pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17796 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.HC

Teaching Usable Privacy in HCI Education: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating an Active Learning Graduate Course

Sanchari Das , Dhiman Goswami , Michelle Melo , Aditya Johri , Vivian G. Motti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.HC
keywords usable privacyHCI educationactive learninggraduate courseprivacy designrole playingcase studiesprivacy trade-offs
0
0 comments X

The pith

A graduate course on usable privacy that uses role-playing, case discussions, and a research project helps students better connect theory to practical design trade-offs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents the design, implementation, and evaluation of a 15-week graduate course in usable privacy that relies on active learning methods to address gaps in traditional HCI education. It integrates use cases, structured role playing, case-based discussions, guest lectures, and a multi-phase research project to let students examine privacy from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Evaluation across two consecutive offerings combines teaching surveys with student reflections and shows gains in engagement along with stronger ability to discuss design implications. This matters because digital systems now depend on pervasive data collection, and future designers need concrete skills to weigh privacy choices rather than treat them as abstract rules.

Core claim

The paper claims that a curriculum grounded in contemporary privacy research and the Modern Privacy framework, built around use cases, structured role playing, case-based discussions, guest lectures, and a multi-phase research project, produces increased student engagement, improved ability to articulate trade-offs in privacy design, and stronger connections between theory and practice, as measured by mixed-methods data from two course offerings in 2024-2025.

What carries the argument

The active learning pedagogy built around structured role-playing and a multi-phase research project, which trains students to reason about privacy issues from the viewpoints of different stakeholders.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains in engagement and privacy reasoning arise primarily from the active learning activities and course structure rather than from students self-selecting into the class or from general graduate-level experience.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which one group takes this active-learning course and a matched group takes a standard lecture-based privacy course, with both groups completing identical pre- and post-course tasks that require articulating privacy design trade-offs; absence of a clear advantage for the active-learning group would challenge the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17796 by Aditya Johri, Dhiman Goswami, Michelle Melo, Sanchari Das, Vivian G. Motti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-phase instructional progression with iterative reinforcement and aligned assessments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: First iteration (Cohort 1) teaching evaluation results (Spring 2024), aligned across three learning dimensions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Second iteration (Cohort 2, Spring 2025) teaching evaluation results (Spring 2025), aligned across three learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As digital systems increasingly rely on pervasive data collection and inference, educating future designers and researchers about Usable Privacy has become a critical need for HCI. However, privacy education in higher education is often fragmented, theory-heavy, or detached from real-world applications. Thus, in this paper, we present the design, implementation, and evaluation of a 15-week graduate-level course on Usable Privacy that addresses this through active, practice-oriented pedagogy. The course integrates use cases, structured role playing, case-based discussions, guest lectures, and a multi-phase research project to support students in reasoning about privacy from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Grounded in contemporary privacy research and the Modern Privacy framework, the curriculum emphasizes both conceptual understanding and applied research skills. We report findings from two course offerings in consecutive years (2024-2025) using a mixed-methods evaluation that combines quantitative teaching evaluations with qualitative analysis of student reflections and instructor observations. Results indicate increased student engagement, improved ability to articulate trade-offs in privacy design, and stronger connections between theory and practice. To support adoption and replication, we also release detailed assignment descriptions and grading rubrics. This work contributes an empirically informed model for teaching Usable Privacy in HCI education and offers actionable guidance for educators seeking to integrate privacy into their curricula.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper describes the design, implementation, and mixed-methods evaluation of a 15-week graduate course on Usable Privacy in HCI education. The curriculum employs active learning methods (use cases, structured role-playing, case-based discussions, guest lectures, and a multi-phase research project) grounded in contemporary privacy research and the Modern Privacy framework. Drawing on two course offerings (2024-2025), it reports positive outcomes including increased student engagement, improved ability to articulate privacy design trade-offs, and stronger theory-practice connections. Detailed assignment descriptions and grading rubrics are released to support replication and adoption.

Significance. If the reported outcomes are supported by more transparent and controlled evidence, this work supplies a replicable, practice-oriented model for integrating usable privacy into HCI curricula—an area the authors correctly note is often fragmented or theory-detached. The explicit release of materials is a concrete strength that lowers barriers for other instructors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation and Results] The evaluation (described in the abstract and results sections) collects only post-course teaching evaluations and student reflections across two offerings and provides no pre-course baseline measures of privacy reasoning, no control cohort (e.g., students in a standard HCI course), and no quantification of selection or maturation effects. This directly undermines the central claim that the course produced 'increased student engagement' and 'improved ability to articulate trade-offs' attributable to the active-learning design.
  2. [Evaluation and Results] No information is supplied on sample size, response rates, statistical tests applied to the quantitative teaching evaluations, the specific instruments or scales used to measure 'ability to articulate trade-offs,' or the coding process and inter-rater reliability for the qualitative analysis of reflections. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate the reliability or magnitude of the reported improvements.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the curriculum is 'grounded in contemporary privacy research and the Modern Privacy framework' but does not cite the specific sources or framework paper in the provided summary; adding these references would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major concerns regarding the evaluation design and reporting below, and have made revisions to the paper to improve transparency and appropriately scope our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation and Results] The evaluation (described in the abstract and results sections) collects only post-course teaching evaluations and student reflections across two offerings and provides no pre-course baseline measures of privacy reasoning, no control cohort (e.g., students in a standard HCI course), and no quantification of selection or maturation effects. This directly undermines the central claim that the course produced 'increased student engagement' and 'improved ability to articulate trade-offs' attributable to the active-learning design.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this critique. Our evaluation relies on post-course data only, without pre-course assessments or a control group, which prevents strong causal inferences. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the abstract, results, and conclusions to use more cautious language, such as 'students reported increased engagement' and 'reflections indicated improved ability to articulate trade-offs,' rather than implying direct production by the course design. A new Limitations section has been added to discuss potential confounds including selection effects, maturation, and the absence of baseline or comparative data. We cannot add the missing pre-course or control data retrospectively. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Evaluation and Results] No information is supplied on sample size, response rates, statistical tests applied to the quantitative teaching evaluations, the specific instruments or scales used to measure 'ability to articulate trade-offs,' or the coding process and inter-rater reliability for the qualitative analysis of reflections. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate the reliability or magnitude of the reported improvements.

    Authors: We appreciate this feedback on the need for greater methodological transparency. The revised manuscript now includes: enrollment numbers and response rates for the teaching evaluations in each offering; a description of the standard university teaching evaluation questionnaire used for quantitative feedback; an explanation that analyses were descriptive only, with no statistical tests performed due to small sample sizes; and expanded details on the qualitative coding of student reflections, including the thematic analysis procedure, involvement of multiple authors in reviewing codes, and steps taken to ensure consistency (though formal inter-rater reliability statistics were not calculated). These additions allow readers to better assess the findings. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of pre-course baseline measures and control cohort data, which were not collected during the course offerings and thus cannot be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical course report with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper describes the design, implementation, and mixed-methods evaluation of a 15-week graduate Usable Privacy course across two offerings, reporting outcomes from teaching evaluations and student reflections. No equations, models, parameters, or predictive steps exist that could reduce by construction to inputs, self-citations, or prior definitions. Claims of increased engagement and improved trade-off articulation are presented as direct observations rather than derived results. Lack of pre/post baselines or controls is a validity concern for attribution but does not create circularity in any derivation chain. The work is self-contained as an educational case study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim that the course improves privacy reasoning rests on the domain assumption that active, multi-perspective pedagogy produces measurable gains in engagement and trade-off articulation beyond standard graduate instruction.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Active, practice-oriented pedagogy enhances conceptual understanding and applied research skills in privacy education
    The curriculum design and positive evaluation results are presented as following from this pedagogical principle drawn from contemporary privacy research.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5545 in / 1301 out tokens · 55423 ms · 2026-05-10T04:06:58.616031+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 126 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Julio Abascal and Colette Nicolle. 2005. Moving towards inclusive design guide- lines for socially and ethically aware HCI.Interacting with computers17, 5 (2005), 484–505

