Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: a problematic

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2015). Criteria for accrediting applied science programs. http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/R001-16-17-ASAC-Criteria-10-19-15.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2015.

• Albrechtslund, A. (2007). Ethics and technology design. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 63–72.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Association for Educational Communications & Technology (AECT). (2007). Code of professional ethics. http://aect.site-ym.com/members/group_content_view.asp?group=91131&id=309963. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 675–684). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2015). Humanistic HCI. San Rafael: Morgan Claypool Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Stolterman, E. (2014). Reading critical designs: Supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1951–1960). New York: ACM Press.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Becker, L. C., & Becker, C. B. (Eds.). (2001). Encyclopedia of ethics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

• Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8.

  Google Scholar 

• Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers and the guarantors of design. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp. 109–126). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_8.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

• Borgmann, A. (2010). Reality and technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 27–35.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Borning, A., & Muller, M. (2012). Next steps for value sensitive design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1125–1134). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cahn, S. M., & Markie, P. (1998). Ethics: History, theory and contemporary issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Campbell, K. (2015). The feminist instructional designer: An autoethnography. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp. 231–249). Switzerland: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 645–663. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Campbell, R. C., Yasuhara, K., & Wilson, D. (2012). Care ethics in engineering education: Undergraduate student perceptions of responsibility. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE). Seattle, WA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/FIE.2012.6462370.

• Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Cockton, G. (2005). A development framework for value-centred design. In CHI ‘05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1292–1295). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056899.

• Collins, S. (2015). The core of care ethics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.

  Google Scholar 

• Cultural Research in Technology Group (CRIT). (n.d.). Pee Timer (Austin Toombs and Shad Gross, designers). http://crit.soic.indiana.edu/design. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Damarin, S. K. (1994). Equity, caring, and beyond: Can feminist ethics inform educational technology? Educational Technology, 34(2), 34–39.

  Google Scholar 

• Detweiler, C., Pommeranz, A., & Stark, L. (2012). Methods to account for values in human-centered computing. CHI’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2735–2738). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Dunne, A. (2005). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Faiola, A. (2007). The design enterprise: Rethinking the HCI education paradigm. Design Issues, 23(3), 30–45.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fallman, D. (2011). The new good: Exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1051–1060). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Ferri, G., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Louraine, S. (2014). Analyzing critical designs: Categories, distinctions, and canons of exemplars. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 355–364). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Flanagan, M., & Nissenbaum, H. F. (2014). Values at play in digital games. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

• Friedman, K. (2012). Models of design: Envisioning a future design education. Visible Language, 46(1/2), 132–153.

  Google Scholar 

• Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003). Human values, ethics, and design. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1177–1201). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  Google Scholar 

• Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2002). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington Technical Report, 02–12. http://faculty.washington.edu/pkahn/articles/vsd-theory-methods-tr.pdf. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Gaver, W. W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., et al. (2004). The drift table: Designing for ludic engagement. CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 885–900). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 607–615). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_48.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Alpine de Gruyter.

  Google Scholar 

• Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., et al. (2015a). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49.

• Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2015). Normative concerns, avoided: Instructional barriers in designing for social change. In R. S. Adams, P. Buzzanell, & J. A. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 241–260). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Gray, C. M., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2015b). Idea generation through empathy: Reimagining the ‘cognitive walkthrough’. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 26.871.1–26.871.29), Seattle, WA.

• Harrison, S., Sengers, P., & Tatar, D. (2011). Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 385–392. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. Conducted on Behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer’s judgement. Design Studies, 18(1), 113–123.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Huber, A. M. (2015). Diminishing the dread: Exploring service learning and student motivation. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 6(1), 1–15.

  Google Scholar 

• Ihde, D. (1993). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. New York: Paragon House.

  Google Scholar 

• Inouye, D. K., Merrill, P. F., & Swan, R. H. (2005). Help: Toward a new ethics-centered paradigm for instructional design and technology. IDT Record. http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ethics.htm. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Knobel, C., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 26. doi:10.1145/1965724.1965735.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Koepfler, J. A., Stark, L., Dourish, P., Sengers, P., & Shilton, K. (2014). Values & design in HCI education. CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 127–130). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

• Krippendorf, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Le Dantec, C. A., & Do, E. Y. (2009). The mechanisms of value transfer in design meetings. Design Studies, 30(2), 119–137. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.002.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Le Dantec, C. A., Poole, E. S., & Wyche, S. P. (2009). Values as lived experience: Evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1141–1150). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lloyd, P. (2009). Ethical imagination and design. Design Studies, 30(2), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.004.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Louw, M., Ansari, A., Bartley, C., & Sanford, C. (2013). Stories in the rock: A design case of an explorable image viewer in a natural history museum. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 4(2), 56–71.

