Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Validation of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index: Do Computing Ethics Courses Make a Difference?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper provides psychometric evidence that the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index is valid, and finds that computing ethics courses are associated with higher scores on some reflection and agency dimensions but also…

desk verdict Honest validation study with a likely artifact in its most interesting result: the Techno-Solutionism factor is all reverse-coded items, so the ethics-course association may be method noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06193 v1 pith:7TQUCRCL submitted 2025-06-06 cs.CY

Aadarsh Padiyath , Casey Fiesler , Mark Guzdial , Barbara Ericson This is my paper
classification cs.CY
keywords computingethicseducationcriticalconsciousnesspsychometricvalidationfactoranalysistechno-solutionismreflectionagencyresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index is a psychometrically valid instrument for measuring how computing students and professionals reflect on ethical issues and feel able to act on them. The case rests on two survey samples and shows that the index has a distinct factor structure, acceptable reliability for most subscales, construct validity, and predictive criterion validity. The paper then uses the validated index to ask whether computing ethics courses matter, finding that course completion is associated with higher scores on some dimensions of ethical reflection and agency but also with stronger techno-solutionist beliefs. If correct, the field gains a common measurement tool and evidence that current ethics pedagogy has both intended and unintended associations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a Likert-scale survey instrument grounded in Critically Conscious Computing theory, which distinguishes critical reflection from critical agency. The argument is carried by a two-phase psychometric procedure: exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation in the first sample to discover how items cluster, then confirmatory factor analysis in the second sample to test whether that cluster structure fits, followed by reliability estimates and regression-based checks of construct and criterion validity. The same regression setup is reused to compare respondents who had completed a computing ethics or professionalism course with those who had not, making the instrument the bridge between the validation result and the education-effect finding.

What would settle it

Administer the four techno-solutionism items in both their original reverse-coded form and a positively worded version to the same sample, and compare factor structure and correlations with ethics training; if the positive-wording version no longer forms a factor or no longer correlates with course completion, the construct is a wording artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the index measures six related but distinct constructs: valuing marginalized perspectives, techno-solutionism, valuing ethics training, valuing technical training, personal effectiveness, and system responsiveness. A first sample (N=474) supplied exploratory factor analysis; a second (N=464) supplied confirmatory factor analysis, with model-fit indices meeting standard thresholds and all retained loadings above 0.55. Cronbach's alpha was .63-.89, with most subscales above .7; the "computing has limits" subscale failed and was dropped from the confirmatory analysis while two of its items were kept as standalone reference points. Construct validity was supported by predicted correlations (for example, personal effectiveness and system responsiveness at r=.62), and predictive criterion validity by regressions showing that valuing ethics training and valuing marginalized perspectives relate to noticing ethical issues at work while personal effectiveness and system responsiveness relate to acting on them. Controlling for demographics, completing a computing ethics course was associated with higher personal effectiveness (beta=.30), higher system responsiveness (beta=.27), higher valuing of ethics training (beta=.11), and higher techno-solutionism (beta=.17), with no significant association for valuing marginalized perspectives.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that ethics courses strengthen techno-solutionism assumes that the reverse-worded survey items measure a real belief; if they only capture how respondents answer negatively phrased statements, that finding is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The index gives computing ethics researchers a shared, theory-grounded measure, replacing intervention-specific surveys that lack validity evidence.
  • Educators can use the subscales to identify which dimensions, such as valuing marginalized perspectives, are not shifting and target instruction accordingly.
  • The positive association between ethics training and techno-solutionism implies that standalone ethics courses may unintentionally reinforce the belief that ethical problems are technical puzzles, suggesting course designs should explicitly address technology's limits.
  • Because personal effectiveness and system responsiveness predict real-world ethical action, changes in these subscale scores are meaningful signals for whether pedagogy will affect workplace behavior.
  • The unusable "computing has limits" subscale shows the instrument does not yet capture students' understanding of technology's limitations, and that dimension needs new item development.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • All four retained techno-solutionism items are reverse-coded; a plausible alternative explanation is that the factor reflects agreement with negatively worded statements, so the ethics-course association with techno-solutionism may be partly a response-style artifact.
  • For the same reason, the positive correlations between techno-solutionism and the agency measures could reflect shared method variance rather than a genuine link between faith in technical fixes and confidence in taking ethical action.
  • A direct test would be to rewrite the techno-solutionism items in positive wording and re-run the factor analysis; if the factor dissolves, the construct as currently measured is not a substantive belief.
  • A longitudinal pre/post design with balanced item wording would convert the course-completion associations into a stronger case for causality and would reveal whether the unintended solutionism bump is temporary or persistent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-sample validation study (N=474 and N=464) of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a scale intended to measure critical reflection and critical agency in computing students and professionals. Using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, construct-validity correlations, and regressions against workplace ethical behavior and prior ethics training, the authors argue that the index has a stable factor structure, adequate reliability for most subscales, construct validity, and predictive criterion validity. They also report the headline finding that completing computing ethics courses is associated with higher scores on some reflection and agency dimensions but also with higher techno-solutionism scores. The paper concludes that the index is a validated tool for assessment and that ethics pedagogy may have both beneficial and unintended effects.

