skip to main content
10.1145/3545945.3569775acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How K-12 CS Teachers Conceptualize CS Ethics: Future Opportunities and Barriers to Ethics Integration in K-12 CS

Published:03 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

As issues of ethics, criticality, and social impact become more important in computer science, so does the need to teach them in CS classes. Despite the recent growth of academic writing around ethics in CS and a push for teaching ethics in post-secondary CS classes, the K-12 space has largely been ignored. To explore integrating ethics into K-12 CS classes, we interviewed a diverse group of current US K-12 CS teachers and conducted a thematic analysis to understand how they conceptualize ethics in CS and see potential opportunities and barriers to ethics integration in their classroom context. We found that teachers initially associated ethics with digital citizenship and gender/race imbalances, but were largely unfamiliar with issues of algorithmic bias, injustice, and techno-solutionism. After being introduced to these ideas and presented with examples, the teachers started to broaden their perspective of CS ethics. However, there are still barriers to teachers integrating ethics into their classroom (e.g. curriculum, time constraints). We discuss potential future pathways for K-12 CS ethics including through integrating ethics into digital citizenship.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

SIGCSE23-V1fp184.mp4

mp4

36.8 MB

References

  1. Safinah Ali, Blakeley H Payne, Randi Williams, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2019. Constructionism, Ethics, and Creativity: Developing Primary and Middle School Artificial Intelligence Education. (2019), 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. William Aspray. 2016. Participation in Computing: The National Science Founda- tion's Expansionary Programs. Springer. Google-Books-ID: kGiJDAAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Valerie Barr. 2018. Different Denominators, Different Results: Reanalyzing CS Degrees by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity. (2018), 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Brock E. Barry and Joseph R. Herkert. 2013. Engineering Ethics. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, New York, 673--692. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Jo Bates, David Cameron, Alessandro Checco, Paul Clough, Frank Hopfgartner, Suvodeep Mazumdar, Laura Sbaffi, and Peter Stordy. 2020. Integrating FATE/Critical Data Studies into Data Science Curricula: Where are we going and how do we get there? (2020), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (1st edition ed.). Polity, Medford, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Abeba Birhane. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach. Patterns 2, 2 (Feb 2021), 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Kamau Bobb. 2016. Broadening Participation in Computing: A Critical Perspective. ACM Inroads 7, 4 (Nov 2016), 49--51. https://doi.org/10.1145/2972954Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan 2006), 77--101. https://doi.org/10. 1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. (2018), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabe Cherry. 2019. Built by humans. Ruled by computers. https://news.engin. umich.edu/2019/02/built-by-humans-ruled-by-computers/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://mitpress.mit.edu/ books/design-justiceGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jeffrey Dastin. 2018. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters (Oct 2018). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08GGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ko et al. 2022. Critically Conscious Computing: Methods for Secondary Education. https://criticallyconsciouscomputing.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Colin M. Gray, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Kassandra Melkey, and Rhea Manocha. 2021. Understanding ?Dark" Design Roles in Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 225--238. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Karen Hao and Jonathan Stray. 2019. Can you make AI fairer than a judge? Play our courtroom algorithm game. MIT Technology Review (Oct 2019). https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/17/75285/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kashmir Hill. 2020. Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm. The New York Times (Jun 2020). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Maria Kasinidou, Styliani Kleanthous, Pınar Barlas, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2021. I agree with the decision, but they didn't deserve this: Future Developers' Perception of Fairness in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 690--700. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445931Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michael Lachney, Liz O. Boltz, Brittany Dillman, Candace Robertson, and Aman Yadav. 2018. Local Classrooms, Global Technologies: Toward the Integration of Sociotechnical Macroethical Issues Into Teacher Education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 38, 1--2 (Feb 2018), 13--22. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0270467620902972Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Irene Lee, Safinah Ali, Helen Zhang, Daniella DiPaola, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Developing Middle School Students' AI Literacy. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 191--197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432513Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Donna M. Mertens. 2019. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (5th edition ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc, Los Angeles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Cade Metz and Daisuke Wakabayashi. 2020. Google Researcher Says She Was Fired Over Paper Highlighting Bias in A.I. The New York Times (Dec 2020). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researcher-timnit-gebru.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jared Moore. 2020. Towards a more representative politics in the ethics of computer science. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 414--424. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3351095.3372854Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Thomas S. Mullaney, Benjamin Peters, Mar Hicks, and Kavita Philip. 2021. Your Computer Is on Fire. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cathy O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases In- equality and Threatens Democracy (1st edition ed.). Crown, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 515--525. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445914Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hong Shen, Wesley H. Deng, Aditi Chattopadhyay, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Xu Wang, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Value Cards: An Educational Toolkit for Teaching Social Impacts of Machine Learning through Deliberation. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 850--861. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445971Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Harini Suresh and John Guttag. 2021. A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. ACM, -- NY USA, 1--9. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3465416.3483305Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Aman Yadav, Marie Heath, and Anne Drew Hu. 2022. Toward justice in computer science through community, criticality, and citizenship. Commun. ACM 65, 5 (Apr 2022), 42--44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3527203Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yonatan Zunger. 2018. Computer science faces an ethics crisis. The Cambridge Analytica scandal proves it. The Boston Globe (Mar 2018). https://www. bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/03/22/computer-science-faces-ethics-crisis-the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-proves/IzaXxl2BsYBtwM4nxezgcP/story.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How K-12 CS Teachers Conceptualize CS Ethics: Future Opportunities and Barriers to Ethics Integration in K-12 CS

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
            March 2023
            1481 pages
            ISBN:9781450394314
            DOI:10.1145/3545945

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 3 March 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

            Upcoming Conference

            SIGCSE Virtual 2024

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader