Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Development of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a 40-item, expert-reviewed survey for measuring undergraduate computing students' attitudes toward ethical reflection and agency.

desk verdict A transparent, well-grounded scale development paper that delivers a usable 40-item instrument for computing ethics education; the evidence only covers content and face validity with small samples, but the authors say so and the tool is worth engaging with. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13060 v1 pith:GHKHJCSA submitted 2025-01-22 cs.CY cs.HC

Aadarsh Padiyath , Mark Guzdial , Barbara Ericson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords criticallyconsciouscomputingethicseducationcriticalreflectionagencysurveydevelopmentcontentvaliditystudentattitudesscalevalidation
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

Computing ethics education lacks a standardized way to measure students' attitudes toward ethical reflection and their sense of agency. This paper introduces the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a 40-item survey designed to fill that gap. The index is built on a Critically Conscious Computing framework that adapts critical consciousness theory into two measurable constructs: critical reflection and critical agency. Through a literature review, seven expert reviewers, and five cognitive interviews, the authors report evidence for content and face validity, while explicitly presenting the tool as a heuristic instrument pending full psychometric validation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-construct structure of the index, which translates critical consciousness theory into concrete operationalizations. Critical Reflection is divided into four sub-operationalizations: recognizing that computing and data embed values and power (including 'computing has limits' and 'data has limits'), centering power in ethics discussions, and recognizing that software engineering training should include explicit ethics and social-impact topics. Critical Agency is divided into personal effectiveness (confidence to voice ethical views and uphold ethical conduct) and system responsiveness (belief that workplaces respond to raised ethical concerns). This structure carries the argument because it makes an abstract theoretical framework into items that can be administered, scored, and compared across students, courses, and institutions.

What would settle it

Administer the 40-item index to a large, multi-institution sample and run a confirmatory factor analysis; if the expected two-factor structure of Critical Reflection and Critical Agency does not emerge, or if items load substantially on unintended factors or on a method factor associated with reverse coding, the claim that the index measures these two distinct constructs would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that critical reflection and agency in undergraduate computing students can be operationalized and measured with a self-report index comprising 40 Likert items across two constructs. Critical Reflection (30 items) captures whether students recognize that computing and data embed values and power, that computing and data have limits, that ethics discussions should center power, and that computing training should include explicit ethics and social-impact content. Critical Agency (10 items) captures personal effectiveness in voicing and upholding ethical positions and beliefs about whether computing institutions respond to ethical concerns. The paper argues that expert review and think-aloud cognitive interviews provide initial evidence of content and face validity, making the index usable now as a heuristic tool for research and pedagogy while larger-scale psychometric validation remains future work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that seven expert reviewers, mostly academics, and five cognitive interviews with undergraduates from a single large public university provide enough evidence of content and face validity for a tool intended for use across diverse computing education contexts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The index can be used as a pre- and post-course survey to tailor ethics instruction to students' starting attitudes and to measure whether interventions shift reflection and agency.
  • Researchers can administer the same items across institutions, supporting longitudinal tracking and cross-institution comparisons to identify effective ethics pedagogy.
  • The Critically Conscious Computing framework gives educators a shared vocabulary for designing curricula that pair technical skills with critical reflection, agency, and action.
  • The tool can support research on design justice and professional training contexts, although use in industry settings would require additional validation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference beyond the paper's claims is that because the index is built on expert opinions and a small student sample, its content validity may not transfer to institutions with different demographics, curricula, or cultural norms without local re-validation.
  • The index measures attitudes, not behavior; high reflection and agency scores may not predict whether students actually challenge unethical practices, so pairing the survey with behavioral or qualitative measures would test real-world transfer.
  • The system-responsiveness items ask undergraduates about workplace contexts many have not yet experienced; their answers may reflect imagined or idealized beliefs, suggesting vignette-based items could capture more realistic agency judgments.
  • The paper's explicit choice to keep the index brief and heuristic creates a natural tension with psychometric rigor; future factor analysis may reveal that some reverse-coded or comparison items perform differently than intended.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the development and content validation of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a 40-item instrument intended to measure undergraduate computing students' attitudes toward critical reflection and agency, grounded in a proposed 'Critically Conscious Computing' framework. Following Boateng et al.'s scale-development guidance, the authors conducted domain identification from a literature review, generated an initial 45-item pool, refined it through iterative review by seven experts, and conducted cognitive interviews with five undergraduate CS students. The final instrument comprises two subscales (critical reflection and critical agency) with items shown in Tables 2-4. The authors explicitly position the index as a heuristic tool with evidence for content and face validity, disclaiming full psychometric validation and listing limitations in Section 3.5.

Significance. If the index is accepted as a heuristic instrument, it addresses a real gap: the lack of a standardized, computing-specific measure of students' ethical reflection and agency for use in computing ethics education research and practice. The paper's strengths include transparent reporting of the item pool before and after revision, grounding in existing frameworks and codes of ethics, and a clear statement that the tool is not yet a fully validated psychometric instrument. The authors' honesty about sample size and scope is commendable. However, the novelty claim for the 'Critically Conscious Computing' framework is compromised because a cited reference (Ko et al., reference [56]) already uses this exact name, and the paper does not differentiate its framework from that work. The discussion also makes recommendations that go beyond the stated evidence base, particularly regarding pre/post effectiveness measurement and cross-institutional comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The paper claims to introduce a 'novel framework' called 'Critically Conscious Computing,' but reference [56] (Ko et al., 2024, 'Critically conscious computing: methods for secondary education') already uses this identical name. The manuscript does not cite or discuss this work when presenting the framework, nor does it explain how the proposed framework differs from or builds on it. This matters because the framework is presented as contribution (1). Please clarify the relationship to reference [56] and either justify the novelty claim or rename the framework.
  2. [Section 5.1 versus Section 3.5] The discussion recommends using the index as a pre/post survey to measure the effectiveness of interventions and to compare across institutions, while Section 3.5 explicitly states that 'users should interpret quantitative results as preliminary indicators' and that full psychometric validation has not been conducted. These claims are in tension. The pre/post and cross-institutional recommendations go beyond what content and face validity evidence can support. Please either temper the recommendations in Section 5.1 to align with the stated limitations or provide additional justification for why the current evidence suffices for those uses.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 4.1] The evidence for content validity rests entirely on qualitative expert review, with no item-level quantitative agreement index (such as a content validity index or a summary of expert ratings per item). The paper reports 'unanimous agreement' on conceptual definitions but also describes removal of two subscales, so it is difficult for the reader to assess how much agreement existed on specific items. Given that content validity is a central claimed contribution, the authors should either provide item-level expert feedback data or explicitly qualify the strength of the content validity evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.5] The abstract calls the index a 'standardized tool' while Section 3.5 calls it a 'heuristic tool' and states that full validation has not been conducted. Consider using consistent terminology to avoid overstating the instrument's current status.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.3] The response format is described as '4 or 6-option Likert scale' in Section 3.2 and '4 or 6-item Likert-scale format' in Section 4.3; please standardize to '4- or 6-point Likert scale'.
  3. [Table 3] The table includes comparison items marked with '(0)' alongside the ethics/social impact items. The text should state explicitly whether the comparison items are part of the scored index or are intended as filler/context items, and how they are treated in analysis.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'After the second interviewee, the next three participants reported no difficulty' is slightly ambiguous; it should be clear that modifications were made after the first two interviews and no further issues were reported by the final three participants.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the index is developed through standard content-validation practice, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a scale-development report, not a derivation of a quantitative result from fitted inputs. Section 3 follows Boateng et al.'s three-step process: domain identification from the literature and expert consultation (§3.1), item generation from those operationalizations (§3.2), and evidence for content validity through iterative expert review (§3.3) and cognitive interviews (§3.4). The expert agreement and student comprehension constitute the content and face validity evidence; they are not a prediction derived from the authors' framework, and no item is shown to be equivalent to an input by construction. The self-citations to the first author's prior work ([70], [71]) motivate the research gap and describe student attitudes, but the construction of the index rests on the published literature, ACM/IEEE codes, CS2023 guidelines, and external expert judgment; the paper also explicitly differentiates its instrument from existing scales (EASE, ShoCCS, TESSE, EPRA, SEED) in §2.4. Section 3.5 candidly states that the expert panel was small and academic, that cognitive interviews were single-institution, and that full psychometric validation has not yet been done; these are validity-scope limitations, not circularity. No equation or definition reduces the index's claim to its own inputs, so the modest heuristic claim is self-contained apart from minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces a new conceptual framework and a measurement instrument. It relies on established scale development methodology and domain assumptions about the validity of self-report and expert judgment. No numerical free parameters are fitted, since this is a qualitative instrument development study. The main inventions are the framework name and the specific item set, neither of which has independent empirical validation beyond the reported expert and interview feedback.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Critical consciousness theory (Freire) applies to computing education and can be operationalized as critical reflection, agency, and action.
    The framework is built on this theory without empirical test; Section 2.2 introduces the framework as a synthesis of existing critical approaches.
  • domain assumption Self-report Likert responses are a valid proxy for students' attitudes toward ethics and agency.
    The instrument uses self-report items, and the paper acknowledges social desirability bias in Section 3.5.
  • domain assumption Expert judgment from seven reviewers is sufficient evidence of content validity.
    Section 3.3 describes the expert review process and treats unanimous agreement on constructs as validation, without quantitative content validity indices.
  • domain assumption Five cognitive interviews reaching self-reported saturation provide sufficient evidence of face validity.
    Section 4.2 states that after the second interviewee the next three participants reported no difficulty, and the authors conclude saturation was reached.
  • domain assumption The literature search and selection criteria used for domain identification capture the relevant range of operationalizations.
    Section 3 describes the review process following Padiyath [70], but the completeness of the search is not independently assessed.
invented entities (1)
  • Critically Conscious Computing framework
    purpose: Conceptual foundation for the index, defining critical reflection, agency, and action in computing.
    The framework is a synthesis of prior work and is not empirically validated; the index measures alignment with it. It is a conceptual entity, not a physical one, and the paper itself calls it 'novel'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHKHJCSA

@misc{pith2026250113060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHKHJCSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13060}
}
read the original abstract

As computing's societal impact grows, so does the need for computing students to recognize and address the ethical and sociotechnical implications of their work. While there are efforts to integrate ethics into computing curricula, we lack a standardized tool to measure those efforts, specifically, students' attitudes towards ethical reflection and their ability to effect change. This paper introduces the novel framework of Critically Conscious Computing and reports on the development and content validation of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computing Index, a novel instrument designed to assess undergraduate computing students' attitudes towards practicing critically conscious computing. The resulting index is a theoretically grounded, expert-reviewed tool to support research and practice in computing ethics education. This enables researchers and educators to gain insights into students' perspectives, inform the design of targeted ethics interventions, and measure the effectiveness of computing ethics education initiatives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Amy J Ko, Anne Beitlers, Brett Wortzman, Matt Davidson, Alannah Ole- son, Mara Kirdani-Ryan, Stefania Druga, and Jayne Everson. 2024. Crit- ically conscious computing: methods for secondary educati on. Online. https://criticallyconsciouscomputing. org (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [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/

    2024

  3. [2]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    2024. Artificial Intelligence (AI) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    2024

  4. [3]

    Software Development Fundamentals (SDF)

    2024. Software Development Fundamentals (SDF) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    2024

  5. [4]

    Software Engineering (SE)

    2024. Software Engineering (SE) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    2024

  6. [5]

    Veronica Abebe, Gagik Amaryan, Marina Beshai, Ilene, Al i Ekin Gurgen, Wendy Ho, Naaji R Hylton, Daniel Kim, Christy Lee, Carina Lewandow ski, et al. 2022. Anti-Racist HCI: notes on an emerging critical technical pr actice. In CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstrac ts. 1–12