Significance. If the validity evidence holds, this paper would give computing education research a standardized, theory-grounded instrument for measuring ethical development, filling a gap identified in prior systematic reviews. The use of two independent samples, attention checks, and external behavioral outcome questions are genuine strengths, as is the transparent reporting of the factor analytic process and limitations. However, the validity claim is currently undermined by several load-bearing issues: the techno-solutionism factor is composed entirely of reverse-coded items and may reflect response style; the CFA fit is reported only by threshold, not by numeric values; and the Bonferroni-adjusted criterion-validity results are not consistently reported. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the work, but they require additional analysis and reporting before the instrument's validity can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1.2, Tables 7 and 11; Section 4.2.3; Table 6] The Techno-Solutionism factor is defined entirely by reverse-coded items. In the EFA in Table 7, every item loading above .4 on Factor 1 is reverse-coded, and the four items retained in the final CFA in Table 11 are all marked (R) in Table 3. A factor composed exclusively of negatively keyed items can emerge from method effects such as acquiescence, careless responding, or differential interpretation of reverse wording, rather than from a substantive latent belief. This is not merely a psychometric nuance: the construct-validity interpretation of the moderate correlations involving techno-solutionism (e.g., r = .44 with System Responsiveness in Table 1) and the headline RQ3 result that ethics training is associated with higher techno-solutionism (Table 6, beta = .17, p < .001) both depend on this factor measuring what it is claimed to measure. The authors themselves note that the hypothesized 'data has limits' items failed to load reliably and that reverse-coded items merged, which makes the method-effect explanation plausible. To support the interpretation, the paper should present evidence that the factor is not an artifact of item keying, for example by comparing the current model with one that includes a method factor for reverse-coded items, or by validating the factor against a separately collected set of non-reverse-coded techno-solutionism items. Without such evidence, the techno-solutionism findings should be reported with the caveat that they may partly reflect response style.
  2. [Section 4.2.1] The confirmatory factor analysis is claimed to support the final model, but the paper gives no numeric fit statistics. The text states that RMSEA, TLI, CFI, and SRMR scored 'adequately' relative to thresholds, yet no actual values are reported anywhere in the paper or appendices. Without the numeric RMSEA, TLI, CFI, and SRMR values (and ideally chi-square and degrees of freedom), the dimensionality claim that underlies the entire validation cannot be independently checked. This is a central piece of evidence for RQ1 and RQ2, so the fit indices must be reported explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.2.3, Table 2] The criterion-validity results are reported in a way that is inconsistent with the stated Bonferroni correction. The text says that for the 'noticing ethical issues' regressions the significance level was adjusted to alpha = .017, but Table 2 reports stars using conventional thresholds (* p < .05, ** p < .01) and the text states that 'valuing ethics training' and 'valuing marginalized perspectives' showed a significant association without indicating whether these associations survive the .017 threshold. A coefficient with one star does not necessarily meet a .017 threshold. The authors should report exact p-values or clearly mark which coefficients meet the adjusted threshold. Because the criterion-validity claim is a key contribution, this ambiguity is load-bearing and should be resolved.
  4. [Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3, Tables 3 and 11] The final index includes items from the 'computing has limits' factor after that factor was dropped for very low reliability (alpha = .38). The paper retains two such items as standalone 'reference points,' and they appear in Table 3 under the construct label 'Recognizing computing/data embeds values/power.' However, these two items are not included in the CFA model shown in Tables 11-13 and therefore have no reliability or validity evidence in this study. This creates ambiguity about whether the final 29-item index is fully validated as claimed. The paper should clearly separate validated subscales from the two standalone reference items, for example by placing them in a distinct table or clearly labeling them as not part of any validated subscale, and should avoid implying that the CFA supports the full 29-item index.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 and Appendix C] Reliability coefficients are inconsistent between the text and the CFA tables: the text reports Valuing Ethics Training alpha = .89 and System Responsiveness alpha = .84, while Table 12 reports .87 for the ethics-training factor and Table 13 reports .77 for System Responsiveness; Personal Effectiveness is .89 in the text and .87 in Table 13. These discrepancies should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 3.1.1 and Table 10] The second sample is described as N=464 in Section 3.1.1 and Section 4.1.1, but Table 10, described as the CFA sample, reports N=474, and Table 6 reports N=472. The sample size should be consistent across the text and tables.
