Integrating Philosophy Teaching Perspectives to Foster Adolescents' Ethical Sensemaking of Computing Technologies
Pages 502 - 516
Abstract
Background: The growing complexity of the impacts of computing technologies on adolescents’ lives requires them to make similarly complex decisions around technology, fueling a rise in education efforts to look at the ethical implications of these advancements with young people. Though prior computing ethics education efforts integrate ethical perspectives, they have rarely drawn from scholarship on how to teach ethics and philosophy.
Objectives: We developed a cross-disciplinary pedagogical intervention that blends ethics-focused computing education efforts like Youth as Philosophers of Technology with tools and best practices from Philosophy for Children (P4C), an approach for teaching philosophy to young people. We asked the following research questions: In a secondary computing classroom context, (1) How might adolescent students express ethical sensemaking when engaging with our pedagogical intervention? and (2) What opportunities for ethical sensemaking might our pedagogical intervention facilitate?
Methods: We implemented our intervention in a summer academic program in the northwest US for 10 secondary students (age 14-18) from low-income families and who would be the first in their families to pursue a post-secondary education (i.e. first-generation). We then conducted a qualitative analysis of student classwork and instructor reflections using a combination of inductive and deductive coding.
Findings: Students expressed their ethical sensemaking by considering multiple perspectives, questioning the status quo, wrestling with dissonance between their principles and actions, and rejecting the good/bad binary. These expressions manifested in three distinct opportunities for ethical sensemaking: when students made connections to their everyday life, engaged in supportive dialogue with their peers, and interacted with instructional scaffolds.
Implications: This study indicates the promise of drawing on pedagogies from philosophy when thinking about ethical sensemaking in computing education. Our identification of expressions of and opportunities for adolescents’ ethical sensemaking while using this blended pedagogy advances our understanding of computing ethics education, and offers insights for other ethics education efforts in secondary computing.
References
[1]
[1] [n.d.]. https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/
[2]
Ashish Aggarwal and Saurabh Ranjan. 2022. How do Undergraduate Students Reason about Ethical and Algorithmic Decision-Making?. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education-Volume 1. 488–494.
[3]
Alissa N Antle, Yumiko Murai, Alexandra Kitson, Yves Candau, Zoe Minh-Tam Dao-Kroeker, and Azadeh Adibi. 2022. “There are a LOT of moral issues with biowearables”... Teaching Design Ethics through a Critical Making Biowearable Workshop. In Interaction Design and Children. 327–340.
[4]
Golnaz Arastoopour Irgens, Simon Knight, Alyssa Wise, Thomas Philip, M Olivares, Sarah Van Wart, Sepehr Vakil, Jessica Marshall, Tapan Parikh, L Lopez, 2020. Data literacies and social justice: Exploring critical data literacies through sociocultural perspectives. (2020).
[5]
Ruha Benjamin. 2020. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code.
[6]
Noelle Brown, Koriann South, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Eliane S Wiese. 2023. Designing Ethically-Integrated Assignments: It’s Harder Than it Looks. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 177–190.
[7]
Noelle Brown, Koriann South, and Eliane S Wiese. 2022. The Shortest Path to Ethics in AI: An Integrated Assignment Where Human Concerns Guide Technical Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 344–355.
[8]
Noelle Brown, Benjamin Xie, Ella Sarder, Casey Fiesler, and Eliane S Wiese. 2024. Teaching Ethics in Computing: A Systematic Literature Review of ACM Computer Science Education Publications. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 24, 1 (2024), 1–36.
[9]
Lena Cohen, Heila Precel, Harold Triedman, and Kathi Fisler. 2021. A new model for weaving responsible computing into courses across the CS curriculum. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 858–864.
[10]
Roberto Colom, Félix García Moriyón, Carmen Magro, and Elena Morilla. 2014. The long-term impact of Philosophy for Children: A longitudinal study (preliminary results). Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis 35, 1 (2014), 50–56.
[11]
National Research Council 2012. Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.
[12]
Marie-France Daniel. 2006. Learning to Dialogue in Kindergarten A Case Study. Analytic teaching 25, 3 (2006).