    2022

  7. [6]

    Icek Ajzen. 1991. The Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1991)

    1991

  8. [7]

    Ahmed Al-Zubidy, Jeffrey C Carver, Sarah Heckman, and Mar k Sherriff. 2016. A (updated) review of empiricism at the sigcse technical symposium. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 120–125

    2016

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Humanistic Hci. Interactions 23, 2 (2016), 20–29

    2016

  2. [9]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and o utlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in comp uting systems. 1301–1310

    2010

  3. [10]

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

    2019

  4. [11]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2024. Imagination: A Manifesto (A Norton Short) . WW Norton & Company

    2024

  5. [12]

    Woźniak, an d Paweł W

    Marit Bentvelzen, Jasmin Niess, Mikołaj P. Woźniak, an d Paweł W. Woź- niak. 2021. The Development and Validation of the Technolog y-Supported Reflection Inventory. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21) . A...

    2021

  6. [13]

    Godfred O Boateng, Torsten B Neilands, Edward A Frongil lo, 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

    2018

  7. [14]

    Jason Borenstein, Matthew Drake, Robert Kirkman, and J ulie Swann. 2008. The test of ethical sensitivity in science and engineering (TES SE): A discipline spe- cific assessment tool for awareness of ethical issues. In 2008 annual conference & exposition. 13–1270

    2008

  8. [15]

    Nele Borgert, Oliver D Reithmaier, Luisa Jansen, Larin a Hillemann, Ian Hussey, and Malte Elson. 2023. Home Is Where the Smart Is: Developmen t and Vali- dation of the Cybersecurity Self-Efficacy in Smart Homes (CyS ESH) Scale. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human ...

    2023

  9. [16]

    Noelle Brown, Koriann South, Suresh Venkatasubramani an, and Eliane S Wiese

  10. [17]

    Noelle Brown, Koriann South, and Eliane S Wiese. 2022. T he shortest path to ethics in AI: An integrated assignment where human concerns guide technical CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Aadarsh Padiy ath, Mark Guzdial, and Barbara Ericson decisions. In Proceeding...

    2022

  11. [18]

    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

    2024

  12. [19]

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

    2016

  13. [20]

    Gian Vittorio Caprara, Michele Vecchione, Cristina Ca panna, and Minou Mebane. 2009. Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, as sessment, and applica- tions. European journal of social psychology 39, 6 (2009), 1002–1020

    2009

  14. [21]

    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

  15. [22]

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

    2014

  16. [23]

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

    2003

  17. [24]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need . The MIT Press

    2020

  18. [25]

    Stephen C Craig and Michael A Maggiotto. 1982. Measurin g political efficacy. Political Methodology (1982), 85–109

    1982

  19. [26]

    Not m y Priority:

    Hana Darling-Wolf and Elizabeth Patitsas. 2024. " Not m y Priority:" Ethics and the Boundaries of Computer Science Identities in Undergrad uate CS Education. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–28

    2024

  20. [27]

    Sauvik Das, Cori Faklaris, Jason I Hong, Laura A Dabbish , et al. 2022. The secu- rity & privacy acceptance framework (spaf). Foundations and Trends® in Privacy and Security 5, 1-2 (2022), 1–143

    2022

  21. [28]

    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

  22. [29]

    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

  23. [30]

    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

  24. [31]

    Samantha Jane Dobesh, Tyler Miller, Pax Newman, Yudong Liu, and Yasmine N Elglaly. 2023. Towards Machine Learning Fairness Educatio n in a Natural Lan- guage Processing Course. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 . 312–318

    2023

  25. [32]

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

    2018

  26. [33]

    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. 1027–1033

    2021

  27. [34]

    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

    2020

  28. [35]

    Cynthia J Finelli, Matthew A Holsapple, Eunjong Ra, Rob M Bielby, Brian A Burt, Donald D Carpenter, Trevor S Harding, and Janel A Sutkus. 2012. An assessment of engineering students’ curricular and co-curricular exp eriences and their eth- ical development. Journal of Engineer...