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Yasemin Acar, Sascha Fahl, and Michelle L Mazurek. 2016. You are not your developer, either: A research agenda for usable security and privacy research beyond end users.2016 IEEE Cybersecurity Development (SecDev)(2016), 3–8

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Idris Adjerid, Rebecca Balebako, Laura Brandimarte, Lor- rie Faith Cranor, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Norman Sadeh, Florian Schaub, Manya Sleeper, et al. 2017. Nudges for privacy and security: Understanding and assisting users’ choices online.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)50, 3 (2017), 1–41

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Aviv Adam

    J. Aviv Adam. 2025. CSCI,4533/6533 Introduction to Usable Security and Privacy – Syllabus (Fall 2025). https://adamaviv.com/usec-f25/syllabus. Course syllabus hosted on adamaviv.com

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Andrick Adhikari, Sanchari Das, and Rinku Dewri. 2022. Privacy policy analysis with sentence classification. In2022 19th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security & Trust (PST). IEEE, NJ, USA, 1–10

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Tanisha Afnan, Sheza Naveed, Griffin Christie, Jackie Hu, Byron M Lowens, Allison McDonald, and Florian Schaub. 2026. How We Define Privacy Literacy: Teaching Experiences & Challenges of Community-Engaged Privacy Educators. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies(2026)

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Nitin Agrawal, Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Kim Laine, and Nigel Shadbolt

    work page

  8. [8]

    InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Exploring design and governance challenges in the development of privacy-preserving computation. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 0, 0, 1–13

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Arfan Ahmed, Sarah Aziz, Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Faisal Farooq, and Javaid Sheikh

    work page

  10. [10]

    Overview of artificial intelligence–driven wearable devices for diabetes: scoping review.Journal of medical Internet research24, 8 (2022), e36010

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Abdullah M Albarrak. 2024. Integration of Cybersecurity, Usability, and Human- Computer Interaction for Securing Energy Management Systems.Sustainability (2071-1050)16, 18 (2024), 0

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Alebaikan

    Reem A. Alebaikan. 2016. Online and face-to-face guest lectures: graduate stu- dents’ perceptions.Learning and teaching in higher education: Gulf perspectives 13, 2 (12 2016), 53–65. doi:10.18538/lthe.v13.n2.229

    work page doi:10.18538/lthe.v13.n2.229 2016

  13. [13]

    José Alemany, E Del Val, and Ana García-Fornes. 2022. A review of privacy decision-making mechanisms in online social networks.ACM Computing Sur- veys (CSUR)55, 2 (2022), 1–32

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Ali Alshahrani. 2024. The use of guest speakers in higher education and implications for pharmaceutical teaching: a systematic review of literature. F1000Research13, 862 (2024), 862

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Heba Aly, Yizhou Liu, Reza Ghaiumy Anaraky, Sushmita Khan, Moses Namara, Kaileigh Angela Byrne, and Bart Knijnenburg. 2024. Tailoring digital privacy education interventions for older adults: A comparative study on modality preferences and effectiveness.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Yizhaq Benbenisty, Irit Hadar, Gil Luria, and Paola Spoletini. 2021. Privacy as first-class requirements in software development: A socio-technical approach. In 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, NJ, USA, 1363–1367

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Vibhushinie Bentotahewa, Joel Pinney, and Matthew Tomlinson. 2024. Profiling and Privacy: The Role of Data Privacy in Emerging Technologies. InData Protection: The Wake of AI and Machine Learning. Springer, NY,USA, 63–79

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Elijah Robert Bouma-Sims, Megan Li, Yanzi Lin, Adia Sakura-Lemessy, Alexan- dra Nisenoff, Ellie Young, Eleanor Birrell, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Hana Habib

    work page

  19. [19]

    InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    A US-UK usability evaluation of consent management platform cookie consent interface design on desktop and mobile. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–36

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Carolyn Brodie, Clare-Marie Karat, John Karat, and Jinjuan Feng. 2005. Usable security and privacy: a case study of developing privacy management tools. In Proceedings of the 2005 symposium on Usable privacy and security. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 35–43