[13]
Marie-France Daniel. 2013. Relativism: a threshold for pupils to cross in order to become dialogical critical thinkers. childhood & philosophy 9, 17 (2013), 43–62.
[14]
Marie-France Daniel, Karima Belghiti, and Emmanuèle Auriac-Slusarczyk. 2017. Philosophy for children and the incidence of teachers’ questions on the mobilization of dialogical critical thinking in pupils. Creative Education 8, 06 (2017), 870–892.
[15]
M Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M Dolores Ugarte, M Dolores Iriarte, and M Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedano. 2003. Immediate and long-term effects of a cognitive intervention on intelligence, self-regulation, and academic achievement. European journal of psychology of education 18 (2003), 59–74.
[16]
Maya Denton and Maura Borrego. 2021. Funds of knowledge in STEM education: A scoping review. Studies in engineering education 1, 2 (2021).
[17]
Brenda Dervin. 1998. Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of knowledge management (1998).
[18]
Manuel Luis Espinoza, Shirin Vossoughi, Mike Rose, and Luis E Poza. 2020. Matters of participation: Notes on the study of dignity and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity 27, 4 (2020), 325–347.
[19]
Virginia Eubanks. 2012. Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age. MIt Press.
[20]
Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
[21]
Joyce I Fields. 1995. Empirical data research into the claims for using philosophy techniques with young children. Early Child Development and Care 107, 1 (1995), 115–128.
[22]
Casey Fiesler, Mikhaila Friske, Natalie Garrett, Felix Muzny, Jessie J Smith, and Jason Zietz. 2021. Integrating ethics into introductory programming classes. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 1027–1033.
[23]
Casey Fiesler, Natalie Garrett, and Nathan Beard. 2020. What do we teach when we teach tech ethics? A syllabi analysis. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 289–295.
[24]
Bent Flyvbjerg. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge university press.
[25]
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. [n.d.]. A framework for Ethical Decision making. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/
[26]
Michael J Ford. 2012. A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 30, 3 (2012), 207–245.
[27]
P Freire and D Macedo. 1987. Reading the Word, Reading the World. Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Critical Studies in Education Series. The Jossey-Bass Reader on Teaching. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc (1987).
[28]
Natalie Gold, Andrew M Colman, and Briony D Pulford. 2014. Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision making 9, 1 (2014), 65–76.
[29]
Norma González, Luis C. Moll, and Cathy Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
[30]
Sigrun Gudmundsdottir and Lee Shulman. 1987. Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educationl Research 31, 2 (1987), 59–70.
[31]
David Gutman. 2023. Should stores have to accept cash? King County weighs the question. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/should-stores-have-to-accept-cash-king-county-weighs-the-question/
[32]
David Hammer and Leema K. Berland. 2014. Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 1 (2014), 37–46.
[33]
Mehrnoosh Hedayati and Yahya Ghaedi. 2009. Effects of the philosophy for children program through the community of inquiry method on the improvement of interpersonal relationship skills in primary school students. Childhood & Philosophy 5, 9 (2009), 199–217.
[34]
Nathan Holbert, Michael Dando, and Isabel Correa. 2020. Afrofuturism as critical constructionist design: Building futures from the past and present. Learning, Media and Technology 45, 4 (2020), 328–344.
[35]
Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2018. From computational thinking to computational empowerment: a 21st century PD agenda. In Proceedings of the 15th participatory design conference: Full papers-Volume 1. 1–11.
[36]
Yasmin Kafai, Chris Proctor, and Debora Lui. 2020. From theory bias to theory dialogue: embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education. ACM Inroads 11, 1 (2020), 44–53.
[37]
Yasmin B Kafai and Chris Proctor. 2022. A revaluation of computational thinking in K–12 education: Moving toward computational literacies. Educational Researcher 51, 2 (2022), 146–151.
[38]
Kirsten Kendrick and Vivian McCall. 2023. Seattle student activist says suing social media is not the answer. https://www.knkx.org/education/2023-02-02/seattle-student-activist-says-suing-social-media-is-not-the-answer
[39]
Chi-Ming Lam. 2012. Continuing Lipman’s and Sharp’s pioneering work on philosophy for children: Using Harry to foster critical thinking in Hong Kong students. Educational Research and Evaluation 18, 2 (2012), 187–203.