    2012

  29. [36]

    Brian J Fogg. 2019. Fogg behavior model. Behav. Des. Lab., Stanford Univ., Stan- ford, CA, USA, Tech. Rep (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    Floyd J Fowler. 1995. Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation . Sage

    1995

  31. [38]

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

    2020

  32. [39]

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

    2024

  33. [40]

    Patricia Garcia, Tonia Sutherland, Marika Cifor, Anit a Say Chan, Lauren Klein, Catherine D’Ignazio, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. No: Critic al refusal as feminist data practice. In Companion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Sup - ported Cooperative Work and Social...

    2020

  34. [41]

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

    1997

  35. [42]

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

    2019

  36. [43]

    Ben Green. 2021. Data science as political action: Grou nding data science in a politics of justice. Journal of Social Computing 2, 3 (2021), 249–265

    2021

  37. [44]

    Katharina Groskurth, Désirée Nießen, Beatrice Rammst edt, and Clemens M Lechner. 2021. An English-language adaptation and validat ion of the Political Efficacy Short Scale (PESS). Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences 3 (2021), 1–12

    2021

  38. [45]

    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

    2019

  39. [46]

    Joseph R Herkert. 2005. Ways of thinking about and teach ing ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2005), 373–385

    2005

  40. [47]

    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. 481–487

    2022

  41. [48]

    Cynthia P Iglesias, Alexander Thompson, Wolf H Rogowsk i, and Katherine Payne. 2016. Reporting guidelines for the use of expert judg ement in model- based economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 34 (2016), 1161–1172

    2016

  42. [49]

    Daniela Inclezan and Luis Pradanos. 2014. Promoting ec oliteracy in an introduc- tory database systems course: activities for the first week. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education . 573–578

    2014

  43. [50]

    This Applies to the Real World

    Julie Jarzemsky, Joshua Paup, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. " This Applies to the Real World": Student Perspectives on Integrating Ethics into a Computer Science Assignment. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 374–380

    2023

  44. [51]

    Os Keyes, Josephine Hoy, and Margaret Drouhard. 2019. H uman-computer in- surrection: Notes on an anarchist HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  45. [52]

    Mara Kirdani-Ryan. 2024. Identity Fragmentation in Post-Secondary Computing Education. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Washington

    2024

  46. [53]

    Mara Kirdani-Ryan and Amy J Ko. 2022. The House of Comput ing: Integrating Counternarratives into Computer Systems Education. (2022 )

    2022

  47. [54]

    Taught to be au- tomata

    Mara Kirdani-Ryan, Amy J Ko, and Emilia A Borisova. 2024 . “Taught to be au- tomata”: Examining the departmental role in shaping initia l career choices of computing students. Computer Science Education 34, 1 (2024), 87–113

    2024

  48. [55]

    Run Wild a Lit tle With Your Imagina- tion

    Shamika Klassen and Casey Fiesler. 2022. “Run Wild a Lit tle With Your Imagina- tion”: Ethical Speculation in Computing Education with Bla ck Mirror. (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    Kumar, Rajendra K

    Amruth N. Kumar, Rajendra K. Raj, Sherif G. Aly, Monica D . Anderson, Brett A. Becker, Richard L. Blumenthal, Eric Eaton, Susan L. Epstein , Michael Goldwe- ber, Pankaj Jalote, Douglas Lea, Michael Oudshoorn, Marcel o Pias, Susan Reiser, Christian Servin, Rahul Simha, Titus Wi...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Michael Madaio, Shivani Kapania, Rida Qadri, Ding Wang , Andrew Zaldivar, Remi Denton, and Lauren Wilcox. 2024. Learning about Respon sible AI On- The-Job: Learning Pathways, Orientations, and Aspiration s. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability,...