  3. [Table 2 and Table 6] The regression tables report standardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses, but standard errors of standardized coefficients are not usually reported this way and the reader cannot tell whether the values in parentheses are standard errors of the standardized or unstandardized coefficient. Clarify the reporting convention in the table notes or text.
  4. [Section 3.1.1] The Likert scale is described as '(Strongly Disagree (1/6) to Strongly Agree (6/6))'; this should read '1 to 6' rather than '1/6' and '6/6'.
  5. [Appendix A, Table 7] The item 'Ethics discussions in computing should only involve computer scientists. (R)' loads above .4 on the techno-solutionism factor in the EFA but does not appear in the final index or in the CFA table. The paper should explain why this item was removed despite meeting the loading threshold.
  6. [Table 3] The first row of Table 3 labels the two retained 'computing has limits' items as 'Recognizing computing/data embeds values/power,' but this is not a validated factor in the final CFA. Add a footnote to indicate that these items are standalone reference items and are not part of any validated subscale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the validation rests on new samples, external behavioral criteria, and confirmatory testing, not on the authors' prior definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The factor structure is obtained by exploratory factor analysis on the first sample and then confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis on a second, independent sample; reliability is assessed with Cronbach's alpha on the same second sample; construct validity is tested through correlations among factors and with theoretically related constructs; and predictive criterion validity is assessed against new, externally meaningful behavioral outcomes (noticing and acting on ethical issues in the workplace). No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter, and no construct is defined in terms of the outcome it is used to explain. The only self-referential element is reliance on the authors' earlier work (Padiyath et al. [47]) for the index's items, theoretical framing, and content validity. That is ordinary cumulative measurement development, not a load-bearing circular argument: the current validation's empirical claims (factor loadings, reliability coefficients, regressions) are new data, and the criterion variables are independent of the instrument's own item wording. The post-hoc labeling of a reverse-coded factor as Techno-Solutionism is a legitimate construct-validity concern, since all four retained items share response direction and could reflect method effects rather than a substantive belief, but this is a threat to validity, not a circularity: the factor's emergence and its correlations are empirical results, not assumptions imported from the conclusion. Because no specific step can be exhibited as equivalent to its inputs by construction, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard psychometric assumptions, the representativeness of a Prolific sample, the absence of a reverse-coding method effect, and the validity of self-reported ethical behavior. The Techno-Solutionism factor is the most fragile invented entity because it may be a method artifact.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Likert responses are treated as interval-scale data suitable for Pearson-based factor analysis.
    EFA/CFA are run on six-point Likert items with no stated estimator or test for non-normality (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.1).
  • domain assumption Prolific respondents with self-reported computer science education represent the target population of computing students and professionals.
    Sampling criteria in Section 3.1.1 are broad, 57-58% are current undergraduates, and CS education is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Reverse-coded and forward-coded items measure the same constructs with no method effect.
    The Techno-Solutionism factor consists entirely of reverse-coded items (Table 3), but no method factor is tested.
  • domain assumption Self-reported noticing and acting on ethical issues is a valid proxy for ethical behavior.
    Criterion validity regressions in Section 3.2.2 rely on binary self-reports from the same survey.
invented entities (1)
  • Techno-Solutionism factor
    purpose: A latent dimension of the index capturing the belief that technological solutions alone can solve all problems; emerged from EFA of reverse-coded items.
    No external benchmark validates this factor specifically, and all its items are reverse-coded, so it may be a reverse-wording artifact rather than a substantive construct (Table 3, Appendix A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validation of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index: Do Computing Ethics Courses Make a Difference?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TQUCRCL