[40]
Clifford H Lee and Elisabeth Soep. 2016. None but ourselves can free our minds: Critical computational literacy as a pedagogy of resistance. Equity & Excellence in Education 49, 4 (2016), 480–492.
[41]
Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How weird is CHI?. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[42]
Matthew Lipman. 1982. Philosophy for children. Thinking: The journal of philosophy for children 3, 3/4 (1982), 35–44.
[43]
Jana Mohr Lone. 2022. Philosophy for children. A companion to public philosophy (2022), 325–336.
[44]
Daniel Marie-France and Gagnon Mathieu. 2012. PUPILS’AGE AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS: TWO FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING IN CHILDREN. Childhood & philosophy 8, 15 (2012), 105–130.
[45]
Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23.
[46]
Stephan Millett and Sheila Flanagan. 2007. Philosophy in the talented year 8 classroom: Improving thinking (and a lot more) through philosophical inquiry. TalentEd 25, 1 (2007), 1–10.
[47]
Luis C. Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma Gonzalez. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice 31, 2 (1992), 132–141.
[48]
Luis Morales-Navarro and Yasmin B Kafai. 2023. Conceptualizing Approaches to Critical Computing Education: Inquiry, Design, and Reimagination. In Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research: A Global Perspective. Springer, 521–538.
[49]
Thomas Munro. 1953. Aesthetics and the Artist. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 11, 4 (1953), 397–412.
[50]
Karin Murris. 2000. Can children do philosophy?Journal of philosophy of education 34, 2 (2000), 261–279.
[51]
Netflix. 2020. The Social Dilemma. https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224
[52]
The Learning Network. 2023. What students are saying about chatgpt. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/learning/students-chatgpt.html
[53]
Larry P Nucci and Matthew Gingo. 2010. The development of moral reasoning. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2010), 420–445.
[54]
Tor Ole B Odden and Rosemary S Russ. 2019. Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education 103, 1 (2019), 187–205.
[55]
Amy Olberding. 2015. It’s not them, it’s you: A case study concerning the exclusion of non-Western philosophy. Comparative Philosophy 6, 2 (2015), 5.
[56]
Aadarsh Padiyath. 2024. A Realist Review of Undergraduate Student Attitudes towards Ethical Interventions in Technical Computing Courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (2024).
[57]
Richard Paul and Linda Elder. 2003. Ethical reasoning. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2003).
[58]
Stephen Petrina. 2020. Philosophy of technology for children and youth. Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools: Research Informed Perspectives for Classroom Teachers (2020), 311–323.
[59]
[59] PLATO. 2022. https://www.plato-philosophy.org/teachertoolkit/moral-spectrum-exploration-exercise/
[60]
Joseph G Ponterotto. 2006. Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept thick description. The qualitative report 11, 3 (2006), 538–549.
[61]
Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Razvan Amironesei. 2021. You can’t sit with us: Exclusionary pedagogy in ai ethics education. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 515–525.
[62]
Yanyan Ren and Kathi Fisler. 2023. A Social Threat Modeling Framework to Structure Teaching about Responsible Computing. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 402–408.
[63]
Jean Salac, Rotem Landesman, Stefania Druga, and Amy J Ko. 2023. Scaffolding Children’s Sensemaking around Algorithmic Fairness. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 137–149.
[64]
Jean Salac, Alannah Oleson, Lena Armstrong, Audrey Le Meur, and Amy J Ko. 2023. Funds of Knowledge used by Adolescents of Color in Scaffolded Sensemaking around Algorithmic Fairness.
[65]
Katie Seaborn, Giulia Barbareschi, and Shruti Chandra. 2023. Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research. International Journal of Social Robotics (2023), 1–30.
[66]
Mia S Shaw, GaYeon Ji, Yi Zhang, and Yasmin B Kafai. 2021. Promoting socio-political identification with computer science: How high school youth restory their identities through electronic textile quilts. In 2021 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEEE, 1–8.
[67]
Michael Skirpan, Nathan Beard, Srinjita Bhaduri, Casey Fiesler, and Tom Yeh. 2018. Ethics education in context: A case study of novel ethics activities for the CS classroom. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 940–945.
