile in the era of disruption: An overview from the internet use at risk in Surakarta City, Indonesia. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(3), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i03.12207

Soler-Costa, R., Lafarga-Ostáriz, P., Mauri-Medrano, M., & Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. (2021). Netiquette: Ethic, Education, and Behavior on Internet—A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031212

Spector, J. M. (2016). Ethics in educational technology: Towards a framework for ethical decision making in and for the discipline. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9483-0

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276

Thomas, J., Graziosi, S., Brunton, J., Ghouze, Z., O’Driscoll, P., & Bond, M. (2020). EPPI-Reviewer: Advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software, UCL Social Research Institute.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C. M., Macdonald, M. T., Langlois, E. V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7). https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa Statistic. Family Medicine, 57(5), 360–363.

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641

Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Education International.

Yeaman, A. R. J., Koetting, J. R., & Nichols, R. G. (1994). Critical Theory, Cultural Analysis and the Ethics of Educational Technology as Social Responsibility. Educational Technology, 34(2), 5–13.

Zachos, G., Paraskevopoulou-Kollia, E.-A., & Anagnostopoulos, I. (2018). Social Media Use in Higher Education: A Review. Education Sciences, 8(4), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040194

Appendix 1. Coding schema

Categories	Codes	Subcodes
Basic characteristics	Publication name	[Titles of journals, books, etc.]
	Publication year	[Years of publications]
	Publication type	• (Peer-reviewed) article • Conference proceedings • Book (chapter) • Report • Dissertation
	Article type	• Theoretical • Empirical research Practice/experience
Research scope	Topic of study	• Academic honesty and intellectual property • Algorithmic decision-making • Content accuracy • Data privacy/confidentiality • Digital divide (access, use and performance) • Environmental issues • Health & digital well-being • Language and culture • Netiquette • Surveillance • General, not specific • Other
	Geographical coverage	• Africa • Asia • Europe • Middle East • North America • Oceania • South and Central America • Not stated/general
	Educational context	• Kinder garden • K-12/Primary education • Secondary education • Vocational education • Higher education • Distance education • Teacher’s professional development • Teacher education • Applicable to any • Other
	Educational actors	• Teachers/instructors • Students Other stakeholders • Not stated/any of them
	Aims aligned with the theme	• Yes, as a main aim • Yes, but as a secondary aim • No
	Technology	• Augmented Reality/ Virtual Reality/ Mixed Reality • Blogs • Clickers • Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) • Digital camera • e-Advising tools • Facial recognition systems • Learning Analytics • LMS • Mobile devices • Online proctoring systems • Plagiarism tools • Presentation tools • Programming tools • Robots • Social media/Web 2.0/ PLE • Social networks • Tracking tools • Video conferencing systems • Video production tools • Video storage/streaming tools • Wearables • Other • Not stated
Others/additional	Strategies to work ethical issues in EdTech
	Recommendations

Appendix 2. Examples of quotes per codes “strategies to work ethical issues in EdTech” and “recommendations”

Codes	Classification	Quotes
Strategies to work ethical issues in EdTech	Pedagogical strategies (n=22)	“If students are encouraged to openly discuss such assumptions and definitions, they might be less likely to plagiarize and will be more likely to ask for an instructor’s help if needed”. (open discussion, in Kim & Uysal, 2021, p. 11) “Re-Shape, a method to teach students about the ethical implications of data collection and use”. (training, in Shapiro et al., 2020, p. 29)
	Technological strategies (n=9)	“[...] they suggest limiting private activity or to reduce public intervention like on a discussion forum, so that they would leave the least of their traces possible on an open E-learning environment.” “The data from the questionnaire also reveal that avoidance of personal data and consent agreement are both strongly relevant to privacy concerns in E-learning. In fact, consent is one of the keystones of privacy research practices in LA”. (limiting online activity, in May & Iksal, 2016, p. 2) “Still other scholars have suggested using technology to combat technological-based dishonesty through anti-plagiarism software [...] or the use of webcams to verify that online students who complete the work are the same students enrolled in the courses [...].” (use of software, in Davies & West, 2014, p. 9)
	Organizational strategies (n=6)	“Finally, some researchers have suggested building a supportive social community characterized by a culture of academic honesty [...] because ‘students who feel disconnected from others may be prone to engage in deceptive behaviors such as academic dishonesty’ (Stuber-McEwen et al., 2009, p. 1)”. (building educational community, in Davies & West, 2014, p. 9)
Recommendations	Macro level (n=9)	“A clear implication for policy is that there must be one coherent, well- communicated set of national guidelines in each country to support and encourage institutions and teachers to implement mobile learning in a safe and effective manner”. (Dyson et al., 2017, p. 18)
	Meso level (n=32)	“The institution must put all the safeguards in place in the systems and procedures to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of the data of all persons who end up taking part in online training, to avoid the dark side of the digital transformation of teaching. From the perspective of quality assurance, the institution must take great care to ensure that all processes, at the various levels, are adapted to guarantee quality assurance and ethics, as well as those aspects that deal with the updating of online content and with the privacy of participants”. (García-Peñalvo, 2021, p. 12) “[To the library staff] Work with your faculty on developing and improving e-learning policies. Faculty members work firsthand with the learners and see what works and what doesn’t. The online faculty members at DSU meet regularly throughout the semester and have worked as a group to implement new policy relevant to our e-learning program.” (Gearhart, 2008, p. 9)
	Micro level (n=46)	Educator’s training: “it is recommended that computer ethics module needs to be included in all teacher education in Turkey to improve the ethical sensibilities on computer use of teachers.” (Beycioglu, 2009, p. 7) “the emphasis will be on the training component of university teachers in the context of the ethical use of information technology”. (Mâţă et al., 2020, p. 14) Students’ training: “The variables of both bullying and news hoax show the highest frequency found in students’ internet use, which concludes that students are urgently vulnerable to such activities, that mostly they were less capable of avoiding themselves over the use of technology in their everyday lives. To cope with that problem, we need a learning innovation, one of which is through Civics Education Learning. The education unit needs to develop new literacy that students should have, including data literacy, digital literacy and humanistic literacy”. (Sari et al., 2020, pp. 10–11) “Among other initiatives to promote the responsible use of technology, ensure that school curriculums promote awareness and reflection on the notion of privacy. Ensure that they provide information on personal data protection in a digital environment and that they discuss the tools available for ensuring this protection”. (Olcott Jr. et al., 2015, p. 10)

_______________________________

(*) Autor de correspondencia / Corresponding author

¹ 9. Educational technology has an association and professional communications. [...]. In addition to facilitating communication among members through its annual convention and three periodic publications, it serves to develop and implement the standards and ethics, leadership, and training and certification characteristics of the profession. (p. 13).
11. Educational technology operates within the larger context of society. It advocates being a concerned profession—concerned about the uses to which its techniques and applications are being put. [...]. (p. 13).

² “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources”. (p. 1003)

³ https://www.rayyan.ai/