@misc{pith2026250606193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validation of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index: Do Computing Ethics Courses Make a Difference?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TQUCRCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06193}
}
read the original abstract

Computing ethics education aims to develop students' critical reflection and agency. We need validated ways to measure whether our efforts succeed. Through two survey administrations (N=474, N=464) with computing students and professionals, we provide evidence for the validity of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index. Our psychometric analyses demonstrate distinct dimensions of ethical development and show strong reliability and construct validity. Participants who completed computing ethics courses showed higher scores in some dimensions of ethical reflection and agency, but they also exhibited stronger techno-solutionist beliefs, highlighting a challenge in current pedagogy. This validated instrument enables systematic measurement of how computing students develop critical consciousness, allowing educators to better understand how to prepare computing professionals to tackle ethical challenges in their work.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.abet.org/about-abet/diversity-e quity-and-inclusion-2/

    2024. https://www.abet.org/about-abet/diversity-e quity-and-inclusion-2/

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Society, Ethics, and the Profession (SEP)

    2024. Society, Ethics, and the Profession (SEP) . Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Grace Barkhuff, Jason Borenstein, Daniel Schiff, Judith U chidiuno, and Ellen Ze- gura. 2025. Towards a More Inclusive Curriculum: Opportunities for Broadening and Diversifying Computing Ethics Education. In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 . Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 60–66

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: Abolitioni st tools for the new jim code. Social forces (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Godfred O Boateng, Torsten B Neilands, Edward A Frongill o, Hugo R Melgar- Quiñonez, and Sera L Young. 2018. Best practices for develop ing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a prime r. Frontiers in public health 6 (2018), 149

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Noelle Brown, Koriann South, Suresh Venkatasubramania n, and Eliane S Wiese

    work page

  7. [7]

    Noelle Brown, Benjamin Xie, Ella Sarder, Casey Fiesler, and Eliane S Wiese. 2024. Teaching Ethics in Computing: A Systematic Literature Revi ew of ACM Com- puter Science Education Publications. ACM Transactions on Computing Educa- tion 24, 1 (2024), 1–36

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Barbara M Byrne. 1994. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programmi ng. Sage

    work page 1994

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Nathan E Canney and Angela R Bielefeldt. 2016. Validity a nd reliability evi- dence of the engineering professional responsibility asse ssment tool. Journal of engineering education 105, 3 (2016), 452–477

    2016

  2. [10]

    Francisco Castro, Sahitya Raipura, Heather Conboy, Pe ter Haas, Leon Osterweil, and Ivon Arroyo. 2023. Piloting an Interactive Ethics and Re sponsible Comput- ing Learning Environment in Undergraduate CS Courses. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer S...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Erin A Cech. 2014. Culture of disengagement in engineer ing education? Science, Technology, & Human Values 39, 1 (2014), 42–72

    2014

  4. [12]

    Janne Chung and Gary S Monroe. 2003. Exploring social de sirability bias. Jour- nal of Business Ethics 44 (2003), 291–302

    2003

  5. [13]

    Andrew L Comrey and Howard B Lee. 2013. A first course in factor analysis . Psychology press

    2013

  6. [14]

    Statistics Corner. 2009. Choosing the right type of rot ation in PCA and EFA. JALT testing & evaluation SIG newsletter 13, 3 (2009), 20–25

    2009

  7. [15]

    Matthew Diemer, Michael Frisby, Aixa Marchand, and Ema nuele Bardelli. 2023. Illustrating and enacting a critical quantitative approac h to measurement with MIMIC models. (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Matthew A Diemer, Michael B Frisby, Andres Pinedo, Eman uele Bardelli, Erin Elliot, Elise Harris, Sara McAlister, and Adam M Voight. 202 2. Development of the short critical consciousness scale (ShoCCS). Applied developmental science 26, 3 (2022), 409–425

    2022

  9. [17]

    Matthew A Diemer, Luke J Rapa, Catalina J Park, and Justi n C Perry. 2017. De- velopment and validation of the critical consciousness sca le. Youth & Society 49, 4 (2017), 461–483

    2017

  10. [18]

    NR Draper. 1998. Applied regression analysis. McGraw-Hill. Inc

    1998

  11. [19]

    Olive Jean Dunn. 1961. Multiple comparisons among mean s. Journal of the American statistical association 56, 293 (1961), 52–64

    1961

  12. [20]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin’s Press

    2018

  13. [21]

    Casey Fiesler, Mikhaila Friske, Natalie Garrett, Feli x Muzny, Jessie J Smith, and Jason Zietz. 2021. Integrating Ethics into Introductory Pr ogramming Classes. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer S cience Educa- tion. Association for Computing Machi...