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Alessandra Calvi, Gianclaudio Malgieri, and Dimitris Kotzinos. 2024. The unfair side of Privacy Enhancing Technologies: addressing the trade-offs between PETs and fairness. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountabil- ity, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2047–2059

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Roberto Capone. 2022. Blended learning and student-centered active learning environment: A case study with STEM undergraduate students.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education22, 1 (2022), 210–236

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Carnegie Mellon University. 2026. Usable Privacy and Security. https://cups.cs. cmu.edu/courses/ups.html. Carnegie Mellon University, CyLab Usable Privacy and Security (CUPS)

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    Janet X Chen, Allison McDonald, Yixin Zou, Emily Tseng, Kevin A Roundy, Acar Tamersoy, Florian Schaub, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Trauma- informed computing: Towards safer technology experiences for all. InProceed- ings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New Orleans, LA, 1–20

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Abour H Cherif and Christine H Somervill. 1995. Maximizing learning: using role playing in the classroom.The American Biology Teacher57, 1 (1995), 28–33

    work page 1995

  26. [26]

    Chola Chhetri and Vivian Genaro Motti. 2022. User-centric privacy controls for smart homes.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–36

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Chola Chhetri and Vivian Motti. 2020. Identifying vulnerabilities in security and privacy of smart home devices. InNational Cyber Summit. Springer, NY, USA, 211–231

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Sami Coll. 2014. Power, knowledge, and the subjects of privacy: understanding privacy as the ally of surveillance.Information, Communication & Society17, 10 (2014), 1250–1263

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Kovila PL Coopamootoo and Thomas Groß. 2014. Mental models for usable privacy: A position paper. InInternational Conference on Human Aspects of Infor- mation Security, Privacy, and Trust. Springer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 410–421

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Sanchari Das, Andrew Kim, Shrirang Mare, Joshua Streiff, and L Jean Camp. 2019. Security mandates are pervasive: An inter-school study on analyzing user au- thentication behavior. In2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC). IEEE, NJ,USA, 306–313

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Shirlei Aparecida De Chaves and Fabiane Benitti. 2025. User-Centred Privacy and Data Protection: An Overview of Current Research Trends and Challenges for the Human–Computer Interaction Field.Comput. Surveys57, 7 (2025), 1–36

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    2020.Researching internet governance: Methods, frameworks, futures

    Laura DeNardis, Derrick Cogburn, Nanette S Levinson, and Francesca Musiani. 2020.Researching internet governance: Methods, frameworks, futures. MIT Press, 0

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Verena Distler, Carine Lallemand, and Vincent Koenig. 2020. How acceptable is this? How user experience factors can broaden our understanding of the acceptance of privacy trade-offs.Computers in Human Behavior106 (2020), 106227

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Duke University. 2026. COMPSCI 586: Human-Centered Security and Privacy — Spring 2026. https://courses.cs.duke.edu/spring26/compsci586/. Department of Computer Science, Duke University

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    Serge Egelman, Julia Bernd, Gerald Friedland, and Dan Garcia. 2016. The teaching privacy curriculum. InProceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 591–596

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Denis Feth, Andreas Maier, and Svenja Polst. 2017. A user-centered model for usable security and privacy. InInternational conference on human aspects of information security, privacy, and trust. Springer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Teaching Usable Privacy in HCI Education EduCHI ’26, May 20–22, 2026, Toronto, ON, Canada Heidelberg, 74–89

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Matthew Francisco and Yuxing Wu. 2025. Computer and Information Ethics in the Era of AI: A Pedagogical Design for Conceptual Muddles. InProceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on HCI Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Amrita Ganguly. 2026. Aligning Student and Educator Mental Models of Gener- ative AI Use for Productive Teaching and Learning. InProceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. ACM, NY,USA, 1745–1745

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Amrita Ganguly, Aditya Johri, Areej Ali, and Nora McDonald. 2025. Generative artificial intelligence for academic research: evidence from guidance issued for researchers by higher education institutions in the United States.AI and Ethics 5, 4 (2025), 3917–3933