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    Alexis Martin. 2018. The leaky tech pipeline: A comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing the lack of diversity across the tech ecosystem. Kapor Center for Social Impact

    2018

  54. [62]

    D Betsy McCoach, Robert K Gable, and John P Madura. 2013. Instrument devel- opment in the affective domain . Vol. 10. Springer

    2013

  55. [63]

    Warren Edward Miller, Santa A Traugott, and Santa Traug ott. 1989. American national election studies data sourcebook, 1952-1986 . Harvard University Press

    1989

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

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

    2013

  58. [66]

    Greg L Nelson and Amy J Ko. 2018. On use of theory in comput ing education research. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international comp uting education research. 31–39

    2018

  59. [67]

    Richard G Niemi, Stephen C Craig, and Franco Mattei. 199 1. Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review 85, 4 (1991), 1407–1413

    1991

  60. [68]

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

    2018

  61. [69]

    Cathy O’neil. 2017. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequal- ity and threatens democracy . Crown. Development of the Critical Reflection and Agency in Computi ng Index CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2017

  62. [70]

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

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Aadarsh Padiyath, Kyle Ashburn, and Barbara Ericson. 2 024. Undergraduate Student Attitudes towards a Social Justice Context in a Programming Project. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 1000–1006

  64. [72]

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Ra zvan Amironesei

  65. [73]

    Donna Riley. 2008. Ethics in context, ethics in action: Getting beyond the indi- vidual professional in engineering ethics education. In 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. 13–570

    2008

  66. [74]

    Veronica A Rivera and Norman Makoto Su. 2024. Teaching E thics & Activism in a Human-Computer Interaction Professional Master’s Progr am. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Educ ation V. 1. 1140– 1146

    2024

  67. [75]

    Kantwon Rogers, Reiden John Allen Webber, Jinhee Chang , Geronimo Goros- tiaga Zubizarreta, and Ayanna Howard. 2024. Lie, Repent, Re peat: Exploring Apologies after Repeated Robot Deception. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interactio...

    2024

  68. [76]

    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

  69. [77]

    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

  70. [78]

    Irena R Sarieva. 2018. How to measure perceived politic al efficacy? A three- component scale. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics 15, 3 (2018), 477–490

    2018

  71. [79]

    Thomas J Scotto, Carla Xena, and Jason Reifler. 2021. Alt ernative measures of political efficacy: the quest for cross-cultural invariance with ordinally scaled survey items. Frontiers in Political Science 3 (2021), 665532

    2021

  72. [80]

    Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Josep h’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical com- puting: between sense and sensibility . 49–58

    2005

  73. [81]

    Michael Skirpan, Nathan Beard, Srinjita Bhaduri, Case y Fiesler, and Tom Yeh

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

    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

  76. [84]

    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

  77. [85]

    It’s Not Exactl y Meant to Be Realis- tic

    Michelle Tran and Casey Fiesler. 2024. " It’s Not Exactl y Meant to Be Realis- tic": Student Perspectives on the Role of Ethics In Computin g Group Projects. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Comp uting Education Research-Volume 1. 517–526

    2024

  78. [86]

    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

  79. [87]

    Sepehr Vakil and Jennifer Higgs. 2019. It’s about power . Commun. ACM 62, 3 (2019), 31–33

    2019

  80. [88]

    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 . 213–219

    2020

  81. [89]

    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

  82. [90]

    David Gray Widder, Derrick Zhen, Laura Dabbish, and Jam es Herbsleb. 2023. It’s about power: What ethical concerns do software engineers ha ve, and what do they (feel they can) do about them?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transpare...

    2023

  83. [91]

    Langdon Winner. 2017. Do artifacts have politics? In Computer ethics. Routledge, 177–192

    2017

  84. [92]

    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

  85. [93]

    myth: software is always right

    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. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Aadarsh Padiy ath, Mark Guzdial, and Barbara Ericson A Initial Item P...

    2019

  86. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

    Ethics education in context: A case study of novel ethi cs activities for the CS classroom. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 940–945

  87. [2021]

    In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountabi lity, and transparency

    You can’t sit with us: Exclusionary pedagogy in ai ethi cs education. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountabi lity, and transparency. 515–525

    2021

  88. [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. 177–190

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.