[68]
Jessie J Smith, Blakeley H Payne, Shamika Klassen, Dylan Thomas Doyle, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. Incorporating ethics in computing courses: Barriers, support, and perspectives from educators. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 367–373.
[69]
Robert Soden, Austin Toombs, and Michaelanne Thomas. 2024. Evaluating Interpretive Research in HCI. Interactions 31, 1 (2024), 38–42.
[70]
Morgan Sung. 2023. How One teen is urging legislators in Washington State to help protect kids from being exploited on Vlogs. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/child-influencers-exploitation-bill-hearing-washington-state-hb1627-rcna70479
[71]
Vanessa Svihla, Yan Chen, and Sung “Pil” Kang. 2022. A funds of knowledge approach to developing engineering students’ design problem framing skills. Journal of Engineering Education 111, 2 (2022), 308–337.
[72]
Kyle Thayer and Susan Notess. 2022. University of Washington. https://social-media-ethics-automation.github.io/book/reddit/intro.html
[73]
Mike Tissenbaum, Josh Sheldon, Lissa Seop, Clifford H Lee, and Natalie Lao. 2017. Critical computational empowerment: Engaging youth as shapers of the digital future. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1705–1708.
[74]
Steve Trickey and Keith J Topping*. 2004. ‘Philosophy for children’: A systematic review. Research papers in Education 19, 3 (2004), 365–380.
[75]
Steve Trickey and Keith J Topping. 2006. Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Socio-emotional effects at 11 to 12 years. School Psychology International 27, 5 (2006), 599–614.
[76]
Sepehr Vakil and Maxine McKinney de Royston. 2022. Youth as philosophers of technology. Mind, Culture, and Activity 29, 4 (2022), 336–355.
[77]
Sarah J Van Wart, Sepehr Vakil, and Tapan S Parikh. 2014. Apps for social justice: Motivating computer science learning with design and real-world problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. 123–128.
[78]
Sara Vogel. 2021. “Los Programadores Debieron Pensarse Como Dos Veces”: Exploring the intersections of language, power, and technology with bi/multilingual students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 21, 4 (2021), 1–25.
[79]
Rua M Williams, Simone Smarr, Diandra Prioleau, and Juan E Gilbert. 2021. Oh no, not another trolley! On the need for a co-liberative consciousness in CS pedagogy. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 3, 1 (2021), 67–74.
[80]
Amy Wilson-Lopez, Joel Alejandro Mejia, Indhira María Hasbún, and G Sue Kasun. 2016. Latina/o adolescents’ funds of knowledge related to engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 105, 2 (2016), 278–311.
[81]
Amy Wilson-Lopez, Christina Sias, Allen Smithee, and Indhira María Hasbún. 2018. Forms of science capital mobilized in adolescents’ engineering projects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55, 2 (2018), 246–270.
Index Terms
- Integrating Philosophy Teaching Perspectives to Foster Adolescents' Ethical Sensemaking of Computing Technologies
Recommendations
Facilitating Teens as Ethical Sensemakers of Technology
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2With the growing awareness of emerging technologies' impacts on teens' lives, families, and communities, rethinking the ways in which we educate and talk about these innovations and their moral and ethical complexities are gaining steam. We present a ...
Teaching philosophy to engineering students
FIE'09: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE international conference on Frontiers in education conferenceThe intention of this paper is to accompany the two special sessions on teaching philosophy in engineering courses as a vehicle for reflection on the subject matter of these sessions.
In recent years there have been substantial international discussions ...
Childhood maltreatment, moral disengagement, and adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration: Fathers' and mothers' moral disengagement as moderators
AbstractFathers' moral disengagement and mothers' moral disengagement were examined as the two moderators of the adverse effect of childhood maltreatment on adolescents' moral disengagement and cyberbullying perpetration. Participants were 412 ...
Highlights- Adolescents with high childhood maltreatment were more likely to cyberbully others.
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2024
539 pages
ISBN:9798400704758
DOI:10.1145/3632620
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 August 2024
Check for updates
Badges
Honorable Mention
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
ICER 2024
Sponsor:
ICER 2024: ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 13 - 15, 2024
VIC, Melbourne, Australia
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 165Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)165
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)62
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in