    2021

  14. [22]

    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 . Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 289–295

    2020

  15. [23]

    Paulo Freire. 2020. Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a sociology of education. Routledge, 374–386

    2020

  16. [24]

    Michael B Frisby. 2024. Critical Quantitative Literac y: An Educational Foundation for Critical Quantitative Research. AERA Open 10 (2024), 23328584241228223

    2024

  17. [25]

    If Time Al- lows

    Natalie Garrett, Nathan Beard, and Casey Fiesler. 2020 . More Than" If Time Al- lows" The Role of Ethics in AI Education. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Con- ference on AI, Ethics, and Society . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 272–278

    2020

  18. [26]

    Don Gotterbarn, Keith Miller, and Simon Rogerson. 1997 . Software engineering code of ethics. Commun. ACM 40, 11 (1997), 110–118

    1997

  19. [27]

    Colin M Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, a nd Austin L Toombs

  20. [28]

    Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass . Eamon Dolan Books

    2019

  21. [29]

    Barbara J Grosz, David Gray Grant, Kate Vredenburgh, Je ff Behrends, Lily Hu, Alison Simmons, and Jim Waldo. 2019. Embedded EthiCS: integ rating ethics across CS education. Commun. ACM 62, 8 (2019), 54–61. ICER 2025 Vol. 1, August 3–6, 2025, Charlo/t_tesville, V A, USA Aa darsh...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Diane Horton, Sheila A McIlraith, Nina Wang, Maryam Maj edi, Emma McClure, and Benjamin Wald. 2022. Embedding ethics in computer scien ce courses: Does it work?. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer S ci- ence Education-Volume 1. Association for Compu...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Li-tze Hu and Peter M Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fi t indexes in covari- ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc- tural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 6, 1 (1999), 1–55

    1999

  24. [32]

    David Hunter and Nicholas Evans. 2016. Facebook emotio nal contagion experi- ment controversy. 2–3 pages

    2016

  25. [33]

    Henry F Kaiser and John Rice. 1974. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and psy- chological measurement 34, 1 (1974), 111–117

    1974

  26. [34]

    Mara Kirdani-Ryan and Amy J Ko. 2022. The house of comput ing: Integrating counternarratives into computer systems education. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education-Volume 1. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 279–285

    2022

  27. [35]

    Amy J Ko, Alannah Oleson, Neil Ryan, Yim Register, Benja min Xie, Mina Tari, Matthew Davidson, Stefania Druga, and Dastyni Loksa. 2020. It is time for more critical CS education. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 31–33

    2020

  28. [36]

    Nancy G Leveson and Clark S Turner. 1993. An investigati on of the Therac-25 accidents. Computer 26, 7 (1993), 18–41

    1993

  29. [37]

    James W Malazita and Korryn Resetar. 2019. Infrastruct ures of abstraction: how computer science education produces anti-political subje cts. Digital Creativity 30, 4 (2019), 300–312

    2019

  30. [38]

    C Dianne Martin, Chuck Huff, Donald Gotterbarn, and Keit h Miller. 1996. Im- plementing a tenth strand in the CS curriculum. Commun. ACM 39, 12 (1996), 75–84

    1996

  31. [39]

    Mcgill and Jeffrey Xavier

    Monica M. Mcgill and Jeffrey Xavier. 2025. Measuring Val idity. https://csedresearch.org/resources/conducting-educa tion-research/measuring-reliability-and-validity/va lidity/ [Accessed 19-02-2025]

    2025

  32. [40]

    Luis Morales-Navarro and Yasmin B Kafai. 2023. Concept ualizing approaches to critical computing education: Inquiry, design, and reimagination. In Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research: A Global Perspective. Springer, 521– 538