  Google Scholar 

• Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.

  Google Scholar 

• McDonagh, D. (2015). Design students foreseeing the unforeseeable: Practice-based empathic research methods. International Journal of Education Through Art, 11(3), 421–431. doi:10.1386/eta.11.3.421_1.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McPhail, K. (2001). The other objective of ethics education: Re-humanising the accounting profession–A study of ethics education in law, engineering, medicine and accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 279–298. doi:10.1023/A:1012576631990.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Moore, S. L. (2009). Social responsibility of a profession: An analysis of faculty perception of social responsibility factors and integration into graduate programs of educational technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 79–96.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Moore, S. (2014). Ethics and design: Rethinking professional ethics as part of the design domain. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 185–204). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_11.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Moore, S. L., & Ellsworth, J. B. (2014). Ethics of educational technology. In J. M. Spector, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 113–127). New York: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Mulcahy, R. S. (2011). Bottom line: Defining success in the creation of a business simulation. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 1–17.

  Google Scholar 

• Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Nichols, R. G. (1994). Searching for moral guidance about educational technology. Educational Technology, 34(2), 40–48.

  Google Scholar 

• Norman, E. (1998). The nature of technology for design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 67–87.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105–122.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Pantazidou, M., & Nair, I. (1999). Ethic of care: Guiding principles for engineering teaching & practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(2), 205–212.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Papanek, V. (1995). The green imperative: Ecology and ethics in design and architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.

  Google Scholar 

• Papanek, V. (2005). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

• Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 3. doi:10.1111/bjet.12152.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Petroski, H. (2012). To forgive design: Understanding failure. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Prestopnik, N., & Foley, A. R. (2012). Visualizing the past: The design of a temporally enabled map for presentation (TEMPO). International Journal of Designs for Learning, 3(1), 52–60.

  Google Scholar 

• Racek, J., & Smith, K. M. (2013). A place to play: Teaching communities how to build playgrounds. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 4(1), 1–10.

  Google Scholar 

• Riley, D. (2013). Hidden in plain view: Feminists doing engineering ethics, engineers doing feminist ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 189–206.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. F. (2007). Instructional designers’ perceptions of their agency: Tales of change and community. In M. J. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1–18). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. (2005). Reflective design. CC’05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on critical computing: Between sense and sensibility (pp. 49–58). New York: ACM Press.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Shilton, K. (2012). Values levers: Building ethics into design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(3), 374–397. doi:10.1177/0162243912436985.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shilton, K., Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2014). How to see values in social computing: Methods for studying values dimensions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW '14) (pp. 426–435). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531625.

• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529. doi:10.1177/0002764213479366.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smaldino, S. (2008). Classroom strategies for teaching ethics. New Directions for Higher Education, 2008(142), 87–101.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10–20.

  Google Scholar 

• Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

  Google Scholar 

• Stolterman, E. (2016). Herbert Marcuse and the “One-dimensional man”. In J. Bardzell, S. Bardzell, & M. Blythe (Eds.), Critical Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Sunderland, M. E., Ahn, J., Carson, C., & Kastenberg, W. (2013). Making ethics explicit: Relocating ethics to the core of engineering education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference (pp. 23–26). Washington: ASEE.

  Google Scholar 

• Toombs, A. L., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2015). The proper care and feeding of hackerspaces: Care ethics and cultures of making. Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 629–638). New York: ACM Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Tracey, M. W., & Unger, K. L. (2010). Cross cultural instruction: An instructional design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1).

• Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor? Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33–51.

  Google Scholar 

• Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

• Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Luetkehans, L. M. (2014). Longitudinal design case of a university preservice technology integration curriculum shaped by its sociopolitical context. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(1), 25–42.

  Google Scholar 

• Yeaman, A. R. J. (2004). Professional ethics: The misuse of technology. TechTrends, 48(5), 16–18.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Google Scholar 

• Young, P. A. (2008). Integrating culture in the design of ICTs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 6–17.

  Google Scholar 

• Young, P. A. (2014). Disclosing the design of an african american educational technology: Bridge: A cross culture reading program. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(2), 34–55.

  Google Scholar 

• Young, I. (2015). Practical empathy: For collaboration and creativity in your work. New York: Rosenfeld Media.

  Google Scholar 

• Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A. (2013). On becoming a civic-minded instructional designer: An ethnographic study of an instructional design experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 782–792.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references