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Amrita Ganguly, Nafisa Mehjabin, Aqdas Malik, and Aditya Johri. 2026. Con- versational AI agents in education: An umbrella review of current utilization, challenges, and future directions for ethical and responsible use.AI and Ethics 6, 1 (2026), 72

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    2014.Usable security: History, themes, and challenges

    Simson Garfinkel and Heather Richter Lipford. 2014.Usable security: History, themes, and challenges. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 0

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Michele Gilman and Rebecca Green. 2018. The surveillance gap: The harms of extreme privacy and data marginalization.NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change42 (2018), 253

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    R Scott Grabinger. 1996. Active learning in the higher education classroom.Con- structivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design65 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    James G Greeno. 1998. The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American psychologist53, 1 (1998), 5

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    James G Greeno. 2011. A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction.Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice(2011), 41–71

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    James G Greeno, Allan M Collins, Lauren B Resnick, et al. 1996. Cognition and learning.Handbook of educational psychology77 (1996), 15–46

    work page 1996

  47. [47]

    Ray Hackney, Tom McMaster, and Al Harris. 2003. Using cases as a teaching tool in IS education.Journal of Information Systems Education14, 3 (2003), 229–234

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Clyde Freeman Herreid. 2011. Case study teaching.New directions for teaching and learning2011, 128 (2011), 31–40

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    2023.Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction

    John Paul Hertel and Barbara Millis. 2023.Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction. Routledge, USA

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Christian Herzog, Aditya Johri, and Roland Tormey. 2025. Teaching ethics using case studies. InThe Routledge International Handbook of Engineering Ethics Education. Routledge, USA, 363–377

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Ashish Hingle and Aditya Johri. 2024. A framework to develop and implement role-play case studies to teach responsible technology use.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society5, 3 (2024), 306–315

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Ashish Hingle and Aditya Johri. 2024. Role-play case studies to teach computing ethics: Theoretical foundations and practical guidelines. InProceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Scholarspace, Hawaii, 5174

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Stephen Hutt, Sanchari Das, and Ryan S Baker. 2023. The Right to Be Forgotten and Educational Data Mining: Challenges and Paths Forward.International Educational Data Mining Society(2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Hakeemat Ijaiya. 2024. Balancing Data Privacy and Technology Advancements: Navigating Ethical Challenges and Shaping Policy Solutions.Journal homepage: www. ijrpr. com ISSN2582 (2024), 7421

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Danielle Jacobs and Troy McDaniel. 2022. A survey of user experience in usable security and privacy research. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, NY, USA, 154–172

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Arjan JP Jeckmans, Michael Beye, Zekeriya Erkin, Pieter Hartel, Reginald L Lagendijk, and Qiang Tang. 2012. Privacy in recommender systems. InSocial media retrieval. Springer, NY,USA, 263–281

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    Zuzana Ješková, Stanislav Lukáč, Ľubomír Šnajder, Ján Guniš, Daniel Klein, and Marián Kireš. 2022. Active Learning in STEM Education with Regard to the Development of Inquiry Skills.Education Sciences12, 10 (2022), 0. doi:10.3390/ educsci12100686

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Aditya Johri and Ashish Hingle. 2024. Case Study Based Pedagogical Inter- vention for Teaching Software Engineering Ethics. In2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). IEEE, IEEE, NJ,USA, 1–10

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Aditya Johri, Barbara M Olds, and Kevin O’Connor. 2014. Situative frameworks for engineering learning research. InCambridge handbook of engineering educa- tion research, A Johri and B Olds (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, NY,USA, 47–66

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Carme Julia and Juan Òscar Antolí. 2019. Impact of implementing a long- term STEM-based active learning course on students’ motivation.International Journal of Technology and Design Education29, 2 (2019), 303–327

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Karlstad University. 2026. Usable Security and Privacy (Course DVAE25). https: //www.kau.se/en/education/programmes-and-courses/courses/DVAE25. Karl- stad University course description

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    Supriya Khadka and Sanchari Das. 2026. SoK: Understanding the Pedagogical, Health, Ethical, and Privacy Challenges of Extended Reality in Early Childhood Education.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12749(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Sushmita Khan, Mehtab Iqbal, Oluwafemi Osho, Khushbu Singh, Kyra Derrick, Philip Nelson, Lingyuan Li, Emily Sidnam-Mauch, Nicole Bannister, Kelly Caine, et al. 2024. Teaching middle schoolers about the privacy threats of tracking and pervasive personalization: A classroom intervention using design-based re- search. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference...