    2023

  33. [41]

    Evgeny Morozov. 2013. To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs

    2013

  34. [42]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines rein- force racism. In Algorithms of oppression. New York university press

    2018

  35. [43]

    Jum C Nunnally. 1967. Assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory (1967), 206–235

    1967

  36. [44]

    Cathy O’neil. 2017. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequal- ity and threatens democracy . Crown

    2017

  37. [45]

    Aadarsh Padiyath. 2024. A Realist Review of Undergradu ate Student Attitudes towards Ethical Interventions in Technical Computing Cour ses. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 24, 2, Article 22 (apr 2024), 19 pages. doi:10.1145/3639572

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Aadarsh Padiyath, Kyle Ashburn, and Barbara Ericson. 2 024. Undergraduate Student Attitudes towards a Social Justice Context in a Prog ramming Project. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2025

  39. [47]

    Aadarsh Padiyath, Mark Guzdial, and Barbara Ericson. 2 025. Development of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–11

    2025

  40. [48]

    Tenko Raykov and George A Marcoulides. 2011. Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge

    2011

  41. [49]

    Show them the playb ook that these compa- nies are using

    Jean J Ryoo and Takeria Blunt. 2024. “Show them the playb ook that these compa- nies are using”: Youth Voices about why Computer Science Education Must Cen- ter Discussions of Power, Ethics, and Culturally Responsiv e Computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Ella Sarder and Casey Fiesler. 2022. Entering the Techl ash: Student Perspectives on Ethics in Tech Job Searches. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computin g. 85–88

    2022

  43. [51]

    Jessie J Smith, Blakeley H Payne, Shamika Klassen, Dyla n Thomas Doyle, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. Incorporating ethics in computing cou rses: Barriers, sup- port, and perspectives from educators. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Norman Makoto Su, Amanda Lazar, and Lilly Irani. 2021. C ritical affects: Tech work emotions amidst the techlash. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–27

    2021

  45. [53]

    Mohammad Tahaei and Kami Vaniea. 2022. Recruiting Part icipants With Programming Skills: A Comparison of Four Crowdsourcing Pla tforms and a CS Student Mailing List. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Houng Chien Tan, Jo Ann Ho, Guan Cheng Teoh, and Siew Imm N g. 2021. Is social desirability bias important for effective ethics res earch? A review of liter- ature. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 10, 2 (2021), 205–243

    2021

  47. [55]

    Kentaro Toyama. 2015. Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of tech- nology. PublicAffairs

    2015

  48. [56]

    Sepehr Vakil. 2018. Ethics, identity, and political vi sion: Toward a justice- centered approach to equity in computer science education.Harvard Educational Review 88, 1 (2018), 26–52

    2018

  49. [57]

    Alicia Nicki Washington. 2020. When twice as good isn’t enough: The case for cultural competence in computing. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education . Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 213–219

    2020

  50. [58]

    Roderick J Watts, Matthew A Diemer, and Adam M Voight. 20 11. Critical con- sciousness: Current status and future directions. New directions for child and adolescent development 2011, 134 (2011), 43–57

    2011

  51. [59]

    Mark Weiser. 1999. The computer for the 21st century. ACM SIGMOBILE mobile computing and communications review 3, 3 (1999), 3–11

    1999

  52. [60]

    David Gray Widder, Derrick Zhen, Laura Dabbish, and Jam es Herbsleb. 2023. It’s about power: What ethical concerns do software enginee rs have, and what do they (feel they can) do about them?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transpa...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Aman Yadav, Marie Heath, and Anne Drew Hu. 2022. Toward justice in computer science through community, criticality, and citizenship. Commun. ACM 65, 5 (2022), 42–44

    2022

  54. [62]

    Valuing Marginalized Perspectives

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power: Barack Obama’s books of 2 019. Profile books. ICER 2025 Vol. 1, August 3–6, 2025, Charlo/t_tesville, V A, USA Aa darsh Padiyath, Casey Fiesler, Mark Guzdial, and ...

    2019 arXiv

  55. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems

    The dark (patterns) side of UX design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems . Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14

    2018

  56. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Comp uting Education Research-Volume 1

    Designing Ethically-Integrated Assignments: It’s H arder Than it Looks. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Comp uting Education Research-Volume 1. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177–190

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.