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Alexandra Klymenko, Stephen Meisenbacher, Luca Favaro, and Florian Matthes

    work page

  65. [65]

    ”: Juxtaposing the academic and practical understanding of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

    Do we call them that? Absolutely not. ”: Juxtaposing the academic and practical understanding of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies. InSymposium on Usable Security and Privacy (USEC). CISPA, USA

    work page

  66. [66]

    2022.Modern socio-technical perspec- tives on privacy

    Bart P Knijnenburg, Xinru Page, Pamela Wisniewski, Heather Richter Lipford, Nicholas Proferes, and Jennifer Romano. 2022.Modern socio-technical perspec- tives on privacy. Springer Nature, 0

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Spyros Kokolakis. 2017. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon.Computers & security64 (2017), 122–134

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Klaudia Krawiecka, Jack Sturgess, Alina Petrova, and Ivan Martinovic. 2021. Plug-and-Play: Framework for Remote Experimentation in Cyber Security. In Proceedings of the 2021 European Symposium on Usable Security. ACM, NY,USA, 48–58

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Marc Langheinrich. 2002. A privacy awareness system for ubiquitous computing environments. Ininternational conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, Springer, USA, 237–245

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    1991.Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991.Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press, UK

    work page 1991

  71. [71]

    Chrysoula Lazou, Avgoustos Tsinakos, and Ioannis Kazanidis. 2025. A Rubric for Peer Evaluation of Multi-User Virtual Environments for Education and Training. Information16, 3 (2025), 174

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    You Shouldn’t Need to Share Your Data

    Anna Lenhart, Sunyup Park, Michael Zimmer, and Jessica Vitak. 2023. " You Shouldn’t Need to Share Your Data": Perceived Privacy Risks and Mitigation Strategies Among Privacy-Conscious Smart Home Power Users.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–34

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    Scott Leutenegger, Stephen Hutt, Andrew Hannum, Sanchari Das, Alannah Oleson, Alexandria Leto, and Sunny Shrestha. 2026. Starting with DEI and Ethics-A New First-Year College Computer Science Introduction. InProceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. ACM, NY,USA, 624–630

    work page 2026

  74. [74]

    Yi Liang, Zhipeng Cai, Jiguo Yu, Qilong Han, and Yingshu Li. 2018. Deep learning based inference of private information using embedded sensors in smart devices.IEEE Network32, 4 (2018), 8–14

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Junsu Lim, Hyeonggeun Yun, Auejin Ham, and Sunjun Kim. 2022. Mine yourself!: A role-playing privacy tutorial in virtual reality environment. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. ACM, NY,USA, 1–7

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Jialiu Lin, Shahriyar Amini, Jason I Hong, Norman Sadeh, Janne Lindqvist, and Joy Zhang. 2012. Expectation and purpose: understanding users’ mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing. ACM, NY,USA, 501–510

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    Nathan Malkin. 2024. CS 485-007: Selected Topics in CS – Usable Security and Privacy. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/cs-syllabi/509/. Computer Science Syllabi, New Jersey Institute of Technology

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    J Patrick McCarthy and Liam Anderson. 2000. Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative higher education24 (2000), 279–294

    work page 2000

  79. [79]

    Nora McDonald, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Morgan G Ames, Nicola Dell, Elizabeth Keneski, Manya Sleeper, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2020. Privacy and power: Acknowledging the importance of privacy research and design for vulnerable populations. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. NY,USA, ACM, 1–8

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Hilary McLellan. 1996. Situated learning: Multiple perspectives.Situated learning perspectives(1996), 5–17

    work page 1996

Showing first 80 references.